Slashdot Mirror
What Do You Get When You Buy a CD?
Wiseleo asks: "What is the full value and meaning of the entire transaction when someone exchanges money or its electronic equivalent for a new sealed CD?Notice that I am being extra careful to say that someone actually acquires anything of value in the deal. I am not claiming that anything is bought in the traditional sense either. I am in fact not claiming that any value whatsoever is procured through the transaction. Can someone actually answer this question? I would really love the RIAA to do so, and in fact, I intend to contact them for this purpose. This question is surprisingly complex. I first attempted to get it answered some 10 years ago by several music stores and they could not answer it. I guess I should have talked to attorneys, but I was a teenager clueless of such an avenue. I tried again late 90s and again I couldn't get the question answered. In other words, any 'commercial' CD that is produced by a RIAA-affiliated CD manufacturer clearly states that it is not to be loaned. If I 'buy' a CD, what am I actually paying for?"
Wiseleo adds:
- Am I paying for the CD media itself?
- Am I paying for the right to play that particular CD media?
- Am I paying for right to listen to that particular recording without relying on mass media outlets that already paid RIAA copyright holders through ASCAP?
- What happens if I own the same recording in multiple digital formats?
- What happens if a particular copyrighted material is on several of my media and comes from same master source?
- What if my media is damaged, should I not be able to request replacement?
- If I already own let's say Metallica S&M DVD set, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's S&M CD set, since both media are mixed from the same source [and possibly covered by the same license]?
- What are the quality tolerances and who sets them? At which point is the original recording no longer subject to copy limitations? What happens if my used media is scratched?
- I am inclined to believe that the acquiring party simply acquires a license for a particular recording. It is currently implied, at least in my understanding, that the license is perpetual and as such a license holder is entitled to the ability to use the licensed object perpetually, regardless of the media it was originally supplied on or the media player of choice at the moment. If my understanding is correct, and the content is licensed to the consumer, then where is the full license agreement?
- By the [above] argument, should we not consider it to be a shrink-wrap and thus largely unenforceable EULA?
- Is it not true that shrink-wrapped software is not returnable to the retailer but it is returnable to the manufacturer upon termination of license? Should not music be under the same category?
OK, for the 5000th time.
We don't know.
We aren't lawyers.
Go hire one.
In 2-3 years he might be able to answer your question.
Is the RIAA's lawyers' brand new BMWs. Silly question.
I suspect if the publishers get to have their ways, for every CD we purchase will come attached with a draconian EULA not unlike those of computer software EULA today.
"By opening this CD, you agreed... (insert your least favorite draconian EULA here.)"
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
(1) the physical CD media
(2) a license to the copy of the recording that is reproduced on the CD.
If your copy of the cd is destroyed, you're fucked. Youre license doesn't give you a generic license to a copy of the work that was reproduced on the CD -- it gives you a license to a *SPECIFIC* copy. You might have fair use rights in addition to the license rights, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
I believe the real question asked is what is the license agreement that is acknowledged when breaking the seal on a CD/Album/etc.
/., let's think of this in terms of a program. What are you as a consumer agreeing to when you click 'I Agree' to a software installation? Obviously this varies between each program.
Since this is
The question to be asked with the publisher of the CD is what agreement is made by the purchase and use of their product?
AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
1. You own the materials that take home with you. If someone steals it out of your car, it is theft. You own the physical medium. Sort of like the difference between hardware and software. .
2. You own the right to listen to and enjoy the product on the cd. It is yours to use as you see fit as long as you do not violate #3.
3. You do not own the right to edit, copy or otherwise distribute the product. The product is a copyrighted material. If you edit the song to use at a dance party you MUST get permission from the holder of the copyright.
4. You might argue that you expected more in the transaction, but in reality you are buying the medium and then buying the rights to use the product. You are not buying the product.
5. Fair use? Fair use regards using PART of the product in a way that is non-commercial. It is defined differently depending on who is using it as well. There is quite a bit more leeway for a teacher in an educational setting.
I need a prozac.
We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated.
Personally, I hate ClearChannel more than the RIAA, but maybe that's just because the RIAA hasn't sued me. Yet.
QUESTION: What Do I Get When I Buy a CD?
ANSWER: Crappy junk for whose promotion I had to pay.
But... wait, I don't Buy CD's. I listen to the radio and tunes on my alarm clock in the morning and my neighbor's kids when they scream.
-- Sig
Stressed out? Here's why !!
I've read interviews where Oppenheim has been asked this directly, and he unabashedly side-steps the question everytime (I should say 'questions', as he does this constantly, much like Dubya in his recent press conference). Good luck getting an answer out of them.
-Nick
It does NOT allow you to receive or distribute alternate formatted music, even to other people who own the CD (or tape or whatever), as the purpose of copyright law is to give control over distribution to the copyright holder (IANAL, but IMO, it's NOT fair use). That is, if you want a mp3, you need to create it yourself from your own source. Your right to use the content for your own purposes only extends so far as the original is intact in some form (ie, if you crack your cd, you still have a right to the content. If you throw it out or burn the CD beyond recognition, you don't... same as with a book.)
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
The closest thing that I can find to a licencse agreement on the actuall product is "all rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." That really says nothing. If all I am buying is a license for the right to listen to a cd then I want that in writing with the cd. There are EULAs with software, why not music? I want to know my rights and have the ability to return the cd if I do not agree with them.
You don't get anything. You actually pay for RIAA to Rock Around the Clock:
RIAA Rocks Around the Clock
I was always under the assumption that you were paying for someone's work of art. Being a musician makes it a lot harder to produce free "open-source" material. The majority of profits made from you purchasing a CD SHOULD go to those musicians. Although a few artists, Don Henley and Dixie Chicks come to mind in particular, tried to bring artists together to combat the RIAA, somehow everyone got sidetracked into this filesharing witchhunt controversy. The RIAA is doing an excellent job of tricking us into thinking that's their concern these days.
I'd say you're buying the right to have your cd player decode and play (perform) the contents of the particular disc which you have purchased.
You're buying rights for your CD player!!
If the CD gets scratched - tough, buy another. If own the video(s) for a particular album on DVD, you still have to buy a CD if you just want the music.
You may not copy, rip or burn from your own CD. You may not lend your CD. You may not borrow anyone elses CD.
Unless nobody is looking of course...
If you are paying one of the RIAA's members, then you are assumedly also funding lawsuits.
All Your CD Are Belong to RIAA
Most of your questions above, if asked individually, you would get a negative response, or whatever response limits you the most. Ask them in conjunction, and I imagine you won't ever get a straight answer.
Th
Oh, please.
Am I paying for the CD media itself? Yes.
Am I paying for the right to play that particular CD media? Yes, as long as you do not publicly perform or broadcast the copyrighted performance it contains.
Am I paying for right to listen to that particular recording without relying on mass media outlets that already paid RIAA copyright holders through ASCAP? Huh?
What happens if I own the same recording in multiple digital formats? The heavens fall. Just kidding.
What happens if a particular copyrighted material is on several of my media and comes from same master source? Hope you only paid once.
What if my media is damaged, should I not be able to request replacement? You can always ask for a replacement. However, you are unlikely to get one.
If I already own let's say Metallica S&M DVD set, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's S&M CD set, since both media are mixed from the same source [and possibly covered by the same license]? Whether or not you already own a copy of the work is irrelevant to whether you may legally borrow your friend's. However, expect most judges to rule against you because of your shitty taste in music.
What are the quality tolerances and who sets them? Believe it or not, one function of the RIAA is to set these types of technical standards.
At which point is the original recording no longer subject to copy limitations? Depends on when it was copyrighted. Normally, the life of the author plus 50 years.
What happens if my used media is scratched? The record will skip, annoying the other people in your car.
I am inclined to believe that the acquiring party simply acquires a license for a particular recording. It is currently implied, at least in my understanding, that the license is perpetual and as such a license holder is entitled to the ability to use the licensed object perpetually, regardless of the media it was originally supplied on or the media player of choice at the moment. If my understanding is correct, and the content is licensed to the consumer, then where is the full license agreement? RTF copyright law.
By the [above] argument, should we not consider it to be a shrink-wrap and thus largely unenforceable EULA? No.
Is it not true that shrink-wrapped software is not returnable to the retailer but it is returnable to the manufacturer upon termination of license? Depends on the terms of the shrink wrap license and whether your state's law and/or courts uphold them.
Should not music be under the same category? Everything, including food, shelter, health care, and music, should be free, but society has yet to find a way to achieve this.
What exactly do the RIAA's customers actually pay for? Retail purchasers of music CDs get 1) The media. 2) A license to use the copyrighted work in accordance with copyright law. The RIAA's actual customers are the record companies who finance it, they pay for lobbying Congress and for 10,000 lawsuits.
Until this question is answered, how can we possibly hope to communicate with the organization unless we know our exact terms and conditions that accompany the entire term of the transaction? Look up the copyright law FAQ.
Why does Slashdot print inane questions like mine? No one knows.
IAAL.
In America, per court ruling:
Simply put, you get the ability to use the information on the media to your own content. Anything that would provide that information to anyone else without removing your ability to use the information is considered illegal with one exception:
You may allow others to see, listen, or otherwise experience the information as long as they do not duplicate it, or are charged for it, and they are of "reasonable" numbers.
In essence, the original media is the license, and the license is simply the built up rights and limitations as based on precident.
Yes. But it is not erasable, so there isn't anything you can do with it accept play it or use for decorating purposes.
Am I paying for the right to play that particular CD media?
The copyright statutes limit you ability to perform the contents of the CD to a non-public venue.
Am I paying for right to listen to that particular recording without relying on mass media outlets that already paid RIAA copyright holders through ASCAP?
Have no idea what this question means. Yes, you have a right to listen to CDs that you buy. It has nothing to to with radio.
What happens if I own the same recording in multiple digital formats?
Same thing that happens if you own two copies of a particular book--nothing. You just own two different copies of the same thing.
What happens if a particular copyrighted material is on several of my media and comes from same master source?
So what. You own the CD and the right to privately play the contents. Whether you own more than one copy is irrelevant.
What if my media is damaged, should I not be able to request replacement?
No. It's not a license. You own the disc and have a right to play it. You have no right to a free replacement.
If I already own let's say Metallica S&M DVD set, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's S&M CD set, since both media are mixed from the same source [and possibly covered by the same license]?
No license is involved. Of course you can borrow a friend's copy of the CD, there is nothing that prevents the borrowing of CDs or DVDs. You won't get caught anyway.
What are the quality tolerances and who sets them?
Don't know.
At which point is the original recording no longer subject to copy limitations?
When the copyright to the works expire (generally 95 years after first publication). You'll be dead before any appreciable quantities of CDs are in the public domain.
What happens if my used media is scratched?
The scratches may effect the ability of the laser to read the data on the CD. Error correction takes care of some of that.
I am inclined to believe that the acquiring party simply acquires a license for a particular recording. It is currently implied, at least in my understanding, that the license is perpetual and as such a license holder is entitled to the ability to use the licensed object perpetually, regardless of the media it was originally supplied on or the media player of choice at the moment. If my understanding is correct, and the content is licensed to the consumer, then where is the full license agreement?
Wrong. There is no license.
# By the [above] argument, should we not consider it to be a shrink-wrap and thus largely unenforceable EULA? # Is it not true that shrink-wrapped software is not returnable to the retailer but it is returnable to the manufacturer upon termination of license? Should not music be under the same category?
See above. No license.
Yes. You are paying for the physical cd, in addition to the artist's value to the item. Same is true with software, the downloadable version is usually cheaper, by $10 or more dollars because you don't get the pretty box.
Yes, you play that CD for personal use.
You're not paying for the right necesarily, because if you borrowed a CD from a friend, you didn't exchange money with your friend to listen to it. I might be missing the point of this question though.
The same, I guess, would apply if I had a tape/cd version of an album, or a Mac and PC version of a software. My license is specific for that platform. In the case of the tape/cd, it should be identical.
If you are referring more to backing up the content, that should be perfectly legal. You have the right to backup your stuff in case of loss or damage.
If it is damaged when you purchased it, such as unable to be player in a device, or cracked, or broken, then yes you should get a replacement for the damage product, so long as the damage was no fault of your own.
No because it's like Mac and PC software. I have a license for that platform, not the other. And even though it is derived from the same or similar source, that has no bearing on the final product. It's two distinct products.
When the copyright holder losses the copyright, then the copy limitation should be lifted. As for quality adn scratching, I'm not sure what you mean here, unless you're referring to making copies of lesser quality versions of the product. If that's the case, then that's still falls under the usual guidelines. If you redistribute without the copyright holder's permission, you in trouble.
There is none. Retailers are coming into this sitaution that developed over the past 10 yrs, with things such as VHS to DVD, and cassettes to CD. I would love to see that ability to convert, but then the retailer/manufacturer will then be forced ot eat the costs, because now the old media is out of date, and frankly, it's unfair to expect the manufacturer to deal with the cost. If you decided to buy that tape back then, that was your decision then. Because there's a newer format now, that probably didn't exist then, isn't anyone's fault. As such, you shouldn't expect a perpetual license to receive the content in a new medium. If you have the original item you purchased, then you can still use it.
The package can say what it likes, but I will
continue to load CDS freely as I see fit. I
paid for this disc, and I'll do with it as I please.
In fact, I pay money, I get a disc. I paid for a
disc.
Were I in some bizarre way held responsible for the
claims of the publisher to restrictive rights of
control over my use of that disc, I certainly would
not purchase it.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
.. the RIAA has utterly failed to educate people on what is actually happening when you buy a CD, it is completely unfair that they call people thieves. At least movies give you that stupid FBI warning.
"Derp de derp."
When you buy a CD in a normal transaction you own to the full extent such things are ownable by anyone, the CD and its contents.
Simple as that. There is no license at all. You just own that copy of the creative work. Note that ownership of a particular copy of a work is distinct from whether or not you hold a copyright. Selling you a copy doesn't mean you were sold a copyright.
What you're allowed to do with the CD is regulated by law, much as what you're allowed to do with your car is regulated by law. The law might say you can't make copies and sell them, just as the law might say you can't drive 200 miles an hour in a school zone.
Under certain circumstances, the regulations you're subject to might not be relevant. The most significant example is probably when a certain period of time -- the copyright term -- expires, and the law basically no longer regulates at all what you can do with the work.
Where people come up with this license bullshit is totally beyond me. There just isn't one.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You're flat-out wrong. There is no license. Check it out.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm amused at how some folks are talking about CD "EULA"s. You have to keep in mind, the RIAA and recording companies have been around a long time. They learned early on that you go to the GOVERNMENT to get what you need.
.. call Washington and lobby for new stricter laws.
.. call counsel and have them add another stricter paragraph to the EULA.
The software industry, on the other hand, has always been blissfully ignorant of the government. Up until recently, the tool of choice for software companies has been the ever-ridiculous EULA.
So compare the two strategies:
RIAA: We need more protection for our "product"
Software Industry: We need more protection for our "product"
That's why CDs come with "warnings" but software generally comes with EULAs. The software industry was young and just didn't work that way.
Of course now since the MS anti-trust case and other rumblings, I think the software industry has come of age. Example: UCITA is an attempt to codify "standard practices" into law.
But it's still interesting how much more efficient and finely-tuned the music industry is.. in fact we are starting to see the music industry trying to regulate the computer industry!
To answer the question specifically: you better ask your lawyer.
Based on these four criteria, and previous precendent, it seems clear that making a copy of a work (in whole) for personal archival purposes DOES fall under Fair Use. From the eff's Fair Use FAQ:
Therefore, as permitted under the eff's Fair Use interpretation, you ARE entitled to make a copy, and are NOT bound to the single purchased medium. I'm afraid I must side with their opinion in this matter, and not a random slashdot poster's opinion.
Think about the word. Copyright. They have it (they being the owner/distributer), you don't. Therefore they have the right to make copies of this work. They have sold you a copy of this work. You're allowed to do anything you want with it, so long as you don't copy it, because you don't have the copy right. (Unless that copying is covered under the very hazy "Fair Use"). That's it. If you lose/destroy/scratch the copy, that's your tough luck. (Which is why a backup copy is so often allowed under "Fair Use".)
Copyright law is so straightforward, that I don't understand why people don't get it. There is NO license involved whatsoever, you just aren't allowed to copy what is copyrighted. The GPL is a license that you can enter into with a party that has the copyright on a work that transfers some limited copy rights to you that are dependant on the license's conditions...
The problem with electronic distribution is that it's so ephemeral, making copies doesn't require intent, you might just accidentally copy the work if the CTRL key is pressed (on Windows) when you really just wanted to move it. Now, court cases have allowed backups, traditionally (e.g. the Sony case), and ripping/encoding can be seen as a form of backup, so no judge has had the temerity to try to outlaw this form of copying, but this is probably the greatest extent to which copyright law will be stretched...
And lest I forget, I Am Not A Lawyer
Ok, so everybody is making fun of this story with all its inane questions.
But think of this: DRM in software makes it possible for corporations to give an exact answer to every one of these inane questions.
Where we used to have "common sense", unregulated uses of the media - for example, loaning your CD to your buddy for the afternoon - software will very soon dictate EXACTLY when and where you have each and every one of these inane rights.
If we don't act to protect the unregulated use of the media, code will decide it for us.
I got these ideas from Lawrence Lessig .
What if someone bought the LP, then bought the tape, then bought the CD? They have now paid three times for the same music. Are we buying a license to listen to the music, or not? I've always thought that this situation was somewhat ridiculous and that one should only have to pay once, especially with the prices of CDs as high as they are.
- to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
- to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
- to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
- in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
- in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
Chaper 106a also gives further rights dealing with the right of attribution ("the paternity right") and the right of integrity... these specify that an author can generally claim ownership of works and disclaim ownership of distorted versions of the work, etc.Chapters 107 thru 122 then whittle away at these rights, defining certain exemptions and special circumstances. Most well known is Chapter 107 which outlines the Fair Use principle which allows a looser enforcement of the above rights in certain circumstances, for the overall wellbeing of society... i.e. exceptions for literary, satirical, educational, literary, critical, etc. purposes. This is the old "you can photocopy a few pages from the encyclopedia so you can read it at home" clause. See sections 2.8 and 2.9 of this FAQ for a very good explanation of Fair Use.
Most importantly, Fair Use also allows time shifting and media shifting for the purposes of personal, non-commerical archival use, at least according to the EFF.
Anyway, the point is that the way copyright law works is not that it says "you get these rights when you pay for a CD", rather it states "the owner of the copyright has the following exclusive rights (with a few exceptions.)"
So, for example it dictates that the copyright holder has the right of public performance which means that you are free to play the CD any way that you want, so long as you don't infringe on this "public performance" right (or any other right.)
Alternatively put, you can do anything you want, just so long as you don't infringe any of the above enumerated exclusive rights.
Can I download that off KaZaA? Eh? You mean music is available on a physical medium? Woah....
> What exactly do the RIAA's customers actually pay
> for?
A piece of plastic, which they own free and clear and can do with as they please as long as they make no permanent copies. If the piece of plastic is defective they can get it replaced or get a refund subject to local consumer laws. What else they own or possess is irrelevant. No licenses are involved.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There is at least one valid question here. Many are claiming that the ownership of a CD is not a license.
Many say that you buy a CD and you simply have the right to play that cd with a cd player. Others claim it is legal to copy it under fair-use to your computer as long as you don't play both copies at the same time. Furthermore, some believe that it is legal to make a copy for the car and one for home; as long as only one is used at a time and is for your personal use.
My questions are:
A) What if I bought a CD, ripped it to my computer, then destroyed the CD ?
B) What if I did A and then sold the digital media online and then destroyed my copy of the media?
C) What if myself and a friend both buy identical copies of a CD, but mine gets lost in a fire.. can I legally make a copy of my friend's CD?
For question A, I believe it should be certainly legal.
Question B would be legal with the possible exception that there MUST be two copies of the media to transfer it via the internet, thus it may violate copyright law, even if the second copy is deleted immediately afterward.
Question C may not be the most legal of things, but given sufficient evidence would any judge really convict one of this? If it is a license of any sort, this should be legal.
You know, I sometimes wonder the same thing when buying land. Do you own the land, and everything underneath and above? No. The federal government decides who gets to fly over you. The city government gets to decide what structures you can build on it. The BLM (I think...anyone else have a better clue?) decides who gets what's underneath the land. Hell, the government can even take away the property from me if they decide they have a better use for it. And the phone & cable companies can tromp onto my property any time they damn well please, usually destroying any foliage I have planted. Finally, the city and state governments decide that I get the privelege of *paying* for the property I "own" through yearly property taxes.
Do I own the land? No. But, then again, what is ownership? It's just a made-up concept created by society and lawyers. Why can't we decide to put more artificial limits on "ownership"? Nothing seems to be contradictory here to me, except that the concept of ownership is a complex one at best.
--Be human.
Go ahead and be sensitive but it is doubtful anyone here is in a position to give him what he wants (or you, which is a nicey nice world full of flowers and kitties).
I first attempted to get it answered some 10 years ago by several music stores and they could not answer it.
Yeah, me too brother. But it was 16 years ago. And they were cassettes. And it was because my transaction consisted of stuffing them in my jacket and hoping no one saw.
Hell of a lot of trouble for a Phil Collin's tape. I blame Phil. He steered me to evil.
Back to the point - did your conversation with store security go like mine?
Sir, could you open your jacket?
Huh? Oh, crap.
Come with me sir
Hey man, it's not like they're REALLY worth anything. I mean, what IS music?
Sir, are you drunk?
Huh? Oh, crap.
I guess I should have talked to attorneys, but I was a teenager clueless of such an avenue.
See, they typically offer you one when you get busted. They did me anyway. I think.
best web host ever
The poster has some pretty good questions... I just looked over my Collective Soul (self titled) CD and although copyright is stated, that would only force me to comply to the US Copyright act which was ammended in 1996 with the "Fair Use" act, which allows me to make multiple copies to other media for personal and family use, and I believe also allows me to share my music with friends and acquaintances.
Anyway, to the point, right now the copyright law is somewhat ambiguous and the license (implied, I assume, because inside Collective Soul (self-titled), there doesn't seem to be any license agreeement) doesn't define what I can and cannot do or of what the extent my ownership of the recorded music or media is. It does say "All Rights Reserved", but it can't take away any rights afforded me by the Fair Use act or any local or state laws.
So, I'd surmise that there's a considerable amount of ambiguity in today's world of music and law. What I predict is going to happen, is that the RIAA are going to venture away from the safe ground of this ambiguity in their quest to control and stagnate the current state of the art, to resist the digital medium and that's going to ultimately end up in front of 9 justices, who will be forced to interpret, apply, and define the law. They may toss out or strike some lines from both the Fair Use Act and the DMCA.
What will then happen, if I can see into the future a bit, is that the ambiguity may give way to broader rights for the consumer, under unenforceable terms of both acts. This will be widely disceminated and clarified and the consumer will now know of his/her broader rights, and copying music will become fully legitimized. EVERYONE will do it.
Another possibility, outside of the courts is that the RIAA will lobby congress to the point that the State will impose fixed royalties on all music to allow distribution. Of course, web broadcasters and consumer groups are concurrently lobbying the same congress. So, the best songs will have the same per copy (or per download) license fee as the most hideous crap, and music will become fully commodotized.
The point is that the RIAA and the music industry should give their lawyers pink slips and refocus on making good music once again. Maybe that will bring them out of this current slump, probably surprise their shareholders a bit.
Final word, what's so different between Napster and Radio? I turn on a radio, I can hear the latest (and older) tunes. I can call in and make a request, and almost hear a tune on demand. I can make a recording off of the radio, probably equivalent to 128kbps MP3. If radio ultimately generates record sales, why does the RIAA assume that MP3 and P2P doesn't? I've discovered more music that I've gone out and purchased lately from listening to downloaded MP3s than from radio...
Tjis long-winded question seems just one more juvenile attempt to argue that recording labels are blocking progress to some kind of pop music utopia in which muse-inspired musicians would play and sing for free, but, that said::
You're buying the same thing you buy when you purchase a book:
1. A copy of the organized information created by the works author, expressed in ordinary printed language in the book and in a digitzed code on the CD.
2. The material required to contain that organized information: paper for the book, plastic for the CD.
3. The legal right to access and use the organized information as specified by law and the terms of the sale.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Does that mean that if I rip a song from the CD I own and add some verbal comments at the end of song (about how good/bad the song is and why it is good/bad) and then distribute it on the net, it would be a fair use?
After reading the many posts concerning this question. I had to go through my music. Here is what I found. I own 132 cassette tapes. I own 79 LPs (does that age me?) I own 300+ 45s (got tired of counting) I own 67 CDs. Broken down, I only have about 100 albums. I have triplicate CD's, cassettes, & LPs of 23 albums. I have duplicate cassettes & LP's of 14. I have duplicate cassettes & CDs of 9 This represents 25+ years of purchases equal to about $4,000. I wonder how much of that was duplicate puchases & feel financially raped.
I have collected quite a collection of music on vinyl. In the past I quite enjoyed the entire process required to play records, but now I just want to hear the music at my convience. Obviously, vinyl doesn't play very well in the car or on a portable player that I can carry with me as I listen. I assume I own a copy of the music so I have full right to download the save recordings in mp3 format and burn them to CD. I could spend the time to record my own records and burn them myself, but why waste my time when someone has already spent the time encoding the music to mp3? So, if I were arrested for having mp3's that I downloaded on my computer, would I have a valid defense in stating that I already paid for the same recordings in another format (vinyl)?
Hmmm...maybe if we chopped all traded MP3's into 3rds. and THEN traded the files, we wouldnt be trading complete works in whole.....
To quote the Supreme Court decision in Harper and Row v. Nation Enterprises:Read sections 2.8 and 2.9 of this FAQ for a good Fair Use discussion.
No one said it was free. But since I already own a license to the content, I should be able to get a replacement MEDIA at a reasonable cost for the media plus shipping (say, $5), if I send in the original damaged copy. Isn't this the way the RIAA wants us to think it works?
+++ATH0
... because it makes THEM more money.
What if I scratch my copy and want a new one? I've already paid for my right to the content - why can't I send in the damaged media, pay a reasonable replacement charge plus shipping (say, $5) and get my new copy? Doesn't the RIAA want us to think about content this way?
+++ATH0
You get a CD.
What do you get when you buy a car? Are you buying the car itself? Are you paying for the right to drive a particular model? What happens if you own the same model car in two different colors? What if my car is damaged, can I get a replacement? If I already own a red honda, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's white honda? What if my honda is scratched? Am I merely buying a license to drive a particular vehicle?
Like a car, there are restrictions on what you are allowed to do with a CD which you own. Just like you need a license to drive a car, you need a license to copy (distribute, etc.) a CD.
Petition your lawmakers. Specifically, address that list of questions and explain that you want them answered so that you can understand the actual scope of the law, and thus avoid breaking it.
Publish that list. There are a lot of magazines on and off-line to whom that list might be cc'd, and be sure that you put the list of them on your letter to lawmakers.
And your ISP, since they have a stake in the filesharing debate.
Despite the criticism being offered, this is a very valid set of questions. I don't care about what music you want to listen to- it IS important that the music industry has never clarified this and is now citing illegal efforts without specifying what's still legal. This gives them the chance to scare people into the most restrictive set of possibilities without doing so in writing. If people are too scared to do anything when they buy a cd but listen to it on one device, ever, then the RIAA has won huge ground without ever having to specify. I would like to know the answers to these, and so i'd say please let us know if you succeed in getting a response. In the meantime, the more attention you call to that set of questions, the better the odds that media pressure will force the RIAA to answer. Remember that they're facing a congressional inquiry- and therefore this is the perfect time to get that to your lawmakers. HEll, i think you could reasonably email it to the subcommittee themselves even if your district isn't directly represented in it, because we will certainly be affected by the results.
Keep us posted? thanks.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
EULAs are meaningless, because a) You don't sign them or agree to them in any way at the time of purchase. b) Showing the EULA once you're already installing the software (and hence have already paid for it) is bait-and-switch, which is illegal in most countries. c) Once you've already bought the software, it's too late for the manufacturer to suddenly try to license it to you. You bought it, you paid for it, it's yours. That's why you get a bill-of-sale when you buy software, not a license agreement.
There are two kinds of people in the world. The content creator (CCs) (authors, for written works), and the content licensees (CLs).
CCs get to do whatever they want with their stuff-- it's theirs. Simple.
CLs have a few options as to what they can do with their licensed copyrighted works:
This is the root of all sane copyright law.
ASCAP? They're the guys who threatened to sue the Girl Scouts for "performing" copyrighted songs at summer camp.
I always assumed a "performance" is when you sing or play a song for an audience other than yourself, but evidently that is not the case...
Can you loan your friend a book? Yes.
Can you loan your friend a CD? Yes.
Can you make a copy of a book and give it to your friend? No.
Can you make a copy of a CD and give it to your friend? No.
Can you make a copy of a book and read it, leaving the original safely on the bookshelf? No idea, right now copying a book is a real pain in the ass.
Can you make a copy of a CD and play it, leaving the original safely in the CD rack? I've always thought yes... but I'll have to say that I really don't have any idea.
What's a fun puzzler is, let's say my wife and I buy a CD. We each make a copy of it to play in our cars. Is it illegal to (a) make the copies, (b) play either of them at the same time as any other copy or the original, (c) both, (d) neither.
(My wife is a lawyer and laughs at me for asking this question.)
MORTAR COMBAT!
Not likely if you reproduce the song in whole. If you used a 30 second exerpt, then it probably would.
Here is my cunning plan:
1) Take a music track ripped from a CD.
2) Split into 30 second chunks.
3) Add a review soundbite to each chunk. ("This sucks")
4) Freely distribute chunks of music with review attached.
5) End user can play all the parts in sequence, with the review chopped out by their computer.
6) Result: Sharing and playback of copyright works with no legal comeback! (Note, final step is not "profit" since there is not method of making money here.)
A latent existence
But you get off on capitals, right?
I believe you are paying for the disc, the box, and the papers. There is no license because there is no contract; like a book, when you buy a CD you buy the product under no special terms, and the only restrictions on your conduct are whatever copyright and trademark laws apply in your neck of the woods.
You are paying for the media, production, shipping, warehousing, a variety of salaries and processes, and a bit of money to the artist.
You are paying for license to possess the cover art.
You are paying for personal, non-commercial permission to listen to the music.
You may or may not be paying (likely are) for the authority to transfer said music to another medium for the same personal, non-commercial permission to listen to the music.
You most likely are permitted to transfer the music to several formats, provided they are all for your personal, private use and only one is in use at any time. This same stipulation can be found on many software titles.
Media damage is a failure to adequately maintain your investment. You should not expect any company to pay for your lack of care.
While you purchase to ability to listen to your music, and possibly transfer it to another medium, your license, and the license of any friends you may have, are generally considered to be personal, private, and non-commercial. This means that you cannot listen to your friend's CD - it's not a license for the music in general, it a license for that copy of the music.
Quality tolerances are fairly arbitrary, and the term "near CD-quality" is generally accepted. CD quality is uncompressed and covering a range beyond the limits of human hearing. "Near CD-quality" is said to be close enough that the average listener cannot tell the difference. For many people, 128kbps CBR MP3 is "near CD". Each different format has its own range of "near CD".
You do not receive full license to a piece of music. You receive license to a hear a particular reproduction of the music. Derivative copies of that particular recording are most likely covered.
As for license termination, but I think that the RIAA would make the case that you purchased a copy, not an intangible piece of music. The actual copy, being subject to damage, degradation, etc. would be non-refundable. Copies of music can be considered a "consumable" product, and therefore not subject to similar laws as software.
--
Just my thoughts.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The courts aren't THAT dumb you know.... Do you actually think you could really convince anyone that you were in fact trying to review or criticise a work by automatically adding some canned prerecorded utterance to the end? And convince them to ignore the fact that you just happen to also be using this same automated means to later remove that soundbyte and reconstruct the original song, for the purpose of avoiding having to pay for music?
If there was someone I particularly didn't like, and decided to push them into traffic of a busy street, do you REALLY think I could convince a jury that I was trying to help him because there was a bee about to sting him, even if there just happened to be a bee there (that I had put there right before shoving him)?
Good luck with that...
the parent shouldn't be marked troll, its hould be marked funny!!!!! He's not being an ass, he's being sarcastic!!! READ THE POST BEFORE MODDING IT!!!
JP
o
Q: What do you get when you buy a CD?
A: The nickname "Sucker," for spending your
money on something that has been overpriced
for DECADES.
I remember when suckers were abandoning LP's
in droves so that they could pay TWICE as
much for a CD. And guess what? Contrary to
what SHOULD happen in a fair market, CD
prices never dropped. Even today, blank
CD's cost just pennies...but have music-CD
prices dropped accordingly?
Profiteering bastards like Jack Valente
(MPAA) have repeatedly tried to screw the
consumer by twisting copyright law.
Remember how he tried to outlaw VCR's? How
about recordable blank "music" CD's...the
ones with the built-in Hollywood tax?
Until CD's cost ONE DOLLAR or less, it's
time to even the score.
I say: "Swap until you drop!"
Copyrights for DEAD AUTHORS...copyrights
that should have expired years ago...are
being renewed, in this Kiss-Hollywood's-Ass
climate. Crap like MacroVision fucks up
a consumer's ability to backup a tape or
DVD he's bought legitimately. Etc.
So, go ahead, Sucker. Buy your CD.
Valente's ilk craves rimmers like you.
Legally, a music CD and a printed book should be the same. Ask the same questions about a printed book, and that should help clear up some confusion.
A CD is easier to copy than a book for personal archival purposes, but the rights should be the same, regardless of ease.
Of course, if you apply this same idea to software, then theoretically EULAs are for naught, so it may be a simplistic view.
Imagine having the knowledge of how to read, but needing to buy a "reader's license" to read the book, over and beyond purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work. Or, needing to buy a "vision license" to look at the Ann Geddes baby soft-porn calendar crap you bought at Barnes and Noble. However, regardless of copyright law, you somehow need a "use license" to permit and control your use of software, even after you legally purchased a copy of the software from a software copyright holder or intermediary.
It seems to me that EULA's are only able to cede author rights selectively under the law, not stake claims over and above copyright law. The RIAA's admonition that you cannot loan one of their CDs flies in the face of the law, and probably would not stand up in court, IMNSHO.
to burn MP3s onto, why?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Copyright disclaimers in books actually say that you cannot duplicate the content and store it in any retrieval system. I presume the law allows for that addition to the original copyright law. However, it mentions nothing of broadcast. Do libraries have to pay more for the books they lend out? Am I allowed to read the book out aloud on radio?
If we can answer the questions on books, then perhaps we can answer the question for CD and video.
I'm confused.
Is there really a clause somewhere that prevents me from loaning my CD to a friend?
How is this any different from loaning my friend a book of some copyrighted work?
Finally, shouldn't libraries be able to loan CDs too?
"Provided by the management for your protection."