Slashdot Mirror
Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime
An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Orlando Sentinel reports on a poll done by the LA Times and Bloomberg. The informal study looked at teenager attitudes towards copying media. Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it. Attitudes about ill-gotten media were less clear, and the article admits than even the legal system is slightly fuzzy on this issue." From the article: "Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased. Those figures are a big problem for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of which have spent millions of dollars to deter copying of any kind. The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA."
In Germany the copy from a legally bought CD given to a close friend is legal. So the law was made according to the natural feeling of the public.
Although that copying has been limited recently by the addidion 'you may copy - but not if the media is protected by a _WORKING_ digital protection'. Well.. most CD anti-copy schemes today are easy to overcome and this very soft rule has not been tested in court yet. The musiv industry just plainly tries to keep their too high prices up by suing everyone around and lobbying for more limiting laws.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
It must be noted that NOT ALL CD OR DVD MEDIA SOLD IS COPYRIGHTED.
Many artists - and DVD video creators - encurage you to copy and spread their work/information.
Thus; just asking "is it legal to copy a CD" is misleading.
For example, the documenaties you can download from http://torrentchannel.com/ are completely legal to copy and share with your friends.
It is legal to copy a CD you made with a song you wrote yourself where you yourself are singing.
It is not legal to copy a CD where the copyright belongs to some member of the very evil MPAA.
Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Audio home recording act ... the one that requires cd recorders to include the Serial Copy Management System also allows copying for private use i.e. to play in the car, give to your friend etc.
This is completely legal here in Canada.
"My fellow Americans, these are not the droids the nation is looking for."
No, the fact that CDs are not encrypted does not mean that you are allowed to copy them without restriction. Fair Use allows you to make backup copies, or create copies for your car, or rip them to your computer, but you are not allowed to give a copy of the CD to someone else. That's unauthorized redistribution, and is not even close to a legitimate use. AFAIK lending the CD to a friend, provided that copies are not made, is fine. Although I suppose there might be an issue if you lend the CD while using a backup copy for yourself at the same time. I'm not sure.
You might be referring to time shifting devices, which were ruled legal decades ago.
The same Fair Use rights apply to DVDs. The difference is that the CSS encryption in commercial DVDs qualifies as an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. Tools that are capable of breaching such technological measures cannot be distributed. So while you have a right to rip a DVD that you own to your hard drive under linux, it's illegal for someone else to make available to you the program needed to do that.
This article (or rather, its summary, as I did not RTFA) does not mention teen opinions of legitimate copies, but only illegal copying for friends.
Please correct me if I said anything inaccurate.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material for personal use may be a civil violation, but it is NOT a crime, and never has been. If teens don't think copying CDs is a crime, good!
You notice that all these RIAA filing sharing suits are SUITS, not indictments? What does that tell you?
Copying is a crime if it's done commercially. I think it might also be a crime if the material is hosted on a computer for sharing, but prosecutions for that are very very rare.
The entire idea of criminal copyright infringement is a fairly new concept. Copyright violation is a civil matter unless it is done on a commercial scale.
Violations of civil laws are not crimes.
I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp by slashdotters, because clearly teens have figured it out.
Go read the problem with music and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
And the funny part is: making low number of copies for close friends or relatives or personal use, as well as copying a borrowed CD for your personal use IS LEGAL. In most of Europe.
Land of the free, indeed.
-m.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060809/od_afp/usatta ckspolloffbeat_060809145351;_ylt=ArnrtaXH3JkyylylP
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Yes, I remember tha AHRA. It's the one that says that consumer digital recording devices must implement a DRM scheme called SCMS in order for the AHRA exception on copying to apply, as well as pay royalties. It would be disasterous for computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players to fall under AHRA.
In any event, you can use AHRA in conjunction with computers. You need only use Audio CDRs (which are labeled differently than regular data CDRs and cost more) and only make copies of works that fall under AHRA. This is because the exception applies to copies made with AHRA-compliant devices or media.
-- 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 wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.
Actually, you would be wrong. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it is ----- infringement. To have theft, you need something tangible to steal. Copyrights, by definition, are intangible property. So, in effect, you aren't stealing anything, you are infringing on the copyright owner's right to say how their intangible personal property is to be used, but in the end, it is still their intangilbe personal property.
By definition, you cannot steal something that is intangible. You can steal the medium it is recorded on or the documentation of what the intangible item is, but, you cannot actual steal what you cannot physically posses.
The simple solution, if you want to legally copy a CD is to do so via analog through a wireless speaker connection. That way, you can use the broadcast exemption already allowed. Of course, I should add IANAL and your mileage may vary.
That is exactly his point, and you missed it. All the things this "character" does are not theft - you can't steal a seat in a movie theater, nor did he steal a spot on the train, nor did the subway or bus. Neither the movie company, nor the subway, nor the bus lost any material goods as a result of those actions. So they aren't theft.
The point is that by not paying for something just because it isn't a material good, doesn't make it any less of a crime, and doesn't mean that there isn't financial impact. People seem to think that if it isn't a physical stolen piece of property that nobody is hurt, but it isn't true.
Thanks to the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act), making a copy of a friend's CD is indeed legal!
The reason that "Music" CD-R is more expensive than "Data" CD-R? License fees paid to the RIAA to cover the copies made in this way. The artists are supposed to get compensated from those fees, but like so much where the RIAA is involved, the artists are being left out in the cold.
Let's insist that the facts be reported rather than the RIAA and MPAA's propaganda, shall we?
Who, me?