Actually, this is more likely sales law, not contract law, and the UCC answers the question of whether post-purchase terms are enforcible with a definate 'maybe.' Seriously, there are cases going both ways.
Copyright term lengths are considerably more complicated than that, as different terms apply to works depending on 1) issues regarding the authors, 2) when the work was created, 3) when the work was published. You're mis-citing the rule as to works by a known author which are created on or after 1/1/1978. And the length is life + 70 years, not 75. A work published in 1918 would be in the public domain, however. It's actually mildly complicated -- I've been meaning to throw together a flowchart or something for determining the term length, whereupon it would then be fairly simple to calculate the time remaining.
The trick with God Bless America is that there are two different versions. The original 1918 version is in the public domain. The more popular 1938 version is not.
court could rule that the current copyright law clearly goes against the wishes of the copyright creator
The copyright creator is Congress. The creator of the WORK sold his rights -- he's out of the picture. I mean no one cares what Shakespeare thinks about staging his plays; why should we? If Guthrie was willing to sell his rights -- and no one could get 'em otherwise -- then that's the end of his involvement. If authors want to keep a hand in, that's their problem, and they shouldn't sell their rights if that's what they want.
I would also try to convince a jury that the song is in the public domain. After call can you find 12 people who can name the author of that song?
Well, it's not. I suppose a jury could nullify or something, but it's really not in the public domain, and popular belief alone don't make it so. Get that popular belief to change the laws, and then we'll be cooking with gas.
Its clear that even congress seems to think many songs are in the public domain after their singing God Bless America on the steps without paying royalties based on performance with a billion viewers of news programs world wide.
God Bless America IS in the public domain, IIRC, having been written in 1918.
Would a reasonable person assume that Happy Birthday is in the public domain?
Dunno. But they'd be wrong unless they got the laws changed. Which I'd likely support.
Nope. Al's songs are making fun of the original song -- the lyrics still scan similarly and there's really no other target.
This is the important distinction between parody and satire in the world of copyright: who's the target. You can make fun of Bush without needing to use someone's song. You cannot make fun of the song without using the song, however.
Of course Al can muddy the waters a bit since he gets permission anyway, so it's a non-issue for him.
There was a case revolving around a satire of the OJ Simpson case where someone used The Cat in the Hat. Since their target was Simpson and not The Cat in the Hat, they got their asses sued off. It's a decent read if you poke around for it; it's not all that old a case.
If you write a book, should anyone be allowed to use that text as they desire, selling their own copies of it for profit?
Yes. And that's already the law, as it happens. (aside from other issues -- if it's a libelous book no one's going to be able to legally publish it, including the author)
The issue is when -- and it's perfectly valid to say 'soon' or 'instantly' rather than 'later.' The criteria for which is best has to do with the ultimate benefit to the public. If the public is better off sooner than later, it should be sooner. What the author wants is totally irrelevant, save insofar as it might be a factor in determining what the public benefit would be under different proposals that we might choose the one best for the public.
Actually, 17 USC 1201(a) deals with access controls. 1201(b) deals with copyright protection, such as copy protection (access is not a right under copyright; reproduction is). 1202 deals with copyright management information.
So both of y'all need to read the entire law, and not just the bits that strike your fancy.
The problem of course is that moral rights are an astoundingly stupid idea and should be abolished immediately. Copyrights ARE solely utilitarian, and moral rights interfere greatly with that.
He means he was getting that information out of a casebook which is copyrighted, but the casebook itself quoted federal law, which is not copyrighted.
So long as he only copied the bit that the book was quoting, he'd be okay. If he copied the original material in the book that would be potentially infringing.
However, there is nothing wrong with their asking to get paid something.
There's nothing wrong with ASKING, sure.
But why are they asking? Because they're greedy. And that's not bad -- everyone likes to get stuff.
But flip it around? Why do people want art for free? Because they are equally as greedy -- everyone likes to get stuff, but no one wants to pay more than they must, with free being best.
So just saying that people should pay is silly; it's equally as valid to say that people shouldn't pay. Especially since audiences outnumber artists.
There needs to be a different basis for copyright, one where the audience becomes willing to pay because it serves their own greedy interests to do so. There is such a basis, in fact. But you don't seem to be thinking much about it, and you really ought to.
Consuming art without compensating the artist is an absurd idea -- unless, of course, that's what the artist wants for one reason or another. Do you disagree?
I disagree. It is a perfectly fine idea and in fact an ideal situation which pretty much necessarily happens. I mean, I enjoy the plays of Shakespeare. I have several copies of them. I enjoy reading them for fun. And I don't pay a penny to Shakespeare.
You're telling me that that's wrong?
You're saying we owe you all the free music you want. Did I misunderstand you? Can you restate your point in a less hypocritical way?
No, that's not hypocritical, at least not quite.
I agree that artists should not be compelled by other people to create works of art. If an artist wants to drive a bus instead of paint pictures, that's fine. No problem (though I would go so far as to say that we ought to encourage artists to create, all else being equal).
HOWEVER, once an artist has created something, and that work has become publicly available, then the only rights he has -- other than the possible ownership of TANGIBLE things like a specific book (as opposed to the intangible words in the book) -- are those that the public chooses to give him via the government.
We can validly say 'no copyrights for you' and that's how things are. That's perfectly okay. And then everyone copies the published work and the artist likely doesn't make any money. But if that's what the public wants, then that's the right thing to do.
Alternatively, the public might say 'it would serve OUR interests to give you a copyright, so here's one -- limited so as to best accomplish what we want' and that's equally as right.
in order to copy Steamboat Willie, you need only secure rights to mickey in the context of that film.
In order to copy Steamboat Willie when it is in the public domain, you just need to copy it. No one can stop you from copying it; it's in the public domain.
Other Rodent-based works are not derivative of Wille
Oh yes they are. While you cannot copyright a character, you CAN copyright the description of a character in a work. Steamboat Willy describes to us what the 1920's version of Mickey Mouse looks like -- he's about so big, dresses like so, has those big ears and beady eyes, and so forth. Any other work involving Mickey Mouse will necessarily be derivative of Steamboat Willy in some fashion, even though later Disney-created derivatives have themselves evolved the character.
There was a case on basically this point some years back when someone discovered that the original Amos 'n Andy source material had fallen into the public domain. Those were radio plays, IIRC. Later on a TV series had been made that was derivative of the radio show, and the TV material was all still copyrighted. The court there held that the copyright to the TV materials only covered themselves and what they had added; material from the radio plays was public domain and derivatives could be created based upon it so long as it was THAT material it was derived from.
Some of the descriptions had come through in the radio show, e.g. at the most basic level that the characters were black. Other aspects had only been added on TV, and those couldn't be used.
(Of course, I really have to wonder at the wisdom of an Amos 'n Andy revival, but whatever)
You can see much the same sort of thing with a lot of other Disney movies, as it happens:
When Disney makes a movie of Beauty and the Beast, the original of which is in the public domain, then it doesn't prevent other people from reproducing the original, or making their own derivatves based on the original. Nor can Disney get a trademark in Beauty and the Beast generally (even though you could get a trademark in something long after the fact) though they could get one in "Disney's Beauty and the Beast" (which in fact, they have). The advantage they do have is that no one can make a derivative based on their version, save to the extent that their version is itself based on the unprotected original; that is the stuff they add to the story is their own while the copyright lasts -- but not the stuff that was already there.
And thus we see a zillion cheap knock-offs of these fairy tales floating around direct to video hoping to get some of the money that might otherwise be spent on Disney's version and it's perfectly legal.
Once Steamboat Willy hits the public domain, two things will occur. First, people will be able to make copies of Willy himself, though comparatively few people will care. I like the old shorts, but I already have a copy. (And besides, Plane Crazy and The Galloping Gaucho are both way better)
The other thing is that there will be a revival in the old-style Mickey Mouse using the public domain elements then available, without being derivative of the later, still-copyrighted materials. The trademark on Mickey Mouse will have to become "Disney's Mickey Mouse" to remain live.
Well, that's because he's stupid. If you are going to do that you can easily avoid getting sued if you take advantage of the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. You basically just need to register a compliance officer with the Library of Congress (see their site for details) and comply with takedown notices.
And then you're golden. How did you think the big names like google avoid getting sued?
If I, or an heir, proceed to lend it to someone to listen to, is it still not mine?
The CD? Sure. The music within the CD? That's unownable. All you can do is control who has access to it. But if someone slips through, you're fucked as to that person. The person who let them slip through you might have a remedy against, but not the party with whom you have no actual agreement.
Basically you have -- never will or could have -- ownership over the contents. You do own the CD. But it takes a copyright to have the ability to deny other people the right to, say, reproduce it, regardless of how they got access to it.
That's not really accurate; trademarks are inferior rights to copyrights, and cannot serve as a poor man's copyright so to speak. Thus, when a copyright fails, the trademark ALSO fails to the extent necessary for people to make public domain use of the work.
Very few cases have dealt with this since it's a rare set of circumstances, but there was one that was something like Comedy III v. New Line Cinema. The public domain argument won.
The trick is to remember that trademarks are only granted where the public can rely on that mark to identify that marked goods or services stem from a single source. If copyright expires, then there are multiple possible sources for works that are DERIVATIVE of the public domain original, as well as copies of the original itself. Thus, the public can no longer rely on the trademark to identify the sole source of those works.
Other goods or services are different; Peter Pan is in the public domain, but that doesn't matter in the worlds of bus lines or peanut butter.
I don't think retroactive extension is inhenrently at odds with encouraging innovation.
You are wrong. The creation occured at time 1. The term length at time 1 was a. If you increase the term to a+b at time 2, it is impossible to spur on further creation back at time 1. This is because we do not yet know how to travel backwards in time.
While an increase in term lengths at time 2 might spur on further creation at time 2, there is no reason whatsoever for it to be retroactive.
That you don't realize that we cannot go backwards in time indicates that either you are some sort of martian or are dumb. Either way it's not a good start.
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights.
Wrong again. At its heart, copyright is about promoting the public interest. That's why the Statute of Anne, the first copyright law ever, was entitled something like 'A bill to promote public learning,' and why the Constitution only empowers Congress to enact copyright laws so as to 'promote the progress of science.'
It is an entirely utilitarian doctrine intended to benefit the public and it is in fact very difficult to allege that there are any property rights involved at all. There can be no property rights in a creative work, as a work is too dissimilar from property. Copyrights themselves are probably licenses, not property. Copies -- the tangible objects in which works are fixed -- are about the only thing that can be said to be property.
Patents are a strange form of property, because many patents cover ideas that may be arrived at without the patent holder ever existing. So that's why they're much more limited in timeframe.
Wrong once more. Patents aren't property of course, patents do NOT 'cover' ideas (they involved inventions, which are remarkably more finished than mere ideas, which are a dime a dozen), and the reason they're limited in time is because they're very expansive and it is felt that such expansive rights shouldn't last so long.
Also n.b. that anyone can create a creative work -- there's no law of the universe that says ONLY Dickens could've written his terrible, hackneyed novels. In fact if some guy in a cabin independently wrote the same novels without having based his work on Dickens' he gets a copyright in his work (though not one that precludes people from continuing to use Dickens' works as they like). That's not true for patents only because we only grant the first inventor rights -- but anyone can be the first inventor.
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind.
Wrong per above, and incidently all creative works are in some way based upon prior creative works. No artist lives in a vacuum. E.g. Star Wars is based on samurai and WWII movies. It's still good though, and there's nothing at all bad about the inherently derivative nature of everything. That's how the world works.
So, it might actually be reasonable to give infinite ownership to the creator.
Wrong again -- you're batting 0.000
We grant copyrights to satisfy the public interest. The public is equally interested in two things: 1) the creation of more original and derivative works, and 2) the unrestricted free enjoyment of those workse.
If we had an infinite copyright, it would spur some creation, but it would be impossible to ever maximize the creative output of humanity unless it was all that everyone did 24-7. And that seems unlikely to occur. Especially what with perpetual copyrights since it would be very difficult to create new works without infringing on preexisting works (since as noted all works are to some extent derivative) and since existing copyright holders would use their rights to bar newcomers from entering the market and taking profits away from them. It would also reduce the other interest to zero. So it w
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US?
Firstly, realize that that is not what's going on in the allofmp3 case -- since a copy is defined in the law as having to be a tangible object, and no tangible objects go from allofmp3 to their customers.
That said, the reason is because the law prohibits it. To import a pre-existing copy into the US is distribution according to 17 USC 602, and the US copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute per 17 USC 106. That's subject to some limitations found in 17 USC 602 and 109 and elsewhere, but that's generally the rule.
The 109 exception is known as first sale. But it ONLY applies to copies that were made lawfully pursuant to US law. If you make a copy in Russia, and that copy is made in a way that would be legal had it been made in the US, then 109 applies and it can be imported lawfully. OTOH, if that copy is made in a way that would be illegal if it happened in the US, REGARDLESS of its legality elsewhere, 109 does not apply to it! (in fact, if there were a work and I had the US copyright and you had the Russian copyright, and I made copies in Russia thereby infringing on your copyright, it would nevertheless only be my copies that could lawfully be imported into the US.
602 has a few exemptions that protect individuals from being sued by copyright holders, but nevertheless unless the copies sought to be imported were made in a manner that would have been lawful if it had happened in the US, they're still illegal and at the very least can be seized by US Customs if they notice. (n.b. when reading 602 that the exemptions in 602(a) ONLY apply to 602(a) and NOT to 602(b))
The ultimate reason for this is actually pretty simple: imagine that there is a country bordering the US on the north, called Moosylvania. If their copyright laws are very lax compared to ours, or even just plain don't exist, then they can make copies that would have been infringing here, and could -- if we didn't limit imports -- send those copies into the US and flood our markets and undercut our own copyright holders and the entire point of copyright to begin with. What they do there is their own business, but that doesn't mean that we have to let them have an affect on our own soil.
As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property.
That's wrong. Like I said, the law in 17 USC 101 defines a copy as being a specific tangible object. It is something you can literally hold in your hand. When you download, the downloaded data all by itself is not a tangible object, ergo not a copy. BUT the vessel into which YOU put it IS. Your hard drive is a copy. Your RAM is a copy. They are both within the US at the time the reproduction occurs, and you're the party that is ultimately responsible for having that reproduction occur; it's not as though the Russians are holding a gun to your head or remotely controlling your computer.
Read the MAI v. Peak case which basically stands for this proposition, and some of the cases following the MAI precedent, such as Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Intellectual Property Reserve. I won't say that I think they're very wise cases, but they are widely followed and you'd be foolish to ignore them.
Oh, you're laughing but The Sound of Music killed my uncle and his whole family during a burglary. Film violence isn't funny.
Re:Sorry. No way.
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
DRM isn't bad. If a vendor produces DRM products and you have a problem with that, don't buy them. It's just another option available to content producers and distributors. It has value, and it has its place.
DRM is bad. While we may have difficulty making it completely illegal, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to grant copyrights only to those artists that don't use DRM, and to revoke their copyrights if they ever do use it.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
That's precisely why DRM is bad. Music _IS_ different. We grant copyrights, but those copyrights are limited in scope; it is perfectly legal to engage in fair uses of music. It is perfectly legal to reproduce music within the scope of AHRA. It will be perfectly legal to reproduce music for any purpose we arbitrarily make legal tomorrow. And the Constitution requires that copyrights expire -- so when the term is up, anyone can do anything with the music and it is totally legal.
These sorts of limitations that benefit the public are a significant difference as to ordinary personal or real property. Copyright is expressly and deliberately designed to benefit the public -- not the artists, not the publishers. DRM interferes with that, because it is a lock that does not ONLY protect against illegal uses, while allowing ALL legal uses, and because it does not magically evaporate when the copyright expires, and because the law can change all the time, and DRM already applied to a work will not.
I would rather have the law be the ONLY protection on works because it is the only one that can even slightly be trusted to fulfill the public interest and incorporate those limits are as necessary for the public to be the most satisfied.
Using DRM is like putting up a wall around a public park; maybe the park is only open at certain hours, but the wall closes it off all the time, and is therefore intolerable. It needs to be destroyed.
You are wrong. Read 17 USC 106. It grants the exclusive right to reproduce the creative work to the author. You do not have that right.
Copyright -- which for some odd reason ought to tip you off that it involves a right to copy -- is a whole bunch of different rights. Distribution is ONLY one of them. There's a ton, in fact. The important ones are at 106, but there are others scattered around Title 17. You ought to read the law before spouting off half-assedly about it.
Here's the first key thing to know: the law defines a copy as a material object within which an intangible creative work is fixed. A good rule of thumb is, if you can reproduce something without needing, say, a Star Trek replicator, it is a work.
So this post -- which I see here, and you see there, and thus is in two places at once -- is a work. The RAM on my computer in which the work is in is a copy. Your RAM is yet another copy.
With this in mind, it's usually a good idea to use the verb 'to reproduce' when you mean 'to create a new copy of the same work.'
Anyway, it's easy to own a copy containing a digital work. Letters are digital (for them to be analog would require there to be something between A and B). You probably mean how can you own a digital copy of a digital work. But more seriously, a CD would probably answer your question nicely.
That you persist in using a technology that cannot allow you to view a work (which is not infringing) unless you reproduce the work into a new copy (which is infringing) is your damn problem. This is basically what the courts have said in MAI v. Peak and the line of cases stemming from it.
17 USC 117, which deals solely with computer software you buy a copy of, realizes this and permits you to make whatever copies you need to in order to run the software.
But it's unique. Other than that, you're relying on fair use (which has a four part test that can be seen at 17 USC 107) or, say, laches (i.e. that it's unfair for RIAA to sell you CDs without expecting you to use them in ordinary CD playing equipment, however it might work).
Fair use probably allows you to reproduce some copies of, say, CDs, by ripping or just viewing in a manner that involves some reproduction. The fair use factors -- which must be looked at each and every time -- are basically how much of the work you're using, how you're using it, the nature of the work, and the economic effect on the US copyright holder.
If you buy a CD and rip it, although you are using the whole work (bad) and the work is creative (bad) and you're not transforming it into a new work (bad), you are having basically no commercial impact on the US rightsholder (good) and while no factor is more important than any other, nor is it just a matter of mathematics, we're willing to let it slide as fair use.
If you buy a PIRATED CD then there is a significant economic impact, and now all the fair use factors are against you.
allofmp3 is not reproducing or distributing copies in a manner that would be legal if they were in the US. This makes them pirates in the eyes of US law, whatever their legality might be elsewhere.
For you to download from them is necessarily to reproduce a copy without authorization of the US copyright holder. If you're in the US, you're bound by US law, and this is against US law. You have no good defense -- such as fair use -- because as noted, all the factors would likely be against you. You're basically screwed.
Ignore the issue of it being an international transaction; if it's illegal for me to go to Holland and bring back hash, or to call up Holland and ask them to send hash to me here in the US, why on earth would you think that it's legal to do roughly the same thing with copyrighted works? Differing legality does not result in everything being legalized if it is legal elsewhere.
And n.b. that while this is NOT a matter of importing music (which is the moving around of pre-existing tangible objects, viz. copies, not the creation of new copies which is unavoidable in downloading), imports are also significantly controlled by US law and are not as legal as you probably think they are.
Surprisingly enough not all law pertaining to music copyright etc was written in 1909
That's true -- for example, the last major revision to copyright law was in 1976.
some of it was writen in say the 2002 Satelite telecommunications Act. Which despite being a law about satelite communication networks had numeruous rider bills attached to it, in fact, many of which seek to extend copyright law, and the power of the copyright holders.
None of which you cite here for the edification of the/. crowd. It'd be nice if you would. Especially if you would cite to the new sections of the law, rather than mere bills, which are not as easy to read in context because most laws are rather like diffs.
By the way, is this year's fashion plain silver aluminum foil, or are colors in style? I ask because I think you'd look better with a blue foil hat.
It is illegal in these united states for an individual to own music, unless he or she wrote it,
This is untrue. NO ONE owns music. It is possible to own a tangible object in which some music is embedded -- such objects are called copies. But the music itself -- the creative work capable of being found in a limitless number of copies -- is unownable. Copyrights are arguably ownable, but they're rights pertaining to music, not the music itself. Hence a copyright can be revoked or can expire, but the music it applied to persists.
Reselling physical Cds is illegal
Bzt. Wrong, dumbass. 17 USC 109 -- and some caselaw prior to the version of the statute that was part of the 1909 Act -- make it totally legal.
Man are you fucking stupid.
But it gets better!
That license is Non-transferable, 'selling' a used CD is a Violation of US law, punishable by up to a $25,000 fine per incendent.
You just totally made up a law! Out of fucking nowhere! I tell you what -- provide a citation to this law. I say that 17 USC 109 says, in effect, that you are the dumbest shit I've seen on/. in months. Show me a statute that says otherwise. It will be humorous to me to watch you fail in this.
You don't have a right to transfer the audio file from the CD to your portable mp3 player,
That varies. As was found in the Diamond v. RIAA case back in 1999, it was fair use for a person to rip mp3s from copies of music that they owned, and still fair use to transfer those mp3s onto a portable mp3 player.
It is not NECESSARILY a fair use -- but it can be, and has been, and at this point is probably pretty safe to rely upon. I mean, it's not like, say, taping broadcast TV at home is always a fair use either. Fair uses must be analyzed on a case by case basis, according to the test at 17 USC 107, given the circumstances involved. No blanket statements can be made as to what is and isn't a fair use, though some trends can be found at times.
Keep in mind I am following the LETTER of the US law in these statments.
You would not know the letter of the law if it got up and bit you on the ass. That probably is why you NEVER EVER CITED ANY LAW. And you got it hilariously wrong! Pretty much every damn time!
Hell, not only do you not know the letter of the law, I'm pretty impressed you're able to SPELL it!
The only legal sources of digital music ciurrently are itunes, sony and the new napster.
I see you forgot about music put up by the copyright holder -- such as on artists' web sites.
And you're such an funny sub-moron that you forgot that CDs are a digital format.
Please tell me you'll keep posting on/. -- the world needs to be able to laugh at your dumb ass, dumbass.
Playing these songs where the general public may hear (and can hear) is a violation of us, and in some cases local law.
Would it interest you to know that local laws as to copyright are preempted by federal law? That would be 17 USC 301. Probably the only local laws at issue would be those relating to nuisance if you're playing music too loudly.
Thanks for being such a shithead. I really needed to laugh out loud at someone, and you fit the bill perfectly.
Copyright law allows you to make copies *of recordings you own* for your own use.
Bzt. Wrong. That's a blanket statement that is untrue. Neither 17 USC 107 nor 1008 says that, nor does any other part of the law. Both statutes limit what you can reproduce, and neither requires that you own the original copy.
If you sell the original, then by definition, you don't own it any more, and therefore have no right to create or keep copies of it.
Bzt. Wrong. Copyright does not include any right of the copyright holder to control who can KEEP copies of things. If you lawfully make a copy of something, you can keep it even if you no longer have the original, UNLESS the law under which you made the copies requires otherwise and you have no other law to point to. For example 17 USC 117 computer software backups must be destroyed or transferred with the original -- unless of course you could successfully show that you made them under fair use or something.
However, 117 is the only one of its kind I know of. Copies made under 107 or 1008 are subject to no such restriction.
You're also wrong in that you generally don't have an absolute right to reproduce copies due to ownership of an original copy, so you don't lose that when you sell the original copy; you never had that right. Only various exemptions can confer it, and again, those don't hinge on ownership of the original. You can make as many 1008 copies as you like, provided you're within 1008, regardless of who owns the original. Even copies of copies are okay if within that statute.
Fair use has nothing to do with selling copies of works that are lawfully made under US law, i.e. original copies.
That falls under First Sale, which is at 17 USC 109. Basically you can sell, rent, lease, lend, etc. any lawfully made copy as much as you like, provided you bought it. There are some exceptions -- you can't rent music or computer software, but you can sell it if you own it. No special licenses or anything are required.
Your question is whether you can keep a copy you've made after selling the original.
To make a copy involves the reproduction right, which is exclusive to the copyright holder per 17 USC 106. So you cannot make a copy to begin with.
N.B. that when you rip music, you make a copy. When you PLAY music on a computer, a copy is made in the computer's RAM. (see MAI v. Peak).
You can make copies if there is an applicable statutory exemption. 17 USC 117 sometimes applies to computer software. 17 USC 1008 sometimes applies to sound recordings (when reading 1008, it is crucial to read 1001, which has special counter-intuitive definitions for some of the terms used in 1008).
If none of those apply, you can try to invoke fair use. But that requires that the use be fair -- there is a test for that in the statute, 17 USC 107.
If you own a lawfully made copy it is fairly likely fair use to make a copy of it, but do bear in mind that it depends on the outcome of the fair use test given your circumstances; you cannot make a blanket statement as to what is or is not fair use. Anything might be, or might not be, depending on circumstances.
So if you make a copy and it is within an exemption or is made as a fair use, and you sell the original, you're still a-ok. Copies of copies AFTER that -- such as if you played on a computer music you ripped and no longer owned an original copy of -- is a different story, and would itself have to fall within an exception or fair use. And since the circumstances are different, fair use might come out differently.
Personally, I would suggest making copies that are allowed per 17 USC 1008. This does not include copies ripped to computer, but does include copies burned to Audio CDR. (as opposed to the more common, cheaper, data CDRs)
But this only works for some sorts of sound recordings, and you can't do this for commercial purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is more likely sales law, not contract law, and the UCC answers the question of whether post-purchase terms are enforcible with a definate 'maybe.' Seriously, there are cases going both ways.
That is not actually correct.
Copyright term lengths are considerably more complicated than that, as different terms apply to works depending on 1) issues regarding the authors, 2) when the work was created, 3) when the work was published. You're mis-citing the rule as to works by a known author which are created on or after 1/1/1978. And the length is life + 70 years, not 75. A work published in 1918 would be in the public domain, however. It's actually mildly complicated -- I've been meaning to throw together a flowchart or something for determining the term length, whereupon it would then be fairly simple to calculate the time remaining.
The trick with God Bless America is that there are two different versions. The original 1918 version is in the public domain. The more popular 1938 version is not.
court could rule that the current copyright law clearly goes against the wishes of the copyright creator
The copyright creator is Congress. The creator of the WORK sold his rights -- he's out of the picture. I mean no one cares what Shakespeare thinks about staging his plays; why should we? If Guthrie was willing to sell his rights -- and no one could get 'em otherwise -- then that's the end of his involvement. If authors want to keep a hand in, that's their problem, and they shouldn't sell their rights if that's what they want.
I would also try to convince a jury that the song is in the public domain. After call can you find 12 people who can name the author of that song?
Well, it's not. I suppose a jury could nullify or something, but it's really not in the public domain, and popular belief alone don't make it so. Get that popular belief to change the laws, and then we'll be cooking with gas.
Its clear that even congress seems to think many songs are in the public domain after their singing God Bless America on the steps without paying royalties based on performance with a billion viewers of news programs world wide.
God Bless America IS in the public domain, IIRC, having been written in 1918.
Would a reasonable person assume that Happy Birthday is in the public domain?
Dunno. But they'd be wrong unless they got the laws changed. Which I'd likely support.
Nope. Al's songs are making fun of the original song -- the lyrics still scan similarly and there's really no other target.
This is the important distinction between parody and satire in the world of copyright: who's the target. You can make fun of Bush without needing to use someone's song. You cannot make fun of the song without using the song, however.
Of course Al can muddy the waters a bit since he gets permission anyway, so it's a non-issue for him.
There was a case revolving around a satire of the OJ Simpson case where someone used The Cat in the Hat. Since their target was Simpson and not The Cat in the Hat, they got their asses sued off. It's a decent read if you poke around for it; it's not all that old a case.
If you write a book, should anyone be allowed to use that text as they desire, selling their own copies of it for profit?
Yes. And that's already the law, as it happens. (aside from other issues -- if it's a libelous book no one's going to be able to legally publish it, including the author)
The issue is when -- and it's perfectly valid to say 'soon' or 'instantly' rather than 'later.' The criteria for which is best has to do with the ultimate benefit to the public. If the public is better off sooner than later, it should be sooner. What the author wants is totally irrelevant, save insofar as it might be a factor in determining what the public benefit would be under different proposals that we might choose the one best for the public.
Actually, 17 USC 1201(a) deals with access controls. 1201(b) deals with copyright protection, such as copy protection (access is not a right under copyright; reproduction is). 1202 deals with copyright management information.
So both of y'all need to read the entire law, and not just the bits that strike your fancy.
The problem of course is that moral rights are an astoundingly stupid idea and should be abolished immediately. Copyrights ARE solely utilitarian, and moral rights interfere greatly with that.
He means he was getting that information out of a casebook which is copyrighted, but the casebook itself quoted federal law, which is not copyrighted.
So long as he only copied the bit that the book was quoting, he'd be okay. If he copied the original material in the book that would be potentially infringing.
However, there is nothing wrong with their asking to get paid something.
There's nothing wrong with ASKING, sure.
But why are they asking? Because they're greedy. And that's not bad -- everyone likes to get stuff.
But flip it around? Why do people want art for free? Because they are equally as greedy -- everyone likes to get stuff, but no one wants to pay more than they must, with free being best.
So just saying that people should pay is silly; it's equally as valid to say that people shouldn't pay. Especially since audiences outnumber artists.
There needs to be a different basis for copyright, one where the audience becomes willing to pay because it serves their own greedy interests to do so. There is such a basis, in fact. But you don't seem to be thinking much about it, and you really ought to.
Consuming art without compensating the artist is an absurd idea -- unless, of course, that's what the artist wants for one reason or another. Do you disagree?
I disagree. It is a perfectly fine idea and in fact an ideal situation which pretty much necessarily happens. I mean, I enjoy the plays of Shakespeare. I have several copies of them. I enjoy reading them for fun. And I don't pay a penny to Shakespeare.
You're telling me that that's wrong?
You're saying we owe you all the free music you want. Did I misunderstand you? Can you restate your point in a less hypocritical way?
No, that's not hypocritical, at least not quite.
I agree that artists should not be compelled by other people to create works of art. If an artist wants to drive a bus instead of paint pictures, that's fine. No problem (though I would go so far as to say that we ought to encourage artists to create, all else being equal).
HOWEVER, once an artist has created something, and that work has become publicly available, then the only rights he has -- other than the possible ownership of TANGIBLE things like a specific book (as opposed to the intangible words in the book) -- are those that the public chooses to give him via the government.
We can validly say 'no copyrights for you' and that's how things are. That's perfectly okay. And then everyone copies the published work and the artist likely doesn't make any money. But if that's what the public wants, then that's the right thing to do.
Alternatively, the public might say 'it would serve OUR interests to give you a copyright, so here's one -- limited so as to best accomplish what we want' and that's equally as right.
Making it, eh, okay, but hardly all that impressive.
in order to copy Steamboat Willie, you need only secure rights to mickey in the context of that film.
In order to copy Steamboat Willie when it is in the public domain, you just need to copy it. No one can stop you from copying it; it's in the public domain.
Other Rodent-based works are not derivative of Wille
Oh yes they are. While you cannot copyright a character, you CAN copyright the description of a character in a work. Steamboat Willy describes to us what the 1920's version of Mickey Mouse looks like -- he's about so big, dresses like so, has those big ears and beady eyes, and so forth. Any other work involving Mickey Mouse will necessarily be derivative of Steamboat Willy in some fashion, even though later Disney-created derivatives have themselves evolved the character.
There was a case on basically this point some years back when someone discovered that the original Amos 'n Andy source material had fallen into the public domain. Those were radio plays, IIRC. Later on a TV series had been made that was derivative of the radio show, and the TV material was all still copyrighted. The court there held that the copyright to the TV materials only covered themselves and what they had added; material from the radio plays was public domain and derivatives could be created based upon it so long as it was THAT material it was derived from.
Some of the descriptions had come through in the radio show, e.g. at the most basic level that the characters were black. Other aspects had only been added on TV, and those couldn't be used.
(Of course, I really have to wonder at the wisdom of an Amos 'n Andy revival, but whatever)
You can see much the same sort of thing with a lot of other Disney movies, as it happens:
When Disney makes a movie of Beauty and the Beast, the original of which is in the public domain, then it doesn't prevent other people from reproducing the original, or making their own derivatves based on the original. Nor can Disney get a trademark in Beauty and the Beast generally (even though you could get a trademark in something long after the fact) though they could get one in "Disney's Beauty and the Beast" (which in fact, they have). The advantage they do have is that no one can make a derivative based on their version, save to the extent that their version is itself based on the unprotected original; that is the stuff they add to the story is their own while the copyright lasts -- but not the stuff that was already there.
And thus we see a zillion cheap knock-offs of these fairy tales floating around direct to video hoping to get some of the money that might otherwise be spent on Disney's version and it's perfectly legal.
Once Steamboat Willy hits the public domain, two things will occur. First, people will be able to make copies of Willy himself, though comparatively few people will care. I like the old shorts, but I already have a copy. (And besides, Plane Crazy and The Galloping Gaucho are both way better)
The other thing is that there will be a revival in the old-style Mickey Mouse using the public domain elements then available, without being derivative of the later, still-copyrighted materials. The trademark on Mickey Mouse will have to become "Disney's Mickey Mouse" to remain live.
Well, that's because he's stupid. If you are going to do that you can easily avoid getting sued if you take advantage of the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. You basically just need to register a compliance officer with the Library of Congress (see their site for details) and comply with takedown notices.
And then you're golden. How did you think the big names like google avoid getting sued?
If I, or an heir, proceed to lend it to someone to listen to, is it still not mine?
The CD? Sure. The music within the CD? That's unownable. All you can do is control who has access to it. But if someone slips through, you're fucked as to that person. The person who let them slip through you might have a remedy against, but not the party with whom you have no actual agreement.
Basically you have -- never will or could have -- ownership over the contents. You do own the CD. But it takes a copyright to have the ability to deny other people the right to, say, reproduce it, regardless of how they got access to it.
That's not really accurate; trademarks are inferior rights to copyrights, and cannot serve as a poor man's copyright so to speak. Thus, when a copyright fails, the trademark ALSO fails to the extent necessary for people to make public domain use of the work.
Very few cases have dealt with this since it's a rare set of circumstances, but there was one that was something like Comedy III v. New Line Cinema. The public domain argument won.
The trick is to remember that trademarks are only granted where the public can rely on that mark to identify that marked goods or services stem from a single source. If copyright expires, then there are multiple possible sources for works that are DERIVATIVE of the public domain original, as well as copies of the original itself. Thus, the public can no longer rely on the trademark to identify the sole source of those works.
Other goods or services are different; Peter Pan is in the public domain, but that doesn't matter in the worlds of bus lines or peanut butter.
I don't think retroactive extension is inhenrently at odds with encouraging innovation.
You are wrong. The creation occured at time 1. The term length at time 1 was a. If you increase the term to a+b at time 2, it is impossible to spur on further creation back at time 1. This is because we do not yet know how to travel backwards in time.
While an increase in term lengths at time 2 might spur on further creation at time 2, there is no reason whatsoever for it to be retroactive.
That you don't realize that we cannot go backwards in time indicates that either you are some sort of martian or are dumb. Either way it's not a good start.
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights.
Wrong again. At its heart, copyright is about promoting the public interest. That's why the Statute of Anne, the first copyright law ever, was entitled something like 'A bill to promote public learning,' and why the Constitution only empowers Congress to enact copyright laws so as to 'promote the progress of science.'
It is an entirely utilitarian doctrine intended to benefit the public and it is in fact very difficult to allege that there are any property rights involved at all. There can be no property rights in a creative work, as a work is too dissimilar from property. Copyrights themselves are probably licenses, not property. Copies -- the tangible objects in which works are fixed -- are about the only thing that can be said to be property.
Patents are a strange form of property, because many patents cover ideas that may be arrived at without the patent holder ever existing. So that's why they're much more limited in timeframe.
Wrong once more. Patents aren't property of course, patents do NOT 'cover' ideas (they involved inventions, which are remarkably more finished than mere ideas, which are a dime a dozen), and the reason they're limited in time is because they're very expansive and it is felt that such expansive rights shouldn't last so long.
Also n.b. that anyone can create a creative work -- there's no law of the universe that says ONLY Dickens could've written his terrible, hackneyed novels. In fact if some guy in a cabin independently wrote the same novels without having based his work on Dickens' he gets a copyright in his work (though not one that precludes people from continuing to use Dickens' works as they like). That's not true for patents only because we only grant the first inventor rights -- but anyone can be the first inventor.
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind.
Wrong per above, and incidently all creative works are in some way based upon prior creative works. No artist lives in a vacuum. E.g. Star Wars is based on samurai and WWII movies. It's still good though, and there's nothing at all bad about the inherently derivative nature of everything. That's how the world works.
So, it might actually be reasonable to give infinite ownership to the creator.
Wrong again -- you're batting 0.000
We grant copyrights to satisfy the public interest. The public is equally interested in two things: 1) the creation of more original and derivative works, and 2) the unrestricted free enjoyment of those workse.
If we had an infinite copyright, it would spur some creation, but it would be impossible to ever maximize the creative output of humanity unless it was all that everyone did 24-7. And that seems unlikely to occur. Especially what with perpetual copyrights since it would be very difficult to create new works without infringing on preexisting works (since as noted all works are to some extent derivative) and since existing copyright holders would use their rights to bar newcomers from entering the market and taking profits away from them. It would also reduce the other interest to zero. So it w
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US?
Firstly, realize that that is not what's going on in the allofmp3 case -- since a copy is defined in the law as having to be a tangible object, and no tangible objects go from allofmp3 to their customers.
That said, the reason is because the law prohibits it. To import a pre-existing copy into the US is distribution according to 17 USC 602, and the US copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute per 17 USC 106. That's subject to some limitations found in 17 USC 602 and 109 and elsewhere, but that's generally the rule.
The 109 exception is known as first sale. But it ONLY applies to copies that were made lawfully pursuant to US law. If you make a copy in Russia, and that copy is made in a way that would be legal had it been made in the US, then 109 applies and it can be imported lawfully. OTOH, if that copy is made in a way that would be illegal if it happened in the US, REGARDLESS of its legality elsewhere, 109 does not apply to it! (in fact, if there were a work and I had the US copyright and you had the Russian copyright, and I made copies in Russia thereby infringing on your copyright, it would nevertheless only be my copies that could lawfully be imported into the US.
602 has a few exemptions that protect individuals from being sued by copyright holders, but nevertheless unless the copies sought to be imported were made in a manner that would have been lawful if it had happened in the US, they're still illegal and at the very least can be seized by US Customs if they notice. (n.b. when reading 602 that the exemptions in 602(a) ONLY apply to 602(a) and NOT to 602(b))
The ultimate reason for this is actually pretty simple: imagine that there is a country bordering the US on the north, called Moosylvania. If their copyright laws are very lax compared to ours, or even just plain don't exist, then they can make copies that would have been infringing here, and could -- if we didn't limit imports -- send those copies into the US and flood our markets and undercut our own copyright holders and the entire point of copyright to begin with. What they do there is their own business, but that doesn't mean that we have to let them have an affect on our own soil.
As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property.
That's wrong. Like I said, the law in 17 USC 101 defines a copy as being a specific tangible object. It is something you can literally hold in your hand. When you download, the downloaded data all by itself is not a tangible object, ergo not a copy. BUT the vessel into which YOU put it IS. Your hard drive is a copy. Your RAM is a copy. They are both within the US at the time the reproduction occurs, and you're the party that is ultimately responsible for having that reproduction occur; it's not as though the Russians are holding a gun to your head or remotely controlling your computer.
Read the MAI v. Peak case which basically stands for this proposition, and some of the cases following the MAI precedent, such as Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Intellectual Property Reserve. I won't say that I think they're very wise cases, but they are widely followed and you'd be foolish to ignore them.
Oh, you're laughing but The Sound of Music killed my uncle and his whole family during a burglary. Film violence isn't funny.
DRM isn't bad. If a vendor produces DRM products and you have a problem with that, don't buy them. It's just another option available to content producers and distributors. It has value, and it has its place.
DRM is bad. While we may have difficulty making it completely illegal, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to grant copyrights only to those artists that don't use DRM, and to revoke their copyrights if they ever do use it.
But, to then bypass DRM and download it is criminal activity. DRM is a lock to the content. It's illegal to pick locks on people's houses, but I don't see anybody here advocating picking houses in order to steal THEIR contents, why is music any different?
That's precisely why DRM is bad. Music _IS_ different. We grant copyrights, but those copyrights are limited in scope; it is perfectly legal to engage in fair uses of music. It is perfectly legal to reproduce music within the scope of AHRA. It will be perfectly legal to reproduce music for any purpose we arbitrarily make legal tomorrow. And the Constitution requires that copyrights expire -- so when the term is up, anyone can do anything with the music and it is totally legal.
These sorts of limitations that benefit the public are a significant difference as to ordinary personal or real property. Copyright is expressly and deliberately designed to benefit the public -- not the artists, not the publishers. DRM interferes with that, because it is a lock that does not ONLY protect against illegal uses, while allowing ALL legal uses, and because it does not magically evaporate when the copyright expires, and because the law can change all the time, and DRM already applied to a work will not.
I would rather have the law be the ONLY protection on works because it is the only one that can even slightly be trusted to fulfill the public interest and incorporate those limits are as necessary for the public to be the most satisfied.
Using DRM is like putting up a wall around a public park; maybe the park is only open at certain hours, but the wall closes it off all the time, and is therefore intolerable. It needs to be destroyed.
You are wrong. Read 17 USC 106. It grants the exclusive right to reproduce the creative work to the author. You do not have that right.
Copyright -- which for some odd reason ought to tip you off that it involves a right to copy -- is a whole bunch of different rights. Distribution is ONLY one of them. There's a ton, in fact. The important ones are at 106, but there are others scattered around Title 17. You ought to read the law before spouting off half-assedly about it.
Here's the first key thing to know: the law defines a copy as a material object within which an intangible creative work is fixed. A good rule of thumb is, if you can reproduce something without needing, say, a Star Trek replicator, it is a work.
So this post -- which I see here, and you see there, and thus is in two places at once -- is a work. The RAM on my computer in which the work is in is a copy. Your RAM is yet another copy.
With this in mind, it's usually a good idea to use the verb 'to reproduce' when you mean 'to create a new copy of the same work.'
Anyway, it's easy to own a copy containing a digital work. Letters are digital (for them to be analog would require there to be something between A and B). You probably mean how can you own a digital copy of a digital work. But more seriously, a CD would probably answer your question nicely.
That you persist in using a technology that cannot allow you to view a work (which is not infringing) unless you reproduce the work into a new copy (which is infringing) is your damn problem. This is basically what the courts have said in MAI v. Peak and the line of cases stemming from it.
17 USC 117, which deals solely with computer software you buy a copy of, realizes this and permits you to make whatever copies you need to in order to run the software.
But it's unique. Other than that, you're relying on fair use (which has a four part test that can be seen at 17 USC 107) or, say, laches (i.e. that it's unfair for RIAA to sell you CDs without expecting you to use them in ordinary CD playing equipment, however it might work).
Fair use probably allows you to reproduce some copies of, say, CDs, by ripping or just viewing in a manner that involves some reproduction. The fair use factors -- which must be looked at each and every time -- are basically how much of the work you're using, how you're using it, the nature of the work, and the economic effect on the US copyright holder.
If you buy a CD and rip it, although you are using the whole work (bad) and the work is creative (bad) and you're not transforming it into a new work (bad), you are having basically no commercial impact on the US rightsholder (good) and while no factor is more important than any other, nor is it just a matter of mathematics, we're willing to let it slide as fair use.
If you buy a PIRATED CD then there is a significant economic impact, and now all the fair use factors are against you.
allofmp3 is not reproducing or distributing copies in a manner that would be legal if they were in the US. This makes them pirates in the eyes of US law, whatever their legality might be elsewhere.
For you to download from them is necessarily to reproduce a copy without authorization of the US copyright holder. If you're in the US, you're bound by US law, and this is against US law. You have no good defense -- such as fair use -- because as noted, all the factors would likely be against you. You're basically screwed.
Ignore the issue of it being an international transaction; if it's illegal for me to go to Holland and bring back hash, or to call up Holland and ask them to send hash to me here in the US, why on earth would you think that it's legal to do roughly the same thing with copyrighted works? Differing legality does not result in everything being legalized if it is legal elsewhere.
And n.b. that while this is NOT a matter of importing music (which is the moving around of pre-existing tangible objects, viz. copies, not the creation of new copies which is unavoidable in downloading), imports are also significantly controlled by US law and are not as legal as you probably think they are.
Surprisingly enough not all law pertaining to music copyright etc was written in 1909
/. crowd. It'd be nice if you would. Especially if you would cite to the new sections of the law, rather than mere bills, which are not as easy to read in context because most laws are rather like diffs.
That's true -- for example, the last major revision to copyright law was in 1976.
some of it was writen in say the 2002 Satelite telecommunications Act. Which despite being a law about satelite communication networks had numeruous rider bills attached to it, in fact, many of which seek to extend copyright law, and the power of the copyright holders.
None of which you cite here for the edification of the
By the way, is this year's fashion plain silver aluminum foil, or are colors in style? I ask because I think you'd look better with a blue foil hat.
It is illegal in these united states for an individual to own music, unless he or she wrote it,
/. in months. Show me a statute that says otherwise. It will be humorous to me to watch you fail in this.
/. -- the world needs to be able to laugh at your dumb ass, dumbass.
This is untrue. NO ONE owns music. It is possible to own a tangible object in which some music is embedded -- such objects are called copies. But the music itself -- the creative work capable of being found in a limitless number of copies -- is unownable. Copyrights are arguably ownable, but they're rights pertaining to music, not the music itself. Hence a copyright can be revoked or can expire, but the music it applied to persists.
Reselling physical Cds is illegal
Bzt. Wrong, dumbass. 17 USC 109 -- and some caselaw prior to the version of the statute that was part of the 1909 Act -- make it totally legal.
Man are you fucking stupid.
But it gets better!
That license is Non-transferable, 'selling' a used CD is a Violation of US law, punishable by up to a $25,000 fine per incendent.
You just totally made up a law! Out of fucking nowhere! I tell you what -- provide a citation to this law. I say that 17 USC 109 says, in effect, that you are the dumbest shit I've seen on
You don't have a right to transfer the audio file from the CD to your portable mp3 player,
That varies. As was found in the Diamond v. RIAA case back in 1999, it was fair use for a person to rip mp3s from copies of music that they owned, and still fair use to transfer those mp3s onto a portable mp3 player.
It is not NECESSARILY a fair use -- but it can be, and has been, and at this point is probably pretty safe to rely upon. I mean, it's not like, say, taping broadcast TV at home is always a fair use either. Fair uses must be analyzed on a case by case basis, according to the test at 17 USC 107, given the circumstances involved. No blanket statements can be made as to what is and isn't a fair use, though some trends can be found at times.
Keep in mind I am following the LETTER of the US law in these statments.
You would not know the letter of the law if it got up and bit you on the ass. That probably is why you NEVER EVER CITED ANY LAW. And you got it hilariously wrong! Pretty much every damn time!
Hell, not only do you not know the letter of the law, I'm pretty impressed you're able to SPELL it!
The only legal sources of digital music ciurrently are itunes, sony and the new napster.
I see you forgot about music put up by the copyright holder -- such as on artists' web sites.
And you're such an funny sub-moron that you forgot that CDs are a digital format.
Please tell me you'll keep posting on
Playing these songs where the general public may hear (and can hear) is a violation of us, and in some cases local law.
Would it interest you to know that local laws as to copyright are preempted by federal law? That would be 17 USC 301. Probably the only local laws at issue would be those relating to nuisance if you're playing music too loudly.
Thanks for being such a shithead. I really needed to laugh out loud at someone, and you fit the bill perfectly.
Copyright law allows you to make copies *of recordings you own* for your own use.
Bzt. Wrong. That's a blanket statement that is untrue. Neither 17 USC 107 nor 1008 says that, nor does any other part of the law. Both statutes limit what you can reproduce, and neither requires that you own the original copy.
If you sell the original, then by definition, you don't own it any more, and therefore have no right to create or keep copies of it.
Bzt. Wrong. Copyright does not include any right of the copyright holder to control who can KEEP copies of things. If you lawfully make a copy of something, you can keep it even if you no longer have the original, UNLESS the law under which you made the copies requires otherwise and you have no other law to point to. For example 17 USC 117 computer software backups must be destroyed or transferred with the original -- unless of course you could successfully show that you made them under fair use or something.
However, 117 is the only one of its kind I know of. Copies made under 107 or 1008 are subject to no such restriction.
You're also wrong in that you generally don't have an absolute right to reproduce copies due to ownership of an original copy, so you don't lose that when you sell the original copy; you never had that right. Only various exemptions can confer it, and again, those don't hinge on ownership of the original. You can make as many 1008 copies as you like, provided you're within 1008, regardless of who owns the original. Even copies of copies are okay if within that statute.
Fair use has nothing to do with selling copies of works that are lawfully made under US law, i.e. original copies.
That falls under First Sale, which is at 17 USC 109. Basically you can sell, rent, lease, lend, etc. any lawfully made copy as much as you like, provided you bought it. There are some exceptions -- you can't rent music or computer software, but you can sell it if you own it. No special licenses or anything are required.
Your question is whether you can keep a copy you've made after selling the original.
To make a copy involves the reproduction right, which is exclusive to the copyright holder per 17 USC 106. So you cannot make a copy to begin with.
N.B. that when you rip music, you make a copy. When you PLAY music on a computer, a copy is made in the computer's RAM. (see MAI v. Peak).
You can make copies if there is an applicable statutory exemption. 17 USC 117 sometimes applies to computer software. 17 USC 1008 sometimes applies to sound recordings (when reading 1008, it is crucial to read 1001, which has special counter-intuitive definitions for some of the terms used in 1008).
If none of those apply, you can try to invoke fair use. But that requires that the use be fair -- there is a test for that in the statute, 17 USC 107.
If you own a lawfully made copy it is fairly likely fair use to make a copy of it, but do bear in mind that it depends on the outcome of the fair use test given your circumstances; you cannot make a blanket statement as to what is or is not fair use. Anything might be, or might not be, depending on circumstances.
So if you make a copy and it is within an exemption or is made as a fair use, and you sell the original, you're still a-ok. Copies of copies AFTER that -- such as if you played on a computer music you ripped and no longer owned an original copy of -- is a different story, and would itself have to fall within an exception or fair use. And since the circumstances are different, fair use might come out differently.
Personally, I would suggest making copies that are allowed per 17 USC 1008. This does not include copies ripped to computer, but does include copies burned to Audio CDR. (as opposed to the more common, cheaper, data CDRs)
But this only works for some sorts of sound recordings, and you can't do this for commercial purposes.