This Ain't Right

[TimH]

This is a great discussion that is presenting some valid challenges to my thinking. First, although not exactly ripping and burning...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4cuoAB_BY8

 

 

Anyway, I agree that record companies are basically evil. No, scratch that - I think they are actually more stupid than they are evil, and with that combo, it's hard to have any real pity. Chris, your comment about getting some of the lawsuit spoils to the artists is right on.

 

'Tuber, r.e. how is a used book or vinyl any different than a used CD, I would agree and say very little. However, I think that I am consistent in that I try not to buy used anything, with the intent of trying to get at least a little something to the artist. I have nothing against the used market - just personal preference. (A side question for anyone here - have the record companies ever tried to shut down used CD stores? I'm sure they have, I just don't remember any particulars.) As far as your questioning my logic on rationalizing ripping something used or from the library if I already owned the vinyl for example, well, you got me there. It's my own fudging of my morals, saying, well at least I paid the company and the artist once for the license to enjoy the material. If I was real strict I would say buy new every time. I'm sure part of the record companies' business model has always been to try to get people to upgrade to the new technology - CD, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc ad nauseum, so you bet that that's what they would prefer.

 

Watchnerd, your point about the Sony case and personal use is a great one. I guess one rebuttal is, OK, at which point do the record companies and artists deserve compensation - taken to the extreme, should there just be one CD sold in the whole country and then we all get to make a copy of it, "for personal use"? Also I think there must be something in the VCR case that pertains to TV over the airwaves, as opposed to a CD or book which has certain copyright and licensing restrictions as well as directly generating revenue per unit sold. And then, as far as copying at all goes, I still go back to the thing where I'd like the artist to get paid. Good points, tho', and you've got me thinking.

 

Thoroughly enjoying this. Yet another example of civil discourse in the ComputerAudiophile forums!

 

TheOtherTim

 

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

There is nothing wrong with buying a used CD, LP, or book. The responsibility for honesty however falls on the seller. It would be wrong for the seller to retain a digital or analog copy of the CD or LP or a photocopy of the book. Similarly it would be wrong to borrow any of these items from the library and retain any of the aforementioned copies after the original item was returned to the library. I remember criticizing the author of a respected online audio magazine that suggested that is was okay to finance the purchase of an expensive DAC and music collection by buying CDs, ripping and storing them to a computer drive, and then selling the CDs at a discount. I also remember that some other individuals mentioned the promotion by several local music stores that sell and buy CDs in order that customers may buy CDs, rip them to their computers, and then return the CDs to the store for a nominal restocking charge. In that case I feel both the seller and buyer are dishonest and guilty of breaking several statutes.

 

Left unchecked I believe the honesty of the masses is always ruined by the dishonesty of the few. Imagine a classical and jazz music store operated on the honor system where the prices are ten dollars for each CD, fifteen dollars for SACD or DVD-A, and open cash registers where you pay or make your own change. I venture to speculate that ninety percent of the customers would be honest, five percent would make honest mistakes, and five percent would be outright crooks. After stealing all the money from cash registers several times some of the honest people would turn dishonest in various ways and rationalize their behavior that everyone else is doing it, or there is no money for change, or why pay the crooks or better grab some music before it’s all gone. I guess this is a long way of saying when one of us falls we are all diminished and when one of us is brought up we all benefit. Perhaps it’s always up to the honesty of the few to bring back honesty, decency and fairness to the masses.

 

 

[Al]

your disaproval of selling things on once you have ripped them. Afterall, you have paid for them in the first place. I can see the problem with taking them back to the shop, in a way. Do'nt do either myself but must admit thts less to do with morality and more to do with the way i deal with my music collection nowadays for various reasons. I realise there is a difference between morality and law, but then thats what we are discussing.

 

ive never heard of a music store charging a restocking fee. You live and learn.

 

[watchnerd]

"Similarly it would be wrong to borrow any of these items from the library and

retain any of the aforementioned copies after the original item was returned

to the library. "

 

audiozorro, can you point to a law or a court decision that says this is wrong? Because, in the library example, if one walks through the four criteria of fair use, it seems to pass the test.

 

Or are you making a distinction between legality and morality?

 

I'd be curious to know how people view this copying issue on the axes of:

 

1. illegal, immoral

2. illegal, moral (people take this stance to justify violating a 'bad' law)

3. legal, immoral (some folks don't eat meat for moral reasons, but it's legal)

4. legal, moral

 

 

 

[TimH]

Watchnerd, if you are talking about the case where you borrow something from the library, rip it, and return it, then I would have to choose your position number 1 - illegal and immoral.

 

Illegal - I am definitely not a lawyer, not even close, but it would seem to me that you simply borrowed the CD from someone else who paid for it (same as borrowing from a friend) and made your own permanent copy. It isn't fair personal use of a copy of something you already own (as with making a cassette of an album you bought, to use an old analogy) because you never owned the original.

 

Immoral - you are getting the personal permanent enjoyment of something you didn't pay for. Yes you pay taxes to fund the library, but that is for the benefit of borrowing things, not owning them.

 

I may have come across as a bit strident there, but you asked our opinion. I respect yours as well.

 

TheOtherTim

 

 

[Innertuber]

Legality

 

Ripping also allows content to be losslessly copied for a very low or essentially zero cost and given to those who did not purchase it, possibly substituting for sales of content. Hence it has aroused fierce opposition by the recording industry, who view it as theft.[2]

 

Since the music or video is transferred to a data file, the files can be shared with other computer users over the Internet.

 

Although it is legal in the United States to make backup copies of software, the legality of ripping music for personal use without the permission of the copyright holder is controversial. Historically, copying media for personal use was established to be Fair Use under U.S. Copyright by the Supreme Court in the Sony Betamax doctrine. On the other hand, the RIAA, which represents many music copyright holders has maintained that copying rights have not been granted to end users and that Fair Use does not apply.[3]

 

Depending on the outcome of the trial including the RIAA v. Jammie Thomas, even ripping a CD without permission from the owner of the copyright, even for personal use may be illegal. [4]

 

However, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., Don Verrilli, representing MGM stated:

 

"And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward."[5]

 

In some countries selling software to circumvent copy-protection in commercial DVDs is illegal.[6]

 

In countries such as Spain, anyone is allowed to make a private copy of a copyrighted material for oneself and the source copy does not even have to be legal. Making copies for other people, however, is forbidden if done for profit. In the United Kingdom, making a private copy of copyrighted media without the copyright owner's consent is illegal as of January 2008: this includes ripping music from a CD to a computer or digital music player.[7][8] The UK government has made proposals to allow people to make copies of music for personal use.[9].

 

Basis above, appears to me there is not a definitive answer (yet). However, when you buy a CD or DVD you might consent to something by opening it. Also, appears the issue changes around the world.

 

Now all that said - in RIAA v. Jammie Thomas guess what happened? (It was a Kazaa file share case). Likely much easier to prosecute than somebody with a ripped CD on a pc. So, the Court said -

 

Duluth, Minnesota — After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages.

 

Basically, my take is that if you think copying (possibly other than a backup) is legal your probably wrong. It's not a morality question. That's just a bunch of feel good rationalization. Now I will say it can vary around the world. USA - it's protected content I believe.

 

So what did ole Jammie do - filed an appeal! The appeal near as I can tell was basis excessive punishment, not that the verdict was wrong.

 

I think if you have illegal rips and are prosecuted you will lose. I think they have bigger fish to fry and are busy trying to get precedent established. I think they will try to migrate to another system that generates income and prevents the issue, such as streaming for a monthly fee whatever you want (eventually).

 

Funny how "The Man" never went berserk if you made a cassette or reel to reel of vinyl back in the day. I guess file sharing cost them too much revenue. I'd say internet idiots backed them into a corner by flaunting their disregard. Unfortunately, the resolution of file sharing will likely give copyright holders some precedent to nail somebody acting dumb with a home system too.

 

Okay back off my soapbox and I'll go stand in the corner a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Al]

My only rational for buying second hand is that its simply too expensive for me to pay for the mistakes in my past by buying all the music i need first hand. that said, if i notice great first hand prices on something (and the site a buy most my music from does have some great first hand prices sometimes) i need ill buy first hand, and there are certain artists whose new works ill always, but always, buy first hand when theyre first released, unless they radically change their output.

 

[watchnerd]

Since the legality of applying Fair Use for personal consumption that is not file-shared seems to be in a state of flux, and I'm not enough of a theologian to debate whether copying music will indeed damn me to the Inferno for all eternity, a quick and dirty economic utilitarian modeling might be useful.

 

Most people seem to be (rightly) concerned about depriving the artist of revenue. Let's look at the economic benefit to the artists for the following:

 

1. Borrow CD from library, don't copy. Artist gets: no additional revenue

2. Borrow CD from library, then copy. Artist gets: no additional revenue

3. Buy a used CD, copy it or not. Artist gets: no additional revenue

4. Buy a new CD, copy it or not. Artist gets: $.30 - $1.00, typically, for a whole album

5. Download a paid-for music file. Artist gets small fee (unless it's Magnatune, where the artist gets 50%)

 

If financial benefit to the artist is the primary moral objection, then scenarios 1-3 are equivalent in terms of the harm they cause to the artist.

 

An interesting corollary of this is that if you think #2 should be illegal because it deprives the artist of additional entitled revenue, then #3, selling used CDs, should also logically be illegal, too.

 

#4 and #5 do allow revenue to accrue to the artist, although probably not as much as most artist-leaning people would prefer.

 

FWIW, if lossless downloads were more readily available, I'd be happy to pay for the tracks I like, rather than copying them from the library. The convenience alone would be worth it, especially for classical, which often requires tagging correction.

 

Why don't I buy the CD? Sometimes I do (I've bought about 12 SACDs in the last month), but I don't always want all the tracks on the CD, and don't always value them enough to pay for retail for the whole CD.

 

Buy used to hit a desired price point? It's just as economically harmful to the artist as copying from the library.

 

Buy MP3s for download them 'upgrade' them to lossless with CDs from the library? I've done this. And it sure would be nice if I could just buy more lossless in the first place.

 

As a last note, decades ago, libraries had LPs and cassettes you could borrow, take home, and copy if you like. People often did so. I don't remember a moral outcry then. What's substantively different about the scenario now that it involves CDs?

 

 

 

[TimH]

I think we'll just agree to disagree on our basic approaches to this, watchnerd, which is what makes the world go round. At least we both seem to be pretty consistent - I think most scenarios you mention are wrong and I don't do them, and you have your justifications for feeling the other way. Good enough.

 

I will wholeheartedly agree with you on the wish for more lossless downloading sources. I assume you've looked at MusicGiants. Very good catalog, almost everything that's out there. Problem there is most files are DRM'd and are Windows only. If they would open up to Mac OS, I would be a huge customer.

 

TheOtherTim

 

 

[TimH]

By the way, audiozorro, that last post of yours was really great. Very well put and I am in complete agreement.

 

T

 

 

[watchnerd]

"I assume you've looked at MusicGiants. Very good catalog, almost everything that's out there. Problem there is most files are DRM'd and are Windows only."

 

Yes, I have looked at them and not only is it WMA-based, but the HD portion of the site isn't even accessible using Firefox, saying "We're sorry, only Microsoft Internet Explorer is supported. We are currently working on supporting other browsers so that everyone can enjoy our HD downloads. "

 

At some point, I'll fire up my Windows VM and look at them more closely, although they're certainly not making it easy to get business that isn't Windows-based.

 

I see a lot of pop and country, but can't see the rest of the store. How is their jazz and classical selection?

 

[TimH]

Wow, the fact that they are that tied to Windows sure is frustrating and sort of odd.

 

Their jazz and classical catalog is equally deep. A search on Coltrane yielded about 75 albums and a search on Beethoven yielded about 150.

 

I'm pretty sure they have most if not all of the major labels on board, so they have a lot.

 

T