Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[Cail]

You know, I expect this in the Tank, but guys....This is Vespers.

Null-Cov.Jr. didn't call you an idiot. He said that you make yourself look like one when you claim to own the music on a CD. That may have been a little harsh, but on the point of the law, he's absolutely correct. I notice you haven't answered the question I posed about Xeroxing a book. It's the same issue, and I also believe you're being obtuse by not acknowledging the fact that theft is theft, whether you find it convenient or not.

Cov.Jr.-While you technically didn't call Null an idiot, it was about as close as you can get to it (sort of like the dry-hump of insults). Legally your position is the correct one, there's no need to add insult to injury.

Esmer-You're not only being obtuse, but you're stirring the pot. Same question I posed to Null about the book. Is your answer the same? Oh, and you can give away or sell a CD, you just can't sell or give away copies of it.

Everyone settle down, I only want to mod one cardiac forum.

[sgt.null]

cail: i doubt anyone is copying the book in such a way. but how do we parse the copy from giving away the original? in both cases whoever i give the book/record to isn't paying for their own copy. and if the record company owns the cd, what is to prevent them from claiming i can't give away or even loan out my copy? to allow them blanket privilege could very well lead to that?

and why not go after libraries that have cd's? i could very well burn that cd and never pay for it. if it is just a matter of degrees that the companies are going after, why sue just some people? go after everyone. go after blockbuster and any used record store. the record companies/book companies aren't getting a cut when i buy stuff at half price books.

and what are blank cds for anyway? so i can have a copy for myself? really? is anyone here just burning copies for themselves?

and i really like the dry hump analogy.

[onewyteduck]

and what are blank cds for anyway? so i can have a copy for myself? really? is anyone here just burning copies for themselves?

I burn copies for myself. The copy goes in my car, to work, etc. The actual CD rarely gets used. I call it protecting my investment, there have been too many that have had to be replaced over time.

Remember when the CD first came out and it was being touted as "practically indestructable"? [big sigh]

So, yes Null, some people do burn copies for themselves.

[sgt.null]

So, yes Null, some people do burn copies for themselves.

but is it legal?

and i will retract groupthink in the purpose of harmony.

[balon!]

With the Blockbuster thing, I think it's the same as the theater I work at. We (and I would think Blockbuster) pays for the rights to use the movie companies materials (ie: a movie.) All the money we "make" on actual ticket sales goes to the company, (which is why concessions is so high priced: it's the only money we make) and I would think that a percent of Blockbusters renting price also goes to the movie company. So they're getting a cut.

The libraries buy the copy, but I'm not sure about rights. Since it's a gov't institution, though, I would assume some rights are being payed.

As for the CD thing, it's the rights that the companies have problems with. When you buy a CD you're buying one copy of the work. That copy, not the rights. IF you payed for the rights, you could distribute the music as you wanted, as long as the company got a piece of the pie. So as for what you actually own, that's it. The ONE copy. NOT the rights to do with it as you want.

[sgt.null]

so can the book people come after me if i have a reading circle and we pass the same book around to each member?

[Cail]

Null, you're being obtuse again. We're not talking about passing around the book or CD you bought, we're talking about you making copies of that book of CD and either giving them away or selling them.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I don't think asking for clarification on this point is being obtuse, especially given the RIAA's tendency toward all-over-the-place litigiousness.
It is in their best interest to lather us all into a fear of making even a single disaster recovery backup copy of our own media, let alone share a purchased item with others (and thus lose one unit of sales for each friend that doesn't have to pay to read/listen). These actions aren't (currently) prosecutable - but it isn't because that's the way the RIAA (or print giants, or movie companies) prefers it... we have to actively monitor our rights to make sure they aren't being stolen from us one lousy court case at a time. Sad but true.

dw

[edited to clean up sloppy grammar]

[The Laughing Man]

An industry obviously desperate for money, then spending all their money on all those lawyers can only become more desperate.

[sgt.null]

great posting dw. if i remember correctly, weren't the record companies against the selling of blank tapes? didn't the record companies come out against used record stores? if the find a revenue stream in suing libraries, what is to stop them from trying?

[CovenantJr]

I think this debate's getting to the point now where some in-depth legal knowledge is required (for instance, explaining why a library is permitted to lend a CD, or why used record shops don't count as 'reselling'). I left my law textbooks at my mum's house, so I'll have to bow out.

[balon!]

I think this debate's getting to the point now where some in-depth legal knowledge is required (for instance, explaining why a library is permitted to lend a CD, or why used record shops don't count as 'reselling'). I left my law textbooks at my mum's house, so I'll have to bow out.

I'm basically talking out of logic and my ass. I'm out too.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

We don't need law books when we have the wonderful combination of fact and opinion that is the Interweb.

Here is a quick blurb about the application of the right of first sale to books: journal.bookfinder.com/archives/entry/000116.html

Here is the link embedded in that first site that explains what the right of first sale is: www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_r ... m01854.htm
I found these to be quick and interesting reads - they both seem to have direct application to our (completely friendly!) discussion.

No summary would be complete without at least a reference to the DMCA - which stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
That is the actual legislation, which I find both comprehensive and daunting.
Here is the Wikipedia nutshell: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
I find that to be much more understandable, but suspect it is biased .

As these are all US laws and interpretations, I would be very interested to hear from all youse outside the US - and get a bit of compare/contrast.

dw