You have convinced me that I am an evil, immoral letch for swapping or owning music in variance forms, some legal, and some not. I decide that I must purge my collection of any media that do not fit within my newly legally compliant and ethical code of conduct. The problem is that as I look over my vast collection, I cannot decide which to get rid of. I am well read but I am no copyright lawyer. Even if I was a lawyer, I am not sure that would solve my problems as some laws and court rulings seem contradictory. So, I will leave it up to the Teeming Millions in this forum to decide what must go.
What must go and why (legally and ethically)?
Cassette tapes or CD’s that I bought.
Copies (backups) of cassette tapes or CD’s that I once owned but no longer have the originals.
Cassette tapes or CD-R’s of songs that I recorded off of the radio (Mix collection)
MP3 files that I copied (ripped) from CD’s that I bought for use in my personal MP3 player.
MP3 files that I downloaded from Napster for convenience but I do own the CD.
MP3 files that I downloaded from Napster and don’t own the CD but once did.
MP3 files that I downloaded, don’t own on any other medium, but would not have purchased anyway.
As a more general question, do I own rights to individual use of a song when I purchase it in one form, or do I only own a particular medium, a CD track for instance, that happens to contain that song? I am very confused. All of the debate about Napster recently has made it clear that downloading music is considered unethical or even illegal by some. However, I want a clarification of what is an acceptable use of music that I have in fact purchased in one form or another, or at one time or another. The recording industry seems to be making many ad-hoc rules here.
My husband (who is anti-Napster) assures me that the copy of the Brand New Day CD that he made to keep in his truck is very legal because it is an archive copy. However, if I’m listening to the orginal at home and he’s listening to the copy in his truck aren’t the Sting and A&M missing out on some bucks. I say that’s not archive, because I’m using the orginal. I say my cassette copies of LP’s are archival because I don’t actually listen to the LP’s. He says that his CD copy IS archival because if he took the original and left it in his hot truck all day it could get damaged. I say well that could be true, but the only reason he made it is because if he took my original Brand New Day he wouldn’t be getting any until I wasn’t mad anymore.
Ownership of a “phonorecord” (legally defined as any material object embodying fixations of sounds) and the ability to make copies (an exclusive right of a copyright holder) are separate concepts.
You are allowed legally use your phonorecord in any way you see fit (loan it out to someone, sell it to someone, use it as a frisbee).
The copyright holder is allowed to exclude others from doing certain things to the underlying copyrighted music (e.g., copying). However, the copyright holder cannot exclude others from copying if the copying was fair use. We can almost presume fair use if someone who owns a legally obtained phonorecord was merely copying the music from one medium to another (e.g., from CD to Hard Drive). All other cases are more difficult and depends on several factors, which I will not repeat here. (The Library of Congress provides a pdf file that discusses fair use, if you are interested.)
Now I have a definition of the problem. #4: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The effect of Metallica that depends on future album sales based on their past work could be negative if they put out a bad album next time. (Yeah, “if” whatever :rolleyes:)
The effect on like Sting that has an excellent current album including songs that don’t get radio airplay could be to boost sales even more.
The effect that it could have on like Cheap Trick which doesn’t get any radio play anymore (practically) could be positive if an album was talked up in the message boards and people sampled some songs or maybe not much effect either way if an album only has a few good songs and they just downloaded those songs. On the other hand, that person that didn’t want to buy the whole album might want to go see them in concert, buy a T-shirt or leather jacket or future and past albums or something, but that is not addressed at all in the fair use document.
So, I see that I was in the wrong legally in my recording that copy of Damn the Torpedos all those years ago. Somebody get me Tom Petty’s address so that I can mail him the dollar that I owe him for his royalties.
What if you buy a cassete tape, make a copy, and listen to the copy? Part of the reason that CDs are more expensive is that they last longer, and therefore are more valuable. But copying the cassette reduces this effect. Are you trherefore (morally or legally) obligated to pay the extra money for a CD if you want to listen to something several thousand times?
Oh, and SoMoMom: if it truly were an archival copy, he wouldn’t be putting it in a hot car; he’d put it in a safe place (although I’m not sure how much effect heat has on CDs).