This is a question related to all the Napster stuff that’s going on, but I don’t want a GD. Just a simple yes or no answer, please.
As I understand it, if I purchase a CD in a store, such as Houses of the Holy by Led Zeppelin, I have purchased the right to pretty much do with that CD as I wish, as long as I don’t profit from it.
But, used CD stores are legal, and if I don’t like or want that CD anymore, I can go and sell it for about $5, and the next new-to-Zep fan can buy it for $8 or so.
My question: can I legally make a backup copy (or an mp3) of a CD before unloading it from my possession? Or, do I have to delete/destroy the copies upon my eliminating the CD from my collection?
You mean, copy a CD for your personal use? Well, just do it. Nobody’s going to arrest you for that. UNLESS you’re mass-producing copies for selling; THAT’S considered a crime.
Good luck asking questions like these, Montfort. I have asked a couple music copyright questions here, and have received conflicting or contradictory answers, or “I don’t know” 's from many people who speak out against copyright violations, and against Napster.
I think, therefore, that the questions are more complicated than they seem. Which would give some backing to the claim of Napster lawyers that use of the product falls under some twisted version of “fair use”. How about this question, which I have asked and no one has been able to point specifically to a law or a court ruling that says this is acceptable or not:
“If you own a song on 8-track, does that give you the right to download a copy of it on Napster so you can play the music? Or to copy that same song from a friend’s CD for your personal use?”
It seems to me that to deny this says that one is mandated to always play the song on the technology media on which it was recorded - no other. This does not seem right. Yet, it’s odd that it’s such a simple question, yet no one can give a precise legal answer to it, on one side or another.
No. You may legally make a backup copy for your own use, but if you dispose of the original through resale, the law holds that you are also required to dispose of the backup (through destruction).
Unless it’s been changed, the law also says that you can make copies for friends (does this not apply for digital copies?). If I sell a CD that I previously copied for a friend, do I have to have him destroy his copy too?
I have never seen a section in the Fair Use statutes about “making copies for friends.”
You may make copies for your own personal use. That does not extend to giving copies to friends.
Yes, I know everybody’s done it. STILL doesn’t make it right.
your humble TubaDiva
PS A small tip in this direction: this is why I joined a record club. Yes, this sounds cheesy but bear with me here. I look for their clearance sales, their “buy 1, 2 more free” offers (which happen nearly every month) and I buy those CDs that I can then afford to give away. My budget isn’t strained overmuch, I can help my friends that can’t find or can’t afford or whatever, and the artists get paid.
Well, you’re not restricted to a single media – you can backup your vinyl on cassette, for instance.
Unfortunately, the laws were passed before it even occurred to anybody that you might store this stuff on a hard drive on your desk (no hard drives yet; hell, they barely had desks!). So as best I can tell, there is no good answer.
That said, I think you are pretty clearly within the intent of the law if you use the MP3 copy truly as a backup.
Seriously, now: why care? You buy a CD. It only has one good song. So you copy it to an MP3, cassete, 8-track, whatever.
Fact: copyrights are NOT the biggest revenue of an artist; they earn they moolions doing live shows. Making copies of an album is not a HUGE loss or anything.
Besides, law’s never always right. Remember, O.J. killed his wife and he’s scot free and unfried. All the while, Tyson was set up and did time.
Una, in case you’re not up on the my.mp3.com case:
Mp3.com had this idea for online access to music. Mp3.com bought a whole bunch of CDs, and generated mp3 files for each track. They would then allow users to create accounts, after which the user could plug in their own CDs. Once a user had proven that she possessed a copy, mp3.com would “unlock” their own files for that CD, allowing that user to listen to tunes from “unlocked” CDs from wherever they accessed their account in the future.
The federal court in which they were sued ruled that this was not fair use.
I think the judge was wrong, that this is entirely within the spirit of “fair use”. They don’t give access to music to anyone who wouldn’t otherwise have access to it. But, as I lack the authority to overturn the ruling, it would appear your two examples would also not fall under fair use standards.
Oh. I thought only moderators could flame and make personal attacks and offenses. Now I see that admins can do it too. Nice to live in a free country, uh?
I don’t think my question was an example of stupidity. And I’m not trying to get something for nothing.
I have a large collection of rare vinyl B-sides, and a few albums that I only have on 8-track. It seemed to me that I had bought a “right” to listen to the songs in my possession. But, I do not have an 8-track, cassette, or LP player. So I first downloaded Napster to search for any mp3’s of these songs that I had - many of which I had never heard in my life. But in some cases I owned 2 or more copies of the song. Such as my 2 LP’s, 1 8-track, and 1-cassette of “Buckingham Nicks”.
So…I have downloaded every single song I have on LP, 8-track, single, and cassette. Am I in the wrong? manhattan’s opinion seems to be “no”, as does many other people’s. However, I have also been told that what I have done is “stolen” the songs, because I could not prove that they came from the same media type. Another person here on the board is quite insistant that if you own a cassette of a song, you do not have any right to own a copy of the same song taken from a CD, since the CD player produces a different “quality” of music.
And I have searched the web. What I have found is, is that the best answer legally is somewhere between “maybe” and “who knows?”
I agree with you. I think what you’ve done is wholly within the spirit of fair use. But, as far as I have seen, legally, you have infringed the rights of the copyright holders. And, as the major music distributors are spending lots and lots of money to keep the laws this way, I don’t see things getting much better in the immediate future.
The complete text of the american copyright law is at the Library of Congress website. Of course, if you’re not american, you don’t even need to give a shit.
Anthracite, the intent of the law is pretty straight forward: if you pay for something, you can do anything you like with it for your own personal usage, including make or acquire copies of it. However, you can’t distribute it, and if you sell it, you need to destroy any copies you have.
There may be hypothetical arguments about different quality versions, but note that not one record company is looking to control this. On the other hand, every record company is looking to control posession of songs without paying.
