should you be able to copy a cd you buy to your computer?

[Black Spiral Dancer]

If I buy a cd, I feel I am entitled to save the tracks onto my pc so that I can use them at a later date. I may not want to listen to the music right there and then, but that doesn't mean that I may not change my mind in a day or 2.

[Mindgames]

If I buy a cd, I feel I am entitled to save the tracks onto my pc so that I can use them at a later date. I may not want to listen to the music right there and then, but that doesn't mean that I may not change my mind in a day or 2.

You're contradicting yourself mate - if you buy a CD you already have the tracks available to 'use at a later date' on their original media.

The situation in the UK is different from that in the US, as you don't have the equivalent of the AHRA - so right now copying tracks from a CD onto a computer is illegal in the UK under clearly-defined copyright law. There's a consultation document just released by the UK govt looking to make the practice legal, but it's subject to strong objections and the current proposals won't work (for example it suggests that copying tracks from a CD to a computer will be legal but once those tracks have been copied, it becomes illegal for you to ever sell or give away the original CD).

To the rest of us luxuriating under US law, you may like to know the RIAA's position has been the subject of several recent interviews and statements; the result of which is of course that they refuse to answer any questions. Rumors that there is a Cigarette Smoking Man behind it all are yet to be confirmed...

[Black Spiral Dancer]

They've just changed the rules, so people can do it. The point I was making was I like to have the tracks converted to mp3 already so all I have to do is transfer them over to my mp3 player or mobile there and then, without having to wait to convert them.

[inox]

For the people on here who are really interested (meaning those of us who feel reading court papers for an hour is time well spent), you can read the supplemental brief here.

(/me waits for one other person to return from clicking the link....)

I'll bite. Ok, while I will admit that that particular case deals with an ordinary P2P infringement, what worries me is this language:

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer.

Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use.

That is problematic for the reasons I stated in my previous post. If they are concerned about distribution, that's fine. This language shows me that they do not believe in the concept of "space shifting", and are therefore evil. QED.

[TheDeathKnight]

I really feel that the main goal should be paying the artist for use of their song. If you like a song, and intent to listen to it, you need to pay the artist for that song. The medium and format should not matter, and you should be able to listen to that song anywhere you want to. On your home stereo, in the car, on your computer, etc... You should pay for use of that song ONCE. The end.

[Mr Karl]

yeah once...

[Morning Glory]

/me watches the annoyed stares from graphic designers, photographers, architects, movie makers, authors, poets, actors, screenwriters, makeup artists, models... Amelia and Forrest....

Musicians are (almost) the only people whose work is almost universally abused through illegal copying and simultaneously attacked for complaining about it, but aside from that they're a tiny cog in a vast industry.

I'm not disputing that they don't make art, im saying that they don't get paid. to be a proffesional musician demands a level of success that is rare. yes, there are a few staples in those industries that are at the top of thier game, but most of them aren't. And it's pretty much the conventions that get by by that fact alone. There are occasional stars in the fashion world, but it's not like there's up and comers that are always in vogue, at least not compared with the stable staples such as calvin kline, levi's, etc. Think of all the big budget movies that tanked. But they still keep making them and taking the chance because for the one's that do work it's a worthwhile investment. and in the world of writers, only the best sellers really have anything to put in the bank, your average pro-writer gets by on selling out stories for hopes of getting a grand, and maybe publishing a book or two, and no more than once every few years at best.

On the other hand the music biz is all about the flavor of the week, and you have the billboard 500 top rated songs. That's it's advanatge and also it's disadvantage.

But for the rest if they got paid for all the hours that they actually spent on projects, they wouldn't make more than minimum wage.

[Mindgames]

...This language shows me that they do not believe in the concept of "space shifting", and are therefore evil

Correct - they don't. People have been trying to get a yes/no statement out of the RIAA for ten years and even Congress failed, but there are valid arguments why we (the industry) can't come out and make our position clear, as the law isn't clear either. If the RIAA said "home copying of MP3s is legal" someone will say "show me where it says that?!"; coreespondingly is they say "it's illegal" they'll be asked the same thing. The truth is that the laws as they stand were written too long ago to apply. Almost everyone waves AHRA about and claims the infamous "will not cause" paragraph is a license to copy anything for personal use, but the rest of the AHRA makes it clear that the grant in that para is a trade-off for using only blank media on which a license has been paid (as is the case for blank tapes and videos). There's no such levy on computers or hard discs so the AHRA is arguably not even relevant. I don't want to get into a major technical disassembly of law but that's the reason you aren't getting a simple answer, and the reason for the statements in this particular case.

Morning Glory: Are you saying that the average wage of, say, a musician is significantly different from that of an actor? In both there are a few hundred millionaires and a few million earning less than a hundred bucks, and almost all of the 'major stars' spent several years earning zip until they got discovered. Would they all do it if there was no hope in hell of ever making it into the rich list? I doubt it. Sure, some would.. but even altruists have bills to pay.

[inox]

Correct - they don't. People have been trying to get a yes/no statement out of the RIAA for ten years and even Congress failed, but there are valid arguments why we (the industry) can't come out and make our position clear, as the law isn't clear either.

The practical matter is that the industry wants the law to apply to the fixed medium (maximizing profit) rather than believing that the license given at the time of purchase should pertain to the copyrighted work alone, regardless of medium.

The trend in society is toward entertainment-related property (movies, photos, music, games) being stored in a digital format, and requiring a separate purchase for each personally stored copy is a concept that belongs in the days of video game cartridges and vinyl LPs.

Any other perspective represents greed over pragmatic acknowledgment of social realities.

I don't want to get into a major technical disassembly of law but that's the reason you aren't getting a simple answer, and the reason for the statements in this particular case.

I would prefer that you did. I am a licensed attorney as well, and I've worked in IP before.

[Mindgames]

...rather than believing that the license given at the time of purchase

And that's one of the issues in a nutshell - in software it's firmly established that you don't "buy the product" but only a license to use it, so making personal copies of the original media is perfectly OK (as long as those copies aren't installed). In music a lot of the majors still hold the position that the primary sale is of the physical recording and the licenses granted under copyright law are secondary - so producing copies of CDs still annoys them. It's changing over time, and to be blunt it's a few of the majors that are holding out and setting the stance for the RIAA etc., but it explains the obsession with protecting the CD/MP3 rather than simply enforcing IP on the audio. The flipside of course is that if you consider the sale of a music track to be a license rather than a sale, you open the same raft of legal challenges that the software industry is facing (the 'shrink wrap' challenges etc.) so to a label that option looks even more scary than trying to fight for their current position. I know many people reading this (if there are more than us two left) will say "duh - a license is fine.. it means I can copy my music about.. what's the problem?" - but if you think DRM is invasive today you haven't seen the half of it should we need to 'activate' your CD collection!

I would prefer that you did. I am a licensed attorney as well, and I've worked in IP before.

Not a problem, but I assume everyone else will quietly shuffle back to the bar muttering about geeks.... I'm already rapidly losing my sexual magnetism...

[evilstonermonkey]

...if you think DRM is invasive today you haven't seen the half of it should we need to 'activate' your CD collection!

some cds do require 'activation' to use if you copy it to your computer - i bought a cd a while ago that, when played on my computer, brought up a menu that included among the options to copy the cd to my hard drive. it then wanted to connect to the homesite and license the copy. whih having done, comes up with an error message any time i try to play the mp3, and abolutely refuses to work on my mp3 player.

[Mindgames]

If it was a CD produced by Sony then you may have hit the wonders of their rootkit software. As it's not possible to DRM-wrap an MP3 file Sony took the less-than-sensible approach of rewriting the operating system instead, so it would understand an MP3 with nonstandard data. The world was officially "miffed", and some reports even suggested "peeved".

y'see - you can have your free music and copyable CDs if you want to.. you just need to let the music industry take control of your computer and search your discs for incriminating uses of the words "clowns" and "lubricated". It's not UNREASONABLE is it???

[inox]

And that's one of the issues in a nutshell - in software it's firmly established that you don't "buy the product" but only a license to use it, so making personal copies of the original media is perfectly OK (as long as those copies aren't installed). In music a lot of the majors still hold the position that the primary sale is of the physical recording and the licenses granted under copyright law are secondary - so producing copies of CDs still annoys them. It's changing over time, and to be blunt it's a few of the majors that are holding out and setting the stance for the RIAA etc., but it explains the obsession with protecting the CD/MP3 rather than simply enforcing IP on the audio.

I suppose one of the things that annoys me the most about that position is that it's so obviously antiquarian and greedy. They're perfectly fine with having a significantly inhibitive effect on technological innovation just for the sake of increasing already ridiculous profit margins.

It's doubly frustrating because there are simply newer business models to which they could move. More on that below.

The flipside of course is that if you consider the sale of a music track to be a license rather than a sale, you open the same raft of legal challenges that the software industry is facing (the 'shrink wrap' challenges etc.) so to a label that option looks even more scary than trying to fight for their current position.

A license is the only thing that makes sense, especially since so many songs are being sold entirely in a digital format. If you buy something as an mp3 or aac file, you would be a fool to not back it up. HDDs are inherently less stable than CDs.

Also, being a file and not a disc, the nature of enjoying it would mean that the data would frequently exist in multiple locations (Apple TV, iPod, etc.)

I know many people reading this (if there are more than us two left) will say "duh - a license is fine.. it means I can copy my music about.. what's the problem?" - but if you think DRM is invasive today you haven't seen the half of it should we need to 'activate' your CD collection!

That sort of DRM is not the only way, and in fact even iTunes has begun offering higher quality files that do not even have DRM.

Even if you want some sort of DRM, you could focus on tracks containing purchaser data and digital signatures, rather than going the onerous activation route.

Personally, I think that we are trending toward a subscription model for entertainment (Netflix, MMORPGs, TV, Internet, VoIP, mobile phones, XM, etc.) In terms of music, things like Pandora and XM are the wave of the future, and the industry should think less about individual sales and more about having a service to which virtually everyone would want to be a subscriber.

How many CDs does the average person purchase in a year? I am betting that # scales far back after 25 or 30 years of age. A subscription service that allowed one to populate their iPod with their choices from a vast catalog, or stream at will, would be a service for which people would happily pay each month.

This requires innovation, though, and the industry doesn't want to innovate unless they have no other choice (due to inherent risk.)

Not a problem, but I assume everyone else will quietly shuffle back to the bar muttering about geeks.... I'm already rapidly losing my sexual magnetism...

Nah, the Internet is all for unrestrained geekery. ;D

[s,v.Dragcos~theDragon]

I PAID FOR ALL MY "C.D"S,..

I Rip them Onto my "DELL PC Windows 98' Media Player",..
So I can Listen While I'm Working - on My PC,...

':-)

[inox]

An interesting article from the EFF:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01...horized-or-not

[Mindgames]

They don't make any new points that I could see. You may want to read the extract from Senate hearing J-100-13.1987 which Bill Patry has transcribed in his blog:=

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/200...me-taping.html

It's not the current RIAA position exactly but it's a detailed insight into the general opinions being held.

[inox]

Well, I think the EFF article does a good job of explaining the issue that we've been discussing, but in a much more concise way. I think a lot of people may have checked out.

Good blog post. I still think that the AHRA language would support "space shifting". Also persuasive is the legislative intent, clearly stated:

“In the case of home taping, the exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog recordings,”
H.R. 873, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1992).

...and what the RIAA says is fairly distressing:

Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

Speculation time!

What worries me is that their language above suggests they might one day decide it's lucrative to go after "music files of no provenance". That is, those for which an individual cannot prove ownership with something like a receipt from iTunes or a CD in hand.

They're aware that there's not a lot of judicial or public sympathy for such a case, so they're waiting for the right one. My guess is that this will be when they find someone with an appalling number of mp3 files, but with whom they can't also otherwise establish "sharing".

If they got a big victory over "space shifting", we'd be right back in the Sony Betamax days, and they'd be looking to disable copying via operating systems and to get DRM into DVR devices (which are now basically HDDs.)

Then, they'd move more fully to selling their content electronically (as is the trend), but simply specifically license one backup copy (or an iPod/Apple TV copy, etc.) They would then also embed personal data in files they sold, both to verify ownership and to prevent sharing. For movies and TV shows, they would likely move to a model similar to what iTunes is using for their movie rentals.

Of course, we'd not be permitted to modify any of this material, so we'd be forced to endure whatever sort of advertisements they feel they can cram into the package.

I am also fairly certain we'd have something dumber than DVD regions to contend with.

[goodthink]

If you're on a traditional label you don't make money as an artist selling your music, the label does. The issue here is that music labels are losing money not artists.

Many artists have come out publicly and told fans to steal (like NIN) their music because traditional delivery methods and current label contracts are draconian and anti-artist. What's more it is well known that labels leak albums to torrent sites to increase the sale of cd's because piracy means more sales. The greatest ally Oink had were the label's promoting new albums. Musicans make the sum of their monies on tours, selling t-shirts and other merchandise they don't share with their labels.

The MPAA and RIAA are out to blackmail and bully people. The cases where they have won, they sought damages far out of line of the actual costs of the music taken and have publicly admitted there was no justification for the damages sought, only that they wanted the most a jury would award. The real costs are somewhere around $1 not the enormous amounts they seek.