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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.