Not quite, but I understand where I was insufficiently clear. The right to make copies belongs solely to the copyright holder under the Copyright Act. But, like my $20 bill analogy, the copyright holder (or his agent) can grant permission to others to make copies, making it no longer a violation.
The RIAA was a party to the Supreme Court case in which the RIAA stated in oral argument the owner of a CD may make copies of the CD for his own use. (I am sorry, i cannot quickly locate the transcript at the moment). It may help to remember it was the RIAA which brought copyright infringement cases against file sharing services and individuals who infringed upon copyright.
The RIAA has continued to maintain this position, most recently on their website here (You will find it toward the bottom of the page).
I am not interested in arguing whether the RIAA has sufficient agency. Of course if you find the RIAA has insufficient authority, do not make copies to place on your server or for any other purpose. Easy.
In any event, it remains copyright infringement to sell or obtain a server with ripped music without also transferring the ownership of the physical CDs.
I concur. At that point the copies would be distributed beyond own use. Even if you give that loaded server away for free, that case remains copyright infringement.
Like you I purchased all my music. If I want to make somebody happy I buy the same album, vinyl or CD for them again, even if I own (paid) it already.
If you look at the song level, there are songs I paid like up to 6 times for:
original album on vinyl
original album on CD
life album
greatest hits album
sampler disc
paid streaming service
I pay for all of that, so I hope you understand why I become really irritated being accused by the music industry of âillegal activitiesâ for ripping the CDâs I paid for and streaming that ripped music through my personal properties house, car, mobile devices.
Example: @edmund_vinyl on Instagram. I like this guy. He has a dropdead gorgeous stereo and room.
He buys vinyl, shows evidence that he got the original vinyl copies, puts them on his really beautiful turntables and allows you to enjoy that sound (simply recorded with his iPhone) for a minute or so. It looks and sounds so good, even on my mobile device.
It has motivated me multiple times to go out and buy some records of artists I had never heard before or was never interested in.
Does he infringe copyright? I donât know. He might as well have agreements with record labels. But boy, he is doing a hack of a job promoting those records which undoubtedly benefits the entire music industry. Including, artists, record labels and those lucky equipment manufacturers, whose excellent gear he bought.
On the other hand music lovers, like John Darko and Steve Guttenberg are so frightened to just even play a tone of the albums they promote. Being threatened of being sued by the same music industry they promote in a good way. So sad and certainly not a good display of the music industryâs sense of reason.
Iâm with you. Iâve paid for the same music (different formats) multiple times. I also feel I should be able to freely copy that purchased copy for my own private use and store that copy on a private server so I can use it to fit my needs (convenience).
Thing is, the law says no, that would be illegal. Nothing the RIAA has apparently said in court changes that, nor do I believe a trade association has any authority or ownership over copyrights, over every CD ever produced (with copyright). Letâs face it, the RIAA brings legal suits against violations of copyrights on the behalf of their members. The RIAA wants no part of enforcing the copy for convenience aspect of the law. Doing so would result in more bad press, be expensive to pursue, and would be virtually impossible to win (I copied my CDs in case a CD thief broke into my house).
While most of us here see nothing âwrongâ with making copies for convenience, pretending the RIAA has the standing to waive copyrights for all CDs is ludicrous. If they had such standing, then I presume they could publicly declare all copyrights are dissolved and all CDs are in the public domain. I donât think they possess that authority as an âagentâ but for others, it gives them a warm and fuzzy to copy for convenience.
There are exceptions to the law that allow copies for academic purposes, the publication of short (but undefined) excerpts, and a few other pursuits. How Discogs gets away with putting thousands of songs on their website, I have no idea, unless they have some sort of agreements in place.
It is not copyright infringement or âillegalâ to make a personal copy of a CD if the copyright holder, or its agent, states it is OK.
The RIAA has standing to represent its membersâ copyright interests. It can enforce or waive these interests, such as filing suit against Napster file sharing sites, as well as suing individuals who freely made copyrighted materials available to others. Its members are bound by the results of RIAAâs actions as to copyright.
The RIAA has stated multiple times that copying for personal use is fine.
The vast majority of those who create and distribute music are members of the RIAA. Of course there are those who are not. Those who are not members are not bound by the RIAAâs legal actions, but they remain bound by the courtsâ determinations as to what is or is not infringement.
I have yet to see a copyright holder state it objects to copying their CD for personal use. My clients certainly do not, and are instead delighted music lovers are enjoying their efforts enough to make copies for use on music players, etc.
Can anyone cite to a music copyright holder who objects to the owner of a CD making a copy for personal use? I bet not.
@SudS is literally correct - by definition, ripping for personal use is currently defined as copyright infringement as far as I know.
However, I disagree with equating the ârippingâ infringement of copyrights with the other scenarios discussed here. IMO, they are neither âmorallyâ equivalent nor equal in their potential impact on the copyright holders, in that the other forms of infringement arguably have a much greater impact in terms of the âdamagesâ (lost profits, distribution rights, etc.) inflicted.
Further, I, for one, have no quibble with folks condemning the latter and giving the former a pass.
âFormat shiftingâ was allowed in the UK legally for a brief while in 2014.
So much pushback from âmedia interestsâ that it was reversed in 2015.
They really did still think (and probably still do) that owning an LP and wanting to play in the car meant buying a pre recorded cassette of the same album. Times have moved on of course.
It seems a music release is âsoftwareâ (so you only purchase a licence, hence could format shift and make a safe backup copy or even format shift for the car/MP3 player etc.) when it suits, and is a âphysical itemâ (so any copying is âcounterfeitingâ) at other times, dependent on the argument the âmedia interestsâ are making at the time.
As I recall the âmedia interestsâ pretty much gave up on music (except for obvious counterfeiting e.g. copied CDs for sale at the local flea market) and went after film (movie) pirating instead.
Not sure what time this was/what you mean here, in the context of the topic.
I think a big part of the reason tickets are so expensive - aside from shows being costly to put on - is it is no longer possible for the average musical artist to make a living off the micropennies from sales of streams. So rather than tours as a possible/potential loss used to promote record sales like in âthe olden daysâ, that model is turned on its head.
And I donât know the numbers/proportions, but not sure what fraction physical media or Redbook-or-higer-res file purchases are compared with streaming. Iâm guessing small.
I wasnât getting into the degrees of wrong (or shades of gray), but what was âconvenientlyâ left out of the other examples was, buying an original CD from someone who had previously made an electronic copy they retained. I was essentially told I should not buy these CDs, in essence, the original CD was tainted. I was comparing a legal activity (buying the original CD) to a widely practiced (and honestly very mundane) illegal activity (making copies for convenience). My only point was, there was a lot of holier than thou attitude being expressed with a heavy dose of rationalization.
Since Covid struck my wife and I are very selective of the crowds we want to join. $ 250 - $ 300 per night crowded events, end up in a very low priority, unless it is music that me and my wife both together like a lot.
What we did do during Covid was invest in the sound systems at home. We can get 10 or more CDâs for $ 250 - $ 300 or pay a high res streaming service for nearly 2 years for that money. With prices like that for concert tickets, CDs and Vinyl will become more attractive again.
I think the problem here really is that there isnât a clear case to go by with most of the scenarios mentioned. Copyright lawyers are just as unsure as most of us due to the way the law is written versus what the copyright holders are willing to chase down.
At this stage it really would be down to the particulars of a case. So first, either the RIAA or the owner of the sound recording (important distinction for cds et al, its not the copyright holder of the piece of music) would have to bring the case and then the judge or jury would need to take the particulars into account of law and precedence. If you were running a large-scale business of buying, ripping, and reselling you might run afoul of the law as written and find the RIAA willing to pursue. If you are like most of us who enjoy the music and may or may not sell cds after ripping and not to scale - most likely not going to be an issue.
My guess is that the fact that we moved so quickly into streaming helped push the RIAA and copyright holders into not worrying so much about it as they once did. And now they are building a precedence of not caring.
*PS - I am also not a lawyer, but have been a recording musician and on the board of a non-profit that helps artists with the business side of arts. Weâve had a lot of copyright workshops⌠youâd think I know more clearly by now. I donât.
This scenario falls clearly and squarely into the âotherâ scenarios I was referencing (as mentioned in this thread and as opposed to ripping and playing CDs you have legally purchased).
Again, to be precise, I, for one, believe this practice is easily differentiated from ârippingâ and playing a copy of the music you purchased; and (again), in my opinion, the person selling you an original CD and hanging onto their ripped copies is clearly infringing copyrights in a potentially significant manner.
And, again, I have no quibble with someone who rips for convenience (as you dubbed it) condemning the re-sale of CDs and SACDs and hanging on to the rips by others. Two different practices with, arguably, two different impacts upon copyright holder rightsâŚ
Also, the new-ish thing that really gets to me is when people buy an album (or âa vinylâ as the kids say) and then post the included download card code on sites that might rhyme with âreddit.comâ. Its almost always some small artist who could really use the few dollars of people going out an getting their own copy. Urgh.
Yes, unless the copyright holder or its agent has granted permission. Then there is no infringement, technically or otherwise.
I agree, selling an original CD and hanging onto ripped copies, or buying these CDs knowing this is the case, is in an entirely different category and should not be condoned.
This may well be part of the reason the RIAA stated it had no problem with copies for personal use, but I suspect the bigger reason was the earlier proliferation of portable players, hard disks and USB media inputs in cars, etc. It was wiser to encourage enjoying the music than to pursue individuals making convenience copies.
