# Can I legally copy my music then sell the originals? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 7, 2006, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717 "2006-06-07T08:16:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/21 "2006-06-07T19:21:40Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Sure, but it seems to me that there are many cases in the law where there is no recognized right TO do something, but where doing that thing will not get you in trouble. I guess what i’m saying is that, just because no-one has formally recognized a right to copy music for your own use, this doesn’t necessarily mean that doing so is a breach of the law. [/QUOTE] Agreed. Unfortunately, the way copyright law works, copying is a violation unless it is somehow carved out by statute or judicial exemption. Here, we have to rely on a possible exemption whose application is not clear. So it’s less a case of an act that is not forbidden, but also not expressly permitted. It’s a case where the act is forbidden, but might qualify for an exception. In other words, the problem here is that we don’t know whether the act is forbidden under the general rule or permitted under the exception. Your points about encryption are good. And they suggest that there may be methodological problems that moot the issue. > [@](#): > > On a related issue, i wonder what you think of the issue of pricing of the originals. I was a teen when they were first introduced. I couldn’t afford them. The pricing, to me, is still too high. I almost never buy new CDs; most of the stuff I like is available used. So until the industry succeeds in eliminating the first sale doctrine, I’m ok. > [@](#): > > Why then, if accidentally scratch or break my copy of Batman Begins, rendering it unplayable, can’t i take the disc back and get a replacement for a nominal price, equivalent to the cost of buring the movie onto the blank media? After all, i’ve already paid for all the actors and director and producer etc. by buying the thing at full price in the first place. I’m with you on that one, too. This is one of the reasons consumers don’t take music copyright seriously. OTOH, if I buy a book, and then lose it, I can’t get a replacement for that by paying the cost of reproduction either. This is one of the justifications given in cases like Williams & Wilkins (on copying entire journal articles for scholarly purposes) [Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_&_Wilkins_Co._v._United_States) As my copyright professor put it: “Then you’ve got a copy to spill coffee on.” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/22 "2006-06-07T19:44:09Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Clause 4 says that you’re supposed to look at the economic impact, which in this case is minimal, since users are copying works they have already legally purchased. [/quote] Doesn’t matter. All four clauses are to be considered equally. > [@](#): > > The copyright holders have themselves acknowledged at oral argument that copying your own material is not infringement. > > Can you point to any case law that suggests otherwise? Can you point to any case law that specifies this is not infringement? **Gfactor** can’t seem to find any. If you do, BTW, I’ll still bet it wasn’t decided as a fair use issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/23 "2006-06-07T19:57:50Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] Doesn’t matter. All four clauses are to be considered equally. [/quote] Are you relying on some case law here? I can’t find any particular guidance on how to weigh the various factors, and what weights certain fact patterns have. > [@](#): > > Can you point to any case law that specifies this is not infringement? **Gfactor** can’t seem to find any. No. But I take the oral argument concession of the RIAA, the default plaintiff in these cases, as being of great weight. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/24 "2006-06-07T20:23:45Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] No. But I take the oral argument concession of the RIAA, the default plaintiff in these cases, as being of great weight. [/QUOTE] Indeed, as far as RIAA is concerned, the doctrine of judicial estoppel might bar them from asserting a contrary position. \*See, e.g., \* [http://www.vsb.org/publications/valawyer/dec04/scully.pdf](http://www.vsb.org/publications/valawyer/dec04/scully.pdf) > [@](#): > > Are you relying on some case law here? I can’t find any particular guidance on how to weigh the various factors, and what weights certain fact patterns have. The factors are not even exclusive, and there is no rosetta stone that explains how they apply. I can cite some stuff on this when I get home tonight. Bottom line though, courts have refused to give any sort of bright-line test. They apply them on a case-by-case basis. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/25 "2006-06-07T20:41:00Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Bottom line though, courts have refused to give any sort of bright-line test. They apply them on a case-by-case basis. [/QUOTE] Like I said: > [@](#): > > The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis. The text employs the terms “including” and “such as” in the preamble paragraph to indicate the “illustrative and not limitative” function of the examples given, which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses. Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. (citations and footnotes omitted) [Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=510&page=569) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/26 "2006-06-07T22:01:30Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Like I said: (citations and footnotes omitted) [Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=510&page=569) [/QUOTE] Actually, I was thinking they might be equitably estopped. But yeah, you get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/27 "2006-06-07T22:31:46Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Actually, I was thinking they might be equitably estopped. But yeah, you get the idea. [/QUOTE] Actually, for people who uploaded before the RIAA changed its position, that’s probably true too. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/28 "2006-06-08T00:19:07Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] How is a person expected to place the music on their MP3 player if they can’t get the CD content to the hard drive first? [/QUOTE] Dunno; perhaps one is not _expected_ to do it at all. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/29 "2006-06-08T01:56:31Z")
[QUOTE=Music United for Strong Internet Copyright] \*It’s ok to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. - It’s also ok to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)–but again, not for commercial purposes \*Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto aCD-R. However, burning a copy of a 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: \*The copy is made from an authorized origina CD that you legitimately own. \*The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use–in fact , it’s illegal–to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying. \*The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying. \*Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make. [/QUOTE] _Online Music Sharing is Wrong_, _in_ Torr, James, ed., _Internet Piracy_ (2005) I can’t quibble with this much. But from the third bullet down they aren’t talking about non-infringing uses–they are talking about things that “won’t raise concerns.” [QUOTE=belrix] I thought a “format change” was legal, originally fought in the battles to make a cassette copy of an LP for use in your car. [/QUOTE] Some changes are legal thanks to the Audio Home Recording Act: [QUOTE=17 USC § 1008] 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. [/QUOTE] > **[17 U.S. Code § 1008 - Prohibition on certain infringement actions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1008)** The statute was enacted in 1992. It comes with a very technical set of [definitions](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001001----000-.html) > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t copying the CD to my hard drive be similar? Well, yes and no. In _RIAA v. Diamond Media Systems_, 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999) the Ninth Circuit held: > [@](#): > > [7] Under the plain meaning of the Act’s definition of digi- > tal audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) > are not digital audio recording devices because their “primary > purpose” is not to make digital audio copied recordings. See > 17 U.S.C. S 1001(3). Unlike digital audio tape machines, for > example, whose primary purpose is to make digital audio cop- > ied recordings, the primary purpose of a computer is to run > various programs and to record the data necessary to run those > programs and perform various tasks. The legislative history is > consistent with this interpretation of the Act’s provisions, stat- > ing that “the typical personal computer would not fall within > the definition of `digital audio recording device,' " S. Rep. 102-294, at *122, because a personal computer's "recording function is designed and marketed primarily for the recording of data and computer programs," id. at *121. Another portion of the Senate Report states that "*f the`primary purpose’ of > the recording function is to make objects other than digital > audio copied recordings, then the machine or device is not a > `digital audio recording device,’ even if the machine or device > is technically capable of making such recordings.” Id. > (emphasis added). The legislative history thus expressly rec- > ognizes that computers (and other devices) have recording > functions capable of recording digital musical recordings, and > thus implicate the home taping and piracy concerns to which > the Act is responsive. Nonetheless, the legislative history is > consistent with the Act’s plain language – computers are not > digital audio recording devices. [http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856727.htmlBecause](http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856727.htmlBecause) computers aren’t covered by the statute, more general fair use principles apply to its use in copying. The issue in the case was whether the Rio mp3 player was a digital recording device. RIAA sought to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the device because the RIAA claime that the Rio was a digital recording device that did not comply with AHRA. The court held that it wasn’t a digital recording device. The case didn’t deal directly with fair use. But the court likened use of an mp3 player to “space-shift” files with the use of a VCR to “time-shift” television shows. > [@](#): > > Rio’s operation is entirely consistent with > the Act’s main purpose – the facilitation of personal use. As > the Senate Report explains, “[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to > ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio > recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncom- > mercial use.” S. Rep. 102-294, at \*86 (emphasis added). The > Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. > S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by con- > sumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. > 102-873(I), at \*59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to > render portable, or “space-shift,” those files that already > reside on a user’s hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. > Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding > that “time-shifting” of copyrighted television shows with > VCR’s constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus > is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non- > commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes > of the Act. This passage suggests that the court would find such copying to be fair use. Greene, Stephanie, _Reconciling Napster with the Sony Decision and Recent Amendments to Copyright Law_ (2001). This supports **Bricker** ’s argument. The Court acknowledged its holding in [Napster](http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/9th/case/0016401&exact=1) (2001): > [@](#): > > Napster also maintains that space-shifting is a fair use. > Space-shifting occurs when a Napster user downloads MP3 > music files in order to listen to music he already owns on > audio CD. See id. at 915-16. Napster asserts that we have > already held that space-shifting of musical compositions and > sound recordings is a fair use. See Recording Indus. Ass’n of > Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 > (9th Cir. 1999) (“Rio [a portable MP3 player] merely makes > copies in order to render portable, or `space-shift,’ those files > that already reside on a user’s hard drive. . . . Such copying > is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use.”). See also > generally Sony, 464 U.S. at 423 (holding that “time-shifting,” > where a video tape recorder owner records a television show > for later viewing, is a fair use). > > We conclude that the district court did not err when it > refused to apply the “shifting” analyses of Sony and Diamond. > Both Diamond and Sony are inapposite because the methods > of shifting in these cases did not also simultaneously involve > distribution of the copyrighted material to the general public; > the time or space-shifting of copyrighted material exposed the > material only to the original user. In Diamond , for example, > the copyrighted music was transferred from the user’s com- > puter hard drive to the user’s portable MP3 player. So too > Sony, where “the majority of VCR purchasers .. . did not dis- > tribute taped television broadcasts, but merely enjoyed them > at home.” Napster, 114 F. Supp. 2d at 913. Conversely, it is > obvious that once a user lists a copy of music he already owns > on the Napster system in order to access the music from > another location, the song becomes “available to millions of > other individuals,” not just the original CD owner. See UMG > Recordings, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 351-52 (finding space-shifting > of MP3 files not a fair use even when previous ownership is > demonstrated before a download is allowed); cf. Religious > Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, No. 95-1107A, 1996 WL 633131, at \*6 > (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 1996) (suggesting that storing copyrighted > material on computer disk for later review is not a fair use). So there is some authority that suggests that personal non-commercial space shifting is fair use. Also, the point was conceded by RIAA’s counsel during oral arguments in the \*Grokster \* case. But some, like the Register of Copyrights, disagree. In her 2003 Recommendations, she analyzed claims that there was a right to make backup copies of DVDs: > [@](#): > > The creation of a backup copy of a work implicates the reproduction right. While the Copyright Act contains an exception for the making of backup copies of computer programs in §117, it contains no comparable exemption for motion pictures and other audiovisual works. In addition, the Register is aware of only one court decision that has held that reproducing a copyrighted motion picture is a fair use: where an over-the-air broadcast was taped for purposes of time-shifting the user’s viewing of the work. In the time-shifting case, the Court explicitly did not address the issue of librarying such a work, and this rulemaking is not the forum in which to break new ground on the scope of fair use. The proponents of an exemption bear the burden of proving that their intended use is a noninfringing one. No proponent has offered a fair use analysis or supporting authority which would allow the Register to consider such a basis for the exemption, and the Register is skeptical of the merits of such an argument. > > * * * > > While an analogy might be made to the basis for the backup exemption for computer programs that was enacted in the days of corruptible floppy diskettes, there are important differences. Congress carefully addressed the §117 exemption for backups of computer programs with restrictive conditions. One day Congress may choose to consider a carefully tailored exception for backing up motion pictures if it is persuaded that one is necessary, but the Register sees no authority under current law that would justify an exemption to enable the making of backup copies of motion pictures on DVDs. Given the tremendous commercial appeal of the DVD format at a time when alternative analog formats still exist, it seems unlikely that now is the time. And while it may well be true that analog formats are headed for ultimate extinction, the market is already beginning to see evidence of alternative forms of digital delivery over the Internet. The decision to purchase a DVD format entails advantages and, perhaps, disadvantages for some. The purchase of a work in that particular format is not, at present, a necessity and DVDs are unlikely to become the only format in which motion pictures may be purchased. The record in this rulemaking does not establish that the potential for possible future harm to individual disks outweighs the potential harm to the market for or value of these works that would result if an exemption were granted. The unauthorized reproduction of DVDs is already a critical problem facing the motion picture industry. Creating an exemption to satisfy the concern that a DVD may become damaged would sanction widespread circumvention to facilitate reproduction for works that are currently functioning properly. As presented in this rulemaking, the exemption would be based on speculation of future failure. Even though certain copies of DVDs may be damaged, given the ready availability of replacements in the market at reasonable costs, on balance, an exemption is not warranted on the current record. > > * * * > > To the extent that some commenters found it more convenient to travel with backups or keep backups of their works in multiple locations, e.g., vacation homes or cars, the prevention of such uses appears to represent an inconvenience rather than an adverse effect on noninfringing uses. Indeed, the Register is aware of no authority that such uses are noninfringing. To endorse such uses as noninfringing would be tantamount to sanctioning reproductions of all works in every physical location where a user would like to use the work, e.g., the purchase of one book would entitle the user to reproduce copies for multiple locations. Except where a case-by-case analysis reveals such reproduction to be noninfringing under §107 or some other specific exemption, such reproductions of convenience are infringing under the Copyright Act. Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one. The same logic could apply backup copies of CDs using computers. There is little authority to support the fair use argument. Congress enacted a statute that provides a method to back up CDs. It doesn’t include using a computer. (I would expect **Bricker** to find this argument appealing, but something tells me I’d be wrong. :D) And the convenience does not make a use non-infringing. On the other other hand, courts don’t give the Copyright Office’s interpretations of statutes much deference, especially in cases of first impression. [The Patry Copyright Blog: Judicial Deference to Copyright Office](http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/05/judicial-deference-to-copyright-office_17.html). Where does that leave us? Pretty close to where we started. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/30 "2006-06-08T02:40:24Z")
The District Judge in _Napster_ was skeptical about the space-shifting argument: > [@](#): > > The court is also unconvinced that Sony applies to space-shifting. Defendant erroneously relies on the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, in a case involving an inapplicable statute, that space-shifting constitutes noncommercial personal use. See Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing the applicability of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 to the Rio MP3 player). n19 Defendant also implies that space-shifting music is sufficiently analogous to time-shifting television broadcasts to merit the protection of Sony. According to the gravely flawed Fader Report, space-shifting–like time-shifting–leaves the value of the copyrights unscathed because it does not displace sales. See Fader Rep. P 77; Sony, 464 U.S. at 421 (concluding that plaintiffs did not prove that time-shifting created any likelihood of harm). > > * * * > > Diamond Multimedia involved a suit under the AHRA by the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio portable music player–a hand-held device that can receive, store, and re-play MP3 files. See Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d at 1074. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rio player is not a digital audio recording device subject to the AHRA’s restrictions. See id. at 1081. Nor are computers and their hard drives digital audio recording devices. See id. at 1078. The Diamond Multimedia court did opine that making copies with the Rio to space-shift, or make portable, files already on a user’s hard drive constitutes “paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act [i.e. the facilitation of personal use].” Id. at 1079. However, this dicta is of limited relevance [because this case does not involve AHRA and the Diamond court did not discuss fair use]. 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 915-16 (N.D. Ca 1999). The \*Aimster \* court similarly limited \*Diamond Multimedia \* to its conclusion that the AHRA did not apply to the devices in question. 252 F. Supp. 2d 634, 649 (N.D. Ill. 2002). ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/31 "2006-06-08T03:02:19Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] I understand it is allowed to make copies of ones own music, e.g. I have just transferred all my LPs to CDs and make copies of my CDs. But can I now sell the originals? It would seem to defeat the point of the law if could just buy a CD. copy it and sell the original on Ebay for a small loss. [/QUOTE] While I admire and respect Gfactor and Bricker’s intensive legal review of the subject matter, my own view on this more as a moral issue rather than a codified law issue. You purchased something and then sold it (along with the copyright) for some fair amount (fair being, you accepted the payment) but still beleive that you have a right to have access to it after you sold it. The law I would quote would be “Thou shall not steal”. You would be stealing from the artist (that you supposivly admire) his right to paid for his work. He get’s paid by people by his “official” recordings. Myself, I still have about 200 LP’s left over from college, and alot of the same material on about 300 CD’s. I’ve loss track of how many tapes, 45’s and 8-tracks I’ve had. I’ve taken the time to download “my” stuff onto my iPod and “my” Bose LS48 system because I love music. I don’t use my love of music as an excuse to steal from the people I admire the most, recording artist. If you can’t afford to purchase it, listen to the radio. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/32 "2006-06-08T03:05:41Z")
And then there is this proposed legislation: > [@](#): > > Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA) … fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. **It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer’s memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.** Once again, Big Copyright is looking for a way to double-dip into your wallet, extracting payment for the same content at multiple levels. > > Today, so-called “incidental” copies don’t need to be licensed; they’re made in the process of doing _other_ things, like listening to your MP3 library or plugging into a Net radio station. If you paid for the MP3 and the radio station is up-to-date with its bookkeeping, nobody should have to pay again, right? Not if SIRA becomes law. Out of the blue, copyright holders would have created an entire new market to charge for – and sue over. Good for them. Bad for us. Emphasis mine. Source: [http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/06/worst-bill-youve-never-heard-of.html](http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/06/worst-bill-youve-never-heard-of.html) > [@](#): > > SIRA addresses ephemeral downloads, or what the EFF refers to as incidental downloads, meaning any content that is either temporary or cached in a computer. Chris Norgaard, partner and intellectual property attorney at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, says that SIRA actually prevents incidental downloads from being licensed but speculates that the mere mention of it has EFF nervous. > > “It’s designed to not have separate royalty-triggering events for incidental downloads for buffering and all of that stuff that happens in between,” Norgaard said. “In other words, it contains a lot of language aimed at clearing away all of that as being actionable.” > > But EFF insists just the opposite. “[SIRA] is a subtle way of setting a dangerous precedent for the fundamental meaning of copyright law,” said Derek Slater, an activist with the EFF. “It says that basically every transmission of a copyright work is also a distribution. That’s very dangerous because the record industry has said if you’re performing these songs and you’re allowing them to be recorded, like with a TiVo for radio, that’s a distribution and it treats it as licensable.” Source: [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1973270,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1973270,00.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/33 "2006-06-08T12:44:54Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Dunno; perhaps one is not _expected_ to do it at all. [/QUOTE] My point is, there must be an allowance or provision for such use, no? Apparently that’s still up in the air. I think (hope) this will boil down to whether or not one has access to and owns the original copy. If the original is on my bookshelf at home and I have the copy on my MP3 player, that’s reasonable, since the copy is on my person. The copy is not in the summer house up north or on my computer at work while I’m not at those places. I’m carrying the copy with me and the original is at my primary residence, not at my friends house or some other place. I could see the RIAA not having issue with this if some guidlines are in place to allow them to prosecute offenders. I could see something like a ‘100 foot rule’ where the original must be within 100 feet of any copies and then you are allowed to have only one copy on any portable device as long as that device in on your person. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/34 "2006-06-08T15:05:40Z")
No, there doesn’t have to be allowance for such use. If it’s illegal, then it’s illegal, period. It doesn’t become legal because you would personally find it convenient. Conversely, if it’s legal then provisions like a 100-foot-rule are meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717/35 "2006-06-08T15:38:33Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] I could see the RIAA not having issue with this if some guidlines are in place to allow them to prosecute offenders. [/QUOTE] You place entirely too much faith in the reasonableness of the recording industry, a faith that they have done nothing to justify in this whole debate over shifting music formats. Hell, i sometimes think that if it were up to them, you’d have to send them another check every time you place a CD in your player. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-legally-copy-my-music-then-sell-the-originals/359717.md?page=1)