Only if you’re a library. The law doesn’t say anything about private individuals mmaking archival copies.
Sorry kayT — I have to call you on the hamburger analogy. That’s because lunch can be sold separately - you can buy a hamburger by itself. Or you can buy fries by themselves.
You cannot buy one song by itself (since singles are basically dead), instead you are forced to buy the entire album.
Hmm.
— Peter Wiggen
Chronos, so what’s the Straight Dope here? CAN I or CAN I NOT make copies of my own music for personal use?
Keep in mind that there are commercials on TV for a Phillips/Magnovox CD Recorder that show a guy making a mix disc from his own CDs.
I guess I was confusing computer programs and other copyrighted works as computer programs can be legally copied for archival purposes (NOTE: You cannot defeat copy protection or encryption schemes legally even if it is to make your ‘allowed’ archival copy…I believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act speaks to that):
I have a question about the law regarding other copyrighted works (besides computer programs). Note the part I bolded below:
Assume I make a copy of a musci album and stick it in a drawer and NEVER use it. It is only there to replace my legal copy if it gets damaged or lost. Sticking my copy in a drawer will have zero impact on the value of the copyrighted work. In this case making a copy may be a technical violation of the code but since there is no damage incurred by the copyright holder and the law stipulates the market effect of the use as a consideration I can’t see the point of bringing a case in these circumstances.
Is this reasonable to assume or not?
Regardless of the answer to the above I know you cannot make a copy (legally) so you can have one at work, one in the car, one at home and one for the gym.
From the AHRA (emphasis added):
As far as I can tell, “this title” refers to Title 17, which contains the other copyright laws, since the AHRA is an amendment to that title. So you can make copies, but you can’t sell them.
Two more points in this. I’ve bought the “Back in Black” album 4 times. Twice on vinyl, twice on CD. 2 were stolen, one worn out and the last is in my collection. I bought the same songs 4 times, what’s the problem with making a backup or two if they’re for me?
Second, using p2p isn’t distributing. I don’t send it to ANYONE. If someone using the same program as I chooses to use it to get a file from my HD, that’s on them.
Granted, a technicality, but thank the lawyers for that. Just playing by their rules
Excellent point, Peter (even though you misspelled your last name, heh.) When Napster came about, I always maintained that it was the ONLY alternative to spending $18.99 for a CD that has only one song you like. Back in ‘90, the Personics Music System offered a similar thing to Steve Jobs’ eMusic – namely, making a cassette (no CDR’s back then) with a personally selected track list, at 50 cents to $1.25 per song. I spent over $500 on that system. So there’s definitely a market for it.
Unfortunately, the paradigm has now changed. If the RIAA had been wise enough to jump on the mp3 bandwagon before Napster/Kazaa/etc. took off, people would have embraced it: “Hey look, I can spend $1.00 per song instead of $18 for a whole CD!” But now, five years later, people are so accustomed to free downloads, that they will now think: “What??? Why should I spend $1.00 for a song I can get from Kazaa for free?”
I would have supported eMusic.com if it came out five years ago, but right now, I say fuck 'em. I’m too pissed off.
Oh, and to lite (and everyone else who bitched about buying the same album more than once) – I feel your pain. I’d guess that my CD collection includes about 200-300 titles that I’ve purchased at least twice (crappy vinyl → CD) and in many cases, three times. Black Sabbath’s debut album, I know I have bought four times – once on crappy vinyl, twice on “regular” CD (one import, one domestic…they had different songs on them), and finally on “remastered” CD which included all songs from both older CDs. I think that’s a record…so to speak. 
I’ve read thru T.17 USC and Nimmer on Copyright several times and still can’t grasp some stuff:
-
If standalone audio CD recorders and the special audio CDRs they use include royalties to reimburse artists for losses, what losses are these exactly? You’re still not allowed to give those CDRs away to friends, and they will be for your own personal use, so what exactly are the artists being reimbursed for with these royalties?
-
If I own a computer, a CDRW drive and some regular data CDRs (all of which don’t include the royalty payments in their purchase price), am I violating copyright law if I make the same personal copies of my own CDs using these devices?
-
Am I violating copyright law if I retain MP3s on my computer’s hard drive after selling/giving away the original CD they were ripped from?
-
Is an album of MP3s considered a “duplicate” of the audio CD they were ripped from? MP3s are a lossy format.
-
How is it that the RIAA has the right/power/ability/juridiction to obtain warrants from federal court clerks? Do all citizens working for aggrieved corporations have this right?
-
How is it that federal court clerks are able to grant warrants? Aren’t there legal issues to weigh and evidence to consider? Why isn’t this a matter for a judge to handle?
Thank you for any help!
Just to quote myself…
Just heard on CBC that RIAA reportedly said it is not targeting foreigners with this “crackdown” or whatever you want to call it. Only going after 'mericans.
I would like an answer to this if anyone knows.
Who is legally liable when sharing music via a P2P system? Person A copies the music and drops it on their PC where others may find it. It would seem the copying is a violation in its own right but I’m not sure we’ve even settled that.
Person B reaches out and takes the music which they (should) know amounts to theft of copyrighted material.
How do the legal distinctions play out here between these two people? Also, any sense of which end of the game the RIAA is targeting?
haha. i’m selfish. i don’t let people download from me.
Excellent synopsis Whack-a-Mole. This is just getting me going now. Who do they sue?!? (I really hope they hit me, I’ll be on the covers of Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Time, etc)
How bout this: I go to a garage sale and buy a used CD. The royalty was already paid to the artist (or “artist”) on the intitial sale, but none on the subsequent sale.
A step further, what about record stores buying and selling used CDs? Does the store have to verify that you didn’t already copy it? Sounds like a mighty big ring the local dealers are running.
As most of you already know I’m Conservative/Libertarian, but Orrin hatch is really pissing me off! He wants to melt HD’s of people using p2p files/software.
Can I sue the government for destroying all the other software i bought? And what about the songs I uploaded to HD that I already bought? There’s more but have to calm down a bit
Actually, the record labels went after used CD selling in a big way, around 1991-92 or so. Garth Brooks was their puppet, and he publicly delared that he would not allow any used CD seller to stock his albums or use any promotional material for his music. Basically, he was in the same position as Metallica is now, regarding mp3-sharing.
**
Oh, Utah’s favorite (and most corrupt) Senator is no stranger to strangling free speech. Here are just a few of the previous free-lance activities by Orral Snatch:
-
In 1996, Hatch sponsors The Child Pornography Prevention Act, better known as the law that made “virtual kiddy porn” illegal. Yeah, everyone hates kiddy porn, right? Sounds like a no-brainer. Except…this law was so badly worded, so overbroad in scope, that it would have made ANY image of a naked child-like human being, whether in a painting or an animated film or even if they’re over 18, the equivalent of owning hard-core child pornography. It would have included works of fine art by such masters as Carravagio, and movies like “Endless Love”, “Fast Times At Ridgemont High”, and “Traffic” would have become illegal. (Oddly, Hatch himself appeared in “Traffic” as a cameo!) Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down that law in 2002 (or most of it, at least), as it was clearly STUPID and the pre-existing kiddy porn laws work just fine.
-
In the wake of the 1999 Columbine massacre, Orrin Hatch leads the crusade against violent music and video games, and even provides quite a photo op with the game “Doom II” in his hands.
Interesting, how 15 million people have played DOOM, and how many of those 15 million went crazy and killed all their classmates? Umm…TWO! And there’s still no proof that the game MADE them do it. None at all. -
And in 2003, of course, this whole “blowing up your computer” thing. I seem to recall there being a fourth one, but I can’t remember it right now…I really should keep track of this stuff.
I don’t think that is up to snuff. An ISP only provides a means for users to get on the Net, they are not legally bound to monitor the acitivities of these subscribers.
It is very difficult to show that a person intentionally left files on his own computer for others to copy, even more so for servers.
Defendent, “Your honour, I have completely no knowledge of these files on my computer. It seems that somebody broke into my computer and placed them there.”
Whack a Mole, I would change your description of the scenario to “Person B sends a signal to Person A’s computer requesting the file. Person A’s computer, following the instructions left by A (via Kazaa), makes an electronic copy of the MP3 file, and sends it over its modem to Person B’s computer.”
Person A is basically programming his computer to make and send a copy of a copyrighted work on request.
Urban Ranger, if I were on a jury, you’d have to argue that VERY well to get me to believe it. I agree that ISPs won’t be asked to monitor usage, but will they refuse to provide names if the RIAA can show the ‘crime’ was committed?
One more, there was a movie titled Baby Girl (or Baby Doll) that was shown on Showtime (Skintime). It featured Brook Shields bare ass naked, as well as topless (she has her 12 y/o breasts right there for all to see)
If I buy the DVD or video (please kill those distributing it) what can I expect?
First it’s kiddie porn (she’s 12 for Christ’s sake)! If I have it on my HD can I be found guilty of kiddie porn? And if I can be found guilty of kiddie porn, wouldn’t Showtime be the main defendant?
NOTE TO ALL:
Kiddie porn is abhorrant, even to left-wing extremists
Lite, that was not Brooke Shields, but a double. Brooke Shields is a super hot babe, but if you notice, her breasts are not that big, now or at age 12. They used an adult double.
I thought I’d explain exactly what the RIAA is doing to pursue this (you can read the non- summarised version on their website).
Essentially, they are scanning the user files of P2P networks looking for copyrighted material. When they find a user with whatever specific material they are looking for available for download, they download a copy and record the time and date of the download. Then they subpoena the user’s ISP (publicly available through the networks) to provide the user’s name and address under the DMCA, and pursue a conviction from there.
Note… the RIAA says it is only going after people who are sharing “substantial” amounts of material… god knows what “substantial” means, but I’m guessing if you have a couple of songs available you’re probably okay.
Since they are only investigating those who make this information available, not, apparently, those who are downloading it, I suggest simply not allowing other users to download from your files if you use Kazaa. I use WinMX and I couldn’t figure out how to do so directly, so instead I just turned off all the file types in the “what to share” menu.
The movie you’re thinking of is Pretty Baby, and I think Brooke did indeed appear nude at 12 yrs. of age. HOWEVER…mere nudity is NOT pornography! Even the Supreme Court agrees with that.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for wishing death on “those distributing it.” It is a shocking and disturbing film, but not even remotely pornographic (at least, from what I’ve read about…never seen it myself, because Blockbuster won’t carry it, for obvious reasons…)
Yes it is, even to non-winged pseudo-Libertarian “pro-Death Party” independents like myself. 
BUT…you must make sure it’s REAL kiddy porn, first. (Would you willingly turn yourself in to the police if you took a photo of your baby in the bathtub?)
The RIAA website says their software finds users sharing “significant amounts” of copyright material, then downloads a copy and logs the date and time.
There is no action currently pending against users who are downloading, just those sharing. So if you want to protect yourself simply turn off file-sharing in Kazaa.
I use winMX and couldn’t figure out how to do this so I simply unchecked mp3s in the “file types to share” menu.
Simple as that, folks… although of course if everyone stops sharing the argument is pretty much over…