Slashdot Mirror

4. If I just download sound recordings from an illicit music site or if I make sound files on my computer from my CDs, it's just a copy for personal use and not a violation.

Personal use copying was considered by Congress when it enacted the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). The AHRA was a legislative compromise to deal with certain, specifically defined, categories of digital audio copying. Attempting to balance the various competing interests, among other things, the AHRA provides that manufacturers of covered devices must (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement what is known as a serial copyright management system (or SCMS) which prevents all but first generation copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the devices, which might have otherwise found themselves subject to liability for contributory copyright infringement (among other things), received a statutory immunity from suit.

Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for noncommercial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.

The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they do not pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means that neither the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.

Check out the page on that site that says who the RIAA aren't. Now click on the link in the top paragraph.

I find the fact that the link 404s to be ironic...

If you wanna see a real gateway to misinformation, make sure you check out the Top 10 Myths page on Soundbyting, the RIAA's attempt to reNeducate colleges and students to be hipper to the idea that ripping CDs to MP3 for personal use is copyright infringement. Great stuff!

If you wanna see a real gateway to misinformation, make sure you check out the Top 10 Myths page on Soundbyting, the RIAA's attempt to reNeducate colleges and students to be hipper to the idea that ripping CDs to MP3 for personal use is copyright infringement. Great stuff!

4. If I just download sound recordings from an illicit music site or if I make sound files on my computer from my CDs, it's just a copy for personal use and not a violation.
Personal use copying was considered by Congress when it enacted the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). The AHRA was a legislative compromise to deal with certain, specifically defined, categories of digital audio copying. Attempting to balance the various competing interests, among other things, the AHRA provides that manufacturers of covered devices must (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement what is known as a serial copyright management system (or SCMS) which prevents all but first generation copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the devices, which might have otherwise found themselves subject to liability for contributory copyright infringement (among other things), received a statutory immunity from suit.

Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for noncommercial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.

The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they do not pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means that neither the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.

What I'm fearing is when the 4-letter acronyms start attacking the universities

They already have started, though not in earnest. Yet.

Maskirovka

So does 80% of the Napster users, if not more, by downloading Music files and keeping them longer than a day.

That is not true, you cannot download them, period.

Check out http://www.soundby tin g.com/html/top_10_myths/myths_index.html

#8 is the one you're looking for. Btw, the same goes for arcade ROMs too.

According to the RIAA, paragraph 1008 does not apply to sound recordings stored on a computer. "The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA."

As long as the copying is done for noncommercial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.

I have no legal basis for this, but it seems like this sort of hits right in the gray area of US copyright law - it's illegal for people to download music they don't own. It's illegal for people to upload music they own for people who don't own it to download. But is it illegal for people who own music to post it so other people who own it can download it again? If so, how far does that right extend. If I own the LP version of a track, can I download the live version? I haven't ever heard any discussion of a case like this before; even RIAAs own propaganda doesn't mention it. Any legal scholars want to take a whack at it?

--