Music for free...from a dealer?

[Hailey]

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.

 

You've just turned the legal system on its head.

 

The foundation of US jurisprudence is that the burden is on the law, not the individual. That concept is anchored by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

If there is a law that proscribes an activity, then it is illegal. If there is no such law, then the activity is legal.

[Hailey]

U.S. Code, Title 17

 

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

 

Question: where in this statute does it say that it's illegal to copy borrowed material from the library.

 

Answer: no place that I know of.

 

US Copyright law is, as far as I can tell, silent on this.

 

Show me the language that says I'm wrong.

 

I don't think you can, because I don't think it exists.

 

But again, for the 10th time, I'd love to know if I'm wrong here.

[kumakuma]

Question: where in this statute does it say that it's illegal to copy borrowed material from the library.

 

Answer: no place that I know of.

 

US Copyright law is, as far as I can tell, silent on this.

 

Show me the language that says I'm wrong.

 

I don't think you can, because I don't think it exists.

 

But again, for the 10th time, I'd love to know if I'm wrong here.

 

Ya know, I can't find anything in the code that covers copying of library CDs either so you're probably good to go.

[kumakuma]

You've just turned the legal system on its head.

 

The foundation of US jurisprudence is that the burden is on the law, not the individual. That concept is anchored by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

If there is a law that proscribes an activity, then it is illegal. If there is no such law, then the activity is legal.

 

You are completely correct. There is no law that I can find that specifically prohibits it so copying CDs that you borrow from the library must be legal.

[Hailey]

Ya know, I can't find anything in the code that covers copying of library CDs either so you're probably good to go.

 

All this said, as a practical matter, I don't really have time to bother. Moreover, it feels kind of...sneaky, even if it is legal.

 

So I'll probably just stop listening to recorded music.

[kumakuma]

All this said, as a practical matter, I don't really have the time to bother. So I'll probably just stop listening to recorded music.

 

As far as I can determine, this is also legal.

[clipper]

Question: where in this statute does it say that it's illegal to copy borrowed material from the library.

 

Answer: no place that I know of.

 

US Copyright law is, as far as I can tell, silent on this.

 

Show me the language that says I'm wrong.

 

I don't think you can, because I don't think it exists.

 

But again, for the 10th time, I'd love to know if I'm wrong here.

 

 

 

The extent of the copying is the third factor to evaluate in the fair use analysis. This is usually a matter of degree. Copying an entire work weighs against a finding of fair use. McGowan [991 F.2d 790 (table) ], 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS at *4 and *5.

 

Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, Inc. v. MAI Sys. Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356, 365 (E.D. Va. 1994)

 

 

Further, it is undisputed that the musical compositions in question were performed in their entirety. Generally, the fair use doctrine does not apply where copyrighted material is used as a whole. See Meeropol v. Nizer, supra, and Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., supra. The defendant is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the fair use doctrine.

 

Bourne Co. v. Speeks, 670 F. Supp. 777, 780 (E.D. Tenn. 1987)

 

 

“While ‘wholesale copying does not preclude fair use per se,’ copying an entire work ‘militates against a finding of fair use.’ ” Worldwide Church, 227 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir.1986)). The district court determined that Napster users engage in “wholesale copying” of copyrighted work because file transfer necessarily “involves copying the entirety of the copyrighted work.” Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 913. We agree.

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1016 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

The second factor is the “nature of the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. “Copyright protection is narrower, and the corresponding application of fair use defense greater, in the case of factual works than in the case of works of fiction or fantasy.” 3 Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A], at 13–102.57 (1993). If a work is more appropriately characterized as entertainment, it is less likely that a claim of fair use will be accepted. See In New Era Publications Intern., ApS v. Carol Publishing Group, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 921, 111 S.Ct. 297, 112 L.Ed.2d 251 (1990).

 

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552, 1558 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

 

 

Works that are creative in nature are “closer to the core of intended copyright protection” than are more fact-based works. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586, 114 S.Ct. 1164. The district court determined that plaintiffs' “copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings are creative in nature ... which cuts against a finding of fair use under the second factor.” Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 913. We find no error in the district court's conclusion.

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1016 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

The district court first concluded that downloading MP3 files does not transform the copyrighted work. Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 912. This conclusion is supportable. Courts have been reluctant to find fair use when an original work is merely retransmitted in a different medium. See, e.g., Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (concluding that retransmission of radio broadcast over telephone lines is not transformative); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 349, 351 (S.D.N.Y.) (finding that reproduction of audio CD into MP3 format does not “transform” the work), certification denied, 2000 WL 710056 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2000) (“Defendant's copyright infringement was clear, and the mere fact that it was clothed in the exotic webbing of the Internet does not disguise its illegality.”).

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use “should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 451, 104 S.Ct., at 793 (emphasis added); id., at 484, and n. 36, 104 S.Ct., at 810, and n. 36 (collecting cases) (dissenting opinion).

 

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 568, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 2234, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1985)

[Hailey]

The extent of the copying is the third factor to evaluate in the fair use analysis. This is usually a matter of degree. Copying an entire work weighs against a finding of fair use. McGowan [991 F.2d 790 (table) ], 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS at *4 and *5.

 

Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, Inc. v. MAI Sys. Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356, 365 (E.D. Va. 1994)

 

 

Further, it is undisputed that the musical compositions in question were performed in their entirety. Generally, the fair use doctrine does not apply where copyrighted material is used as a whole. See Meeropol v. Nizer, supra, and Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., supra. The defendant is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the fair use doctrine.

 

Bourne Co. v. Speeks, 670 F. Supp. 777, 780 (E.D. Tenn. 1987)

 

 

“While ‘wholesale copying does not preclude fair use per se,’ copying an entire work ‘militates against a finding of fair use.’ ” Worldwide Church, 227 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir.1986)). The district court determined that Napster users engage in “wholesale copying” of copyrighted work because file transfer necessarily “involves copying the entirety of the copyrighted work.” Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 913. We agree.

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1016 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

The second factor is the “nature of the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. “Copyright protection is narrower, and the corresponding application of fair use defense greater, in the case of factual works than in the case of works of fiction or fantasy.” 3 Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A], at 13–102.57 (1993). If a work is more appropriately characterized as entertainment, it is less likely that a claim of fair use will be accepted. See In New Era Publications Intern., ApS v. Carol Publishing Group, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 921, 111 S.Ct. 297, 112 L.Ed.2d 251 (1990).

 

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552, 1558 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

 

 

Works that are creative in nature are “closer to the core of intended copyright protection” than are more fact-based works. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586, 114 S.Ct. 1164. The district court determined that plaintiffs' “copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings are creative in nature ... which cuts against a finding of fair use under the second factor.” Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 913. We find no error in the district court's conclusion.

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1016 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

The district court first concluded that downloading MP3 files does not transform the copyrighted work. Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 912. This conclusion is supportable. Courts have been reluctant to find fair use when an original work is merely retransmitted in a different medium. See, e.g., Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (concluding that retransmission of radio broadcast over telephone lines is not transformative); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 349, 351 (S.D.N.Y.) (finding that reproduction of audio CD into MP3 format does not “transform” the work), certification denied, 2000 WL 710056 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2000) (“Defendant's copyright infringement was clear, and the mere fact that it was clothed in the exotic webbing of the Internet does not disguise its illegality.”).

 

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), and aff'd sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

 

More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use “should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 451, 104 S.Ct., at 793 (emphasis added); id., at 484, and n. 36, 104 S.Ct., at 810, and n. 36 (collecting cases) (dissenting opinion).

 

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 568, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 2234, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1985)

 

Ok now we're getting somewhere...

 

How does time-shifting fit in, as per the MP3 decision? And what of the 2012 Google books case? Is that relevant? If not, why not?

[clipper]

Ok now we're getting somewhere...

 

How does time-shifting fit in, as per the MP3 decision? And what of the 2012 Google books case? Is that relevant? If not, why not?

 

1) I don't think time shifting is relevant. Unless I got the wrong impression, what was contemplated was "library building" rather than "time shifting." See below.

 

The Betamax, like other VTRs, presently is capable of recording television broadcasts off the air on videotape cassettes, and playing them back at a later time.¹ Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here.² The first is “time-shifting,” whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is “library *459 -building,” in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term.

 

Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 458–59, 104 S. Ct. 774, 797, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984)

2) Also, from what I know about the Google Books case, it's not relevant either. That's because users were only able to access small parts ("snippets") of copyrighted materials.

[17629v2]

Ok.

 

Go over it again. It clearly states that you can make copies of things you actually own. For example, if you buy a CD, you're allowed to rip it and put it on an MP-3 player. That's what they mean by legally obtained. You need to own the original copy. Borrowing a digital book or music from a library does not mean you can make copies to keep after you return them. Now, before you start arguing with me about it, all you need to do is examine how libraries handle digital lending. If you borrow a book in digital form, you're the only one that gets it. They can't lend the same book out to anyone else until you "return" it (Unless they buy the rights to multiple copies.) Here's an article that explains some of the problems digital lending is causing for libraries.

 

Also, you've mentioned several times that you would like someone point out to specific legislation that proves you wrong. You don't always need that. I don't know if there are any specific laws that deal with stealing digital content. But even if there is no specific legislation, stealing is stealing. If you walk into a convenience store and steel a candy bar, you're not going to find a law on the books that says you can't steal candy, and use it as a defense have the case dismissed. So, if there's no specific laws, general classifications are used (shop lifting, grand larceny, etc...)

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/e-book-library-lending-broken-difficult/

[Hailey]

1) I don't think time shifting is relevant. Unless I got the wrong impression, what was contemplated was "library building" rather than "time shifting." See below.

 

The Betamax, like other VTRs, presently is capable of recording television broadcasts off the air on videotape cassettes, and playing them back at a later time.¹ Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here.² The first is “time-shifting,” whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is “library *459 -building,” in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term.

 

Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 458–59, 104 S. Ct. 774, 797, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984)

2) Also, from what I know about the Google Books case, it's not relevant either. That's because users were only able to access small parts ("snippets") of copyrighted materials.

 

Interesting.

 

Three questions come to mind:

 

1) Re: Time-shifting vs library-building. Has this distinction been tested in court? Or is this a gray area?

 

2) Google Books may only make snippets available to users, but Google Books itself has copied the entire text for its own use. Isn't Google, then, analogous to the library patron who copies borrowed (eg, "legally obtained") material for his own use?

 

3) The hi-fi dealer's case action appears egregious. Why do you think he is not being prosecuted or, at least, sued?

[Hailey]

Go over it again. It clearly states that you can make copies of things you actually own.

 

No it doesn't state that. It states that you can make copies of things you've "legally obtained."

 

Also, you've mentioned several times that you would like someone point out to specific legislation that proves you wrong. You don't always need that.

No, I haven't said that. I said I wanted to see statutory or judicial language proscribing the conduct, and yes you do need that, somewhere, somehow. (again, cf. 10th Amendment, for starters)

 

But clipper appears to have this covered.

[Teresa]

Reminds me of another side to this. Music companies want to say you don't own the CD itself only the rights to the music.

 

Are you sure about that? According to Teaching Copyright.org's FAQ's

 

"When I buy music, either online or offline, do I get copyright in the work?

 

No, when you buy music, you own that copy of the music. If you bought a CD, you are allowed to sell that particular copy or make fair uses of it, but you don't own a copyright in the music itself. If you bought a song on iTunes or other service, your ownership of it may be subject to certain restrictions."

 

What about music I purchased on LP, on cassette, and on CD. Seems like I paid for the license 3 times. Why if I want a download of the same recording do I have to pay again. Shouldn't my first license be good from then on? Didn't I pay the artist his royalties 3 times already? Don't the music companies only want to take the good and absolve themselves of any reciprocity?

 

The rights to the music included with the physical product (CD, LP, etc.) is what gives you the right to make a "fair use" copy for your own use as long as you still own the physical product (CD, LP, etc.).

 

You don't own a license to the music on the CD itself, for example if you wanted to play that CD at a public gathering you would have to license it from the licensing agent for the music on the CD, such as ASCAP.

 

If you sold the LP and purchased the CD of the same recording, the new purchaser of the LP now owns the personal reproduction rights to the music on the LP, and you own the personal reproduction rights to the music on the CD.

 

However, a recording company could offer an upgrade program if they wanted. For example from LP to CD or CD to SACD. For example you would send in your CD in exchange for a copy of the SACD for a set fee. No recording company I'm aware of has offered this so far.

[Teresa]

...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).

 

I agree, IMO also.

 

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.

 

Correct, if one wants to hear the music again but is still unsure of purchasing a legal version they can always check the CD or SACD out from the library again. I have had multiple check-outs of music from the library I’m still unsure of purchasing.

 

As I understand it, the courts have held that something borrowed from the library has been "legally obtained."...

 

You would have the right to copy a library CD only for the time you have it checked out from the library. Once you return the CD to the library the rights pass on the the next person who checks it out. If you keep any copies of the library CD those are now illegal, just the same as when you sell a CD. The rights to the music follow the physical format, in this case the CD.

 

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

 

Again, I welcome evidence to the contrary...

 

Perhaps check this out: Copying library CD? You just broke law.

 

I'm fairly certain that most every single poster in this thread has burned cds or made mixtapes for people…

 

I never have.

[Hailey]

 

Perhaps check this out: Copying library CD? You just broke law.

 

This is a thinly sourced regional newspaper article that doesn't cite any actual law.

 

So far finding clipper more persuasive.

 

Anyway, I've found the best solution of all:

 

Just bought someone's classical CD collection...1000 CDs for $200--less than a year's worth of Tidal.

 

Ok with everybody if I rip those?

[Teresa]

This is a thinly sourced regional newspaper article that doesn't cite any actual law.

 

So far finding clipper more persuasive.

 

Anyway, I've found the best solution of all:

 

Just bought someone's classical CD collection...1000 CDs for $200--less than a year's worth of Tidal.

 

Ok with everybody if I rip those?

 

Wow, that's a great deal! 20 cents per CD! Lucky you.

 

Happy ripping, 1000 CDs will be a take a long time.

[Hailey]

Wow, that's a great deal! 20 cents per CD! Lucky you.

 

Happy ripping, 1000 CDs will be a take a long time.

 

Yeah no kidding. But at least it's legal...right?

[Teresa]

Yeah no kidding. But at least it's legal...right?

 

Right.

[christopher3393]

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.

 

I did read. I was not simply emoting and reacting. My concern is not primarily about the legal issues. Yours seems to be. That's fine. But you addressed ethics, and I tried to politely challenge your position and am quite open to your response. The study of ethics was part of my profession and my questions and concerns about the ethics of some of what you post are genuine, as I attempted to indicate. Your response appears to me to veer toward emotive, derogatory, and dismissive. Sorry you feel that way and do not want to discuss the ethics. But that's up to you. I have no desire to force the issue with you personally. We each have to decide for ourselves. But often, moral reflection can help, in my opinion, if one is genuinely open to it.

[Cycleman]

Right.

 

Speaking of (the) right, and speaking of IP laws, here's something I just read about for later today, Monday August 8, 2016:

 

"Trump is expected to talk stronger protections for American intellectual property..."

 

Dave, who wonders if adding U.S. politics to this thread's mix is wise or not

[christopher3393]

^ (perhaps there's still time to delete? )

[Hailey]

I did read. I was not simply emoting and reacting. My concern is not primarily about the legal issues. Yours seems to be. That's fine. But you addressed ethics, and I tried to politely challenge your position and am quite open to your response. The study of ethics was part of my profession and my questions and concerns about the ethics of some of what you post are genuine, as I attempted to indicate. Your response appears to me to veer toward emotive, derogatory, and dismissive. Sorry you feel that way and do not want to discuss the ethics. But that's up to you. I have no desire to force the issue with you personally. We each have to decide for ourselves. But often, moral reflection can help, in my opinion, if one is genuinely open to it.

 

The ethical issue here is quite simple, imo. The legal issue is far more interesting, at least to me.

 

Also interesting, the extent to which people confuse the two...

[17629v2]

No it doesn't state that. It states that you can make copies of things you've "legally obtained."

 

 

No, I haven't said that. I said I wanted to see statutory or judicial language proscribing the conduct, and yes you do need that, somewhere, somehow. (again, cf. 10th Amendment, for starters)

 

But clipper appears to have this covered.

 

It doesn't matter what anyone shows you. You just want to be right for the sake of being right. You can easily find this information for yourself if you really wanted to. Here's a few quotes from someone in the library system talking about the problems this is causing because library users don't have their facts straight.

 

"Patrons often think the "fair use" law means it's OK to make copies for personal use, Russell said. It's not, and there are rules about how many seconds of a song can be copied and for what reasons. "

 

"Borrowing can quickly turn to stealing when patrons pick up music at their local libraries. Copying compact discs is illegal, but library employees say they generally can't prove it's occurring except in the most egregious cases."

 

"Copying music or a book from a library CD is a form of piracy just like illegal downloads on the Internet."

"The Columbus Metropolitan Library system has 94,561 music CDs, and only a few of the newer additions are starting to arrive with copy-lock technology, spokeswoman Kim Snell said."

 

"Copyright law requires libraries to post signs over photocopiers outlining the law, but librarians also can put prominent copyright warnings labels voluntarily on CD cases and computers. When people apply for library cards, they could be asked to sign a form and promise to obey copyright rules. Russell said some libraries devise a warning and expulsion system for people who get caught."

 

Here's a link the full article, and if that's not enough, there's no shortage of other info available. But that's all you're getting from me. I'm in no mood to argue facts that a child can research and understand.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/09/28/COPY.ART_ART_09-28-09_B6_3AF76OG.html

[davide256]

You are completely correct. There is no law that I can find that specifically prohibits it so copying CDs that you borrow from the library must be legal.

 

Your lazy thinking could get someone in trouble. The only exception to obtaining permission for copying copyrighted material that I am aware of is the right to make a copy of licensed material you own for personal use and even that gets hazy. Copyright laws are not case by case adjudication of individual circumstance.

[Hailey]

It doesn't matter what anyone shows you. You just want to be right for the sake of being right. You can easily find this information for yourself if you really wanted to. Here's a few quotes from someone in the library system talking about the problems this is causing because library users don't have their facts straight.

 

"Patrons often think the "fair use" law means it's OK to make copies for personal use, Russell said. It's not, and there are rules about how many seconds of a song can be copied and for what reasons. "

 

"Borrowing can quickly turn to stealing when patrons pick up music at their local libraries. Copying compact discs is illegal, but library employees say they generally can't prove it's occurring except in the most egregious cases."

 

"Copying music or a book from a library CD is a form of piracy just like illegal downloads on the Internet."

"The Columbus Metropolitan Library system has 94,561 music CDs, and only a few of the newer additions are starting to arrive with copy-lock technology, spokeswoman Kim Snell said."

 

"Copyright law requires libraries to post signs over photocopiers outlining the law, but librarians also can put prominent copyright warnings labels voluntarily on CD cases and computers. When people apply for library cards, they could be asked to sign a form and promise to obey copyright rules. Russell said some libraries devise a warning and expulsion system for people who get caught."

 

Here's a link the full article, and if that's not enough, there's no shortage of other info available. But that's all you're getting from me. I'm in no mood to argue facts that a child can research and understand.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/09/28/COPY.ART_ART_09-28-09_B6_3AF76OG.html

 

You appear to prefer secondary to primary sources. To each his own.