Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    Legality question... boo... hiss......

    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.

  2. #2
    Just another SB Fan
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by brjoon1021 View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member adamslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    1,229
    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
    Own music plus Qobuz, PC with Squeezelite-X, JRiver as digital XO, Asus Xonar u7, Restek Sextet, JBL L300
    LMS: 3xBoom, 1xRadio, SB3

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Olde London Town
    Posts
    1,111
    >but I feel guilty.<

    That feeling reduces after the first 100 rips

  5. #5
    Senior Member Skunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kurt Vonnegut's Neighborhood
    Posts
    2,367
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    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/r...talitz_AAP.pdf ;Section G, p. 39

  6. #6
    Senior Member aubuti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,832
    Quote Originally Posted by brjoon1021 View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member pfarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wayne, PA
    Posts
    4,251

    Legality question... boo... hiss......

    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/slimse...msoftware.html


  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by brjoon1021 View Post
    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.
    FREE RADICAL
    RADIO!
    Hours of free radical MP3s.

  10. #10
    Just another SB Fan
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Skunk View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •