[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is absolutely wrong. Section 106 of the United States Copyright Act provides that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords ...." There is no "making a copy for a friend" exception. Nor is there an "it's OK because I didn't sell the copy" exception.

Not really, the law is pretty confusing on this point, but there is a very good argument that you can make a copy for a friend as long as it is non-commerical. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Section 1008) provides that:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

That provision doesn't say anything about making a copy for personal use only.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreCowbell /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about the guy that sells that cd? I assume he doesn't have to send the RIAA a check for each disk he sells. And the guy or gal that buys that cd didn't contribute anything toward the artist or the record company yet they've still got a copy of the music. Is the right of ownership now transfered to them? Technically they didn't "consent by purchase" to any copy-write or what-have-you...? .

The first sale doctrine provides that after a copyrighted work is sold for the first time, it can be resold again and again (just not copied). If it wasn't for this doctrine, the RIAA would be arguing that used record stores are stealing from artists.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif The first sale doctrine provides that after a copyrighted work is sold for the first time, it can be resold again and again (just not copied). If it wasn't for this doctrine, the RIAA would be arguing that used record stores are stealing from artists.

i think they tried that a few years ago.

 

[MoreCowbell]

that's what I thought re: buying and selling used Cd's. Same as any other software, you don't have the right to keep copies once you jettison the original. So my nefarious plan to buy a nice Olive music server, have them upload my collection then sell the disks at the local used cd shop runs afoul of the law.Of course I was kidding about the RIAA knocking in my door for an iPod file but I'm guessing it would be a much bigger issue if it were six or seven hundred disks.

interesting topic.

...what a cool site!

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good questions. You can sell your CDs to anyone you want. Once you sell the CD, you may no longer keep a copy of it on your iPod, CD-R, etc. You must delete the files or transfer them to the new owner of the CD. It is the same with software: when you sell the retail product, you are (under most licensing schemes) no longer allowed to keep a copy for your own use. But don't worry, the cops are not going to bash down your door because you sold a CD and forgot to wipe it off your iPod. Do that a few hundred times and start sharing it with others over public networks? Then you might find yourself in trouble. --Chris

Chris,
I understand your agrument, and if all was in an enforcable world, the plan would work. The freedom to do as you want makes people get as much as they can for themselves. We are talking human nature vs profit. Human nature will always find a way to get what it wants. Since the laws can't be enforced, why make them? It just causes ill will.

Exposure to the world sound is causing an explosion of personal music systems. The Big Boys can't control their competition so they use their influence to make it illegal. Artists no longer has to "sell their soul to the RIAA" in order to get exposure or product made. Fans have access to far more music now than in the hey day of the RIAA. The harder they hold on, the more resentment and illegal practice will occur.

I still buy CDs and DVDs for the sound quality. But I can only get what RIAA wants to release. There was so much music not released in newer formats that it created this bootleg mentality. Case in point, Heartsfields Music Eyes was not released on CD. The artist couldnt get it released so had to re produce it. But the record company owned the rights to the origional version. So they had to make a different version to be able to make it available. Thirty years later, the voices have lost some of it's magic.

What I get from this is that the RIAA don't want the cost to reproduce all catalogs. What about the rest of the music? If they won't release it, shouldn't it be available for the artist to take it somewhere else?

This is all a matter of opinion. There are valid points on both sides. Just that I don't feel the artist or I have representation in this. I don't think the majority of us desire to do something morally wrong. But we also have a desire thats not being supplied by the industry.

The single song option will help but the availibility will be limited to what's profitable and the quality of medium will be the poorest they can get away with. The technology transfer should not make my investment worthless. If the technology is available, I will hold on to my investment.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think they tried that a few years ago.

The RIAA has the power and funds to attempt such things, even if they know they have a slim to none chance of getting what they want.

 

[Gamemako]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The RIAA has the power and funds to attempt such things, even if they know they have a slim to none chance of getting what they want.

They don't have to worry about the consequences of their actions simply because their wealth can sustain them beyond any ill will...

...for a while.