If I own a copy of a Garth Brooks album and I want to put a copy on my computer, do I have to copy it directly from my legally purchased copy of the CD? Or can I legally download the album since I already own the CD?
Can I download the album legally if I don’t own the CD?
Unfortunately, nobody knows. Some attorneys believe that you can either copy or download the album if you already purchased it. Others believe that you cannot.
In either case, downloading the music without owning the CD (or purchasing it from the new apple iTunes service at $.99 a song), would most likely be illegal.
I wouldn’t risk it … the goverment might render your computer into a useless hunk of metal or door stop for doing so.
How would you know if your downloaded copy was exactly the same cut as the track on your CD? It could be from a different album with an longer lead in, extra vocals, etc.
Right now, record companies are holding off prosecution of individuals that download illegal copies of music. Not just because they fear the bad press for “going after the little guy”, but because the legal lines are so grey they’re hard to see (especially through the rose colored glasses many downloaders seem to wear).
So I’d say go ahead and download it, if you really feel that’s easier than copying it off your CD. Assuming your computer has a CD player, I would think downloading software to grab the song off the CD is just as easy as downloading software to find and download the song online. Not to mention you can choose the sound quality of the copy if you create it yourself.
Well, since I’m bored and want to avoid real work, I’ll expand on my previous statements.
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) defined a class of stand-alone recorders that were designed to copy music. Basically, all analog recorders, mini-disc recorders, digital audio tape (DAT) recorders, digital cassette tape recorders and some (but not all) compact disc recorders qualify. The purpose of the AHRA was to set up a system where the producers of such devices would have to pay the music industry a royalty. Consumers are specifically excluded from the AHRA.
I should mention that there is legislative history that states, “The purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.” Unfortunately, nothing in the act comes anywhere close to saying such a thing. Making the AHRA inapplicable to consumers simply requires courts to consider the traditional “fair use” factors when determining whether making a DAT copy of a CD is legal.
The RIAA’s position, by the way, is that using an AHRA device to make a copy of a legally purchased album is okay, but nothing else is.
There is absolutely no support for the RIAA’s position. Whether making a copy of your legally purchased CD is a fair use should not depend upon the device you used to make that copy.
The question of whether such a copy is fair use is not easily answered. The closest case is a “time shifting” case that decided taping television programs with a VCR is okay. That really doesn’t address the question of whether it is okay to make a tape from a CD when both are available for sale.
I suspect we will never really have an answer because the RIAA simply will not sue anyone over this. They are too afraid of what the answer will be, and prefer to make self-serving statements such as “its okay to make copies using devices that we get royalties off of, but otherwise it is not okay”
To the OP, I would say that this question does put us in quandary of sorts…
However, logic would dictate that you would simply "rip" and encode the audio tracks locally (on your computer) that you want to play for your personal use, rather than engage in *clandestine* activities such as P 2 P file sharing to listen to any of the tracks on a CD that you own a copy of...
That being said, most computer-centric folk would probably say that these arguments about copyright for manufactured media will ultimately be rendered moot by the advent of something akin to "satellite radio on demand."
The idea behind this would be the same structure as the Movies-On-Demand deal I keep seeing on my local cable TV: whatever you like to hear will be available to you on a pay-per-hear basis, however often or whenever you want to hear it.
For a concept as I have postulated about to succeed would require at least two things:
1: Instantaneous delivery of the product
2: A very nominal per month / week / day fee, most people would rather probably pay for an all-day playlist of it did not seem that they were paying an appreciable price for those tunes that they were just checking out on the spur of the moment.
Whomever in the industry who is reading this can make checks
for intellectual propoerty for this idea payable to…
Just Kidding
That’s what started this whole mess right?
BTW:
Referring to the link in Mynn’s post above:
Maybe it would be cuter to rig Hatch’s pacemaker to play the bassline to Lipps Inc’s Funkytown on command than to try and disable folks’ computers on some whim…
(everybody laugh at the funny joke)
.:Please, Mr. Ashcroft. I didn’t really mean it ! OW !:.
Whether or not you can, you’re sacrificing audio quality if you do it that way. For one method, using Easy Audio Creator and choosing Lame 3.92 to encode the data straight from your actual store-bought disc and compress to mp3, the encoder will read the highest possible quality from each bit of the file as it compresses, and you can get quality that varies throughout the file between 160-320 kbps. Sound quality of a common file downloaded through most p2p services would only be 128 kbps, because most people do not take the time to rip to mp3 at anything better than the 128 (as you’d get from something like CDex) before sharing.
It may take almost an hour to extract and encode at this higher quality, but that’s still less than it takes to download the entire album on a p2p.
True 'nuff Rex, but to avoid the legalities, and enjoy a pristine rip and encode using 192 (?) or (better yet) 320 kbps is worth the wait…
I have played around with different bitrates on different albums and it seems that the newer the music (higher fidelity), the more crucial the high-end, the more noticeable the bitrate to quality ratio.
Those high splash cymbals always sound warbly below 192 kbps in a standard Frunhoffer (sp?) of LAME encode.
I’d be curious to investigate what VBR (variable bitrate) could do at similar bitrates if I hadn’t had problems with audio sync re encoding in video files that had utilized VBR, i.e AVI to VCD.
Anybody use that MP3 Pro I heard about some time ago?
Anyways, before I hijack anymore
Happy Wednesday, or whatever it is wherever you is,
\killswitch\
You cannot.
The law is clear: only the copyright holder has the right to make copies. You don’t hold copyright, you cannot copy.
Fair use doesn’t apply. Fair use only applies under certain conditions: “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” (U.S. Copyright Law) Note this does not include “to make an extra copy for my own convenience.” Further, fair use has never applied to copying an entire work; you could take a short clip under fair use, but not the entire song, and certainly not an entire album.
Time shifting has been deemed fair use, but that applied to taping off the air. You might be able to make a case for recording a live radio show under that, but not making a copy of a CD.
Pencil Pusher is wrong about the actual law – MP3.com was sued for doing exactly what you are talking about (playing an album you actually own) and dropped their plans to allow this because they knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on. And if it were legal to make copies, why is Napster out of business? Their entire defense was that it was allowable to make copies under fair use; the judge made it clear that there was no right.
Unless you’re the copyright holder, no.
Don’t make me bust out my kung fu.
What, you are basing your statement on…what? Some N.Y. district court case that never went up on appeal? Ya, whatever.
From what I could tell, the MP3 case was litigated by idiots on one side and all the money in the world on the other. Guess who won. If memory serves, the litigation team even tried to convince the court that copying ones and zeros wasn’t really copying. Come on. No wonder the judge slammed them.
Now, if you wanted to follow actual Supreme Court law, you might be able to say that the whole transformative work angle is a winner. They sorta like that one. Transforming the media so you can play it on BOTH your cd player AND your iPod. And, yes, they have said that you can take the whole darn thing if you are creating a transformative work.
No, my post was completely accurate. Reasonable people will differ as to whether ripping a CD is fair use. Until a case is on all fours, it is merely guesswork.
If you wonder why the RIAA doesn’t like to bring cases in California, it might have something to do with this gem of a quote from RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.
That certainly sounds like one appellate court that would find ripping a CD fair use.
Additionally, the connectix case could be interpreted to read that conversion from one platform to another falls under transformative works:
They were talking about the copying of software, which is different than the copying of sound recordings, but you can definitely see a glimmer of hope for the CD rippers.
Also, I should mention the MP3 case had to do with a company’s liability for making mp3 files available to the public, not whether a consumer has the right to rip a CD.
So, RealityChuck, still so confident in your position?
I entirely agree. I’m sure to always --alt-preset (aps) encode my newer stuff that way. However, I think the older stuff just isn’t high enough quality on the source to make much difference. Alot of classic rock albums were put to CD in the mid-to-late 80’s, and it isn’t worth doing it for those albums. But a new digital remaster is worth it for sure, I aps encoded the new remastered copy of Genesis “The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway”, and I think it sounds as good as anything else I have aps’ed. Back when I used CDex, at 128 kbps, I could always tell the difference between my original copy and my burned backup copy.
IMHO, a Napsterized album is barely worth the trouble, if you really like it you buy it and get the high audio quality. The legal stuff aside, if you already have the manufactured CD and can make a high-quality rip, it’s pointless to download any of the 128 kbps stuff.
Are you sure? Look at this section of the AHRA…
** Mr2001**, you highlighted the wrong portion. Try reading it this way:
The title is sections 1000-, which is the AHRA
I interpreted “this title” to mean Title 17, since the Copyright Act of 1976 is in Title 17, and the AHRA is an amendment to that Act. Is that not a correct interpretation?
So much myth, so much myth.
Contrary to what people would have you believe, modern music is nowhere NEAR as gorgeous sounding as “reel to reel recordings” prior to the digital mastering era. But before I continue, please be aware of what I refer to as the digital Mastering era - this is the time frame from about 1995 onwards when music started going through a post production phase on products like Sonic Station or SADiE equipment - whereupon it would get compressed and limited way, WAY beyond what it sounded like in real life - just so that it would also sound really loud on your CD. If you look at a typical recent CD these days, you’ll see it was “recorded” at XYZ Studios, and “mastered” at XYZv2 Studios.
This latest fad, known as “mastering” is such pure bullshit. And worse yet, it’s totally ruining music. Nobody has the guts (that is, anybody who knows what’s going on) to speak out against it. The goal, quite simply, is to make music ever louder and louder by squashing it’s dynamic range. The nature of digital sound is such that you can apply a myriad of mathematical software algorithms - but the assertion that an album from pre 1990 is somehow, generically inferior? Just because of it’s age? That is such bullshit… total bullshit.
The Studer people in Switzerland, still to this day, rule the roost with their magnificent 30 inch per second 2 inch reel to reels in the analogue world. That technology goes all the way back to pre World War 2.
Also, still to this day, the most famous microphones that any singer in the world (who knows their stuff) will ONLY use are either a Neumann U47 from 1947-1962 or a Neumann U67 from 1960- 1977. These microphones are masterpieces which are powered by little valve pre amplifiers. No singer worth their salt would turn down the opportunity to sing into one if they had the chance.
And no producer, or engineer would turn down the opportunity to record an entire band with such microphones if they had the chance. And the reason? Because the greatest, most famous recordings of all time used such equipment.
Don’t believe me?
Go and visit the websites for Sing Sing Studios, or Conway Studios, or Chalice Recording. Or Abbey Road studios. These are some of the most famous recording houses in the entire world.
Just look at the myriad lists of incredible vintage equipment they still offer (at amazing hire rates) to work with their modern equipment. Sure, the Pro Tools HD3 system is proving a resilient multi-track back end - but a shitload of of folks still use the Studer 24 and 48 tracks as their primary recording source if they’re a multi piece band - and, if possible, they’ll use 40 year old microphones to do it too.
There is so much consumerist myth about DVD, and SACD etc. But the truth is that the most famous, greatest recordings of all time have taken place prior to 1990 - perhaps with the exception of Natalie King Coles’ “Unforgettable” in 1991. They were the works that all modern artists compare themselves too - and the assertion that modern records are innately superior is such bunkum.
The difference with modern albums now is the post production habit of squashing the bejesus out of them to make them SEEM louder - but in doing so, you lose the true life like reality of the original sound source.
Sorry about the hijack there, but it’s something I’m passionate about. 
Yeah, I was going to say that too.
Simply put, the music that you would download would be offered to you illegally anyway. Since it is illegal to make copies and then offer them to the public (p2p) you would be breaking the law second hand.
Even if uploading copyright mp3s is illegal (which I would have a hard time arguing it is not.) How is downloading mp3s to cds you all ready pwn illegal? Causing some one to do something illegal is not illegal in it’s self.
As an example it’s not illegal to drive 5 miles under speed limit even though you could make someone pass in a no passing zone.