piracy, again

[james0tucson]

I dont consider home taping of the radio theft. It probably is, but i really don't see anything wrong with it.

It certainly is not. Certain parties may want you to believe it, but taping a song off the radio is not theft, nor does it become copyright infringement until you distribute or broadcast the recording you made.
Even if you cross this line, it's still never *theft*, but it is a civil infraction of the distribution rights reserved by the copyright holder.

Don't be so willing to surrender your OWN rights just because others wish to reserve theirs.

[John Vulich]

I only had time to read about half this thread, so forgive me if this is repetitive...

I have seen a number of posts so far which started from the position of "of course it isn't legal to copy a CD for a friend." I am not so sure.

There may be changes to the USA copyright laws which I am not aware of, but historically speaking, it has always been legal to make a copy of an album (or at least individual songs, or a mix tape) for a friend. This falls under the fair use provision. As I recall, even the judge who reviewed the Napster case agreed with this point. She felt, however, that sharing your music collection with ten million of your closest friends did not qualify as fair use.

That said, a shift in the balance of power has been taking place for a few years now, with the copyright holders hold increasing power, and the consumers of copyrighted material falling subject to increasing restrictions on how they can use that material. Copying a song may qualify as fair use, but circumventing copy protection in order to make that copy is now illegal, thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

I don't claim to be any sort of authority on copyright law. I'm just pointing out that the issue is not as cut-and-dry as "of course its illegal!"

I'm not sure that you are correct in your statements regarding this issue. I was always under the impression that "fair use", in regards to copying music, pertained only to making copies for your own usage not for sharing with others even if it's a small group of individuals. I believe that there are other provisions that make allowances for other usages such as parody, reviews and for use as a teaching aid. If you have any information to the contrary I would be quite interesting in reviewing it.

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.

It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.

[Hink]

of course you're right james, some of these folk just don't remember or ever knew...ffs they use to say "start recording now" on the radio...in the early 80's my best friend had over three hundred tapes from king biscutt and many others...in fact he had what is now Tribute by Ozzy three years before it came out. He had many zeps live and a ton of the dead. In the 70's even A-smith named their first live album bootleg. I always just assumed because so many felt live albums (like frampton) were fixed and half fake...the fact that they were didn't help. Meanwhile people bought up "bootleg" live albums often taken right from the mix (yeah like someone was able to sneak a deck in the signal chain )...there were dozens of stones albums alone.

BTW my friend used Maxcell udlxII's and a Nakamichi tape deck back then...I haven't seen him in years, but I hoped he saved that collection...

[james0tucson]

I'm not sure that you are correct in your statements regarding this issue. I was always under the impression that "fair use", in regards to copying music, pertained only to making copies for your own usage not for sharing with others even if it's a small group of individuals.

You cross the line from "use" into "distribution" in that case, and you have no right to distribute copyrighted material if the right has not been expressly granted.

One thing that bothers me is the assumption that anything copyrighted is also forbidden to distribute. That may be true for most of the commercial material out there, but it is certainly false that one must forfeit his copyright in order to allow his work to be freely distributed. An artist can retain copyright and allow distribution. So whenver I see a blanket statement to the effect that "anything copyrighted may not be duplicated or even used without the consent of the author, or compensation", I cringe.

See, a pervasive misunderstanding on this serves to deprive the author who is writing for the sake of writing, of the ability to distribute his works. Commercial enterprises benefit at the expense of the general public and the common individual.

All this said, the thread started with a poster who refused to copy some material in order to distribute it. He was right. It crossed the line from making a copy for his own use, into making a copy for distribution. You can swing your fist (make copies of anything you'd like, use it in any way you see fit), but you can't swing your fist in the direction of someone else's nose (distribute or broadcast someone's copyrighted material without permission).

[Hink]

I only had time to read about half this thread, so forgive me if this is repetitive...

I have seen a number of posts so far which started from the position of "of course it isn't legal to copy a CD for a friend." I am not so sure.

There may be changes to the USA copyright laws which I am not aware of, but historically speaking, it has always been legal to make a copy of an album (or at least individual songs, or a mix tape) for a friend. This falls under the fair use provision. As I recall, even the judge who reviewed the Napster case agreed with this point. She felt, however, that sharing your music collection with ten million of your closest friends did not qualify as fair use.

That said, a shift in the balance of power has been taking place for a few years now, with the copyright holders hold increasing power, and the consumers of copyrighted material falling subject to increasing restrictions on how they can use that material. Copying a song may qualify as fair use, but circumventing copy protection in order to make that copy is now illegal, thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

I don't claim to be any sort of authority on copyright law. I'm just pointing out that the issue is not as cut-and-dry as "of course its illegal!"

I'm not sure that you are correct in your statements regarding this issue. I was always under the impression that "fair use", in regards to copying music, pertained only to making copies for your own usage not for sharing with others even if it's a small group of individuals. I believe that there are other provisions that make allowances for other usages such as parody, reviews and for use as a teaching aid. If you have any information to the contrary I would be quite interesting in reviewing it.

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.

It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.

John technically you may be right, but I'm not sure you are....however either way the thought of the record industry trying to control copying and passing them on hand to hand to your friends would be absurd and impossible. The word they use is dissemination, and I do think that is preceeded by "any public"...again if I come to your house and you give me a copied cd, that would be not be "public dissemenation" and even if it was how would they enforce it?...you can't get search warrants for civil litigation...so I think the industries motive there is quite transparent..

[dover666]

har, avast ye matey's this dire thread be not about piracy at all! May ye all drown in a flood of yer own opinion.....

[John Vulich]

John technically you may be right, but I'm not sure you are....however either way the thought of the record industry trying to control copying and passing them on hand to hand to your friends would be absurd and impossible. The word they use is dissemination, and I do think that is preceeded by "any public"...again if I come to your house and you give me a copied cd, that would be not be "public dissemenation" and even if it was how would they enforce it?...you can't get search warrants for civil litigation...so I think the industries motive there is quite transparent..

Well then, if I'm wrong then I suppose that the EFF, that I quoted in my post, may also be incorrect about the issue. Either way I never said anything about the practicality of such laws. I was just trying to state what I believe to be the facts purely for the sake of accuracy.

If you read some of my other posts, earlier in this thread, you'll see that I think a lot of the music industry's stance on these issues is very questionable... at best. I agree that a lot of these laws would be impossible to enforce. Regardless, these laws do exist, enforceable or not.

[Hink]

John technically you may be right, but I'm not sure you are....however either way the thought of the record industry trying to control copying and passing them on hand to hand to your friends would be absurd and impossible. The word they use is dissemination, and I do think that is preceeded by "any public"...again if I come to your house and you give me a copied cd, that would be not be "public dissemenation" and even if it was how would they enforce it?...you can't get search warrants for civil litigation...so I think the industries motive there is quite transparent..

Well then, if I'm wrong then I suppose that the EFF, that I quoted in my post, may also be incorrect about the issue. Either way I never said anything about the practicality of such laws. I was just trying to state what I believe to be the facts purely for the sake of accuracy.

If you read some of my other posts, earlier in this thread, you'll se that I think a lot of the music industry's stance on these issues is questionable... at best. I agree that a lot of these laws would be impossible to enforce. Regardless, these laws do exist, enforcable or not.

I totally agree with you about the industry...they're like a blade of grass, there bend too which ever way the wind is blowing...my only point is, the copying of music ha been encouraged, known about and exploited by the industry forever. If it wasn't for other agendas it would never be brought up by them now and it's merely deception. Somewhat like when the wife is losing an argument and she suddenly pops up with.."well I saw you looking at that girls ass in 1985"...

[iwantfreemp3sbadly]

it may have already been said (i'm too lazy to read the whole post all 7 pages of it), but copying a CD to one's computer is not piracy.

in the original case here, where the fellow's co-worker was asking to burn the CD, giving him the CD is not piracy as that copy of the copyrighted material has already been paid. Unless you, person who originally bought the CD whose name I don't know, signed "accept" to a license agreement before you burned the CD, then allowing someone else to copy it is not illegal.

The whole problem with the RIAA and online piracy is that MASSIVE amounts of people get music without paying or having the possibility to pay the recording industry. If you have bought a CD and will let someone else burn it, then the recording industry has no problem, as it will give Norah Jones more publicity with that one person, increase their likelihood of buying more Norah Jones songs, and publicize with other poeple about the CD.

Hope this helped


--
http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=680480&t=669

[Hink]

this thread does prove the record companies to be valid on one point...so many different views exist they can exploit and manipulate the system...they will always find one point to make, even if it is lame...

[munchkin]

I don't know how many of you have brought a CD into work and played it in the office, work-yard, van, lorry etc. I assume this would be illegal broadcasting if anyone else is within earshot. Yet, only the most anal among us would chastise anyone form playing their latest CD at work. Likewise, any teenager blasting out the latest trend in music in the family home is broadcasting copyrighted music to other people who haven't paid for it.

If I lend my sister a CD that is distribution. Even though I have received no payment nor has she given me any money. She may well go out and buy the album after she's had a listen but in the eyes of the law I am still a criminal rather than an advertiser and promoter of the music.

The law is an ass because it picks and chooses what the terms 'broadcast', 'copyright', 'fair use' and 'distribution' mean to suit its own ends. It's a game and those with the power manipulate the rules.

I'm certain that many people who use P2P and other forms of sharing are sticking two fingers up at the double standards of the record industry. Many of these people see themselves as participating in a rebellion against music industry exploitation and with so many people doing it, it does appear to have the trappings of rebellion rather than organised crime.

There have been lots of rebellions against laws passed by monarchs and governments through history. While the law stands the rebels are accused of being criminals but future generations view the rebels differently. What I'm saying is that to analyse (and hopefully understand) what's happening with copyright law and infingement at the moment it's important to look at how and why laws have been challenged in the past and the impact this has had on the future of society.

Googles shares have quadrupled in price, huge entertainment blocs control media and our access to it. Is it any wonder that many people resent this and want to challenge the stranglehold on creativity that these huge corporations are inflicting upon our world?

Everytime these conglomerates receive a penny they use it to pull the noose tighter and increase their control. I think many people realise this and don't want to fund these monopolies. P2P is a complex phenomenon. It isn't all about sneakily downloading music without paying (although I'm sure a lot of it is.) Reducing people who use P2P to the status of criminals is mouthing the mechanical approach that the monopolies use to promote their campaign of world domination. As intelligent and creative people let's try to think outside the box on this occassion.

[eduardo_b]

That said, a shift in the balance of power has been taking place for a few years now, with the copyright holders hold increasing power, and the consumers of copyrighted material falling subject to increasing restrictions on how they can use that material. Copying a song may qualify as fair use, but circumventing copy protection in order to make that copy is now illegal, thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

And this brings up the issue of inertia, in this case the fact that fair use is becoming increasingly restricted by both the DMCA and copy protection technology (with Sony/BMG the worst example). What's lost is more difficult to retrieve.

In the long run, people will take matters into their own hands regardless of what the law says. The law may say something's illegal, while the majority say they don't care. Those who copy for themselves or those close to them will remain beyond the reach of copyright holders -- they might wish to find or prosecute those who copy, but how much do they want to piss off their customers and live with what Sony/BMG has brought on itself -- they proved that all publicity isn't always good.

How this fits in with the larger issue of piracy is difficult to determine. Does copying a CD for a friend really represent approval of pirating or simply recognition that a small number of wealthy and thus influencial companies have gotten their way with congress without regard to fair use? I go with the latter, and thus continue to copy CDs and DVDs as I see fair and reasonable.

[DWb]

Speaking of evil behaviour of record companies, look:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/25/data_retention/
'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety will end up getting f**ked forwards, backwards and sideways by corporate interest groups.'

[Jason Brian Merrill]

I don't know how many of you have brought a CD into work and played it in the office, work-yard, van, lorry etc. I assume this would be illegal broadcasting if anyone else is within earshot. Yet, only the most anal among us would chastise anyone form playing their latest CD at work. Likewise, any teenager blasting out the latest trend in music in the family home is broadcasting copyrighted music to other people who haven't paid for it.

If I lend my sister a CD that is distribution. Even though I have received no payment nor has she given me any money. She may well go out and buy the album after she's had a listen but in the eyes of the law I am still a criminal rather than an advertiser and promoter of the music.

The law is an ass because it picks and chooses what the terms 'broadcast', 'copyright', 'fair use' and 'distribution' mean to suit its own ends. It's a game and those with the power manipulate the rules.

I'm certain that many people who use P2P and other forms of sharing are sticking two fingers up at the double standards of the record industry. Many of these people see themselves as participating in a rebellion against music industry exploitation and with so many people doing it, it does appear to have the trappings of rebellion rather than organised crime.

There have been lots of rebellions against laws passed by monarchs and governments through history. While the law stands the rebels are accused of being criminals but future generations view the rebels differently. What I'm saying is that to analyse (and hopefully understand) what's happening with copyright law and infingement at the moment it's important to look at how and why laws have been challenged in the past and the impact this has had on the future of society.

Googles shares have quadrupled in price, huge entertainment blocs control media and our access to it. Is it any wonder that many people resent this and want to challenge the stranglehold on creativity that these huge corporations are inflicting upon our world?

Everytime these conglomerates receive a penny they use it to pull the noose tighter and increase their control. I think many people realise this and don't want to fund these monopolies. P2P is a complex phenomenon. It isn't all about sneakily downloading music without paying (although I'm sure a lot of it is.) Reducing people who use P2P to the status of criminals is mouthing the mechanical approach that the monopolies use to promote their campaign of world domination. As intelligent and creative people let's try to think outside the box on this occassion.

smartest thing i have heard about this subject.

[seamoss]

boy, if one of my friends actually asked me to burn a cd for him.....well....that would be the end of the friendship right there.


Nobody, I mean nobody, should take that from anyone!


What's next? Are they going to want you to help murder someone for them?


Geez.


There are limits.....ya know.