[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif It would be more accurate if you said, "as long as you own the media, you own 'your copy' of the music."

As far as I understand, this is not the law yet -- but a new approach proposed by the RIAA within the last few weeks..?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I understand, this is not the law yet -- but a new approach proposed by the RIAA within the last few weeks..?

I edited my post and you might not have seen the second part of it when you typed this. The basic legal premise is that only the copyright holder can make copies. Unless you have permission or an exception applies, making a copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.

I don't think that any court has ever ruled directly on whether ripping CDs is a fair use. Some courts have suggested that ripping CDs would be fair use under the principles established in the Sony case, where the US Supreme Court held that "time-shifting" television programs by taping them for personal use is a "fair use." As far as I know, however, no court has ever held that ripping a CD and then selling the original--which is the functional equivalent of selling a copy of the CD--is fair use.

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I edited my post and you might not have seen the second part of it when you typed this. The basic legal premise is that only the copyright holder can make copies. Unless you have permission or an exception applies, making a copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.

Yes, I understand - but is that the 'new copyright act' under discussion here, or was this section always in place? I'm no lawyer, but I would think the "safety copy" argument could work here. Music is collectible and many records are very difficult to replace if stolen, lost, destroyed by fire, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think that any court has ever ruled directly on whether ripping CDs is a fair use. Some courts have suggested that ripping CDs would be fair use under the principles established in the Sony case, where the US Supreme Court held that "time-shifting" television programs by taping them for personal use is a "fair use." As far as I know, however, no court has ever held that ripping a CD and then selling the original--which is the functional equivalent of selling a copy of the CD--is fair use.

Interesting. By that logic, I could legally tape music off my FM/satellite tuner and claim I wanted to hear it at a more convenient time...

 

[ricksome]

As being the OP of this thread, I thought that I would ask a related question.

Back in 1964, The Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show. My sister held the microphone up to the TV as The Beatles (insert your favorite band here) were singing and recorded that on Reel To Reel. Is that an illegal copy of the music that was performed?

When TV stations show recorded 15-20 clips of The Beatles during the British Invasion (insert your favorite band here) is that an illegal copy of the music that was performed?

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKonoKlast /img/forum/go_quote.gif You think the RIAA represents the cornerstone principles of a democratic society? ... there is something called civil disobedience and there are some famous individuals who bettered society through it.

It's a little ridiculous (and quite frankly offensive) to infer that civil disobedience for the sake of civil rights is in the same category as civil disobedience for the preservation of a cheapskate's pocketbook.

I think everyone is forgetting the facts: the OP purchased a CD, ripped the music, then sold the CD yet kept the music. This is NOT the same as "civil disobedience" if RIAA were trying to limit your right to make personal use copies of the music (I'm OK with that). What the OP did is no different than buying a prom dress and returning it the day after prom -- get all the benefits without having to pay, free-riding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKonoKlast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Face it, you know the music industry would be many times better off without corporate trade groups like the RIAA... ... I'm fighting against the money-hoarding businessmen behind their gold-plated desks much more than I am against the artists...

That's rich. I'm laughing my head off.

Oh how I pine for the day people learn to take personal responsibility for their own actions and to stop blaming everyone else...

--Chris

 

[GlendaleViper]

This sucks, I wrote a long, thoughtful post here this morning... either it got deleted (in that case, I'm unsure why?) or I'm an idiot and hit preview instead of post.

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricksome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Back in 1964, The Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show. My sister held the microphone up to the TV as The Beatles (insert your favorite band here) were singing and recorded that on Reel To Reel. Is that an illegal copy of the music that was performed?

Well, if it is - I'm as guilty as sin then, as in the 'olden' days, I used to record the top 20 straight from the radio on to a cassette tape (as ALL my friends did back then.)

We didn't think about whether it was illegal. Everybody did it. It was the norm.
Then we'd whine about how the DJ would talk over the intro AND the end (probably to deter people from recording it?)

All we wanted to do was listen to the songs again and again - and if we really really liked a single, we'd go and buy it. Does that make us criminals for recording the show in the first place? If so - all my friends are criminals and so am I!

And what about lending someone a book? Is that illegal, because now they won't buy it since they just read your copy? I get easily confused about what's 'illegal' and what's 'unethical.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif All we wanted to do was listen to the songs again and again - and if we really really liked a single, we'd go and buy it. Does that make us criminals for recording the show in the first place? If so - all my friends are criminals and so am I!.... And what about lending someone a book? Is that illegal, because now they won't buy it since they just read your copy? I get easily confused about what's 'illegal' and what's 'unethical.

Good point about 'illegal' vs 'unethical.' What you did I don't think any of us here (and certainly not me) claim to be above. I (used to) tape music (before digital era), still DVR TV shows & movies, share books, etc. What the OP did was quite different. He bought something then kept a copy and sold the original. It would be like buying a book from Barnes & Noble, making a photocopy, and returning the book for a full refund the next day -- that's not fair use, that's theft.

--Chris

 

[fatcat28037]

You purchased a legal copy of the music.

You sold a legal copy of the music.

You no longer have a legal copy of the music, you gave up your ownership rights when you sold the legal copy, regardless of your financial loss.

 

[Luminette]

I don't have the money to buy 180gigs of music @ 192 (to clarify the number of albums in there)- nor the stupidity to blindly buy an album, or, most anything. Especially during this regression into single-based music

this is the most ridiculous thing ever. it's just an overly commercial 'issue' out of something which is far from modern,a nd far from definable

drawing a line between sharing and not is a little silly

people have been doing what the participants of this thread (mostly) are calling immoral and illegal (i'm aware that it is illegal) for forever

sharing books.. showing someone else a piece of art.. recording one cassette to another.. none of these things have ever really called ANY sort of remotely comparable spotlight as this modern music fiasco has.

why now? because most people have never even thought about it before now, and only in this recent time have a, truly, rather small portion of billboard chart dominating popular artists who make music for money started crying about not having as making as many millions of dollars as they did before. it's disgusting to see so many people- music lovers, at that- caught up in..

1 actually supporting this disgusting pop-celebrity-brat-run campaign which makes a mockery of ethics at all, being that it's just about money.

2 taking it to the point of looking down at your fellow music lovers for this (spare us all the "I judge but i don't speak it so it's okay to be a condescending self-righteous defender of music as an industry")

3 clinging to the pseudo-ethical perspective to-the-death, despite that things have already changed and will be staying this way and progressing even further into realms of music NOT as an industry

stubborn and greedy musicians have created stubborn and defensive fans.

also- i purchase good full CDs. i like to get a copy of a thoroughly nice album. I also like to rip it and share it over the internet with anybody who'd like to hear it

this whole itunes led single purchasing availability just revives a time in music where people didn't make albums. a filthy time. modern music industry is destroying all the progress of the 70s in-so-far-as artists making albums True, it's been in a state of decay for a lot longer than the new millenium. i'd say it's been downhill since MTV came into existence.

supporting the RIAA is supporting single-based music production.

and the death of that will lead to? better music. a good thing, anyone would agree


I think this will all blow over, and as the generation (these battling perspectives can largely be identified as sharing a pattern in age difference, among other substantial pieces of criteria) .. and as the generation that supports intentions of the RIAA dies off, so too will the to-the-death perspectives they have latched on to

I support you completely, OP, as well as anyone else here who has the courage to speak up in favor of this side of things. It's a shame that discussion of anything file-sharing is so frowned upon here.. censored, even. My guess is that that reality of head-fi community/rules is what has this thread so quiet as far as 'this' side of things- The low amount of people even talking on the thread, despite the heat of this issue among music lovers, as well as the sheer mass of people who are pro-downloading.. pretty much voices the support of those who are in favor of 'downloading' Don't be fooled or intimidated by the plethora of pro-RIAA crud. If it weren't for the censorship of share-talk here, this thread would actually read as a game involving both teams. But, then, it's no surprise that pro-censorship people also support the RIAA

I support this most beautiful revolution, immediately a beautiful thing as it is a correction to that which is ugly.

 

[etherealbeats]

What, most of my music is illegal. Who cares? Apart from the RIAA of course but they can go screw themselves.

Although I do buy music from many independent artists/labels as I like to help the people who need it most. But I'm not going to help the multi-billion dollar record labels if I can help it.

 

[ueyteuor]

i download illegally all the time... i see no problem in it

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luminette /img/forum/go_quote.gif sharing books.. showing someone else a piece of art.. recording one cassette to another.. none of these things have ever really called ANY sort of remotely comparable spotlight as this modern music fiasco has. stubborn and greedy musicians have created stubborn and defensive fans.

There's also the 'other' side of recording a tape or CD for someone which can actually be profitable for the artists, and which is never mentioned.

About 10 years ago, I worked with a guy who thought Pink Floyd only made one song - 'Another Brick In The Wall' - and that Neil Young had also only made one song - 'Heart Of Gold'. . . so I 'illegally' made him a tape with 'Dark Side Of The Moon' on one side, and 'The Division Bell' on the other (which had just been released).

Then I made a chronology tape of Neil Young.

Well, fast-forward 10 years later and he has the ENTIRE back catalogue of Pink Floyd AND Neil Young, DVDs, CDs everything - plus he played Pink Floyd to his brother. . . and he ALSO bought the entire back catalogue of Pink Floyd.

So my argument FOR 'sharing' the music in this instance - is that without the tapes, neither of them would probably ever have got to really hear Pink Floyd.

As for Neil Young - he's really against file sharing of any sort and he's whinged about it a lot. . . yet because I illegally copied his songs onto a tape - he has a 'new' fan who bought ALL his stuff and spent a heap of money on it. Have you seen how much stuff Neil Young's done? Even I don't have all of it! So I made Neil Young money he wouldn't have made if I hadn't taped his stuff for someone else. And has Neil Young sent me a penny? No - he has not.

Has Dave Gilmour, Roger Waters, Nick Mason or Richard Wright sent me a penny? No they have not

My point is that taping or recording something for someone else (which is probably either 'illegal' or 'unethical'), doesn't automatically result in a financial loss for the artist. In some cases, it actually brings them in more revenue - as I described above.

 

[Luminette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif My point is that taping or recording something for someone else (which is probably either 'illegal' or 'unethical'), doesn't automatically result in a financial loss for the artist. In some cases, it actually brings them in more revenue - as I described above.

"In some cases, it actually brings them in more revenue"

Ultimately, for any of the aforementioned artists, music downloading results ina loss of financial gain. The ultimate result on the issue is all that really matters. That some people may get into more because of the availability is a great thing, something I'm glad for, but, not a redeeming aspect of the financial side of things with those sorts of artists.

Fortunately, it's okay.

 

[Dzjudz]

I download all the music I would like to hear, and then some. If I hear a truly good album, I'll go out and buy an actual CD of it. If I don't like the album, I'll delete it. I have probably around 200 albums on my laptop right now, 50 of which I own the CD. I have more CDs of which I don't have a rip on my laptop too. But of those other 150 albums: either I like the music, but not enough to spend about €20(!) to buy the album, or the album is nowhere to be bought (true in about 10 cases). So in those cases I wouldn't have bought the album in any case!

I support the artists I really like, and I get my fill of music. We all win!

P.S. To add to the point made above, that "in some cases "illegal" (in the US at least) downloading actually brings in more revenue for artists" is that through downloading music I've heard a lot of new music I wouldn't have heard otherwise and of which I've bought the CD.