DSotM underground DVD-A

[wanners]

Suppose a friend obtained it and loaned you a copy. You listen to it and give it back to the friend. Was that illegal? Is it the obtaining and having the material that is illegal, or the listening of the material?

I don't think there's anything illegal about the situation you descriibed. My understanding is that as long as the friend obtained it legally, not only could you listen to it, but I think you could also make a copy of it for yourself. that's counterintuitive I know, but copyright law is plagued by many inconsistencies, strange exceptions and technical loopholes.

 

[wanners]

but in reality, you own a copy of the sacd, you own a copy of the cd, you own a copy of the lp. you are really just having somebody make you a copy of something you already own onto a different format ? right? if you take the money that you pay this other person out of the equation it is actually the same thing as having your friend take your disc and copy it for you into a format that is not commercially available, isn't it? fair use

I think the reason these questions are so difficult to answer is that the copyright law as it exists today was not meant to deal with digital copying. So the strange thing is that even though the end result might be the same, how you get there seems to make all the difference. So, e.g. I could lend you my copy of an SACD that I own and you could copy it, but I can't copy it and give you the copy. These things don't make sense and makes this area full of landmines.

OK, I'm done, don't mean to dominate the discussion.

 

[neil wilkes]

So, e.g. I could lend you my copy of an SACD that I own and you could copy it, but I can't copy it and give you the copy.

But you can't run it that way around - your friend just bootlegged a copy at that point.
(You think the DMCA is bad? check out the UK version - the 1988 Copyright, Designs & Patents act and it's amendments as the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1998 and 2003.
Makes it illegal to even own the methods of circumventing "technological copy protection mechanisms", whatever they are - it is not defined but a generalization instead)

 

[wanners]

But I think you're still within the so-called "first sale doctrine" -- I can sell it, lend it or give it away to a person who is every bit as entitled to back it up as I was as the original owner. I'll try and double check this to make sure that's at least a plausible interpretation of the rule. If i'm wrong i'll retract it in this thread.

 

[ssully]

thank you mr. moderator, here is a poser for all of you out there, I walk into my local music store to purchase a cd of my favorite artist, instead of buying the new disc I opt for the used disc for $5 . which somebody bought and which royalties were paid. they made a copy and sold it to the store, ok fair use at this point correct. now the store resells the disc for which no royalties are paid and I purchase, now obviously the original purchaser had fair use of the disc but where does that right end? I have now purchased a disc and paid no royalties for the right to use.

The person who made a digital copy and then sold the original is the one on murky legal ground. In point of fact the law hasn't quite caught up to this situation-- making a digital copy for yourself, and selling a CD you bought, are both separately legal actions, but it remains to be explicitly codified into law that one cannot digitally duplicate, then sell the 'original' . Though it requires ethical gymnastics to think one can, or should, do this.

[EDIT: I'm talking about the USA laws.. Your mileage may vary in other countries!)

 

[neil wilkes]

It depends on the country you are in.
Believe me, here in the UK & European Economic Area, you have NO right of backup.
Sorry to shout, but this cannot be stated often or strongly enough.
You cannot even legally own the means to break something as pathetic as CSS encryption on a DVD, or RipFuard/CopyGuard/SecuROM whatever on aCD or a DVD.
It's illegal, and a criminal offence, not a civil one, as everyone knows counterfeiters all fund international terrorism. Our glorious (unelected) leader has said so, so it must be true. Surely. Isn't it?

You used to be able to use a loophole and claim you made a temporary copy for research purposes or private study, but that has been amended now to specifically exclude study, test functionality or observe the running on computers. So yo cannot even rip a DVD to HDD for use on a computer in the UK - it is against the law. Period. Okay, we all do it, but it is still illegal to do so, and you can be prosecuted over this. Seriously.
It's well scary

 

[Key]

The way I always understood it (for the US I don't know about europe) after the DMCA is that it's still legal to make a copy and sell the original. But it is illegal to bypass the copy protection. So in effect you can't make the copy unless the disc has absolutely no copy protection.

I think the underline issue is sovereign rights. If it's in the financial interest of an institution like a corporation to restrict the people's rights to share resources then that institution will do everything in it's power to maintain control or increase the control over that sharable good. It's the peoples duty to make sure these institutions don't over extend their reach at the expense of society as a whole or the environment in which we live in.

 

[ssully]

It depends on the country you are in.
Believe me, here in the UK & European Economic Area, you have NO right of backup.
Sorry to shout, but this cannot be stated often or strongly enough.
You cannot even legally own the means to break something as pathetic as CSS encryption on a DVD, or RipFuard/CopyGuard/SecuROM whatever on aCD or a DVD.
It's illegal, and a criminal offence, not a civil one, as everyone knows counterfeiters all fund international terrorism. Our glorious (unelected) leader has said so, so it must be true. Surely. Isn't it?

So, it's illegal to use the CD/DVD drive that comes with pretty much any computer these days, to rip a CD you bought? Or to make mp3s of it for use in your iPod?

Has anyone actually ever been brought up on charges for this? Or does this only apply to DVDs?

 

[ssully]

The way I always understood it (for the US I don't know about europe) after the DMCA is that it's still legal to make a copy and sell the original.

You have a cite/precedence for this? My understanding is that it has never been resolved. (Indeed, I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that any intellectual property advocate, such as the RIAA, would condone this practice which essentially leaves you with a 'free' copy, if you can resell the original at cost. You might even profit, if the original has become rare.)

But it is illegal to bypass the copy protection. So in effect you can't make the copy unless the disc has absolutely no copy protection.

That's exquisitely...legalistic. ;> Are CDs copy protected these days? I know there was an attempt some years back, but the rootkit backlash killed it, I thought.

I know I haven't had any special problem ripping my new CDs in the last few years, with EAC or dbPoweramp.

 

[wanners]

You have a cite/precedence for this? My understanding is that it has never been resolved. (Indeed, I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that any intellectual property advocate, such as the RIAA, would condone this practice which essentially leaves you with a 'free' copy, if you can resell the original at cost. You might even profit, if the original has become rare.)



That's exquisitely...legalistic. ;> Are CDs copy protected these days? I know there was an attempt some years back, but the rootkit backlash killed it, I thought.

I know I haven't had any special problem ripping my new CDs in the last few years, with EAC or dbPoweramp.

The first sale exeption survived. Copyright holders simply can't control distribution of a copy of the work after the sale. 17 USC sec 109. The digital protection system failed. I think that's where we are today. You can stlll make back up copies and sell, give away or lend your disc. See my prior posts; check out the book "digital copyright" by Jessical Litman. The book discusses these issues in a pretty understandable way.

 

[ssully]

The first sale exeption survived. Copyright holders simply can't control distribution of a copy of the work after the sale. 17 USC sec 109. The digital protection system failed. I think that's where we are today. You can stlll make back up copies and sell, give away or lend your disc. See my prior posts; check out the book "digital copyright" by Jessical Litman. The book discusses these issues in a pretty understandable way.

\\

I have seen your prior posts, I have read the both the fair use and the first sale sections of copyright law, however, I have not read Litman.

That said, I still contend that this sequence:

buy 'authorized' copy (referred to as 'particular copy' in the CLUSA) --> make your own bitperfect digital copy -->sell 'authorized' copy

is simply not considered in the current law, and is only legal for that reason. It is legal in a 'loophole' IMO, as the rest of the law is firmly against unauthorized copy-for-profit. The fact that 'phonorecords' are still cited in the law is an indicatior of how out of date it is. DMCA circa 1996 didn't advance it much. The means of audibly indistinguishable digital copying have exploded since then.

Even the archaic current law certainly does attempt to control things like rent/lease/lend-for profit of the 'authorized' copy, so it does try to control distribution of a copy of a work after sale. Whether it is *able* do so, in the real world, is another story.


NB. I am talking about a particular situation...where the consumer buys a copy of a recording, duplicates it, then *sells* it -- not gives it away, not distributes it 'for free' (e.g. torrents) -- but actually attempts to recoup all or part of the original cost, in effect leaving him with a 'free' or 'discount' copy.
The other situations -- giving away physical copies, or file sharing -- have their own ramifications of course. As does obtaining a free copy without having ever bought one in the first place...(i.e., being on the receiving end). But most discussion of copyright law seem to be about the latter cases, not the particular case I am talking about.

 

[MyCuff]

The only thing I would like is to download a copy of a disc I already have. I have DSOTM in CD and SACD form, both original. Probably have an LP laying around too. It should not be illegal for me to download a DVD-Audio of the same, so as to listen to Quad in my car. Not asking how to do it, or where to find it. Just expressing my frustration that it is not legal for me to do it.

 

[wanners]

\\

NB. I am talking about a particular situation...where the consumer buys a copy of a recording, duplicates it, then *sells* it -- not gives it away, not distributes it 'for free' (e.g. torrents) -- but actually attempts to recoup all or part of the original cost, in effect leaving him with a 'free' or 'discount' copy.

This is not a problem. It's been going on for a long time and is permissible because of a combination of the ability to back up your purchased copy and the first sale exception. You seem unable to accept this conclusion.

I would like to respond in more detail to your post, but doing so will get complicated fast and move this thread way off topic. I would like for a moderator to determine that this is appropriate material to discuss here and if so to create another thread.

 

[ssully]

I wrote that it is legal under the existing combination of laws. That it has been going on a long time is both true and irrelevant given that the language of the laws hasn't changed to match the march of technology. That language dates back to when the best copy the average consumer could make of audio product was on analog tape in real time. Now consumers can rip a *perfect* audio copy (or copies) in seconds. And that copy can itself be copied with no loss, unto the nth generation. This is not anticipated by fair use or first sale.

So what conclusion am I unable to accept? I don't accept the proposition that |buy original/make perfect copy/sell original| is an*intended* consequence of those laws, is all.

 

[wanners]

I wrote that it is legal under the existing combination of laws. That it has been going on a long time is both true and irrelevant given that the language of the laws hasn't changed to match the march of technology. That language dates back to when the best copy the average consumer could make of audio product was on analog tape in real time. Now consumers can rip a *perfect* audio copy (or copies) in seconds. And that copy can itself be copied with no loss, unto the nth generation. This is not anticipated by fair use or first sale.

So what conclusion am I unable to accept? I don't accept the proposition that |buy original/make perfect copy/sell original| is an*intended* consequence of those laws, is all.

I disagree. To say that it was completely unintended that a person might be able to make a perfect copy under the fair use rules doesn't seem plausible to me. Although there are many clear instances of copyright laws being inadequate to deal with digital technology, I don't think this is one of them. The permission to back up a work was never dependent on the copy having to be inferior. That might be why the music industry initially tolerated the making of back up copies, but as technical matter, how perfect or imperfect the copy is can and should be irrelevent to fair use and first sale--especially as the user is well within the policy bounds that were intended by the laws as drafted.

The best example is with software. All copies must be perfect for the back up to work, but this didn't necessarily cause a need to change the wording of all the laws as currently drafted.

When the US Supreme Court decided that TV viewers can record programming for later viewing, they did not say "but only if you can't make a perfect copy". The fact is that the it's more logical that the copy be permitted to be as close to the orginal as possible if not perfect, because if not, well then crap, what's the point of backing it up if the quality sucks.

 

[wanners]

I think the underline issue is sovereign rights. If it's in the financial interest of an institution like a corporation to restrict the people's rights to share resources then that institution will do everything in it's power to maintain control or increase the control over that sharable good. It's the peoples duty to make sure these institutions don't over extend their reach at the expense of society as a whole or the environment in which we live in.

You could not be more correct. The problem is that in the US, the people do not sit at the negotiating table when IP laws are drafted--all the other stakeholders do. Congress would have to start actually representing the people, which I don't know if you noticed, they have not been--although in copyright it's even worse--again I recommend Litman, "digital copyright" she goes into this in great detail.

 

[JonUrban]

This is not a problem. It's been going on for a long time and is permissible because of a combination of the ability to back up your purchased copy and the first sale exception. You seem unable to accept this conclusion.

I would like to respond in more detail to your post, but doing so will get complicated fast and move this thread way off topic. I would like for a moderator to determine that this is appropriate material to discuss here and if so to create another thread.

You can keep going as far as I am concerned. It's interesting, although not related to DSOTM. I can pull these posts into a new thread I suppose.

 

[ssully]

I disagree. To say that it was completely unintended that a person might be able to make a perfect copy under the fair use rules doesn't seem plausible to me.

Why do you persist in misstating what I'm saying? I am saying that the combination of 1) making a perfect copy of the 'particular copy' you paid for, PLUS 2) being able to then sell the 'particular copy', is what was unintended. The net result of that can range from a owning a discounted copy of the recording, to having a free copy, to actually making a profit on it. How can you imagine that was the intention? Selling the copy *you made* is certainly illegal, how can it have been intended for the 'particular' copy to be sold in this situation? This leads to the relevance of 'perfection': the only reason I could imagine the fair use + first sale combo was even tolerated in the first place by the *AUDIO* industry, is that in the predigital era the copy you 'kept' was more or less obviously degraded compared to the original (i.e., a tape copy of a 'phonorecord', to use the archaic language of the law, or of another tape). That's not the case with digital copies. The only downside now to selling the original is not an audible one-- it's that you lose the artwork -- unless you've scanned that too!

The rest of your post is irrelevant since you ignored the key part about selling.

 

[wanners]

Ok,Ok, but in my defense, your arguments have permutated a little from the outset. I don't think we actually disagree completely; it seems more like a matter of degree to which this result should be tolerated. I certainly don't mean to say that this result is specifically intended by the statute, that would be ridiculous. But I'm just not sure it is necessarily an unintended result that should be eliminated, as you seem to suggest. It seems to me that this combination is more like an aberration that is tolerated because, although there is clearly a bit of a potential windfall to the consumer, there's no additional harm done by allowing him to both keep his copy and sell the original.

Yeah, I'll admit ideally the guy should have to throw away his copy after the sale, but who is harmed by him keeping it? Putting aside the fact that such a rule would be impossible to administer, suppose we did make the guy throw his copy away--what real difference would it make overall--wouldn't you still be miffed that he could make a profit? Why should we tolerate any of this? The short answer is that both policies, either sepearately or together have been predetermined to be a policy that balances the rights of consumers with the rights of authors.

But, bottom line I don't think this is as big a deal as you make it, the future of copyright is likely going to be so skewed in favor of copyright holders, that this little benefit will seem like peanuts.

 

[holland123]

I completely agree w wanners and thank you for the enlightening response to my original question by the way. if second sale of copyrighted material was unintended then the record store i purchase my used disc would be breaking the law, plain and simple, but they are not. as well as all of the record fairs that travel around where people sell used discs. i frequent these both and haven't been arrested yet. also for the british fellow on this thread i had no idea copyright laws were so stiff there, the last time i was in london i can't remember where it was but there were a dozen or so people on the street selling really good looking dupes of current artist cd's, cops walking around not seeming to care, i actually bought one to check it out they were selling current hit artists discs for like 2 pounds, the quality was terrible but the disc packaging looked almost real! oh no am i in trouble now i better shut up... anyways i didn't mean for this thread to get so heated sorry