Legal and Moral Issues Regarding Intellectual Property

[SudS]

@christophervalle

Just give them a good sniff. Untainted CDs smell like baby powder. Tainted ones smell like rotten eggs. Unmistakable.

Seinfeld Clip - George's Toilet Book

[SudS]

I believe this is the title, but don’t fear, there’s at least one bill drafted to “modernize” the act. That should make things better.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

[terzinator]

TL;DR.

Searched that wikipedia page but couldn’t find anywhere that says it’s illegal to make a backup copy of a CD/Album, etc…

[SudS]

It isn’t illegal to make a copy of a CD, but it’s the “why” the copy is made is where it gets sticky.

[terzinator]

again, just wanna see the statute/language

i’m exhausted

[Elk]

@SudS

. . . the RIAA’s fictitious “get out of jail free card” has absolutely no bearing on the written law, and pretending they have the authority to determine copyright ownership for all members and non members of their trade association is a convenient hollow crutch . . .

There is apparent confusion here.

The RIAA has every right to make this statement on behalf of its members, just as it had the right to sue Napster and others on for its members. The RIAA is the agent of the copyright holders and has every right to act upon their behalf.

Also, keep in mind the Copyright Act is civil, not criminal. That is, the RIAA is not waiving the rights of the government to pursue criminal acts.

The Copyright Act sets out the rights of copyright holders v. general members of the public. These rights include the exclusive right to make copies of their works. The RIAA is stating only that it grants the right to make personal copies of CDs to legitimate owners of these CDs. The RIAA has every legal right to do so.

The courts have repeatedly recognized the ease of copying digital media, by its very nature, threatens to undermine the copyright holder’s ability to maintain exclusive control over protected property - a fundamental right of copyright.

@SudS

It isn’t illegal to make a copy of a CD, but it’s the “why” the copy is made is where it gets sticky.

Actually it is copyright infringement to make a copy of a CD. Many think they can make an “archival” copy of music files but this is untrue. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117 of the Copyright Act, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only; you are the legal owner of the copy; and any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies, such as CDs. See,

Copyright and Digital Files (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

The Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) is a different animal than the he Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Copyright Law of the United States | U.S. Copyright Office

[Elk]

@terzinator

again, just wanna see the statute/language

I have cited it above. And it will really make your brain hurt.

[Rudolf_Appel]

@SudS please do consult a lawyer or start using common sense.

If you are convinced you are performing a criminal act by ripping CDs, just don’t rip CDs.

But stop accusing others of being criminals where in fact it is you who seems to be lost in the legal verbiage.

[SudS]

Oh, defensive and testy.

[stevem2]

There is an old thread from 9 years ao where this is discussed ad nauseam. See Digital copying. This is a topic that seems to come up every few years, with the same arguments being made on both side. I have no desire to rehash these old arguments but I would refer those who are interested in some of the case law to my posts 50 and 61. The latter cites to a federal court of appeals decision that held “space shifting” to be within fair use. In particular, they were OK with making MP3 files from CDs that had been ripped to hard drive.

[Elk]

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) v. Diamond Multimedia Systems is indeed an interesting case.

While the Court does address time-shifting, the Court was not addressing consumer rights or the Copyright Act, making the comments about consumers and the Copyright Act mere dicta.

Instead, the RIAA sued asserting Diamond Multimedia Systems asserting it was liable for paying Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) mandated royalties to RIAA’s members. The RIAA argued Diamond Multimedia Systems’ Rio MP3 player was the type of device covered by the AHRA. The case was not addressing the Copyright Act.

But I agree, this case may be heading in the direction of allowing consumers to make personal copies of CDs they legitimately own.

Then again, the case was decided in 1999 and there has been no movement since.

[stevem2]

I don’t think it was dicta so much as an assumption. If the court thought there was an issue as to the legality of the underlying act by the consumer, I would have expected it to ask the parties to brief it and address any impact on the actual parties.

Apple released iTunes for Mac in 2001 and Windows in 2003. From the beginning iTunes allowed people to rip their CDs to hard drive, including in full resolution. Do you think Apple’s lawyers didn’t beat the crap out of the issue before they released it, including at the consumer level? If Apple was protected but consumers were not and ultimately faced liability (like some Napster users), even if Apple were itself protected the reputational risk, and the risk their customers would file class actions agains Apple, would be huge.

The reason there may be no more recent cases (admittedly I have not checked) is likely that only a few armchair lawyers on fora like this think there is any issue.

[hthaller]

Not intended for any poster in particular, but … .

[Elk]

I agree there is no practical issue given the now old and repeated position statements of the RIAA. Given the RIAA is not going to sue anyone for personal copies, the courts will never have an opportunity to address the matter. It would be interesting to see how they would analyze the issue given the express provision of the Copyright Act limiting archival copies to computer programs.

@stevem2

If the court thought there was an issue as to the legality of the underlying act by the consumer, I would have expected it to ask the parties to brief it and address any impact on the actual parties.

i disagree. The issue of copyright infringement by consumers was not before the Court, and resolution of this question did not impact the parties. As you know, dicta often addresses all sorts of things the writer of a given opinion happens to think is of interest, no matter how tangential. But, as I previously noted, it may be an indication were this Circuit may go if given an opportunity to directly address the issue.

While I understand your thinking regarding Apple, Apple has a dreadful history when it comes to infringement of intellectual property. Just three days ago a US District Court affirmed a $300 million verdict against Apple for patent infringement. The courts are littered with actions against Apple for violation of intellectual property rights.

With respect to iTunes, Apple has had a variety of copyright issues, some of which it attempted to resolve with DRM.

It appears Apple treats claims of infringement as a cost of doing business.

[Elk]

The horse is alive and well as new issues and previously unconsidered arguments continue to be raised.

Jump in and feed him some hay if you would like.

[christophervalle]

Intent is a substantial bugaboo.

[aangen]

Much ado.

[Elk]

As with most everything we discuss; first-world problems at best.

But it is a hobby and fun.