I had a similar situation arise awhile ago: both the CD player and my entire CD collection were stolen from my car one night. I was actually much sadder about the loss of the CD collection than about the CD player, even though the player was more expensive: the collection felt more personal, somehow.
A friend offered to replace my collection using Internet sources. I declined, more out of laziness than anything else. But I have real trouble seeing how I would be the thief, had I accepted the offer – it seems to me that I would be continuing to use legitimately a license I purchased, whereas the guy who stole my collection would be using stolen goods.
If I rent a movie, do I ‘own’ it for the duration, and can I make backups of it? Also, why can’t a group of people jointly “buy” a CD, thus giving all of them a liscense to the music?
You don’t own a movie for the duration when you rent it: you’re purchasing the ability to watch the movie for a limited time. When your rental period is up, so is your purchased ability to watch the movie.
And a group of people CAN purchase a CD, thus giving them a right to the music; otherwise, marriage property ownership is very screwed up. What they can’t do, as near as I know, is be exercising that right simulatenously in separate locations. That is, I’m pretty sure that what’s forbidden is the simultaneous multiple playings of that music.
I wouldn’t go that far. They don’t need to send out a new copy, they just need to let me make my own copy.
You could have credit card statements, receipts, or warranty cards showing that you bought the items. Of course, you can’t prove that you didn’t sell them to someone else; but I think once you prove you had ownership in the past, the burden passes to someone else to show that you don’t have it anymore.
I’m not holding them responsible - I’m (hypothetically) willing to make the backup copy on my own time, with blank media I bought myself, perhaps copied from an original which I paid to rent. No one else has to lift a finger.
This hypothetical is interesting. You could make a software analogy and say each of you own the whole thing and you just aren’t allowed to listen to it at the same time unless you’re in the same place.
But both of you are allowed to make a backup copy. It’s listening to it that is problematic. I would say one thing, and I’m pretty certain the record company would say something else.
The physical media the copy is made out of is your property, yes. But your permission to listen to the copyrighted material contained on that media is non-transferrable unless you have the original media. So you can’t sell the copy even though you own it, unless you are selling it to somebody who already owns permission to listen to the copyrighted material on it. In that case you would just be selling the physical media and not the permission… they’re paying you to make a backup, as explicitly permitted by fair use.
The distinction is pretty clear to me. Sure, part of what you pay for when you buy a CD, for example, is the physical media and nice packaging. But you’re also buying permission to listen to the copyrighted material. That permission is only transferrable with the original media, but losing the original media in the fire doesn’t mean you’ve lost the permission to listen to the material… all you have lost is the ability to transfer your ownership of the permission.
Hell, given the technology exists to make an indistinguishable copy of the original packaging, I’d say you have the right to do that as well… it’s also copyrighted. Again, the only thing in question is the right to transfer ownership of your permission to look at it.