# What's legal when listening to your own music?



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 1, 2005)

Someone recently told me that it was illegal to rip my own CDs.

i.e. Take a CD that I've bought and transfer the music to my computer/iPod.

To what extent is this true? What can I and can't I do with music I've purchased?

Kap


----------



## mw84 (Feb 1, 2005)

Aslong as you're not redistributing the music, what you're talking about is not illegal. As far as I'm aware you can do pretty much anything you like with you're purchased music, aslong as, once again, you're not redistributing it to other people.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 1, 2005)

mw84 said:
			
		

> Aslong as you're not redistributing the music, what you're talking about is not illegal. As far as I'm aware you can do pretty much anything you like with you're purchased music, aslong as, once again, you're not redistributing it to other people.


Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The above is what I believe and what is common sense. However, common sense isn't that common.

What I'm really asking is:
*
Can anyone point me to an authorative website (or other reference) that says this?*

i.e. Something I can show to my friends and say "_Here's_ what the law actually is"

Kap


----------



## lurk (Feb 1, 2005)

well I don't think so since it is defined by case law and not statutory law.  But a good starting point would be the Betamax case which says that it is fair use to time and format shift your data.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 1, 2005)

No, it is not possible.  For one thing you do not even state what country you are in.  Assuming the U.S., the "right" to copy music is not *explicitly* given.  Nor is it forbidden.  Generally it is held that "space shifting" is legal under the fair use statute of U.S. copyright.  Case law that upholds this opinion include the Betamax case and the RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia case.

Do a google for "copyright space shifting" and you will get the idea.

Do a google for "copyright fair use" if you want a more in depth explanation.  Be warned though, this is not a simple clear cut topic.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9856727

Now the problem arises in that this case law, and copyright in general, is misinterpreted in one direction or the other by those wanting to justify their own agenda.  Quite often to an extreme.  Fair Use in the form of space shifting does not authorize a person to share music.  Nor for that matter would it be legal to rip a CD then sell the original, keeping the copy.   

Just to reinforce what I have said above.  It is generally held that space shifting falls under fair use in the U.S. but this is not as of this moment a right explicitly granted under statute.  It is a grey area that is currently heavily leaning in favor of being an allowed practice.


----------



## brianleahy (Feb 1, 2005)

Of course, if it is literally YOUR OWN music (you wrote it) then you can do whatever you want...

But seriously, this site seems to cover it pretty well:

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/copyrights/protection.html


----------



## ablack6596 (Feb 1, 2005)

However if it is copy protected you're not allowed to break the protection..........


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 1, 2005)

ablack6596 said:
			
		

> However if it is copy protected you're not allowed to break the protection..........



DMCA and what you are and are not allowed to do is a different discussion however. (Also a grey area, though leaning in the other direction.) 

DMCA pertains more to DVDs than CDs.


----------



## scruffy (Feb 1, 2005)

What country are you in?  That could have a major impact.

In the States you're limited in some hefty ways - though nothing as severe as preventing transcoding e.g. from CD to AAC or whatever.

In Canada you've got far more freedoms.  In other countries, I don't know...


----------



## Pengu (Feb 2, 2005)

in australia, it is in actual fact illegal to rip a CD. however. it is not enforced at all. : )


----------



## aicul (Feb 2, 2005)

So the question is what should people be careful about when "space shifting" music they have legally obtained without risking a life long sentence in alcatraz?

Would ownership of the original media and being able to prove that the original was not used by another person be sufficient?

Thats the approach I have, copy CDs, vinyls, tapes, and put the original in my attic.


----------



## fryke (Feb 2, 2005)

I've had a lot of "copy-protected" audio CDs, lately. The copy protection usually only "works" on Windows, i.e. my Macs rip those CDs without the slightest problem. Now did I _circumvent_ the protection scheme?
I think in whatever country you live, you should be fine, right now, to copy those CDs to your Mac for your private use. As long as you don't massively buy CDs, rip them, sell them again and afterwards share the MP3s or M4As. Yes, that's not jurisdiction and just my private opinion, but hey: We ain't got no iTunes Music Store here in Switzerland yet. So my "source" for digital music is - and will be for a while - CDs. And If I buy a CD that I can't even rip on my Mac, I'm either gonna download the songs off of (***whatever network is hip today***) or copy it to my PB the analogue way, creating the MP3s myself.
Because: I buy the music and I _only_ want to listen to it on my iPod. I don't do CDs anymore. I figure that fair use, too.


----------



## Randman (Feb 2, 2005)

Nothing illegal about ripping CDs, then selling them. It's not like you get full price anyway.

 Ok, here's a slight deviation. Is it illegal if a friend lends me a CD and I rip it to my iPod? What if I use a Radio Shark to record an album off the radio, put it on my iPod, burn it to a CD then lend to 8 friends so they can rip it as well?


----------



## Tetano (Feb 2, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> Ok, here's a slight deviation. Is it illegal if a friend lends me a CD and I rip it to my iPod? What if I use a Radio Shark to record an album off the radio, put it on my iPod, burn it to a CD then lend to 8 friends so they can rip it as well?



Thinking with italian laws
1st) not so sure, but i think that's not so legal... it's the same that copying a cd... 
2nd) the radios, here in italy, never play a _complete_ song or album... so you're not reproducing an entire song/album, and I think that's legal... sure, there are ecceptions... i remember a case some years ago when a no-global activists' radio plays entire albums during an anti-copyright campaign in order to allow listeners to rip them...


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 2, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> Nothing illegal about ripping CDs, then selling them. It's not like you get full price anyway.


Nothing directly illegal no.  The copy you ripped however is no longer authorized and thus illegal.  The space shifted copy is legal based upon the ownership of a legal copy of the media.



			
				Randman said:
			
		

> Ok, here's a slight deviation. Is it illegal if a friend lends me a CD and I rip it to my iPod?


Not legal in the United States, no.  You are not space shifting something you rightfully own a copy of.



			
				Randman said:
			
		

> What if I use a Radio Shark to record an album off the radio,


Not legal in the U.S. but also not enforcable.



			
				Randman said:
			
		

> put it on my iPod, burn it to a CD then lend to 8 friends so they can rip it as well?


Definitely and without question not legal in the U.S..  You are extremely unlikely to ever face charges for it, but that does not mean that it is not a copyright violation.


----------



## wicky (Feb 2, 2005)

The main thing to remember is that law is territorial. I live in the UK, and it is currently illegal to make a back up copy of music that you have bought, without prior permission obtained from the distribution company (not the record label). However, Oxford University are apparently working on a draft to change this and allow individuals to copy but not distribute.

I went to a seminar yesterday about copyright law, and was explicitly told by an "Intellectual Property Lawyer" that under U.S. law, there is a legal provision to protect your investment.... ie. to make a backup copy.

If you want a more authoritative answer, ask the lawyers....
http://www.meritas.org/


----------



## applecoreseed (Feb 2, 2005)

has anyone noticed that if you import the new greenday cd into itunes using aac it creates a protected aac file?


----------



## aicul (Feb 2, 2005)

For discussion sake:

What if I rip a CD, then modify it just slightly. Say I change over 10% of the contents (ie. use an equalizer to cut off sound signals in the 40'000Hz ranger which are bearly audible to human ear). I now have my own "ART". Can I distribute this freely?

If Andy Wahrol can call a box of cookies "HIS" pop art, then can the above be called "my" art to which I own my very own rights and decide to distribute freely?


----------



## wicky (Feb 2, 2005)

It is a myth that you can alter someone else's work by a given percentage and not infringe their copyright (definitely in the UK, and I'm pretty sure the same applies to the US).

The measure is quality not quantity, so the percentage doesn't matter. If you take someone else's product and alter it, it still remains their intellectual property as long as it is recognizable. As an example, you could very easily get sued for stealing just the guitar rif from a track, even though this may only amount to 5% of the whole thing. Even if you filter it, if it sounds anything like the original you'd be in trouble. (That's why bootleg mixes are often released under false names, or as white labels.)

There's a legal precedent (called "fair dealing" in the UK, and I think "fair use" in the US), that says that you can use PART of somebody else's work for the purposes of critique, review or study. This does not allow you to copy the whole thing (or the major part of it), and it expressly forbids distribution or financial gain.


----------



## wicky (Feb 2, 2005)

PS. I don't know what happened behind the scene's with Mr. Warhol, perhaps he gave the Campbell Soup Co. a big stack of cash. The law is constantly evolving, and I'm sure if the same thing happened today, they might have something to say about it.

Either way, the music industry in its current state is a very different animal to a soup of cookie company in the sixties.


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 2, 2005)

For "clarification" check out this info I found referencing the Harvard School of Law and copying music: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/netmusic_brbook.html

Basically, even law comes down to money. If you copy it and make money from it, it's illegal. Beyond that I need to read more on the subject myself


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 2, 2005)

For a discussion on this very topic peruse Harvard Law School's site:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/netmusic_brbook.html

(Do a search for "cd" to pinpoint the info.)


----------



## bookem (Feb 2, 2005)

wicky said:
			
		

> The main thing to remember is that law is territorial. I live in the UK, and it is currently illegal to make a back up copy of music that you have bought, without prior permission obtained from the distribution company (not the record label). However, Oxford University are apparently working on a draft to change this and allow individuals to copy but not distribute.
> 
> I went to a seminar yesterday about copyright law, and was explicitly told by an "Intellectual Property Lawyer" that under U.S. law, there is a legal provision to protect your investment.... ie. to make a backup copy.
> 
> ...




Is this specifically related to music?  I've had copyrighted material transferred to other mediums by  professional companies in the past.  THere's even software on sale in PC World and alike that is specifically designed to do this.  I record all my records and cd's to digital files for use with Stanton FS.  SOmetimes I'll even modify them slightly.  So I'm basically breaking the law with products that were bought legitimately in the UK and specifically designed to copy music from one medium to another?

Can't say I've ever heard of anyone getting into trouble for this though, which if they had, I'm sure I would have.


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 2, 2005)

The confusion arises when it's unclear whether the person doing the copying is doing it for profit or not. In the US Law, there are new articles being written all the time to keep up with the even faster changing technology.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 2, 2005)

wicky said:
			
		

> I went to a seminar yesterday about copyright law, and was explicitly told by an "Intellectual Property Lawyer" that under U.S. law, there is a legal provision to protect your investment.... ie. to make a backup copy.



There is a specific provision for the creation of a backup copy of software, but I do not believe this carries over to other media as an explicit right.  I could very easily be wrong on this however.

Regardless redistribution to other, whether for commercial gain or not, is not legal in the U.S.  It is a common misinterpretation of the Fair Use (Title 17 Section 107) clause of U.S. copyright though.  One of the mitigating factors of fair use is if the action is for commercial purposes.  This is often misinterpreted that if the action is not done for commercial gain then it is legal to make copies for other purposes.  For example sharing via P2P or burning copies of CDs for friends does not fall under Fair Use.

This varies to an extreme based upon locaion though. As an example, in Denmark it is legal to make copies of sculpture via recasting as long as all copies are for personal use.  In the U.S. recasting of sculpture is explicitly not permitted without permission of the copyright holder, even for personal use.


----------



## wicky (Feb 2, 2005)

Natobasso said:
			
		

> ..... Basically, even law comes down to money. If you copy it and make money from it, it's illegal......



Copyright law is not limited to a particular medium, but is intended to protect IP (intellectual property) and is therefore equally relevant to all media.

Natobasso has made a very important point... MONEY! However, there is a wider debate, and although the law is used to protect IP and by extension preserve income, its focus is not (soley) financial. Laws are created to protect rights, so it's worth remembering that (financial) gain is not only measured in direct remuneration (ie. burn a disk of somebody else's stuff, and sell it), but also in longer term benefits, such as exposure and subsequent fame.

Stealing the IP of another individual is against the law, even without financial gain. If you distribute work passed off as your own, which was actually created by another individual, you are in effect claiming that that individual is not the author, but in fact you are. This is fairly clear infringement of copyright, and is exactly the sort of thing that ends up in court.


----------



## jarinteractive (Feb 2, 2005)

aicul said:
			
		

> For discussion sake:
> 
> What if I rip a CD, then modify it just slightly. Say I change over 10% of the contents (ie. use an equalizer to cut off sound signals in the 40'000Hz ranger which are bearly audible to human ear). I now have my own "ART". Can I distribute this freely?
> 
> If Andy Wahrol can call a box of cookies "HIS" pop art, then can the above be called "my" art to which I own my very own rights and decide to distribute freely?



Modifying it slightly may or may not make it your "art," but it does not give you rights to distribute it freely.  Much rap music samples and modifies other peoples recordings, and they must legally obtain permission for each sample they use in order to sell it.

-JARinteractive


----------



## Cat (Feb 2, 2005)

> burning copies of CDs for friends does not fall under Fair Use


In other countries it does, AFAIK. Though there always is a grey zone.
Is it legal to invite some friends over to watch a DVD (or listen to a CD)? It says "not for public performance" on the sleeve ...


----------



## fryke (Feb 2, 2005)

And just to play devil's advocate: Does it _really_ matter what the current laws say in your country? Do you _really_ fear police might stop you and take your iPod in until they've made sure you have absolutely every right to listen to the songs on it? Or would they raid your place based on someone telling them "you listen to music sometimes"?


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 2, 2005)

Cat said:
			
		

> In other countries it does, AFAIK. Though there always is a grey zone.



This is why I try and couch it as "in the U.S." as much as possible.  In Canada for example it is legal to burn copies of music to CD and give it to friends as I understand it (though I could very well be wrong).  I am not a lawyer, my understanding is strictly based upon reading the statute and doing a little research online.  It is difficult enough getting a handle on the law in my own country, more or less the myriad of laws that cover the rest of the world.



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> Is it legal to invite some friends over to watch a DVD (or listen to a CD)? It says "not for public performance" on the sleeve ...



Inviting friends over does not constitute a public performance.  



			
				TITLE 17 said:
			
		

> To perform or display a work publicly means**
> 
> (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
> 
> ...



It does not matter to a certain extent what the laws say.  But at what stage are laws a reflection of the intended morals of society?  I could obtain illegal copies of software, movies, and music very easily with little to no risk of repercussion.  This does not make the act legal or morally correct.


----------



## wicky (Feb 2, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> And just to play devil's advocate: Does it _really_ matter what the current laws say in your country? Do you _really_ fear police might stop you and take your iPod in until they've made sure you have absolutely every right to listen to the songs on it? Or would they raid your place based on someone telling them "you listen to music sometimes"?



Clearly not Fryke, I just like to know where the boundaries lie, so that I really feel like I've been somewhere once I've crossed over them. Anyway, nobody cares when they are on the take, it's only when somebody nicks your stuff that you get pissed.... right?

I can never get on with anybody who doesn't have double standards.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 2, 2005)

I know! Let's start our own Mac OS X.com band! I'll be on the drums, ceroc addict can be the singer, Fryke can clang the tambourine and mephisto can keep tabs on where we stand legally.


----------



## scruffy (Feb 2, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> In Canada for example it is legal to burn copies of music to CD and give it to friends as I understand it (though I could very well be wrong).



I am not a lawyer, this is just my interpretation from taking a brief (but very interesting) introductory course on Internet law in Canada:

Actually, you can't give your friends copies.  

You can make a copy for  your private use, and you can give or lend your friend the original without having to destroy or stop using copies you've made for private use.

And, your friend can make copies of the original you lent her, for her private use, then give you back the original.  Similarly, it's fine to make copies of CDs you borrow from the library.

Basically it's not the copying, it's the use you make of the copy.  As soon as you're distributing the copy, whether commercially or not, you run into copyright law.

Interestingly, a judge recently found that it's also not illegal to put copies on a publicly shared folder in a P2P application.  She compared it to libraries having photocopiers in a room full of copyrighted books - nothing wrong with that, it's the person making the copies who may or may not be doing something illegal (depends how many pages, and what they're going to use it for - but the Can-Copy act is way off topic).  So, the person who may be violating copyright is the one downloading the file - they're the one making the copy, so it's up to them to do so in a legal manner.

I don't know what an example of a legal download would be in such a case.  I would guess that one example might be if you own a song on vinyl, for example.   It might then be legal to download a copy, as that's the most convenient way of getting an mp3, rather than hooking up your record player (if you even own one) to the computer, and so on.

That decision might well be appealed though


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 2, 2005)

ApeintheShell said:
			
		

> I know! Let's start our own Mac OS X.com band! I'll be on the drums, ceroc addict can be the singer, Fryke can clang the tambourine and mephisto can keep tabs on where we stand legally.


If you'd ever heard me sing, you'd know that that idea wasn't going to fly. 

I'll just be a groupie and dance along to the music. 

Kap


----------



## aicul (Feb 3, 2005)

Here is a judgement made yesterday in France concerning a teacher that had copied over 10'000 tracks and was distributing them through internet (no mention if for financial gain).

The french courts decided as follows:

1. No prison sentence
2. 10'000 Euro fine to be paid to music owners
3. 3'000 Euro fine (only if he is caught at it again)

This is an interesting case as it does not "kill" the guilty party but sets a very comfortable juris-prudence through which music owners will now aggressively attack pirates in France.


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 4, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> DMCA and what you are and are not allowed to do is a different discussion however. (Also a grey area, though leaning in the other direction.)
> 
> DMCA pertains more to DVDs than CDs.



Uh, almost. DMCA pertains to circumventing DRM. DRM has been implemented on many media formats, and all of it covered. DVDs just have 'DRM' support required by the standard, so it is more common.

However, IIRC, a court case in the US ended awhile back where the judge stated that the DMCA cannot be used to infringe on the fair use rights of the buyer (in this case, space shifting from a protected CD to their MP3 player), and ruled in favor of the defendant. Which is why they include WMA files on protected CDs now, to get around that ruling. ("Your honor, a space shifted copy was provided on the media, so there was no need to circumvent the protection")

How successful the change will be in their eyes will be found out when it gets tested in court again.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 4, 2005)

Krevinek said:
			
		

> Uh, almost. DMCA pertains to circumventing DRM. DRM has been implemented on many media formats, and all of it covered. DVDs just have 'DRM' support required by the standard, so it is more common.
> 
> However, IIRC, a court case in the US ended awhile back where the judge stated that the DMCA cannot be used to infringe on the fair use rights of the buyer <SNIP/>



Correct DMCA covers any DRM protected media.  However, by the CD specification, if a media uses DRM it would no longer be compliant.  There was a snit about this 4-5 months ago and the effected discs had to remove the CD compliance label from the packaging.  Granted the difference is a technicality but as of this moment most DVDs have some form of DRM, most musical discs do not.  This is why I argue that it pertains more to DVDs than CDs, not that the act itself is limited.

As far as fair use, there is a clause in the DMCA that specifically states the the DMCA does not otherwise restrict any use of the media that would fall under Fair Use.  (section 1201(c) of the DMCA if you are interested.)  It is a circular argument though in that we are again back to what constitutes fair use.  So while fair use allows space shifting, DMCA does not allow encryption to do the space shifting in the first place.   It is a gordian knot in the form of legal statute and case.  

<RANT>
My personal philosophy   is that if you are doing space shifting for personal use and not putting it up on P2P or passing out copies to friends then the law is irrelevant.  By not sharing the files you have no visibility to the corporate world, who are the only ones who would be concerned with such things.  Further it is generally held that space shifting is a legitimate practice under fair use.  It is only when people abuse these rights by sharing it online that it becomes an issue. 

If there was not such widespread copying and distribution of copyrighted movies, music, and code (software) then the DMCA would never have come to pass. It is through our own actions that this was created.  Some would call P2P civil disobedience, combating the evils of the RIAA, MPAA, SPCA, PTA, etc...   I call it looting (referencing "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand).
</RANT>


----------



## scruffy (Feb 4, 2005)

Someone made an interesting point recently, and I can't remember who right now.  The idea was - organizations like the BSA, the MPAA, the RIAA, etc. are actually good in the long run.  The reason is simply, if they weren't using copyright laws to beat up on their own customers, the laws would never get fixed.  Everyone would say "yeah, the copyright laws we have now suck, but it doesn't really affect me - I just ignore the law, and no one comes after me."

Now though, with organizations coming after people for trivial violations of copyright, there is much more chance that people will actually do the work to get the laws fixed.

The argument the person made was with regard to the BSA and how they're actually good for open source software, but I think the argument can be extended to this case.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 4, 2005)

scruffy said:
			
		

> Now though, with organizations coming after people for trivial violations of copyright, there is much more chance that people will actually do the work to get the laws fixed.



Not that I disagree entirely, but what case has been posed that is trivial?  I have seen reports of a number of cases where the defendant is almost positively not the guilty party, but none where the level of offense would be considered trivial.

Copyright law is broken IMHO, but mostly in length not intent. DMCA is entirely broken  though.  There is a reason for the law, but the implimentation is flawed. 

Regardless of how you interpret it, a copyright holder should have the right to decide how material they created, or paid to have created, is distributed.  It is not the right of some guy with $20 and a high speed internet connection to pass out copies to hundreds of other people.  The music and movie industry may need to adapt but it does not exonorate the actions of P2P users.  If you think they charge too much for music, don't buy it.  Do not steal it either though.


----------



## ablack6596 (Feb 5, 2005)

The real problem is people just downloading things they like.  People need to realise that if they want the things they like to continue to be made they need to support them.  I try everything before I buy it, but if I like it I do buy it.  I download the first season of 24, and then I bought the DVD's and haven't missed an episode since then.


----------



## scruffy (Feb 5, 2005)

@mephisto - Fair enough - I guess it's the DMCA I was thinking of that's really entirely broken.  I was thinking of Jon Johansen writing DeCSS so he could watch DVDs in Linux, or (who was it anyway?) writing Hymn so he/she could listen to iTMS tunes on a portable MP3 player other than the iPod.

@ablack - This is something the RIAA doesn't want to admit happens.  There was a debate a year or so ago, at Oxford,  http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/  wherein Hilary Rosen (then CEO of RIAA) essentially denied that there was any evidence that people who download music frequently buy more, not less, of it - after a poll had just been conducted in the audience that showed it to be overwhelmingly true.  Granted not an exhaustive study, but to conduct a poll and then immediately refuse to discuss the results...

I never bought so much music as I did when the first Napster was around.


----------



## andychrist (Feb 5, 2005)

RIAA Sues the Dead


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 6, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> As far as fair use, there is a clause in the DMCA that specifically states the the DMCA does not otherwise restrict any use of the media that would fall under Fair Use.  (section 1201(c) of the DMCA if you are interested.)  It is a circular argument though in that we are again back to what constitutes fair use.  So while fair use allows space shifting, DMCA does not allow encryption to do the space shifting in the first place.   It is a gordian knot in the form of legal statute and case.



Well, the section of the paragraph that got snipped referred to a court case, (which I wish I could remember the references I had to it) where a case was struck down. This case involved someone being sued under the DMCA for taking a protected CD and ripping the tracks onto his MP3 player. This case (if accurate), would mean that space shifting has legal precedent above that of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 6, 2005)

Krevinek said:
			
		

> Well, the section of the paragraph that got snipped referred to a court case, (which I wish I could remember the references I had to it) where a case was struck down. <SNIP/>



Sorry could not resist.   I must have missed that case though.  I have seen quite a few threatened law suits but very few make it to court.  None that I know of makes any reasonable precedent to base acceptable actions under DMCA. But I am not a lawyer and following this stuff is more  a hobby than a concern. 

The closest I can think of was when a copy protection software firm threatened the student from Stanford (?) with DMCA when he published a paper stating their copy protection could be bypassed by holding down the shift key.  I do not believe it ever went to court.  Ditto for the magic marker trick. Then you had the Skyrlov (so?), which is not a CD case but similar enough to have some validity.  I think that was dropped as well but I am not sure.


----------



## fryke (Feb 8, 2005)

Well, in a perfect world, I guess, I'd buy a license for a song (or a movie) with the right to play it - period. I then could use it on whatever device I wanted to use it on, I could re-download it should the CD it first came on break or anything...


----------



## scruffy (Feb 9, 2005)

If you buy a CD - i.e. a disk without copy protection - you have the right to make backup copies, no doubt of that.  It's only a DMCA issue if you're bypassing copy protection measures, which CDs by definition don't have.  If it's copy protected, it's not a CD.

Similarly, I guess, if you make a backup of a DVD you own, even if it's CSS encrypted, you're probably in the clear as long as you copy the entire contents, encryption and all - then you're not circumventing any copy protection method...


----------



## wicky (Feb 9, 2005)

scruffy said:
			
		

> ...If you buy a CD - i.e. a disk without copy protection - you have the right to make backup copies, no doubt of that...



Not true in the UK.


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 9, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> Sorry could not resist.   I must have missed that case though.  I have seen quite a few threatened law suits but very few make it to court.  None that I know of makes any reasonable precedent to base acceptable actions under DMCA. But I am not a lawyer and following this stuff is more  a hobby than a concern.
> 
> The closest I can think of was when a copy protection software firm threatened the student from Stanford (?) with DMCA when he published a paper stating their copy protection could be bypassed by holding down the shift key.  I do not believe it ever went to court.  Ditto for the magic marker trick. Then you had the Skyrlov (so?), which is not a CD case but similar enough to have some validity.  I think that was dropped as well but I am not sure.



Skylarov's case falls under electronic documents, which it is harder to provide a case for space shifting here in the US. Space shifting for PDFs is equivilent to being able to print it in most cases. Which is /usually/ (not always) provided by Adobe's DRM, making their case against Skylarov more compelling in the US. Apparently in Russia where Skylarov worked on the software, the laws are that every DRM method must have another piece of software to strip the DRM to be legal.

The catch in these cases is: is your fair-use 'right' of space shifting being prohibited by the DRM? (time shifting doesn't apply, obviously) If not, then circumventing the DRM is a DMCA violation. If you cannot exercise your ability to space shift because of the DRM, then space shifting it probably will not be a DMCA violation. And remember folks, "If I don't see it, it isn't illegal" does apply in this situation. The people RIAA and the like threaten and persue are those who bring attention to themselves by then proceding to SHARE the songs on P2P and other blatantly suicidal actions. 

Silencing the student falls under another (bone-headed) clause in the DMCA which makes it illegal to discuss security problems in copy protection schemes in public. Hence the attack on the people who figured out a sharpie works in defeating DRM, since it fell under that clause.

Seriously, if the DMCA is disturbing (and it disturbs me as a blatant feed-the-suits set of laws), snail mail your congress reps and senators. If they understand that we don't like this, it will eventually get revoked once they realize it is a major issue. (It also means making it a major issue to people, a small grassroots campaign is dearly needed for this)


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 9, 2005)

I think the Skylarov case (thanks for correcting the spelling) does have some pertinence to space shifting in that one of the arguments in defense was that a protected document could not be used by a screen reader for the blind.  Thus the protection had to be removed in order to allow the reader, an alternative display device, to function.  Weak perhaps but there is enough to draw some validity depending upon what you are arguing.

We seem to agree on the significant points though.


----------



## bookem (Feb 9, 2005)

wicky said:
			
		

> Not true in the UK.





Has there ever been a case of anyone getting prosecuted though?


----------



## wicky (Feb 9, 2005)

bookem said:
			
		

> Has there ever been a case of anyone getting prosecuted though?



I have no idea, I'm not a solicitor. I'm sure if you think that it's relevant you could probably probe around and find some info on it. 

Personally, I don't think it's that relevant if somebody has been prosecuted or not. My previous comment is only with regard to the legal status of duplication (in the UK), and has nothing to do with the application of that law, or the logical and moral issue's surrounding it. 

As has already (kind of) been pointed out by Fryke, the vast majority of us bend the rules to suit ourselves. I reckon as long as you're just bending the rules rather than blatantly breaking them, then nobody is likely to turn up at your house and shoot you for copyright infringement...... hey, but I could be wrong!

Incidentally, if you want to stop speculating, this is probably worth a look: UK Copyright Stuff


----------



## riccbhard (Mar 9, 2005)

I believe music bought with iTunes can be leageally (excuse the spelling) put on up to 3 hard drives (iPods count as hard drives) at any time.


----------



## Natobasso (Mar 9, 2005)

When I go to listen to an iTunes (not burned from my own cd) song, it says "you may authorize this song for a different computer up to five times. But that's if it resides on my iPod.


----------



## mbveau (Mar 9, 2005)

Quoted from the Apple website:

"CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.

*You shall be authorized to use the Product on five Apple authorized computers.*

You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.

Refer to Terms of Sale for more detailed information on Usage Rules."


It says 5. Assuming that the bold works, I added it. Sorry if that's a long post.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 9, 2005)

That assumes that the contract Apple offers is legally enforceable in your area.


----------



## aicul (Mar 10, 2005)

ablack6596 said:
			
		

> The real problem is people just downloading things they like.



Maybe this should say "things they need to feel part of the pack." I've noticed that many people - often younger people - copy so that they can brag about having this or that. But the use is, to say the least, quite low.

So my question is, should these people have to pay for something they need but don't use?


----------

