Buying Music You Used to Own

[RonM]

Irony aside, there are a number of interesting issues here.

I have a lot of CDs which have all been ripped. The ripped music lives on my music server, and the CDs are in my possession, carefully filed away in box after box in my storeroom.

I also have a great deal of legally downloaded (paid for) music. What exactly constitutes the original here, I wonder? The copies I make for backup purposes are actually identical in form and content to the originals, just in a different location. What is the "original" from which derives my right to a "copy"?

Of course, I'm interested in security. If my house burns down, it will take my original CDs with it, along with the copies on my computers. Therefore I make back-ups that I store in a reasonably secure place -- a safety deposit box at my bank. Little portable hard drives are SO useful.

These represent a third copy -- original, original rip, and copy, or the analog for downloaded/purchased music. I wonder what the rule is about this generation?

And if all that is left of my CDs are lumps of mostly burned plastic, does possessing this still give me a right to my rips?

Ron

[aubuti]

Ironic, isn't it, that the PURPOSE of making a back-up (a spare if the original dies) is therefore nullified.

Not necessarily. If the original is scratched to hell then you can play your backup, and keep the scratched original as evidence of your rights to have that music.

But the letter of the law would also seem to imply that if the original is stolen, you would be obligated to destroy the backup, because the original is floating around somewhere. And in case of fire, you would also probably need to destroy the backup. Before easy digital backups, the usual solution for that was simple: insurance. But legal thinking on this doesn't seemed to have moved past the late 20th century.

As for keeping molten lumps of burned CDs as evidence of ownership for your backups (and not filing an insurance claim), that's an interesting question.

For legal downloads, I think the proof of ownership you'll need if the RIAA comes breaking through your door is some equivalent of a sales receipt, such as credit card receipts or perhaps the order history from the vendor.

[emalvick]

The recent examples are where I think the laws get a bit ridiculous and the reason the ethics of the issue get confusing.

I (as well as all of us) have probably backed up our CD's to some extent, otherwise we wouldn't be using squeezeboxes. I am guessing that most of us have kept the originals, so we aren't necessarily breaking any laws there, and how one obtains backups is not the issue at this point.

When it has come to the scratched discs, I've replaced them with copies, although I haven't necessarily kept the discs (just the cases). Before copies were easy to make I'd buy a new copy, and even now I'll buy a new copy if it is a favorite album.

As far as theft and fire go, I know we are supposed to destroy the copies. I also assume that insurance should cover the originals, so in theory one could buy all the discs again as well. Never-the-less, I really doubt that the RIAA and others are going to come after you for keeping copies.

I would not be tempted to keep a pile of melted plastic to prove I owned my albums. I'm not sure I'd go back and buy every album I owned either. It may not be right, but I'm not going to feel as bad about it as I would if I blatantly sold my CD's and kept the digital copies.

All that being said, I have to laugh because one time my car was broken into, and the would-be thefts obviously dug through my CD folders in my car. Ultimately, they stole nothing. I had a lot of CD's thrown about my car, some scratched, but none of them were missing. Apparently my taste in music (hard rock and jazz) were not up to the desire of the thief.

[pski]

Irony aside, there are a number of interesting issues here.

I have a lot of CDs which have all been ripped. The ripped music lives on my music server, and the CDs are in my possession, carefully filed away in box after box in my storeroom.

I also have a great deal of legally downloaded (paid for) music. What exactly constitutes the original here, I wonder? The copies I make for backup purposes are actually identical in form and content to the originals, just in a different location. What is the "original" from which derives my right to a "copy"?

Of course, I'm interested in security. If my house burns down, it will take my original CDs with it, along with the copies on my computers. Therefore I make back-ups that I store in a reasonably secure place -- a safety deposit box at my bank. Little portable hard drives are SO useful.

These represent a third copy -- original, original rip, and copy, or the analog for downloaded/purchased music. I wonder what the rule is about this generation?

And if all that is left of my CDs are lumps of mostly burned plastic, does possessing this still give me a right to my rips?

Ron

The number of backup generations is not material as long as you have them. You don't buy the music, you buy the right to listen to it.

Of course you have to backup the digital versions ! That's just plain sense. It's not a question of if the drive will fail, it's when.

As to catastrophe: you need to keep a backup off-site as well.

P

[emalvick]

You don't buy the music, you buy the right to listen to it.

That is actually the most important statement, and it is often lost in these discussions (meaning copyright discussions everywhere).

It then makes you wonder what exactly established that right. Does the destruction or theft of your CD's eliminate your right to listen to it?

I don't think the laws are straight forward on that answer.

I seem to recall a recent decision (in US court, although I'm not sure if it was the Supreme Court) that decided that it was ok to break DRM for the purpose of making back-up copies for one-self. That decision seemed to contradict other copyright related laws because once you strip DRM, how is one going to know whether you actually have a right to a digital file or not.

These things really get confusing, and I am not sure who it affects the most.

[pski]

That is actually the most important statement, and it is often lost in these discussions (meaning copyright discussions everywhere).

It then makes you wonder what exactly established that right. Does the destruction or theft of your CD's eliminate your right to listen to it?

I don't think the laws are straight forward on that answer.

I seem to recall a recent decision (in US court, although I'm not sure if it was the Supreme Court) that decided that it was ok to break DRM for the purpose of making back-up copies for one-self. That decision seemed to contradict other copyright related laws because once you strip DRM, how is one going to know whether you actually have a right to a digital file or not.

These things really get confusing, and I am not sure who it affects the most.

The issue I cite is the case with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_X_Copy . This article in Wikipedia has been altered since I was there years ago. It no long contains details of the ruling.

Look around and post more.

P

[emalvick]

The issue I cite is the case with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_X_Copy . This article in Wikipedia has been altered since I was there years ago. It no long contains details of the ruling.

Look around and post more.

P

The case I was referring to was either in 2010 or even 2011. I'll have to try and track it down. It was being followed closely on a Kindle Forum I was frequently when I purchased a Kindle for my wife and wanted to strip the DRM from her ebooks for archiving.

Without digging too much, the following exerpt from the DMCA essentially states that the DMCA law cannot trump Fair Use laws:

Title 17 > Chapter 12 > § 1201, Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...1----000-.html

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

I cannot find the case that I believed used the above to allow jailbreaking of iphones. I think this is the opening that is allowing DRM to be removed, but I could be wrong on the details. I'm not much into laws or the loopholes, technicalities, etc. and their implications. I also didn't read the linked rule above very thoroughly.

[gruntwolla]

Also note that the backup must be destroyed if the original is no longer in a person's possession.

.

That is a horrible thought.I know of somebody who lost his entire collection of cds and albums in a fire, and considers himself extremely fortunate that he had digitalised his collection. This was done in order to use Squeezeboxes, rather than for backup purposes, but nevertheless he would be distraught at the thought of being forced to personally delete all his files

[RonM]

Yes, it is a ridiculous irony isn't it? On the one hand lip service is paid to the notion that "you buy the content not the medium", implying that it's the intellectual property in the music that you have "rented", but on the other hand making your posession of that IP only legal when you have the physical medium. Makes no actual sense, as is the case with much of this fuzzy area of law.

What we see is an attempt to make IP possession like physical possession. If your stereo goes up in flames you don't get to claim possession of the IP that is embodied in the device and makes it work. You need to go to your insurance company and try to recover the value, and then repurchase the stereo. The logic is that you can do the same with your music.

My careful backing up of all my music files is for two purposes -- to protect against the inevitable hardware failures, and to protect against catastrophic loss of both electronic and hard copies. I fully expect to re-use my backed up library (the one stored in my bank's safety deposit vault) if my house burns down, and I doubt very much if anyone is going to try to force me to repurchase all the music.

On the other hand, if I DO try to claim the value of the melted and burned CDs from the insurance company, as I'd be sorely tempted to do given that there are many thousands of dollars in that pot, there is a legitimate question as to whether I can make a reasonable case for retention of the digital files stored at the bank.

R.

[aubuti]

On the other hand, if I DO try to claim the value of the melted and burned CDs from the insurance company, as I'd be sorely tempted to do given that there are many thousands of dollars in that pot, there is a legitimate question as to whether I can make a reasonable case for retention of the digital files stored at the bank.

I would bet that the insurance company would consider it fraud rather than "a reasonable question." On the other hand, if you made a claim on the basis that you had to repurchase the CDs to satisfy requirement of retaining the original medium to go with your backup copies, I would think they would have to agree (albeit grudgingly, because they are an insurance company). But as a practical matter it's hard to imagine them enforcing the repurchase.

All of which makes the download model look eminently more sensible than buying CDs. If only more artists and recording companies made CD-quality-or-better tracks available for download.