Herman, the law is sometimes bizarre and yes, you can have it both ways. In some instances how you get there is legally more important than the result. An example, if I reverse engineer a computer chip's functionality, it's legal. If I copy the actual circuitry of a chip, it's illegal. It's the same result either way, but one is legal and the other is not. Another example, I run an agency where I send out women to engage in sexual activity with men. In all states where prostitution is illegal this agency is prohibited, unless of course the agency is a booking service for adult film actresses, in which case it's a legal activity. Again, same result, women paid to have sex, one legal and the other not legal. This purchase/copy/sell original issue could be another example of this peculiar legal phenomena.
My apologies for accusing you of trolling. |
You do not have to physically possess the original to legally have a copy. If you originally purchased the album and then ripped it to a hard drive, made a CD-R, etc., you have a legal right to do anything you want with that original as long as it doesn't violate the license agreement. The courts basically interpret that to mean you as the consumer don't make an attempt to economically profit from your ownership of the album. This is the heart of the "fair use" argument. Giving away or even reselling the album also have not been construed as a violation of the license. If the copying and reselling as separate acts are legal, then it is hard to argue that in combination a crime has been committed. The RIAA first attacked file sharing and argued that it was directly responsible for reduced sales. They should be happy that people are buying the albums even if they do then resell them. With their track record it not unlikely that the RIAA will try to have Congress pass legislation that does make copying and then reselling illegal. Here's another sample of what the RIAA is up to -- click here for storyBTW, I am not an attorney and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
What is the claimed injury by the RIAA if I purchased an album, rip it to my hard drive and then resell the original album? The artist, record company, distributor and retailer have all been duly compensated by my original purchase. If the claim is my single sale on the used album market somehow depresses new album sales, then isn't that the same thing as Ford arguing that used car sales depress new car sales. In both cases they are correct, but the used market in both industries is still legal. It's interesting that on a site the specializes in used audio equipment that people are so down on people reselling items. |
Edesilva, very nice analysis. I fully recognize that this issue is not fully legally decided and I would imagine that future court cases will only partly clarify the morass.
The RIAA is not a consumer advocate group. They would love to have CDs granted the protections that computer software makers are currently provided. I believe I am in a majority position in arguing that new legislation would have to be enacted to bring them there. Such new legislation would be an erosion of privileges currently enjoyed by consumers. |
When you sell the disc you are giving up your right to use it. Herman, show me the specific article of federal law that says that. Also, does my "license" to use the legally made copy expire in the event of theft or causualty? The artist was compensated for a copy. Every time a new copy is sold they should receive a cut of it no matter where that copy came from just like every time it is played on the radio they get paid. This is in direct opposition to the fair use clause. As the owner of an album I have the legal right to make copies of that album for my own use. The artist and others are not compensated for each additional copy I make. It is only illegal if I try to distribute the copies. Radio stations typically make multiple copies of albums in various formats and the artist is compensated not for the copies, but for the number of times a song is played. This clearly doesn't apply to consumers. Your comparison to pirated software is misleading. It is illegal to sell copies of software, but it is not illegal to resell the original software that I legally purchased. If I made a copy of that software prior to selling the original, it is not illegal to still use that copy. The software makers have numerous legal means to prevent this situation, if they so desire. Dongles, insertion of the original password coded disk, etc. Some do and some don't use these methods. It's there choice. This doesn't mean the use of the legally made copy is illegal, only that the software maker doesn't want you to do it. If the RIAA or some other group wants to go to Congress and pass legislation that specifically addresses this issue, then more power to them. I just bet they'll try to hide in somewhere deep within some other bill and try to get it passed in the middle of the night. That's what people do when they try to take away property rights from legitimate purchasers. BTW, because of bandwith and traffic issues it does costs the cable company and its users something everytime a new user climbs aboard. |
Herman, I asked you to cite the law that prohibited buying/ripping/selling and you have not done so. Your refusal to do so undermines all your other arguments.
My understanding of fair use does not place specific limits on the number of copies or the number of people who can simultaneously listen to a single legally purchased album. As an example -- as the head of a household of four I purchase a CD. I then rip the CD to my computer hard drive which is connected to my main hifi system. I also transfer the album to my iPod which I take to the office. My wife then copies the album to her iPod which she uses in the summer house. My high school sophomore daughter makes a CD-R of several songs from the album for her car. My son then takes the original CD and goes off to college. One album, 5 copies and not a single law broken. That's my understanding of fair use. Now if my son misplaces the original, gives it away, throws it out, etc. am I really to believe that suddenly all the copies that were to that point legal, suddenly become illegal. Now that's what physicists would call spooky action at a distance.
You also seem to be confusing the terms of a license agreement and breaking the law. There is specific legal statues that prohibit the hacking of software security measures. At the same time, many software products do not contain security features. If I copy a non-security laden software program I might be in violation of the license agreement that governs that software, but I have not violated the anti-hacking law. There's a big difference.
Personally, I would seriously recommend that you keep the originals. Not for any legal/moral/spiritual reasons, but technology is such that you just never know when you'll need the original. It's real cheap insurance. |
Herman, it is clearly illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material and then to sell that copy. There is no dispute whatsoever about that issue. Making a copy and selling the original is open to debate. On the surface both scenarios may have the same end result, but legally they are quite distinct. The principle of first sale permits a buyer of copyrighted material to resell a legally purchased copy (the original). The fair use clause allows someone to legally make a copy of copyrighted material they have legally purchased. Both are well established legal doctrines. Add them together and I believe a consumer has the right to purchase, copy and resell (the original).
My example about my family is not off-base. It's a very real example of how music is used within a household. It's driving the RIAA nuts. |
Herman, I see the connection, it's just that one case is clearly prohibited by law and the other is not. That's the way the laws are written and interpreted. If you want the law changed to make both scenarios illegal, then contact your legislators.
My family scenario has everything to do with the point at hand. A family unit can purchase an album and legally make multiple copies for their own use under the fair use copyright exception. You seemingly want to argue that if the original purchased album should became lost, gifted, destroyed, or even sold, all legally equivalent acts, that the previously legal copies instantaneously become illegal. Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you think the family cannot even make copies under the fair use exception?
You seem entirely focused on what is best for the copyright holders. Purchasers of copyrighted material also have rights. |
So you really don't think a household can make multiple copies? Okay, can a household make a single copy? Read the commentary on Sony vs. Univversal (1984).
I don't want to screw the artist, but I certainly don't want to get screwed by them either. Afterall, I did pay for the album. |
How can you possibly believe that not being allowed to make multiple copies of their copyrighted work is somehow screwing you?? My understanding of the current law is that I am allowed to make multiple copies of purchased copyrighted material for my own use. If this right is taken away from me via new legislation, then I've been screwed. I notice that you original argument was against the right to resell the originally purchased album. You've seemed to have shifted to declaring that simply making multiple copies for personal use should also be stopped. Will your next argument creep to prohibiting any copies? The reason I ask this question is because that also appears to be the pattern of the RIAA. Finally, I'm not talking about what is fair, I'm talking about what is legal. |
Herman, your used record store idea is a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the law. I think you would lose if prosecuted/sued.
We don't have to agree, but I will note that I find it interesting that as the starter of this thread you are now able to so fervently answer your own question. I can only wonder if the original post was a troll in order to afford you a platform to state anti-consumer/pro business positions. If so, you have succeeded. What you've failed to do is to demonstrate the illegality of buying/ripping/selling, IMO. In the U.S.A. something is presumed legal unless specifically defined as illegal. I'm beginning to realize that for some people that's a hard concept to understand. |
Elizabeth, this is Gillian Welch's response to your way of thinking: Everything is free now,
That's what they say.
Everything I ever loved,
I'm going to give it away.
Someone hit the big score.
They figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay.
I can get a tip jar,
Gas up the car,
And try to make a little change
Down at the bar.
Or I can get a straight job,
I've done it before.
I never minded working hard,
It's who I'm working for.
(Chorus)
Every day I wake up,
Come in a song.
But I don't need to run around,
I just stay home.
And sing a little love song,
My love, to myself.
If there's something that you want to hear,
You can sing it yourself.
'Cause everything is free now,
That what I say.
No one's got to listen to
The words in my head.
Someone hit the big score,
And I figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay. The RIAA may not be the consumer's friend, but ultimately the artist has to be paid. Otherwise, to paraphrase Gillian, we can sing to ourselves. |
ELIZABETH IS A STOOGE FOR THE RIAA. Unbelievable, but I personally believe it to be true. I have only one question - how much do they pay you to tout your "personal" opinions? Opinions so outrageous and at odds with existing laws that the RIAA could point to your posts and use them as examples of why they need the draconian anti-consumer laws they wish to enact. What fair minded legislator wouldn't want to stop someone who publicly brags about their part in illegal activity? Your actions and your working for the RIAA are the most cynical actions I have ever witness here on Audiogon. Frankly, I am shocked! |
