PDA

View Full Version : Legality question... boo... hiss......



brjoon1021
2007-06-29, 22:56
I am one of those tender consciouses that tries to tow the line if I can. So, I was wondering, are the laws for music recorded on CD basically such that you can ONLY rip CDs that YOU paid for? I am referring to American laws...

For example:
1. CDs your friends or family paid for are illegal for you to rip even with their permission ?

2. What about Public Library holdings that you can check out? That seems like it might be a gray area as you own it just as much as anyone else does. The Public Library as proxy for the Goverment maintains it for all of us.

Just wondering... does anyone know the answers to these? It is a shame to have to care. The greedy record companies put out so much garbage and charge so much for it! It is easy to justify ripping everything that can be begged, borrowed or stolen on these grounds, but I feel guilty.

B.

JimC
2007-06-29, 23:13
I am one of those tender consciouses that tries to tow the line if I can. So, I was wondering, are the laws for music recorded on CD basically such that you can ONLY rip CDs that YOU paid for? I am referring to American laws...

For example:
1. CDs your friends or family paid for are illegal for you to rip even with their permission ?

2. What about Public Library holdings that you can check out? That seems like it might be a gray area as you own it just as much as anyone else does. The Public Library as proxy for the Goverment maintains it for all of us.

Just wondering... does anyone know the answers to these? It is a shame to have to care. The greedy record companies put out so much garbage and charge so much for it! It is easy to justify ripping everything that can be begged, borrowed or stolen on these grounds, but I feel guilty.

B.

At the risk of inciting the masses...

You do not, under U.S. Copyright laws, have a right to keep a copy of a CD you do not own. The contention for allowing an MP3 or other copy made is that it is a "fair use" of a work for which you have been granted -- through the process of purchase -- a right to use. In other words, because you paid for the original, it is reasonable for you to play it on a device you own, even if that means you have to change the format.

You can legally loan a CD to a friend, and they can legally listen to it, but they cannot legally keep a copy (in any format). This is the same as a book -- you're free to loan it to someone, and they are legally entitled to read it but they can't legally photocopy it for their library. If you give them the CD as a gift, you're considered to have transferred the license which means you no longer have a right to maintain a copy -- that right transfers to your friend along with the CD.

As far as a public library goes, the above paragraph applies... they own the CD and are only loaning it to you for a listen. When you return the CD, you're returning the rights to the content along with it.

adamslim
2007-06-30, 01:25
For the UK perspective, I don't think it is legal to rip music at all. Check this out: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/


Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

* Private and research study purposes.
* Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
* Criticism and news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* Copies and lending by librarians.
* Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
* Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
* Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
* Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

Nope, nothing there. Let's try fair use then:


1. What is fair use?

In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice.

Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.

The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.

2. What does fair use allow?

Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
* The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
* That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
* That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

3. Typical free uses of work include:
* Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.

4. What is incidental inclusion?

This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.

5. Points to keep in mind...

The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country.

Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law.

To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use.

Well "National laws typically allow limited private and educational use" might seem to help, but there is no specific provision for ripping in the UK.

Therefore, if you are a strict rule-follower in the UK, the legality of any music you have copied from your own CDs is dubious at best. I suggest you join us chaotic establishment-challengers :)

Adam

amcluesent
2007-06-30, 02:09
>but I feel guilty.<

That feeling reduces after the first 100 rips :)

Skunk
2007-06-30, 06:40
The contention for allowing an MP3 or other copy made is that it is a "fair use" of a work for which you have been granted -- through the process of purchase -- a right to use.

Even that requires authorization from the copyright holders, no? I was under the impression that we were only 'allowed' to make analog tape copies, and that "The making of back up copies for personal use has never been held to be a per se noninfringing use. 2003 Rec. at 106-08." (i)

Fair use for a compact disc is playing it in a cd player, and purchasing a cheap and widely available replacement should loss or damage occur to the original.(ii)

Not trying to incite the masses either, but the ambiguity of the law deserves attention, IMO. Perhaps it would be easier to take the moral high road if it were actually about protecting creative works, but instead it seems like a grand scheme to maximize profits by selling many formats. They made a mint on the VHS>DVD transition and are looking to do the same for Compact Disc>Hard Disk.

(i,ii) Joint reply from copyright holders regarding the DMCA
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/reply/11metalitz_AAP.pdf ;Section G, p. 39

aubuti
2007-06-30, 07:05
For example:
1. CDs your friends or family paid for are illegal for you to rip even with their permission ?
First, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on television. But this one's pretty simple. If the friends or family paid for it and gave it to you as a gift, then they have transferred that license to you. They are not allowed to make a copy to keep. If it's a CD that they did not give you (ie, it's in their collection), the fact that they paid for it does not give you the legal right to make a copy.


2. What about Public Library holdings that you can check out? That seems like it might be a gray area as you own it just as much as anyone else does. The Public Library as proxy for the Goverment maintains it for all of us.
Yes, you own it as much as anyone else. Which means that you have just as much right as everyone else to borrow it from the library, and listen to it while you have borrowed it. Making copies? No way. The book analogy is apt.


Just wondering... does anyone know the answers to these? It is a shame to have to care. The greedy record companies put out so much garbage and charge so much for it! It is easy to justify ripping everything that can be begged, borrowed or stolen on these grounds, but I feel guilty.
If it's garbage, then why would you want to rip it? And if it's something you like, then you can assuage your guilt by buying the CD.

And what about that big area that's not garbage but not worth paying $10-20 for the CD? That's what used CDs, radio (including internet radio), Rhapsody, Pandora, etc. are for.

brjoon1021
2007-06-30, 08:00
Thanks for your responses. I am now regretting my recent purchase of a Squeezebox a little, bought it yesterday. I am not going to steal and I don't have many CDs.

As for why would I rip trash, well, it is standard practice and always has been in the recording industry to put a couple of hits on a crappy record to sell the whole thing. So, if there are two great songs that you like on a CD, you can buy the whole thing for $16 US, waste a lot of time trying to find it in used CD stores which ends up being more expensive due to lost time - unless you are a vagrant - or you can download a horrible 128KB or so MP3 of the song from a site. I am new to all of this; I never bought an iPod so if you know something I don't know about how I can get lossless music from my squeezebox without having to buy CD after CD for the few good songs on them, please shed some light. I bought a squeezebox for FLAC not bad sounding downloads. I can't understand the thinking that says that losing some of the sound is OK. Can't comprehend that at all.

pfarrell
2007-06-30, 10:52
Pale Blue Ego wrote:
> Well, there's always internet radio.

Not in the US if the RIAA keeps bribing Congress and the
administration's bodies.

Good thing the folks in Washington are too clueless to notice that I
listen to Jazz out of France.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Mike Anderson
2007-06-30, 11:21
waste a lot of time trying to find it in used CD stores which ends up being more expensive due to lost time

You can get used CDs online these days. I have pretty obscure tastes, but Amazon has the used version of what I'm looking for about half the time. Typically costs about $5-7 with shipping.

JimC
2007-06-30, 12:03
Even that requires authorization from the copyright holders, no? I was under the impression that we were only 'allowed' to make analog tape copies, and that "The making of back up copies for personal use has never been held to be a per se noninfringing use. 2003 Rec. at 106-08." (i)

That's why I said "the contention is..." The reality is that there's no specific grant of rights to make an MP3 (or FLAC or OGG, etc) copy, just as there was no specific grant to make a tape copy of an LP to play in your car. The premise is that you paid for right to play the song and the medium for playback is NOT part of copyright, so transcribing/translating the work so you can benefit from your purchase was not considered to have infringed on the rights you were granted. You would violate the law if you gave the copy to someone for them to use.

It's the big pink elephant that no one wants to talk about. Current copyright laws are not designed for a global, interconnected economy but the RIAA, MPAA, etc. don't want to mess with them, for fear they might lose the pretty tight control they have. If you read about the debate that went on around copyrights, Congress was well aware of the monopoly they were granting, which is how the whole set of fair use provisions found their way into the law, as well as the statutory rights grants for things like performances (including radio). If copyright were to be revisited, depending on the makeup of Congress at the time, it could be significantly altered in ways that would not be a benefit to current copyright holders, who actually have it pretty good under the current law.

aubuti
2007-06-30, 13:26
Thanks for your responses. I am now regretting my recent purchase of a Squeezebox a little, bought it yesterday. I am not going to steal and I don't have many CDs.
Two things. First, there is a 30 day return policy, so sleep on it a little more and then make up your mind. Second, I found that getting an SB re-invigorated my interest in music, and I've bought a lot more CDs in the 18 months I've had an SB than I had bought in the preceding 5-10 years. So if you late nature run its course and your wallet can stand it, you could have a lot more CDs a year from now.

machinehead
2007-06-30, 23:33
"brjoon1021"
<brjoon1021.2szxmb1183215901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote in message
news:brjoon1021.2szxmb1183215901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com...
> so if you know something I don't
> know about how I can get lossless music from my squeezebox without
> having to buy CD after CD for the few good songs on them, please shed
> some light. I bought a squeezebox for FLAC not bad sounding downloads.
> I can't understand the thinking that says that losing some of the sound
> is OK. Can't comprehend that at all.

First, losing some of the sound is okay if you can't hear the difference.
True enough, 128K MP3s are awful, but there probably are higher quality
downloads available. All downloads are not MP3, and even all MP3 is not
crap, especially when it reaches the point where audiophiles can't tell the
difference in a blind ABX test. I myself do not purchase lossy-compressed
music, but I do use lossy compression when appropriate for a device, and
when done properly, it is indistinguishable from the original.

I do agree that for commercial track/album purchase via download, there is a
dearth of high-quality sources, which is one reason I don't go that route,
but I do think that situation is improving.

Second, I would suggest that you get a BitTorrent client, such as Azureus,
and start looking for bootlegs. I am not talking about the illegal sites
that feature rips of commercial CDs alongside "warez, warez, WAREZ!!!", but
sites like dimeadozen, thetradersden, or artist-specific sites like
rustradio.org. These sites offer unreleased live (often soundboards) and
studio/compilations, in FLAC and SHN. Quality varies but it is not hard to
find good stuff, especially in the comps and soundboards. Anything that is
commercially available from a real label is not allowed. Also, look at Live
Music Archive - there used to be a Squeezebox plugin for it, not sure if it
is still available.

Ed

machinehead
2007-06-30, 23:39
"brjoon1021"
<brjoon1021.2szxmb1183215901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote in message
news:brjoon1021.2szxmb1183215901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com...
>
> As for why would I rip trash, well, it is standard practice and always
> has been in the recording industry to put a couple of hits on a crappy
> record to sell the whole thing. So, if there are two great songs that
> you like on a CD, you can buy the whole thing for $16 US, waste a lot
> of time trying to find it in used CD stores which ends up being more

A couple more thoughts...first, there was a time when the album was
important, and many many CDs exist with more than 2 good songs on them...so
it depends what your tastes are. Not to be snide, but I guess what I'm
saying is, listen to better artists :-)

Also...try CDbaby.com. Join YourMusic.com. Buy used from Amazon. Try
deepdiscountcd.com. Try comparison engines, like pricegrabber.com. There
is simply no reason in this day and age to be paying $16 for a CD, there are
too many lower-priced alternatives.

Ed

Skunk
2007-07-01, 08:43
Thanks for your responses. I am now regretting my recent purchase of a Squeezebox a little, bought it yesterday. I am not going to steal and I don't have many CDs.


You shouldn't regret the purchase, and will probably learn to love the thing. Honestly, I don't see any alternative for losslessly listening to only good songs...

Rip the albums you do own, and note how much easier it is to listen to the songs you like without changing a disc every third track. You can delete the songs you never listen to, but if you're like me you'll find some of the ones you thought were bad work great in a random mix.

As for the library, you could always borrow a ton of CDs and find the (rare) good albums worth purchasing. Also, I'm on the constant lookout for $1 albums. Some of my best CDs came from the clearance section of 'half priced books' and record stores that buy/sell used.

Happy hunting.

Skunk
2007-07-01, 08:51
It's the big pink elephant that no one wants to talk about.

Yeah it's probably off topic anyway.

Thanks for the reply though, and I'll also take the time to thank Slim Devices for their support of the EFF (http://www.eff.org/about/), hoping it continues :-)

brjoon1021
2007-07-04, 12:33
Geez, so legally, if one buys a used CD, rips it and then sells the CD to a used CD store, the ripped copy on the hard disk should be deleted, no ?

I wonder if CD and DVD resale is a bit shady too then because one is purchasing the right to listen to the music (what we determined is the thing being purchased, not the format) from an entity that is not giving profits to the artists, label, etc... but is the sole beneficiary of the profits.

Your thoughts ?

adamslim
2007-07-04, 12:59
Geez, so legally, if one buys a used CD, rips it and then sells the CD to a used CD store, the ripped copy on the hard disk should be deleted, no ?

I wonder if CD and DVD resale is a bit shady too then because one is purchasing the right to listen to the music (what we determined is the thing being purchased, not the format) from an entity that is not giving profits to the artists, label, etc... but is the sole beneficiary of the profits.

The legal system works here: once you sell a CD, you no longer have rights to the music - so you should delete the rip.

CD sale is expressly allowed - you can sell the licence to play the music, but that means that you no longer have it.

Adam

brjoon1021
2007-07-04, 15:00
I don't know... I guess I am pretty disappointed with the way all of this unfolds. It seems to basically boil the purchase price of such a device only gets one the privilege of not having to get up to change a CD (which you MUST be in the possession of to be listening to its music). I am not THAT lazy. Internet radio is the other thing, but that does not interest me too much. For me, current laws make these types of devices kind of superfluous and too expensive. They are kind of a CD multi-Disk changer, in effect. If one is OK with ripping every disk that his/her friends have then this category of front end is a gold mine...

aubuti
2007-07-04, 15:04
Geez, so legally, if one buys a used CD, rips it and then sells the CD to a used CD store, the ripped copy on the hard disk should be deleted, no ?
Yes, that's right. And same applies for buying a new CD.


I wonder if CD and DVD resale is a bit shady too then because one is purchasing the right to listen to the music (what we determined is the thing being purchased, not the format) from an entity that is not giving profits to the artists, label, etc... but is the sole beneficiary of the profits.
I don't know the legalisms, but I think the artist, label, etc. are considered as getting their full cut on the initial sale. Subsequent re-sales (a) defray the cost to the original buyer who decides the disc is worth something less than the full price, and (b) allow someone else who thinks the disc isn't worth the full retail price to add it to their collection.

drewe181
2007-07-04, 15:07
so if someone steals your cd then you legally don't own the music anymore and if you own a record (music) store you can copy whatever you have in stock since you technically own all the music.

JJZolx
2007-07-04, 15:22
I don't know... I guess I am pretty disappointed with the way all of this unfolds.

None of this should be news to anyone. You act like you just discovered that you need to put gas in the new car you bought.


It seems to basically boil the purchase price of such a device only gets one the privilege of not having to get up to change a CD (which you MUST be in the possession of to be listening to its music). I am not THAT lazy.

No, the convenience factor goes far beyond that. Playing custom playlists, random files, using it as an alarm. The same thing people have been doing with computers and digital music files for the last 10 years or so. Where the Squeezebox fits in is being able to get the music from the computer to the stereo system over a network. Many people have no problem just connecting a computer's soundcard output directly to their stereo system. For them, I'd say there's little reason to own a Squeezebox.


Internet radio is the other thing, but that does not interest me too much. For me, current laws make these types of devices kind of superfluous and too expensive. They are kind of a CD multi-Disk changer, in effect. If one is OK with ripping every disk that his/her friends have then this category of front end is a gold mine...

I'm really curious as to what you thought you were buying. Did you thing that for $300 you were purchasing some kind of perpetual music machine?

You need to return it while you're still within the 30 day window.

adamslim
2007-07-04, 15:48
I don't know the legalisms, but I think the artist, label, etc. are considered as getting their full cut on the initial sale. Subsequent re-sales (a) defray the cost to the original buyer who decides the disc is worth something less than the full price, and (b) allow someone else who thinks the disc isn't worth the full retail price to add it to their collection.

Ah, if only we could pay what we thought it was worth. Maybe that's why bittorrent is so popular...

Timothy Stockman
2007-07-04, 17:15
Apparently the RIAA, at least as demonstrated by their actions, feels that one has to have the CD in their possesion to be allowed to play the sounds from that CD. XM Satellite Radio has a huge hard disk music library and they made an explicit agreement with the RIAA to broadcast the music over their satellites. Interestingly enough, the RIAA agreement requires XM to store all the physical CDs, even though XM pays the RIAA when they air them, anyway. (I don't remember normal radio stations being under that restriction from my days in radio.) I guess the RIAA wants to be able to point to XM as an example that they expect us to retain all of our CDs.

It gets interesting when one gets to the area of legal downloads, especially DRM-free. One pays for the download and ends up with a file on their hard drive, but no physical token like the CD. I guess more progressive recording types realize that, for most intents, we're on the honor system anyway these days.

Harry G
2007-07-04, 17:53
I asked about this a few months ago. I hoped to know before giving a bunch of flac files to a friend in law enforcement.

While there are a plethora of software engineers here, not one lawyer spoke up. It ended up a morality thread.

Did a bunch of web research. In spite of those FBI warnings on most CDs and DVDs, it appears to be a civil matter, likely to end up better defined by case law over the next few years.

There are places on the web where you can legally download lossless music files. Google is your friend.

JimC
2007-07-04, 18:58
Apparently the RIAA, at least as demonstrated by their actions, feels that one has to have the CD in their possesion to be allowed to play the sounds from that CD.

It's not the RIAA, it's Congress, and no one cares about the CD. The CD merely represents the license you have to listen to the music you purchased on that medium. When you purchase music online, with or without DRM, the file represents the license granted to you by the copyright holder.

Copyright law defines who owns the rights to a work, and how they go about granting use rights (listening, performance, derivative works, fair use, etc.) to others.



...the RIAA agreement requires XM to store all the physical CDs, even though XM pays the RIAA when they air them, anyway. (I don't remember normal radio stations being under that restriction from my days in radio.)

Terrestrial broadcasters were granted an exception -- statutory rights -- to broadcast music WITHOUT an explicit grant from the copyright holders, as long as they paid a royalty to the performer and composer. The royalty is set by the Copyright Royalty Board and is collected and disbursed through a company called SoundExchange.

XM and Sirius did not qualify for the statutory rights program due to the special license they were granted to use their radio spectrum. The reached a separate agreement to license the music they play.


...I guess more progressive recording types realize that, for most intents, we're on the honor system anyway these days.

You've always been on the honor system. The mechanisms to copy and distribute tapes and CDs have been around for a very long time. It's just that the economics of breaking the law were very high -- the time, effort, and cost involved in duplicating a CD and sending it to 10,000 of your very best friends was simply too high. Now, with the costs of sharing a CD with millions of people approaching zero, it makes it trivial to break the law and otherwise honest people seem to have no problem with actively doing so.

And just to head off the whole "well, don't you drive over the speed limit? that's illegal too!" argument, I'm *very* well aware of the choices we each make and believe you are free to make yours. I'm not condemning anyone for choosing to upload or download music without a license; I am simply pointing out that in the U.S. it is illegal to do and people who would NEVER walk into a store and steal a CD seem to have no problem doing exactly the same thing online. No moral/ethical judgment there, just the facts.


-=> Jim

aubuti
2007-07-04, 20:13
Ah, if only we could pay what we thought it was worth. Maybe that's why bittorrent is so popular...
Well, yeah. At the risk of stating the obvious, we pay what we AND the seller agree it is worth, whether the seller is new shrink wrapped retail or 2nd-hand. And if the price is too high for the buyer or too low for the seller, there's no deal. If you can't find someone willing to sell at what you think it's worth, that's hardly a justification for illegal downloads.

aubuti
2007-07-04, 20:19
No, the convenience factor goes far beyond that. Playing custom playlists, random files, using it as an alarm. The same thing people have been doing with computers and digital music files for the last 10 years or so. Where the Squeezebox fits in is being able to get the music from the computer to the stereo system over a network. Many people have no problem just connecting a computer's soundcard output directly to their stereo system. For them, I'd say there's little reason to own a Squeezebox.
I agree with Jim about the convenience factor, and add one more: being able to have full access to your CD collection (including custom playlists, random mixes, etc.) and internet radio anywhere that is within range of your home network. For me the SB became an obvious choice when I put audio systems in my rec room and kitchen -- who wants to schlep CDs all over the house/flat?

Skunk
2007-07-04, 21:01
The reality is that there's no specific grant of rights to make an MP3 (or FLAC or OGG, etc) copy, just as there was no specific grant to make a tape copy of an LP to play in your car.

I think the Betamax* case would protect the analog backup for personal time shifting, but I would have let it go if people didn't keep posting :-)

Another guess is that as long as we're not violating the DMCA by circumventing control mechanisms in our ripping, that there isn't a law expressly prohibiting it. So, would holding shift while inserting a disc to defeat auto-run, thus skipping the data track, be circumvention? Only if you know!

*http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

adamslim
2007-07-04, 22:40
I am simply pointing out that in the U.S. it is illegal to do and people who would NEVER walk into a store and steal a CD seem to have no problem doing exactly the same thing online. No moral/ethical judgment there, just the facts.

No, importantly incorrect. Stealing a CD denies the record store of a product that they could sell. Sharing music illegally denies the copyright holder their revenue stream only; if the recipient of the music was never going to buy it, no-one has actually lost anything. There is a big difference (including legally) between breach of copyright and theft.

Not a defence of sharing, just a pedant moment ;)

Adam

JimC
2007-07-04, 23:26
No, importantly incorrect. Stealing a CD denies the record store of a product that they could sell. Sharing music illegally denies the copyright holder their revenue stream only; if the recipient of the music was never going to buy it, no-one has actually lost anything. There is a big difference (including legally) between breach of copyright and theft.

Not a defence of sharing, just a pedant moment ;)

Adam

Okay, so the copyright holder gets compensated when you steal the CD, but the store loses money, so there is, I grant you, a pendantic difference there. But one that serves to illustrate my point quite well... most people would never consider stealing from a store, but they have no qualms about denying fair compensation to a rights holder. It boggles my mind.

The whole idea of "I wouldn't have bought it, therefore there is no crime" is completely bogus under law. Copyright law is pretty clear about it: you cannot benefit from a copyrighted work for which you haven't been granted some form of license. Listening to a downloaded file that you did not pay for (or wasn't offered free by the rights holder) -- whether you would have bought it or not -- means, legally speaking, that you have derived a benefit from a work to which you had no rights. That means you've violated the law.

Civil crimes are still crimes, just classed differently.

JimC
2007-07-04, 23:33
I think the Betamax* case would protect the analog backup for personal time shifting, but I would have let it go if people didn't keep posting :-)

Another guess is that as long as we're not violating the DMCA by circumventing control mechanisms in our ripping, that there isn't a law expressly prohibiting it. So, would holding shift while inserting a disc to defeat auto-run, thus skipping the data track, be circumvention? Only if you know!

*http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

The Betamax case ruled that it WASN'T a violation to have a personal copy for time-shifting. It didn't actually modify the law to GRANT a right to create a copy for that purpose. And betamax applied to time-shifting, not place-shifting, so making a copy of an LP to use it on a tape deck was marginal but it was never successfully prosecuted, AFAIK.

Ripping music is pretty analagous to the LP --> tape behavior, so it seems unlikely that would ever be prosecuted successfully either. My point was simply that there is no provision in copyright law granting you an EXPLICIT right to rip a music track.


-=> Jim

Harry G
2007-07-05, 04:07
Civil crimes are still crimes, just classed differently.

I beg to differ. I don't think you will find any reference to any such thing as civil crime. Wikipedia has an pretty good explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

Think of slander. Its actionable but not a crime.

Jim; your title is interesting. I assume you're specifically with the Slim unit? Years ago met one of the original Slim guys who had a similar sounding function. I think his name was Patrick. Introduced me to the product's existence and tolerated my no more than functional French. Is he still there or have the founders gone elsewhere?

JimC
2007-07-05, 08:31
I beg to differ. I don't think you will find any reference to any such thing as civil crime. Wikipedia has an pretty good explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

Think of slander. Its actionable but not a crime.

You're correct. I was sloppy in phrasing the statement. It's easier to think of something that lands you in court as a "crime" and I took a shortcut in what I was saying. Mea culpa.



Jim; your title is interesting. I assume you're specifically with the Slim unit? Years ago met one of the original Slim guys who had a similar sounding function. I think his name was Patrick. Introduced me to the product's existence and tolerated my no more than functional French. Is he still there or have the founders gone elsewhere?

Yes, I am with the Streaming Media Systems group (nee Slim Devices). Patrick left soon after the acquisition, but Sean and Dean are still here and are active in the development of the product line. Patrick and I worked together several years ago at Creative, so when he decided to leave Slim, he was kind enough to put in a good word for me with Sean and Dean.


-=> Jim

Timothy Stockman
2007-07-05, 10:28
It's not the RIAA, it's Congress, and no one cares about the CD. The CD merely represents the license you have to listen to the music you purchased on that medium. When you purchase music online, with or without DRM, the file represents the license granted to you by the copyright holder.
OK, it's Congress at the behest of the RIAA. The RIAA, for the most part, claims to represent the copyright holder's interests before Congress.

To be more explicit about the token that represents one's license to use the copyrighted work, the stamped CD, LP or pre-recorded tape is that token. In the case of DRM downloads, a virtual token is generated to represent the listener's playback device(s) and is stored in the DRM provider's database. The file itself is not the token, just as a burned copy of the CD or a home-recorded cassette is not the token, since they are easily duplicated by the listener. With non-DRM downloads there is no token; there is only the receipt the seller and buyer keep of the purchase. If you resell a non-DRM download, unlike with a used CD or a book, there is no token that can pass to the buyer (at least that I'm aware of) to indicate that he has assumed the license.

You're right that we have always been on the honor system to erase all copies when we sold the token. But, with non-DRM downloads we're REALLY on the honor system, because so far as I can see, there's no way for the copyright holders to even know who, other than the original purchaser, owns the token that represents the license.

JimC
2007-07-05, 12:06
...You're right that we have always been on the honor system to erase all copies when we sold the token. But, with non-DRM downloads we're REALLY on the honor system, because so far as I can see, there's no way for the copyright holders to even know who, other than the original purchaser, owns the token that represents the license.

Actually, the tracks sold on the Apple iTunes Music Store have the username and e-mail address of the purchaser embedded in them (this is for both DRM and non-DRM tracks). You can see part of the story here:

http://tinyurl.com/yty75n

The EFF speculates that additional copies of that information, or other unique identifiers, may also have been embedded in the file. I've yet to find confirmation that has been done, but it is technically feasible to do that.

Apparently, Apple is using the "trust, but verify" version of the honor system. Being a parent of three children, I'm rather familiar with that system.


-=> Jim

Timothy Stockman
2007-07-05, 12:15
Actually, the tracks sold on the Apple iTunes Music Store have at the username and e-mail address of the purchaser embedded in them (this is for both DRM and non-DRM tracks). You can see part of the story here:

http://tinyurl.com/yty75n

The EFF speculates that additional copies of that information, or other unique identifiers, may also have been embedded in the file. I've yet to find confirmation that has been done, but it is technically feasible to do that.

Apparently, Apple is using the "trust, but verify" version of the honor system. Being a parent of three children, I'm rather familiar with that system.


-=> Jim
Yes, I know that. Unfortunately only one of my 100 or so iTunes tracks is upgradable, so far. :(

However, as I was trying to point out, the embedded information is not a token that can be passed on as is a physical CD, or even as a virtual token when one deauthorizes/reauthorizes computers to the DRM provider. The embedded information can only identify the initial purchaser, not the current owner of the license. Maybe part of the downloading model is that, unlike with CDs, one is not ever allowed to resell his downloads; that once downloaded, they are his in perpetuity.