Jump to content
IGNORED

Music for free...from a dealer?


Recommended Posts

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

 

To my way of thinking, this is Solomonic, fair to all.

 

But, again, insofar as I can determine, it is "strictly legal." What we're talking about here is traversing the DMZ between that which is legal and that which is ethical.

 

Although it appears that most (or all?) of the posters on this thread have jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the law (note, however, my use of the conditional), I can't tell you, as someone who made his living in the arts for a very long time, how gratifying it is to see people so concerned about doing the right thing.

 

I'm 100% with you there.

 

Would you mind saying something about your legal expertise? And also, ethically, given that you are now choosing to avoid spending even a little on Tidal and rip library copies, can you really say that you are still concerned about doing the right thing here? It doesn't strike me as Solomonic. And it seems far from altruistic to me. I'd like to think that at least some of us value altruism and at least occasionally admire it when we see it and aspire to it ourselves.

 

I ask as a relatively low income person who can't afford to buy much music anymore and can also access almost any classical music I'm interested in from an excellent state university music library that charges me $20 per year to be a member. Until recently, this music library had a very strict usage rule for community members not affiliated with the university. You could only have a cd for a couple of hours and could not bring your laptop into the listening area. So there was no temptation for me, but they have recently dropped this restrictive policy. I could probably use the excuse that "I've already spent way too much on classical music, particularly in proportion to my income, so that industry has gotten its fair share from me" or some variant of a casual distributive justice perspective. This is awfully convenient rationalizing to my mind. It is a temptation. We tend to think "I'm just one person and there is no harm". But would this stand up to any rigorous analysis? And what kind of moral standard does it suggest if you apply this broadly to a society?

 

For now, my decision is to keep my subscription to Tidal. And I'm comfortable recommending that others consider doing the same.

Link to comment
Are you basing your conclusions on anything in particular? Can you cite legislation or legal precedent (as I have)?

 

Those terabytes of music MAY not have to be in the public domain for his action to be, technically, strictly legal. If you check out the links I've posted, you'll see why I've reached that conclusion.

 

That said, I would love to know if I am wrong. Instead of "going with our gut," can reach for some facts?

 

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time dealing with "fair use" issues. It's a complex, murky area but what I've found so far does not surprise me.

 

I'm not a lawyer either but I didn't see anything in the articles that would extend the doctrine of "fair use" to allow someone to give someone else a copy of music they don't own.

 

It is really no different than me buying a CD from Amazon and then giving a copy of it to my neighbor.

 

I don't think you or anyone else would call this "fair use".

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Would you mind saying something about your legal expertise? And also, ethically, given that you are now choosing to avoid spending even a little on Tidal and rip library copies, can you really say that you are still concerned about doing the right thing here? It doesn't strike me as Solomonic. And it seems far from altruistic to me. I'd like to think that at least some of us value altruism and at least occasionally admire it when we see it and aspire to it ourselves.

 

I ask as a relatively low income person who can't afford to buy much music anymore and can also access almost any classical music I'm interested in from an excellent state university music library that charges me $20 per year to be a member. Until recently, this music library had a very strict usage rule for community members not affiliated with the university. You could only have a cd for a couple of hours and could not bring your laptop into the listening area. So there was no temptation for me, but they have recently dropped this restrictive policy. I could probably use the excuse that "I've already spent way too much on classical music, particularly in proportion to my income, so that industry has gotten its fair share from me" or some variant of a casual distributive justice perspective. This is awfully convenient rationalizing to my mind. It is a temptation. We tend to think "I'm just one person and there is no harm". But would this stand up to any rigorous analysis? And what kind of moral standard does it suggest if you apply this broadly to a society?

 

Sigh. Most people don't read, do they? Most people want to emote and react. Vanishingly few actually do the digging to find out what's fact and what's not.

 

As I've said, I'm not a lawyer. As for the rest, you can read what I've posted or you can just ignore it. All the same to me.

 

Hailey signing out.

Link to comment
Sigh. Most people don't read, do they? Most people want to emote and react. Vanishingly few actually do the digging to find out what's fact and what's not.

 

As I've said, I'm not a lawyer. As for the rest, you can read what I've posted or you can just ignore it. All the same to me.

 

Hailey signing out.

 

Actually I read both articles and neither appears to relevant to the two situations we are discussing here (whether a library patron can legally retain a copy of a borrowed CD and whether a hi-fi dealer can give his customers free copies of licensed music).

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Actually I read both articles and neither appears to relevant to the two situations we are discussing here (whether a library patron can legally retain a copy of a borrowed CD and whether a hi-fi dealer can give his customers free copies of licensed music).

 

Actually, both are: The first explicitly deals with recorded music "legally obtained." The second deals with fair use of copyrighted material.

 

I think the hi-fi dealer is stretching it, as I've said. But I'm hypothesizing that he's researched this and is rolling the dice. I've also hypothesized why the labels have yet to sue him (apparently).

 

Again, I would LOVE it if someone could post something by way of legislation or court precedent that says, "no, Hailey, you're wrong: This is flat out illegal. It's a matter of settled law."

 

But, so far, all I hear is a lot of certainty from people who give no evidence that they have a clue.

 

Ok, now I'm really done. Bye!

Link to comment
Actually, both are: The first explicitly deals with recorded music "legally obtained." The second deals with fair use of copyrighted material.

 

I think the hi-fi dealer is stretching it, as I've said. But I'm hypothesizing that he's researched this and is rolling the dice. I've also hypothesized why the labels have yet to sue him (apparently).

 

Again, I would LOVE it if someone could post something by way of legislation or court precedent that says, "no, Hailey, you're wrong: This is flat out illegal. It's a matter of settled law."

 

But, so far, all I hear is a lot of certainty from people who give no evidence that they have a clue.

 

Ok, now I'm really done. Bye!

 

You may want to take a look at this article:

 

Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

 

It is clear that both of the scenarios outlined fail to meet at least two of the factors that determine fair use.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
I'm not a lawyer either but I didn't see anything in the articles that would extend the doctrine of "fair use" to allow someone to give someone else a copy of music they don't own.

 

It is really no different than me buying a CD from Amazon and then giving a copy of it to my neighbor.

 

I don't think you or anyone else would call this "fair use".

That is or has been legal in some European jurisdictions.

Link to comment
You may want to take a look at this article:

 

Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

 

It is clear that both of the scenarios outlined fail to meet at least two of the factors that determine fair use.

 

I know that article well. It deals with a different aspect of "fair use." As the Google case I cited suggests, courts appear to be broadening the applicability of "fair use" when confronted with a statutory vacuum.

 

Again (I'll be a broken record here) I'm eager for someone to cite statutory or judicial constraint on this kind of activity. So far, no one appears able to do so.

 

Remember this foundational principle of US jurisprudence:

 

If it's not against any known law, it's legal, even if it seems outrageous.

 

So let's see the law.

Link to comment
I know that article well. It deals with a different aspect of "fair use." As the Google case I cited suggests, courts appear to be broadening the applicability of "fair use" when confronted with a statutory vacuum.

 

Again (I'll be a broken record here) I'm eager for someone to cite statutory or judicial constraint on this kind of activity. So far, no one appears able to do so.

 

Remember this foundational principle of US jurisprudence:

 

If it's not against any known law, it's legal, even if it seems outrageous.

 

So let's see the law.

 

U.S. Code, Title 17

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Remember this foundational principle of US jurisprudence:

 

If it's not against any known law, it's legal, even if it seems outrageous.

 

So let's see the law.

Surely the law in question states that it's illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material. The fact that fair us then allows exceptions to the prohibition means that it's upto the "copier" to argue fair use rather than for the copyright holder to have to argue against fair use.

 

As I understand it though; very rarely have the fair use doctrines been tested in court; presumably because the rights holders don't really want precedents set.

 

As a "moral" position which fits generally with the law; I always follow the thought that if you own the CD; you can do what you like with it for personal use (rip, etc.) but if you give that CD to someone else you also give up the rights to use it. But I'm not dogmatic about it; if people choose differently then that's their choice: just don't try to justify it "within the law". (All IMO).

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Are you sure about this?

 

In Court's View, MP3 Player is Just a 'Space Shifter'

 

Another, more recent decision:

 

Court rules book scanning is fair use, suggesting Google Books victory | Ars Technica

 

This appears to be a no man's land legislatively, which means the courts have no choice but to err on the side of "Fair Use."

 

Until and unless the law is changed, it seems as if ripping of library source material for one's own personal use is protected under "Fair Use" conventions.

 

I would love to know if I'm wrong about this. But I've yet to find anything to suggest that I am.

 

I just read both articles you reference. What were you referring to, because I don't see anything that supports your argument?

Link to comment
Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

 

Yup, you are a thief too. Shame!

Link to comment
Great. Can you point me to the section that proscribes copying legally obtained material for personal use, if not non-commercial purposes?

 

Why?

 

"Copying legally obtained material for personal use" doesn't apply to either of the two scenarios discussed here:

 

- a library patron retaining a copy of a borrowed CD

 

- a hi-fi dealer giving his customers free copies of music he doesn't own

 

In the first case, the right to listen to the music travels with the CD and the patron no longer has any rights to the music after he/she returns it to the library.

 

The second case is just theft, plain and simple.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

As I understand it, the courts have held that something borrowed from the library has been "legally obtained." That's why such expansive language is employed, as opposed to a much more restrictive "bought."

 

Re: the library patrons...you're ignoring the "time-shifting" principle set out in the earlier case. Why?

 

I don't want to be in the business of defending the hi-fi dealer. I'm just wondering if he's less clueless (and more crafty) than y'all imagine...

Link to comment
As I understand it, the courts have held that something borrowed from the library has been "legally obtained." That's why such expansive language is employed, as opposed to a much more restrictive "bought."

 

Re: the library patrons...you're ignoring the "time-shifting" principle set out in the earlier case. Why?

 

I don't want to be in the business of defending the hi-fi dealer. I'm just wondering if he's less clueless (and more crafty) than y'all imagine...

 

Rather than further discussion on this subject, next time you're at your local library "borrowing" music, ask the friendly librarian sitting at the information desk if you can keep a personal copy of the CDs you are "borrowing".

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

All evidence suggests that the answer is "of course it's ok."

 

Again, I welcome evidence to the contrary. Not a single person has offered any.

 

Evidence to the contrary includes:

 

1) statutory language.

2) a judicial ruling.

 

Really, kids, this shouldn't be hard.

Link to comment

i'm fairly certain that most every single poster in this thread has burned cds or made mixtapes for people. that said, a dealer giving away terabytes of ripped music is ethically challenged. and two wrongs don't make a right. there is wholesale theft of digital media content everywhere - at this point its priced into most music sales.

Link to comment
i'm fairly certain that most every single poster in this thread has burned cds or made mixtapes for people. that said, a dealer giving away terabytes of ripped music is ethically challenged. and two wrongs don't make a right. there is wholesale theft of digital media content everywhere - at this point its priced into most music sales.

 

Ironically, I've never burned a CD in my life, although I'm about to start in a big way...unless someone can show me the statute or judicial ruling that says it's illegal...

Link to comment
All evidence suggests that the answer is "of course it's ok."

 

Again, I welcome evidence to the contrary. Not a single person has offered any.

 

Evidence to the contrary includes:

 

1) statutory language.

2) a judicial ruling.

 

Really, kids, this shouldn't be hard.

 

You've got things reversed.

 

As Eloise mentioned above, copyright law applies in this situation. If you believe that there is an exception to copyright law that allows a library patron to retain a digital copy of a copyrighted CD after returning it, it is your responsibility to come up with this exception.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...