Legal and ethical questions regarding the ripping, storage, donation, resale, etc., of CDs

[wgscott]

Since at least two threads have devolved into discussions about the legality and ethics of CD ripping, etc., I would like to suggest

 

(a) we move the discussion here, so as not to derail other threads,

 

(b) push the reset button, and keep it to civil discourse

 

© if you offer legal advise or interpretations, please briefly describe your expertise (i.e., I am a layman, I am an RIAA attorney, etc).

 

(d) Assume that no one here is evil, wants to commit unambiguously criminal or immoral acts, condones illegal behavior, etc., unless they want to explicitly assert that themselves.

 

If you made a useful point elsewhere (i.e., about the facts of a relevant ruling, or the letter of the law, say), please feel free to cut and paste it (with the proper copyright restrictions in place).

 

So, some questions that came up were and are:

 

1. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to rip my CDs onto my computer hard drive, make private copies as backups or CDs for my car, stream the music over my local network, share it over my local network via iTunes, etc.?

 

2. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to rip a CD I got from the library if I (a) delete it before I return it, (b) delete it after I return it, © don't delete it?

 

3. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to buy a new CD, rip it, and then (a) sell it, or (b) donate it, but keep the rip?

 

4. Is it legal or a copyright infringement to sing "Happy Birthday" in a public place without getting permission or paying royalties?

 

[Elk]

As all of these involve IP questions I don't understand your distinction between "legal" and "copyright infringement." The legality of each is determined by whether there is infringement. That is, it is the same question.

 

For most of us taking something which does not belong to us is unethical. Thus, the answers are again the same. (And yes, a taking of virtual property is often theft; e.g., theft of trade secrets, etc. Arguing otherwise is semantics.)

 

Answers to whether there is infringement for the U.S. and most countries.

 

1) Yes (and thus illegal), but few copyright owners care and most encourage ripping and transcoding for private use.

 

2) Yes, but few copyright owners care about (a).

 

3) Yes (This is the situation where the rationalizations for infringement are most amusing and self-serving).

 

4) It depends. Yes, if there a significant number of non-family/non-social acquaintances present. (IIRC, Time-Warner owns the copyright)

 

 

[wgscott]

http://unhappybirthday.com/

 

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

 

From the first link, reproduced without permission, we have:

 

According to United States copyright law in United States Code, Title 17 §106, authors of works such as musical compositions have the exclusive right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly." In United States Code, Title 17 §101, the law defines publicly performing a work as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

 

This means that if you sing Happy Birthday to your family at home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment. However, if you do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant hasn't already worked out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging in copyright infringement.

 

 

[wgscott]

" I don't understand your distinction between "legal" and "copyright infringement.""

 

My attorney insisted I write it that way.

 

[Elk]

 

The difference between illegal and unlawful is the former is a sick bird.

 

The Happy Birthday info you copied is correct. I suspect most people think it is public domain.

 

 

 

[bottlerocket]

The following is my ethical compass talking not any knowledge of the legalities

 

1. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to rip my CDs

a) onto my computer hard drive - legal and ethical and your duty as a computer audiophile for personal consumption

 

b) make private copies as backups or CDs for my car - sure, private consumption of music you've licensed.

 

c) stream the music over my local network - sure, private consumption

 

d) share it over my local network via iTune - since you said local, sure again for private consumption and not for profit.

 

2. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to rip a CD I got from the library if I

(a) delete it before I return it - okay

(b) delete it after I return it - no, now the same CD is used by multiple people potentially.

© don't delete it - hell no.

 

3. Is it legal or ethical or a copyright infringement for me to buy a new CD, rip it, and then

(a) sell it, but keep the rip? - hell no. you've profited from the use of someone else's music and probably violated your license.

(b) donate it, but keep the rip? - no, you've distributed someone else's music without their permission - probably.

 

4. Is it legal or a copyright infringement to sing "Happy Birthday" in a public place without getting permission or paying royalties?

Are we talking Marylin Monroe's Happy Birthday, the Beatles' or the public domain version? If the public domain, no problem. Also do you have paying customers in this public place? probably not, since your vocals suck

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

If I buy a used CD, is that actually legal? If so, how does that work?

 

If I buy a Cd, and it does not work for some reason, am I within my rights to ask a friend to try and play it on his system? Rip it for me?

 

How about if that CD is a download instead?

 

 

 

[Kimo]

Just because fair use is a defense, it doesn't mean it is necessarily less of a right.

 

According to the Copyright office, "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

 

Don't know who wrote this, but it is found on the government web site.

 

I am not so sure that 1 and 2 would be determined to be infringement and not fair use. I would bet on the latter. I don't believe that the industry doesn't care either. Apparently, they are not willing to bet on the former?

 

 

 

 

 

[crisnee]

To me the legal issue is boring to consider, varies from country to country, and even if it weren't boring to consider, is so endlessly complex, probably because it is intended to be so, that we'll not get anywhere definitive before it is changed or added to.

 

Same goes for other "higher" authority rulings (RIAA for instance).

 

What does interest me are the morals and ethics involved. IOW what do posters consider the right way to deal with the issues, be they legal or not. IOW leave legality out of it; only then is it interesting. If all you can come up with is "follow the law." Well there ain't much to discuss besides determining what the law really means--boring.

 

BTW, one doesn't have to obey ones moral beliefs to have an opinion; I speak from experience. However it would probably be foolish for one to disclose that one is doing something that might be illegal on a public forum.

 

-Chris

 

[jhwalker]

Good point, Chris. In many cases, the law is not really in alignment with common practice, etc.

 

In my opinion, when I am in possession of a CD (or DVD, SACD, etc.) is should be legal (and, in my opinion, it is ethical) to make any number of copies (e.g., on my music server, on any of my several iPods / iPad, etc.) for my own personal use - this does *not* include uploading to public sites for the purpose of sharing with friends or acquaintances, etc. This *does* includes ripping a copy of a CD I have borrowed from the library for the purpose of listening to it on my home system.

 

Once the physical medium is no longer in my possession, however, it is not ethical (nor legal) to retain a copy of it. For example, if I give the CD to a friend, sell it in a secondhand shop, return it to the library, etc., it is no longer in my possession and I have no further rights to "own" it.

 

So the ethical thing to do is to retain ownership of the physical object *or* to delete any copies once you dispose of the CD / DVD / SACD, etc., for any reason.

 

IMHO.

 

[Mark Powell]

I was wrong. Most unusual. Might be 'very' unique even.

 

[wgscott]

My personal approach to this has been to avoid facilitating what would be fairly obvious infringement/theft (I completely missed out on the whole Napster thing), and to make sure that I buy a copy of anything I find myself listening to repeatedly that I'm not already legally entitled to, and I have never taken money or bartered for any (very small amount of) music I have shared by more old-fashioned, conventional means.

 

At one point I think I read that music purchased via the iTunes store entitles you to five burned CD copies, but it did not specify if you could or could not give one to a friend. Since I have no friends, this problem I guess isn't that significant, but it strikes me that a small amount of "breathing room" in practice should be what is codified. In other words, there should be some distinction between my daughter's flute teacher burning a track onto a CD for her to practice lessons with, and someone uploading or making counterfeit CDs for profit and/or mass distribution. A law that fails to distinguish between these occasional very minor breaches and unambiguously criminal activities is, in my opinion, a dishonest and poorly written law. Presumably, even the RIAA realizes this, or they wouldn't have that bizarre statement on their website. It seems to be aimed more at inducing fear of the authority than being a set of operating rules to guide the conduct of an a priori moral agent (which things like the iTunes store and Radiohead pay whatever you feel like downloads suggest most consumers want to be).

 

[Mark Powell]

Same as a book, automobile, software, or whatever. It's just a 'good'. We even have 'The Sale of Goods Act'. None of this software crap "If you don't accept our terms and conditions don't open the box" here. Can't tell if it works 'As Described' (same act) until you have tried it.

 

Sell a download? Yes. That's a 'good' too. But erase yours immediately afterwards. I suppose ethically you should do that if you sell software too. Neither has been legally tested here (I believe). If not, it remains legal not to erase it. Here a crime can only exist if a UK court has said so or there is a specific international agreement between governments. Like extradition. Otherwise, 'foreign' laws do not apply.

 

Patent law is a classic example. All this rubbish about patenting DNA. A patent here has to be an invention and original. Sequencing DNA is a measurement, not an invention. You can't patent 'six inches' here either. Sometimes we think US law is crazy. Too many lawyers.

 

 

 

[koogook]

This makes sense for the companies and not the user, protection is one thing but clearly the music industry wont make higher quality formats possible at a price where we dont need to buy the cd, its really the failure of yhe format against demand and technology. Then of course you get this illegal behaviour right or wrong. Lets see an update to the problem and achieve a level basis for consumers of audio. If noone is bothered to also include this right wrong legal or illegal people will continue to do so.

Its the music industries fault they can let a musician piece be copied by some deeadfil pop singer because they have the greed to do so, but wont extend thr same service to consumers. living in fear they wont make money. copyright should be adhered most normal moral adults do this, but something gas to change with the service otherwise people will continue to exhibit a tendacy to steal. i dont have any internet music i stream from services or cd.

 

[Audio_ELF]

I have a simple philosophy: when I have the CD I may listen to it in whatever format (ie the original CD or ripped onto a computer / iPod) I wish. If I sell or give the CD away I forgot those rights.

 

This isn't 100% the law as written; but is within the spirit of the law (i.e. fair use) and is morlly fair to the original artist.

 

Eloise

 

[souptin]

(Speaking as a non-lawyer, with no legal experience whatsoever, not even a criminal record. Except for a car parking incident and that John Cale album which I smashed anyway)

 

I think the moral and ethical aspect of this discssion is far more interesting than the legal one. Though no doubt there will be many self serving pompous windbags who will assert their right to disagree.

 

The best description of copyright I've found is that it attempts to help the creators earn some income from their creations, but set limits on these rights so that other people can benefit from them. The creations being intellectual works - ideas, books, music - which are relatively easy to copy and distribute, but require time and talent to create. Sort of a needs of the many and needs of the few kind of thing. Seems simple enough, so why has it ended up in so much of a mess in the case of the music industry, where neither the artists nor the audience seem to benefit much from the mechanism that has grown up between them. What kind of f*cked up world is this where we're expected to be more concerned about multi millionaire Paul McCartney's loss of income than the likelihood of a busker playing Beatles songs making enough money for a meal, or how many magazine pages I designed in order to earn enough for the mono box set.

 

Since my contribution to this (excellent and very worthwhile topic) seems to be doing little to add clarity, here's a couple more things to muddy the waters:

 

1. If you donate your old books, CDs and records to a charity shop instead of ebaying them, does that restore the karmic balance? The artist and the industry have never gained direct financial benefit from secondhand trade, perhaps they should? Ps for additional digital age perspective on this, try lending someone one of your Kindle books - in theory this is possible, but every book I have tried has had the lend tag disabled.

 

2. If you attend a concert, having paid for your ticket, why is it wrong for you to make a recording of it? Does it matter if the recording is for your own use, or to package up and sell or distribute for free. The artist has already got their money from the concert, are they really entitled to more? In fact some artists encourage concert recording, even to the extent of setting aside areas in the venue for people wishing to do so. Mind you, by the time you've sifted through the free music archive and all the bands you've never heard of or want to hear, you do rather feel your Cowboy Junkies bootleg has somehow been well earned.

 

Stopping now before this post gets even more random.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Say a fire wipes out my home and the physical CDs. What is the ethical position then of using my backups?

 

-Paul

 

 

[wgscott]

The record companies keep a backup for you. $15 a shot. Except for the ones they decide now cost $150.

 

[Audio_ELF]

I guess that's why you have insurance...

 

[wgscott]

Tell that to Fred Sanger. One of your home-boys, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing it. It was his second Nobel Prize. His first was for inventing protein sequencing.

 

But I agree with you in spirit; naturally-occuring genes should not be something you can patent.

 

 

 

[wgscott]

What if I rip my CDs, and then I die? (I predict, sooner or later, this will come true.)

 

Can my next of kin legally take the CDs (or the rips)? Can they be sold at a car boot sale along with all my other personal possessions?

 

[Audio_ELF]

...I'm going to stop caring about everything.

 

[jhwalker]

I don't see why this would be a question. CDs (and rips) are possessions to which you have rights. If you are no longer using them (and I don't think you would be if you were dead), you have every right to pass them along to your successors.

 

The only thing that is clouding this discussion is that it is so easy to create an exact (or very good, in the case of MP3s) copy of the physical media digitally. The question would never come up if there were only physical media: it's logical there can only be one copy of it, and it can be passed from person to person freely. The first person to own the disc has already paid the record company and the artist in-full for the disc / music, so is free to do whatever he / she wants with it after that - *except* duplicate it and give away copies for free while retaining the original or a copy.

 

[Mark Powell]

He developed the process. I looked him up in the usual place, so it must be true. That's fine. That's original. Give him a banana. Maybe even give the guys who developed machines to do it a patent.

 

But not the guys who merely use the machines. And it's my DNA. They didn't 'invent' it. So no patent, as you agree.

 

You did quantum tunnelling (or not, as you said) just this morning. Now its DNA. It's your fault we get these guys here falsely saying "Scientists think they know everything".

 

 

[Julf]

"Can my next of kin legally take the CDs (or the rips)? Can they be sold at a car boot sale along with all my other personal possessions?"

 

Well, with the actual physical CDs it is no problem on both counts - just like with LPs. The rips are trickier.

 

Interestingly, there is some fresh news on the "softer" side: Selling Used MP3s Found Legal in America.