Music for free...from a dealer?

[Hailey]

I'm just wondering...

 

1. Folks are climbing the moral high horse because its a forum and pretty much everyone is anonymous and can claim anything?

2. Folks are really that honest in everything they do and have never cheated, lied, stolen, or done anything wrong in their lives?

3. Folks are against piracy because its an audio forum and we all love music and we want to continue enjoying this hobby... so its in our best interests that musicians continue to get paid and that incentivizes them to continue to put out good music?

 

PS: No skin in the game and I pay for my music... but I also won't claim I've never made a mixtape or CD for my crush in high school or my buddy at the workplace... honestly who hasn't?

 

 

Most likely a mix, with emphasis on 1) and 3)

[17629v2]



I also have no intent of debating the point further but, 1 CD or a TB full, ethics should be ethics if you so strongly believe in the issue, should they not?

Cent' Anni

 

In the context of this discussion, no. Why? Because its not the same issue. With a loaded HD full of copies given to customers for free with their purchase, the chance of it being legit is 0. Selling 1 used original copy of a CD is nothing out of the ordinary. Its not a situation thats illegal by default.

 

Just to save time, you will fire back and say, technically, its the same crime just on a smaller scale. And that will allow you to continue on with the never ending argument. However, it just won't be with me. There's plenty of others here that will argue senseless points all day long.

[Hailey]

RIAA and MPAA lobbyists practically write copyright law.

 

Fair point.

[Audio_ELF]

I'm not saying I disagree, but this is RIAA, which neither makes not enforces law. I still would like someone to point out the actual statute that forbids this.

 

Not sure why this is such an unreasonable request.

Sorry but I still think you are on the wrong path...

 

The law states (in plain English) its illegal to make a copy of a CD (or other recording) for which you do not own the copyright. Now there are some exceptions to the blanket illegality of the copying restriction (so called fair use); but if you are arguing its legal to create a copy (to keep) of a CD you borrow from the library then its up to you to site the legal precedent which allows that.

 

As for selling a CD; there is no law stopping the sales (or purchase) of second hand CDs, but if the original owner keeps copies of the CDs they sell HE (or she) is breaking the law.

 

This is not against jurisprudence as you keep saying as the law starts off banning ALL copying; then adds in exceptions to the legislation.

[Hailey]

Sorry but I still think you are on the wrong path...

 

The law states (in plain English) its illegal to make a copy of a CD (or other recording) for which you do not own the copyright. Now there are some exceptions to the blanket illegality of the copying restriction (so called fair use); but if you are arguing its legal to create a copy (to keep) of a CD you borrow from the library then its up to you to site the legal precedent which allows that.

 

As for selling a CD; there is no law stopping the sales (or purchase) of second hand CDs, but if the original owner keeps copies of the CDs they sell HE (or she) is breaking the law.

 

This is not against jurisprudence as you keep saying as the law starts off banning ALL copying; then adds in exceptions to the legislation.

 

Well, this is why I asked about the Google Books case: @clipper said it wasn't relevant as Google only makes snippets of copyrighted material available to the public, but, insofar as I can see, Google itself is analogous to the library patron copying copyrighted material for his/her own use.

 

Seems like one heck of a legal precedent.

 

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. But if it's not, I'd like to know why.

[kumakuma]

Well, this is why I asked about the Google Books case: @clipper said it wasn't relevant as Google only makes snippets of copyrighted material available to the public, but, insofar as I can see, Google itself is analogous to the library patron copying copyrighted material for his/her own use.

 

Seems like one heck of a legal precedent.

 

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. But if it's not, I'd like to know why.

 

Suggest that you review the four factors that determine fair use and compare what Google is doing to what a library patron is doing when they retain an exact digital copy of a copyrighted work in its entirety in order to avoid paying for a CD.

[Hailey]

Suggest that you review the four factors that determine fair use and compare what Google is doing to what a library patron is doing when they retain an exact digital copy of a copyrighted work in its entirety in order to avoid paying for a CD.

 

I understand but Google is retaining an exact digital copy of a "legally obtained" copyrighted work.

 

That is my point.

 

If Google can retain an exact digital copy of a "legally obtained" copyrighted work and then make sections of it available to the general public, may I do the same?

 

If not, why?

[esldude]

Well, this is why I asked about the Google Books case: @clipper said it wasn't relevant as Google only makes snippets of copyrighted material available to the public, but, insofar as I can see, Google itself is analogous to the library patron copying copyrighted material for his/her own use.

 

Seems like one heck of a legal precedent.

 

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. But if it's not, I'd like to know why.

Google is more like the library than the patron.

 

Now if the patron only copies 30 seconds of each track on the CD, then they probably are okay.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Hailey]

Google is more like the library than the patron.

 

Now if the patron only copies 30 seconds of each track on the CD, then they probably are okay.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Right. I wonder, though.

 

The plaintiffs evidently disagree.

 

Moreover, the phrase "legally obtained" does not merely mean "bought." It also means "borrowed." It means anything except "illegally obtained."

 

In that case, Google would be the exact equivalent to the library patron.

 

Did Google purchase every text on Google Books, including texts that are out-of-print?

 

My understanding is that some of Google Books' texts were obtained from the Library of Congress.

 

But perhaps I'm misinformed.

 

Somebody's got to know the answer here.

 

At the moment, all I see is a huge potential loophole.

[17629v2]

I understand but Google is retaining an exact digital copy of a "legally obtained" copyrighted work.

 

That is my point.

 

If Google can retain an exact digital copy of a "legally obtained" copyrighted work and then make sections of it available to the general public, may I do the same?

 

If not, why?

 

Your point is to keep talking no matter how ridiculous. Like I said yesterday, I child could reason these points through. I don't have any kids, so I ran your question by my cat. The cat says Google is an authorized re seller for the product and that means they're allowed to advertise. So, when you hear that short, low quality clip they use to sell the product, they have permission to do so. Cat also says they have these things called movies and they advertise them by showing some short clips to people, before they go see it. Cat informed me of these things made out of paper called books. At the end of some books, its common to find a few pages of another book. That's not copyright infringement because its an agreed upon practice used to sell the book itself. Cat's getting pissed and is done with questions for today.

[17629v2]

Your cat's an idiot. But thanks for playing.

 

That's exactly what she says about your posts. And she's right.

 

"But perhaps I'm misinformed.

 

Somebody's got to know the answer here."

 

The cat just gave you the correct answer. Read it a few more times. She's also laughing at your Library of Congress comment. She doesn't see the relevance. She would like to point out, however, that all books eventually loose their copyright status. Once a book reaches a certain age, anyone can or copy or publish it.

[Hailey]

That's exactly what she says about your posts. And she's right.

 

"But perhaps I'm misinformed.

 

Somebody's got to know the answer here."

 

The cat just gave you the correct answer. Read it a few more times. She's also laughing at your Library of Congress comment. She doesn't see the relevance. She would like to point out, however, that all books eventually loose their copyright status. Once a book reaches a certain age, anyone can or copy or publish it.

 

Ok I've finally exhausted myself on this topic.

[esldude]

Right. I wonder, though.

 

The plaintiffs evidently disagree.

 

Moreover, the phrase "legally obtained" does not merely mean "bought." It also means "borrowed." It means anything except "illegally obtained."

 

In that case, Google would be the exact equivalent to the library patron.

 

Did Google purchase every text on Google Books, including texts that are out-of-print?

 

My understanding is that some of Google Books' texts were obtained from the Library of Congress.

 

But perhaps I'm misinformed.

 

Somebody's got to know the answer here.

 

At the moment, all I see is a huge potential loophole.

Plaintiff agreement or no you have a court ruling on this one about Google.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Hailey]

Plaintiff agreement or no you have a court ruling on this one about Google.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Right. Hence my incessant hammering on the significance of this precedent.

 

But, again, I've burned myself out on this.

[Teresa]

I've found it interesting that during any talk of used CD's no one has mentioned any insistence on a buyers part for proof of the fate of the recordings IP. IOW if you do buy a used CD anywhere do you ask for a legalized statement that the original owner no longer retains any "fair use" copy of that CD. If you really cared about all this stuff you wouldn't buy a used CD without it, right?

 

When buying a used recording the right to play passes from the seller to the new purchaser. Once one sells or gives away a recording, by law and by morals one should not keep a copy of said recording for themselves. It is not up to the buyer of used recordings to make sure the seller obeys the laws by deleting or erasing any copies of it.

 

Of all the used CD's on ebay or whatever have you ever heard mention of any sort of thing. With all the slanderous calling of "thief" being thrown around here then ebay could be accused of selling stolen property without some similar supporting document, no?

 

No! The purchasers of used products are obeying the law, the only time the law is broken is if the seller doesn’t delete any copies they have upon completing the sale.

 

It's obvious that most no one cares.

 

Actually many of us care or we would not be advising people to not make illegal copies.

 

…My more general point is other than Teresa, I don't remember anyone else here saying "oh on, I've never received a used CD", and if you have, then how do you know your not also a "thief" if you have no knowledge of the provenance of said used CD?

 

Just to clarify I answered Loudog that I had never burned CDs or made mixtapes for anyone. See post 114

 

The purchaser cannot be a thief as the right to play the music on the CD passes from the seller to the purchaser. The only thief is a person who rips or copies a CD, then sells or gives away the CD and doesn’t delete their now illegal copy of it.

 

I buy used CDs, SACDs, Blu-rays, DVDs, etc. but if a seller says they ripped them and are keeping the copy I would not purchase from them.

 

…As for selling a CD; there is no law stopping the sales (or purchase) of second hand CDs, but if the original owner keeps copies of the CDs they sell HE (or she) is breaking the law…

 

Thanks, I agree.

 

…the phrase "legally obtained" does not merely mean "bought." It also means "borrowed." It means anything except "illegally obtained.”…

 

Correct, legally obtained can also mean “received as a gift”, “borrowed from the library”. As I said before one can rip a library CD if they delete the copy when the CD is returned to the library. The right to listen to the music travels with the CD and once the CD is returned that right passes on to the next borrower.

 

Honestly, I haven't thought about. I've never downloaded anything bootlegged, if that's what you mean: I've always considered that stealing.

 

I've never ripped a CD, either. Although now I have a pile of them.

 

You raise a good point about what I'll do with the CDs after I've ripped them. Selling them would feel sneaky. I'll probably leave them at the pick and swap at the town dump. That doesn't bother me in least.

 

Glad to hear you have never did any illegal downloads or ripped a CD until the 1000 CDs you just bought.

 

I just want to say leaving them at the dump for people to pick through is also not a good solution as the rights to play the music on a CD passes onto the new owner, even if they get it for free. Have you thought about finding a place to store them after you rip them? They could be an extra backup in case your computer and backup drive die at the same time.

[Hailey]

No. I'm trying to declutter and not only are my drives RAID-1, but I back everything up in the cloud as well, so the risk of loss is so diminimus as to be inconsequential.

 

I don't see an ethical/moral quandary. I'm not breaking the law by giving away CDs that I've ripped. It is not my responsibility to incur expense/inconvenience to protect the interests of RIAA, et al.

 

I don't inquire as to whether anything I buy has already been ripped for the simple reason that I don't care. I don't work for the RIAA, or Sony, or whomever. They do not reimburse me to protect their rights. I'm responsible for my own actions under the law. That is the beginning and end of my responsibility.

[mordante]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28318[/ATTACH]

 

A boat filled with burning witches?

[Audio_ELF]

I'm not breaking the law by giving away CDs that I've ripped. It is not my responsibility to incur expense/inconvenience to protect the interests of RIAA, et al.

No, you're not breaking the law by giving away CDs that you've ripped; however if you give the CDs away in a form which other people can use them it can be argued that you no longer have the right to legally use the "music" which was on those CDs.

 

Don't dispose of the CDs: buy several large CD folders (they will hold several hundred CDs) or chests; dispose of the original cases and the inlays if you want to but keep the physical discs.

[Hailey]

No, you're not breaking the law by giving away CDs that you've ripped; however if you give the CDs away in a form which other people can use them it can be argued that you no longer have the right to legally use the "music" which was on those CDs.

 

Don't dispose of the CDs: buy several large CD folders (they will hold several hundred CDs) or chests; dispose of the original cases and the inlays if you want to but keep the physical discs.

 

Fine. Let them argue it. I would like to see them try.

 

"RIAA sues middle-class schmuck for giving away his CDs at the dump."

 

LOL

[Teresa]

...I'm not breaking the law by giving away CDs that I've ripped...

 

Actually I believe you are, as the right to the music on a CD travels with the CD. If you no longer have possession of the CD, you no longer have the right to the music.

 

I actually play my CDs, SACDs, Blu-rays, DVDs, etc. on my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player and use my computer for legal high resolution PCM and DSD downloads. Have you considered playing the CDs as CDs? It's a lot less work especially ripping 1000 CDs. Just a suggestion.

[Audio_ELF]

Fine. Let them argue it. I would like to see them try.

 

"RIAA sues middle-class schmuck for giving away his CDs at the dump."

 

LOL

Now thats a different argument (weather there would be a successful prosecution) ... but you said "I'm not breaking the law" ... when in fact you probably would be.

[Hailey]

Actually I believe you are, as the right to the music on a CD travels with the CD. If you no longer have possession of the CD, you no longer have the right to the music.

 

I actually play my CDs, SACDs, Blu-rays, DVDs, etc. on my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player and use my computer for legal high resolution PCM and DSD downloads. Have you considered playing the CDs as CDs? It's a lot less work especially doing 1000 CDs. Just a suggestion.

 

No CD player. And, again, I'm trying to get rid of stuff, not acquire more stuff.

 

As for the law, if it truly is against the law, then I might as well sell them. No sense breaking the law and not making any money from it.

[Teresa]

He's just playing games with you. Every so often someone brings this exact topic up just to start an argument. This time its here. Several times on Audiogon. But its always the exact same argument. Someone finds these one or two articles and purposefully misreads them to start a legal argument. I don't know if its the same person that starts it over and over again, or if the IQ is split up over a few people, but the only intent is to make a problem.

 

Here's a post from the last time they did this on AG. Its from a well meaning member, just like you, trying to give a reasonable response to what he thinks is a legit discussion.

 

"From our "friends" at RIAA:

 

 

"Copying CDs

 

 

It’s okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but not for commercial purposes.

 

 

Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

 

 

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own.

 

 

• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

 

 

• The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

 

 

• Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make."

 

 

In other words, the original, physical CD (or whatever) is your license to possess a copyrighted work in whatever format you, personally, may have transferred it to. You must continue to own the original CD. If you haven't the original CD, you've no license to possess a copy of the work no matter the form or format. And you most certainly can not legally or ethically transfer a copyrighted CD to someone else for them to make copy. It's pretty straightforward and only fair to the musicians.

 

 

Doing what I do, LP to CD transcription and remastering, requires that I have a high awareness of the copyright laws involved. Mostly, I work for the person or label who owns the copyright on the original recording. But If I do a transfer for an individual, I, and any reputable transfer service, will be adamant that my customer owns the LP personally and that they will not give up possession of it. It's their license to own the CD transfer *FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ONLY*."

 

Thanks!

 

Here is a link to the RIAA page about piracy your quoted "Copying CDs" is towards the bottom. It's a good read.

[tranz]

No CD player. And, again, I'm trying to get rid of stuff, not acquire more stuff.

 

As for the law, if it truly is against the law, then I might as well sell them. No sense breaking the law and not making any money from it.

 

Still at it? Feeling guilty perhaps and looking for some confirmation that you can justify it in your own mind?

 

Sure you can sell your CDs for pennies, but to stay legal you will need to delete your ripped copies.

 

Will you ever get fined for it? - not bloody likely.

 

Are you f$cking over the artists? - absolutely.

[Hailey]

Still at it? Feeling guilty perhaps and looking for some confirmation that you can justify it in your own mind?

 

Sure you can sell your CDs for pennies, but to stay legal you will need to delete your ripped copies.

 

Will you ever get fined for it? - not bloody likely.

 

Are you f$cking over the artists? - absolutely.

 

Not feeling the least bit guilty. I think this thread has now gotten absurd.

 

My actions in no way "f$ck" artists. Besides, most of them--Heifetz, Solti, Bernstein--are dead.

 

Get real.