Getting rid of CD's?

[Albrecht]

Just now, Paul R said:

I did not use the word "piracy" - and think you are conflating some other comment with this particular thread. 

 

And "murder" is also a charged term, and very inappropriate in this discussion. 

 

To be clear, it is not piracy to give one's CD's away and retain digital copies. It may be illegal and/or immoral, at least in some contexts and some locations. 

 

It could be construed as piracy to sell those same CDs and retain a digital copy. It would be a very hard sell with the judicial system, I think. 

 

It would be piracy if you made 5000 copies of a CD from your digital copy and then sold those CD copies. 

 

-Paul

 

 

I did not attribute the term "piracy" to your post, - and did not quote you or comment on anything that you said. I did not use the term "murder" or apply it to anything that you said.

""To be clear, it is not piracy to give one's CD's away and retain digital copies. It may be illegal and/or immoral, at least in some contexts and some locations.""

Some people may regard that as "illegal" and "immoral" and IMO, - they would be grossly wrong. Especially when "giving away" a recording may indeed be of more benefit to the artist and creator.

The distribution contract between an artist and her label is more of, (notice the use of more of), a private matter than actually often discussed.

 

It could be construed as piracy to sell those same CDs and retain a digital copy. It would be a very hard sell with the judicial system, I think.

 

Yep

It would be piracy if you made 5000 copies of a CD from your digital copy and then sold those CD copies.

 

Yep, - unless of course, - you're the artist.

 

[foodfiend]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

To be clear, it is not piracy to give one's CD's away and retain digital copies. It may be illegal and/or immoral, at least in some contexts and some locations.

Yes, perhaps I have interpreted your statements incorrectly, and out of context. Like you said, it may not be piracy, but it is still illegal at this point.

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

I believe what you purchase is a single licence to listen to that particular work for personal use. Like I have mentioned before, the laws were developed before the advent of the easy duplication of the music without any deterioration. This has really changed this aspect of the law.

 

No, - I believe that that is incorrect. You have purchased a physical disc that is a copy of the recording and art work to do with what you will, - EXCEPT REDISTRIBUTE ON A MASS SCALE.

 

""The laws were developed before the advent of the easy duplication of the music without any deterioration.""

True

"This has really changed this aspect of the law."

No, sadly the law has not changed at all. But if you hear and believe the RIAA talk, - they think that it has.

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

Yes, perhaps I have interpreted your statements incorrectly, and out of context. Like you said, it may not be piracy, but it is still illegal at this point.

 

[foodfiend]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

No, - I believe that that is incorrect. You have purchased a physical disc that is a copy of the recording and art work to do with what you will, - EXCEPT REDISTRIBUTE ON A MASS SCALE.

If you look at what they have printed on the CDs, it also prohibits duplication in a violation of applicable laws. While I agree that there is a lot of ass-covering in that statement.

[foodfiend]

19 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""The laws were developed before the advent of the easy duplication of the music without any deterioration.""

 

True

"This has really changed this aspect of the law."

No, sadly the law has not changed at all. But if you hear and believe the RIAA talk, - they think that it has.

I think you got me wrong. What I mean that the easy duplication of music without deterioration has impacted the distribution of music, and how the music industry seeks to control uncontrolled duplication and distribution of said music.

[Albrecht]

Just now, foodfiend said:

If you look at what they have printed on the CDs, it also prohibits duplication in a violation of applicable laws. While I agree that there is a lot of ass-covering in that statement.

Yea, I agree that it does say that on a CD but it is meaningless, and can just as easily go the other where/like credit card companies were forced to take away the statement "it is illegal to tamper with this envelope" when people would send back empty letters to make the company pay for the postage....

I don't mean to make this as emotional as I am, - but i think that everyone can benefit for looking deeper into this culture of greed and corruption, and the influence that it has; especially on the corrupted judicial system.

[Albrecht]

3 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

I think you got me wrong. What I mean that the easy duplication of music without deterioration was impacted the distribution of music, and how the music industry seeks to control uncontrolled duplication and distribution of said music.

Got it now, thanks for explaining

[foodfiend]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I don't mean to make this as emotional as I am, - but i think that everyone can benefit for looking deeper into this culture of greed and corruption, and the influence that it has; especially on the corrupted judicial system.

You get me wrong again. I am not saying that the music industry is not greedy or corrupt, in fact, I did say that many of the lawyers who go on the "copyright crusade" are immensely so. I also agree that the judicial system is not free of these issues. However, I also support the proper upholding of the law. Lobby to change things, if you are not happy, but all hell would break loose if everyone were to take the law into their own hands. Hence my statement on murder.

[Jeremy Anderson]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I did not use the word "piracy" - and think you are conflating some other comment with this particular thread. 

 

And "murder" is also a charged term, and very inappropriate in this discussion. 

 

To be clear, it is not piracy to give one's CD's away and retain digital copies. It may be illegal and/or immoral, at least in some contexts and some locations. 

 

It could be construed as piracy to sell those same CDs and retain a digital copy. It would be a very hard sell with the judicial system, I think. 

 

It would be piracy if you made 5000 copies of a CD from your digital copy and then sold those CD copies. 

 

-Paul

 

 

 

I'm very curious about your reasoning on this. What is your minimum threshold for piracy? 10 copies? 1000? 2? 1?

 

Piracy in the Oxford Dictionary is defined as, "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work." Nowhere in that definition is money required to change hands. Piracy more often is about preventing a copyright holder from making a sale than it is about someone else profiting monitarily from that prevention.

 

So let's break down some use cases and see where "unauthorized use" or "unauthorized reproduction" occurs:

• Frank buys a CD of music.
  • The copy was created at the behest of the copyright holder with their express permission and sold (perhaps indirectly) to Frank which generated revenue for the copyright holder, so this is not piracy.
• Frank exercises his right to "fair use" and copies the CD for backup purposes.
  • Although not expressly authorized by the copyright holder, Frank seems to have the right to make a single backup copy under the 'fair use' restrictions on the copyright holder. Therefore, not piracy.
• Frank loans the CD to a friend to enjoy.
  • This is not unauthorized use as the loaned media carries with it the implicit playback license. Also, there was no "reproduction" (of the media or the license) involved, therefore this is not piracy.
• Frank listens to his backup copy while his friend is borrowing the original media.
  • Here things get murky. The clearest interpretation of the intent behind copyright law is that this would constitute "unauthorized use".  Yes, Frank was the original purchaser, but when he lent the original media to his friend (who was not a license holder for said content), he also lent the (implicit) playback license to his friend. Since the license is viewed as a singular entity that is not duplicated with fair use backups (so long as the original exists in playable form), this could be deemed piracy.
• Frank gets his original CD back from his friend. He decides he doesn't want to risk damage to the original, so he loans the backup CD to another friend.
  • Since Frank implicitly loaned his (single) playback license to his friend, this is not piracy.
• Frank listens to his original CD while his backup is out on loan.
  • This is actually the same as reverse the situation described above. There is nothing "special" about the original CD. The license is an ephemeral singleton. In loaning the music to his friend, Frank is implicitly loaning his license and he does not regain said license until the music he loaned is returned or destroyed. Frank's listening is technically unauthorized, because Frank's license is no longer in his possession for the duration of the loan, therefore, this could be deemed piracy.

There are a myriad of other scenarios (multiple backup copies, backup copies transmitted to the cloud, digital downloads vs physical purchases, etc.).  I won't belabor the point further as I think you can see where I'm going with this:

 

Piracy is really about unauthorized reproduction of the license which occurs when an unauthorized person "uses" the music. And there are clearly cases where the unauthorized person is the original purchaser, because they have (temporarily or permanently) given their license away.

 

 

** caveat: I am not a lawyer. =^) This is my personal speculation **

[Albrecht]

27 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

You get me wrong again. I am not saying that the music industry is not greedy or corrupt, in fact, I did say that many of the lawyers who go on the "copyright crusade" are immensely so. I also agree that the judicial system is not free of these issues. However, I also support the proper upholding of the law. Lobby to change things, if you are not happy, but all hell would break loose if everyone were to take the law into their own hands. Hence my statement on murder.

I think that there is more debate surrounding the issues regarding court decisions on exactly what is, and what isn't the law. So IF that is more open to interpretation and is far more fluid, - then "taking the law into your own hands" is also. It is more "clear cut" with CDs. In this case, - me making a digital copy of the CD is making a facsimile of the product that I purchased and it is mine to do with what I want, including making more facsimile's of my product. (Especially is if it is a shite facsimile, - like an .mp3 file. It can be argued that that file is of so low quality, that it doesn't constitute the same thing). Even distributing this on YouTube, (which is out-of-scope of the OP), only serves to HELP the artist or creator, - as long as the distributor or poster does not make money off of this limited re-distribution, - or claim that content as their own: Plagiarism.

 

My whole point is that record company propaganda never constitutes or defines what is legal and what is not legal. Using the language that record companies use, can legitimize an illegitimate case. Legality at this point doesn't exist, and is a tough road to hoe, precisely because there is a private, contractual agreement between artist and marketing & distribution organization, that makes for easy legal definitions for plagiarism, but very challenging ones for distribution: (exactly what you mentioned when you wrote of easier copying ability). This is why it SHOULD be illegal for Record companies to attempt to use the judicial system to punish their LEGITIMATE product purchasers & potential product purchases, instead of offering them a better product.

[foodfiend]

5 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I think that there is more debate surrounding the issues regarding court decisions on exactly what is, and what isn't the law.

Hmm... I do agree that there should be more debate surrounding this issue, but there has to be an objective (e.g. to change the law that is unfair, or to update it). Somehow, I feel that all the heated debate amongst non-legal-practitioners does not get to that objective.

 

On about the music labels, I do think that they are trying to change their financial model/monetisation model to that of streaming. I frankly would find that even worse for me, since I would hate to be chained to a subscription, for as long as I wanted to listen to music. Some others, of course, have said that they prefer the subscription model. One man's meat, is another man's poison...

[foodfiend]

17 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

Piracy is really about unauthorized reproduction of the license which occurs when an unauthorized person "uses" the music. And there are clearly cases where the unauthorized person is the original purchaser, because they have (temporarily or permanently) given their license away.

 

 

** caveat: I am not a lawyer. =^) This is my personal speculation **

Hence the statement on CDs, that says that any unauthorised duplication is in violation of applicable laws.

They also state: Unauthorised copying is punishable under federal law.

 

On older CDs, they state: Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this recording is prohibited.

[Jeremy Anderson]

18 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

Piracy is really about unauthorized reproduction of the license which occurs when an unauthorized person "uses" the music.

** caveat: I am not a lawyer. =^) This is my personal speculation **

 

Yes, I'm quoting myself. I didn't want to directly muddle the closing position of my previous post with this additional twist / rumination...

 

Where it gets really interesting when you reason about piracy and music listening rights in this manner, one can make the argument that the license is only required to be in one's possession at the time of playback.

 

Therefore, it is conceivable that were Frank to loan music a friend while retaining a fair-use backup copy, so long as Frank could be reasonably assured that his friend is not exercising the license to enjoy the music at the same time he is, then there is no actual piracy involved in each of them retaining a copy of the bits.

 

The piracy comes into effect when Frank and his friend are both enjoying the same work at the same time sourced from a single monetary transaction. In that moment, the copyright holder was denied their right to profit, and in that moment, the actual piracy occurs.

 

Fluidity of licensing becomes more relevant in the purely digital space because copying bits at nearly instantaneous speeds over the Internet means that transferring "the media" is irrelevant.

 

In many ways the computer software industry has controlled this scenario far better. Most "usage licenses" for "digital content" (e.g., a video game) are non-transferrable once acquired by the end user. You can't (legally) "sell" a game you no longer want on Steam, for example, as you could with a physical copy of the game. Most of this is enforced via DRM, which creates a very tangible boundary of intent.

 

One could still argue that computer software companies overreach with their methods, however. By locking things down (as Steam does), they are denying the consumer the very reasonable right of resale. But that's a topic for another day...

[Jeremy Anderson]

11 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

Hence the statement on CDs, that says that any unauthorised duplication is in violation of applicable laws.

They also state: Unauthorised copying is punishable under federal law.

 

On older CDs, they state: Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this recording is prohibited.

 

Indeed. Interesting that they don't say "unauthorized loaning" isn't it?

 

And since one can argue that authorized (under fair use) copying (for backup purposes) was intended by the US Congress as a right retained by the consumer... well, we run smack into my casual exploration of what Frank does with his fair-use ("authorized") copies of the bits.

 

Copyright holders would say, "No copies ever for any reason; if you lose, scratch it, break it, or its stolen from you, you have to repurchase it!" because it protects their monetary interests.

 

Consumers would say, "Infinite copies on-demand for all time and eternity -- I paid for it, it's mine! The license is a concept as much as it is a contract!"

 

There are kernels of truth in both positions.

[Paul R]

46 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

 

I'm very curious about your reasoning on this. What is your minimum threshold for piracy? 10 copies? 1000? 2? 1?

 

Piracy in the Oxford Dictionary is defined as, "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work." Nowhere in that definition is money required to change hands. Piracy more often is about preventing a copyright holder from making a sale than it is about someone else profiting monitarily from that prevention.

 

So let's break down some use cases and see where "unauthorized use" or "unauthorized reproduction" occurs:

• Frank buys a CD of music.
  • The copy was created at the behest of the copyright holder with their express permission and sold (perhaps indirectly) to Frank which generated revenue for the copyright holder, so this is not piracy.
• Frank exercises his right to "fair use" and copies the CD for backup purposes.
  • Although not expressly authorized by the copyright holder, Frank seems to have the right to make a single backup copy under the 'fair use' restrictions on the copyright holder. Therefore, not piracy.
• Frank loans the CD to a friend to enjoy.
  • This is not unauthorized use as the loaned media carries with it the implicit playback license. Also, there was no "reproduction" (of the media or the license) involved, therefore this is not piracy.
• Frank listens to his backup copy while his friend is borrowing the original media.
  • Here things get murky. The clearest interpretation of the intent behind copyright law is that this would constitute "unauthorized use".  Yes, Frank was the original purchaser, but when he lent the original media to his friend (who was not a license holder for said content), he also lent the (implicit) playback license to his friend. Since the license is viewed as a singular entity that is not duplicated with fair use backups (so long as the original exists in playable form), this could be deemed piracy.
• Frank gets his original CD back from his friend. He decides he doesn't want to risk damage to the original, so he loans the backup CD to another friend.
  • Since Frank implicitly loaned his (single) playback license to his friend, this is not piracy.
• Frank listens to his original CD while his backup is out on loan.
  • This is actually the same as reverse the situation described above. There is nothing "special" about the original CD. The license is an ephemeral singleton. In loaning the music to his friend, Frank is implicitly loaning his license and he does not regain said license until the music he loaned is returned or destroyed. Frank's listening is technically unauthorized, because Frank's license is no longer in his possession for the duration of the loan, therefore, this could be deemed piracy.

There are a myriad of other scenarios (multiple backup copies, backup copies transmitted to the cloud, digital downloads vs physical purchases, etc.).  I won't belabor the point further as I think you can see where I'm going with this:

 

Piracy is really about unauthorized reproduction of the license which occurs when an unauthorized person "uses" the music. And there are clearly cases where the unauthorized person is the original purchaser, because they have (temporarily or permanently) given their license away.

 

 

** caveat: I am not a lawyer. =^) This is my personal speculation **

 

Might be overthinking that a little. I tried to give examples that were at the extremes.    Perhaps we could say that piracy requires one to prove an intent to defraud and to gain financial advantage.  If an action does not clearly meet those two tests, then I think it would be a very hard sell to get it labeled as piracy. 

 

Just my $0.02.  YMMV. 

 

-Paul

 

P.S.  A copyright violation is not necessary piracy, but the way. The license granted with a CD purchase (or LP, or Download, whatever...) is based upon, I believe, copyright. 

 

 

[foodfiend]

28 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Might be overthinking that a little. I tried to give examples that were at the extremes.    Perhaps we could say that piracy requires one to prove an intent to defraud and to gain financial advantage.  If an action does not clearly meet those two tests, then I think it would be a very hard sell to get it labeled as piracy.

Actually, all major dictionaries put copyright infringement as a form of piracy, whether it leads to financial gain or not. I think they base it on the loss of income of the copyright holder.

[rando]

Oh boy did I screw up then.  I looked at a dictionary in a coffee shop today without paying the good folks who made it 30+ years ago.  Am I legally bound to go buy the newest edition?  Never been one to fall astray of the law and this greatly concerns me you could level a charge.  

 

Please advise.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

The laws haven't yet been determined. There are precedents on each case. However, - the only ruling that has thus far "stuck" over any time period is that the purchaser has bought a product, - and become an owner of a copy: "fair use."

There is no "rule of law" in this case.  And, - in PRACTICE, - the courts often protect the violators of the rule of law, - hence the extra-judicial police murders & police terrorism.

 

can you cite the statutes, regs or cases on this?

 

I'm getting curious

[NOMBEDES]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

 credit card companies were forced to take away the statement "it is illegal to tamper with this envelope" when people would send back empty letters to make the company pay for the postage....

.

 

~  I still do that.  I put a pizza flyer or two in the envelope included with insurance advertisements.

[foodfiend]

US Copyright Laws - Infringement & Remedies

[Ralf11]

No.  I am asking for specifics.  Do you have support for your claims?  Or is just what you want to see (which is fine)?

[Albrecht]

46 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

~  I still do that.  I put a pizza flyer or two in the envelope included with insurance advertisements.

Love it....

[Jeremy Anderson]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Oh boy did I screw up then.  I looked at a dictionary in a coffee shop today without paying the good folks who made it 30+ years ago.  Am I legally bound to go buy the newest edition?  Never been one to fall astray of the law and this greatly concerns me you could level a charge.  

 

Please advise.

 

You're being facetious, of course, but I would (if taking your jest seriously) say the answer is clearly "no".

 

You didn't mention make a copy of the entire Dictionary (which you retained) in order to reference it, so there was no violation of copyright.

[rando]

The point was there are limits to how far you can apply the logic being angrily expressed  and laws, new or outdated, being dragged up.  If you asked anyone who makes dictionaries, who is very likely to lobby for regulation if they feel a case could be made, the answer is always going to be one sided.  No matter how many copies they have previously sold or the market for future ones.  If anything the higher a profit margin they've known the more viciously they are likely to react.  

 

This is a very specific example related to why people stopped buying dictionaries or encyclopedias long before the internet age.  Much like the demise of the record store, greed on the part of those who publish them pushed customers away.  Which isn't to say they didn't like dictionaries or music.  They didn't like being sold the same thing over and over when they were only going to use a small portion of it.  Be that a few pages or a single.  

 

This is a market reaction not a personal opinion.  It examines a small portion of the question.