ie8 fix
madison

Digital media ethics: it's personal

By | October 17, 2007, 12:49pm PDT

Summary: The voting in my digital media ethics poll is now closed, and your votes have made one conclusion crystal clear. The overwhelming majority of you believe that if you buy a music CD, you’re buying the rights to play back that performance any way you want, on any media, at any bit rate, as long as it’s for your personal use. According to the RIAA, you don’t have a right to do any of that stuff.

The voting in my digital media ethics poll is now closed, and I’m sorting through the fascinating results, which I’m going to respond to in a series of posts. To kick things off, I want to talk about the one issue where there’s practically no disagreement. Look at the response to this question:

Do you think it’s proper to buy a CD, rip it to your hard drive, and then make copies for your own personal use on multiple devices or computers?

  • Yes: 96%
  • No: 2%
  • Sometimes/Depends: 2%

I believe the ayes have it. The question gets a little more complicated if you include copy-protected DVDs (which is why I didn’t ask that variation), or DRM-protected downloads, a topic I’ll discuss in more detail tomorrow. For music CDs, however, the conclusion is crystal clear. The overwhelming majority of you believe that if you buy an album, you’re buying the rights to play back that performance any way you want, as long as it’s for your personal use. If you buy a CD, you should be able to make a backup CD, another CD copy for the car, digital copies in any format and bit rate you prefer for your computer and for your iPod or Zen or smartphone (and another for your spouse’s portable player), mix CDs, and playlists.

This comment, from the Talkback section of the poll, summed it up well:

I am perfectly willing to pay a fair (not inflated) price for someone else’s work. However, I should then be free to use it as I wish. That includes copying it to other media, storing it for later, or any other personal use (including sharing it with my family at the same location). Under those conditions, I don’t feel I have a right to re-sell it for a profit, or massively distribute it.

We will now have a brief intermission while paramedics remove the RIAA executives who are experiencing chest pains just reading that previous paragraph.

The same comment continues:

Unfortunately, the corporate entities that control the mass market media are so scared of new technologies that they are trying to deny us reasonable use of things we have already purchased. They are also using digital rights as lever to overcharge us; trying to charge us as much for on-line media as they would for hard copy CDs and DVDs (which have far greater production, transportation, marketing, and point of sales overhead costs). As a result, I will do whatever I can (without taking excessive legal risks) to subvert their system, until it falls apart of its own inertia. At that point, I look forward to purchasing copyrighted media at a reasonable price to use in whatever way technology permits

That’s no exaggeration. Officially, the RIAA refuses to even enter into this argument, contending that you have no right to make a backup copy of a music CD. On a page starkly entitled “The Law,” the RIAA concedes:

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

But digital copies? No way, says the RIAA, although we might let you get away with it:

Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns [emphasis added] so long as:

  • The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
  • The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

How kind of them to mention that it won’t usually raise concerns (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more) if you want to copy a CD for your own personal use. That’s not to say they won’t try to sue you someday, just that they’re a little busy with other battles right now.

Elsewhere on the RIAA site, a FAQ “for students doing reports” says, “Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use.” Again, they’re steadfastly refusing to acknowledge any right to make even a backup copy so you can protect media from being scratched and rendered unplayable. And that’s not just shyness. It’s official policy for the entertainment industry at large. In an official Joint Reply (PDF) filed with the United States Copyright Office on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act last year, the lawyer for a consortium of 14 content providers, including the MPAA and RIAA, summarized his clients’ beliefs in regard to backing up your CDs:

[T]he making of back up copies for personal use has never been held to be a per se noninfringing use [and] we oppose the recognition of any of these exemptions.

[...]

The justifications offered by the submissions for making back up copies mirror those offered in 2003: possible damage that would render a copy unusable and the convenience of travel copies. Neither of these justifications is compelling.

And if a CD does get scratched? Hey, tough luck. Buy another one:

Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.

Did you know the recording industry offers replacement copies at affordable prices? How come I’ve never heard of that program? Oh, right. because it doesn’t exist. What the RIAA is saying, in that official document, is that if your CD gets scratched you can go buy another copy. Sorry, no. For what it’s worth, I’ve been burned too many times by CD players and changers that mangle discs. The very first thing I do when I buy a new CD is to make a copy for use in the car. Then I rip the tracks from that CD to a home server and use those copies for the Media Center PC in the living room or the computer in my office and for filling up our portable music players.

According to the RIAA, I don’t have a right to do any of that stuff. Fortunately, I feel great knowing that you 98% of you agree with my philosophy and disagree with the RIAA’s extremist point of view. That’s how far apart the entertainment industry and its customers are today.

The big corporations that package music and movies today were built in the pre-digital age, and the attitude embodied in the above statements comes straight out of the 1970s. If the media giants that control the music and movie industries can’t take even a tiny baby step into the 21st Century, it’s no wonder their customers are willing to live by their own, more reasonable rules.

Coming up next: The file-sharing standoff.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
178
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Digital media ethics: it's personal
beijing2008 14th Sep
Thank you so much replicawatchesuk
0 Votes
+ -
Missing information.
Anton Philidor 17th Oct 2007
As mentioned in a prior post, you might have phrased the question as: Do you believe it proper to violate the law and become subject to penalty by...

A less tendentious phrasing would be If you were able to make the law, would you...

As phrased, the question has already determined that those who respond are willing to violate law (or other legal constraints) as a result of their own evaluation of the rightness of an action.

That's leaving out the more essential for the less essential consideration.
0 Votes
+ -
What
Blogsworth 17th Oct 2007
Are you making your own language up as you go along.
I bet your fun at parties. Do you write instruction manuals or legal documents for a living. If no, give it a go, it is your destiny.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
voska 17th Oct 2007
I don't get your point here. What's are getting at? I just am not getting your point. Don't like the results or something? I'm not sure, you're not being clear.
0 Votes
+ -
As phrased...
Anton Philidor 17th Oct 2007
... the question asks whether it's "proper" to make copies:

"Do you think it?s proper to buy a CD, rip it to your hard drive, and then make copies for your own personal use on multiple devices or computers?"

Only in the discussion here does he observe that people who agree with the question are joining him against RIAA views incorporated into law:

"According to the RIAA, I don?t have a right to do any of that stuff. Fortunately, I feel great knowing that you 98% of you agree with my philosophy and disagree with the RIAA?s extremist point of view. That?s how far apart the entertainment industry and its customers are today."

If he asked whether I agreed with his views, I'd write Yes. But he asked whether I wanted to violate the law, without including that significant factor in the question.
0 Votes
+ -
According to the RIAA is NOT, by any mean, according to the law! The RIAA want to remove any bit of the "fair use" principle that state that when you buy something, ANYTHING, you own it and are free to use as you please as long as that use is personal. It definitely include the making of backup, the personal use copy to be used in potentialy hazardous, for the media, environments, like in your car, in a portable device, on the beach,...
The RIAA is actualy pushing hard to remove the fair use from YOU!
0 Votes
+ -
you are referring to what law
Update victim 19th Oct 2007
The fight about "Fair Use" was fought over tape recordings. The courts determined that once having purchased the hard copy, you now owned the hard copy, and you were free to copy it to other media for your own personal use or for backup, although it wasn't called backup then.

The copyright law then was also a civil law that granted the rights to the copyright owner and required the copyright owner to prove real financial loss before any compensation was due from the accused infringer. We have Sonny Bono to thank for starting the process of copyright extension that has resulted in the possibility that copying a CD, even to a tape, which was protected action, is now a criminal act which entitles the copyright holder to penalties without proof of financial loss.

The RIAA has purchased Congress in this matter, which may just go a long way to the current approval rate, or LACK OF APPROVAL, of Congress. The last approval rating for Congress that I have seen was at 11%.

The problem is greed, and the Congress has given in to this greed.
0 Votes
+ -
The RIAA is a lawmaking body?
legalista 22nd Oct 2007
That's news to me - and I am a lawyer. "Fair use" rights ARE codified in "the law" but there are disagreements sometimes as to interpretation, in which case judges clarify the issues, and render an opinion, which then becomes "the law" unless and until an appellate court overturns the lower court's decision.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair use is a thing of the past
LesN 22nd Oct 2007
Fair use rights were codified into law in the previous Copyright bill, but the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) replaced that. I had read the prior bill and tried to read the DMCA, but I'm not a lawyer and couldn't make sense out of a lot of it. Though I did not understand all of the particulars, one thing seemed pretty clear to me: whereas the prior Copyright bill outlined a number of specific rights for consumers (some, like the fair use clause, were largely left as grey areas that the courts would have to clarify in certain instances), in the DMCA, I am pretty sure that the only right the consumer has is to pay the Copyright holder . . . and perhaps keep paying. Congress sold us out.

- Les
0 Votes
+ -
So the DMCA includes Fair Use?
LesN 22nd Oct 2007
I'm sorry -- I missed the fact that you said that you are a lawyer. And you are saying that Fair Use is still part of Copyright law? It's been awhile since I looked at the DMCA but I really must have missed that because all I could seem to find were clauses nullifying virtually everything which seemed reasonable about the previous Copyright bill. As I recall, in the prior bill, Fair Use had essentially two parts: in the first, certain specific practices were enumerated as fair use, such as a library making limited copies of Copyrighted works for certain purposes, etc., but there was a broader phrase which implied that it extended to other areas, but which was stated vaguely enough that it would require the judgment of a court to establish the boundaries. Are both aspects still a part of the DMCA?

Thanks for clearing this up. Maybe the DMCA isn't as pernicious as it seems.

- Les
0 Votes
+ -
not according to our law!
ariepert 17th Oct 2007
If you you wanted the question phrased that way you would have to also add exactly what law you are talking about, because surprisingly enough American law does not apply to everyone. According to Canadian copyright law, we (Canadians) DO have the right to make copies of music recordings for personal use - even if we do not own the original CD. See Canadian Copyright Act, Part VIII number 80. So, from my point of view there was nothing wrong with how the question was worded because it is completely legal here.
0 Votes
+ -
The fact is this was settled law and has been for 30 years. When cassette recorders came out the Record companies tried the same line of argument. They tried to make copy proof albums and know what the courts told them to knock it off. The fact is when you buy a copy of copyrighted material you own that copy. It's yours and you have the right to do anything with that material that doesn't violate the copyright. Basically, as long as you don't distribute the copyrighted material for any reason you can make copies in any media until the cows come home and there's absolutely no recourse under copyright laws.

Now circumventing DRM is now a criminal act so it's a different story. And one that has yet to hit the supreme court. I suspect that there will be another wrist slapping for the record companies when it does hit the high court.
0 Votes
+ -
You're right about Canada. For now.
Anton Philidor 17th Oct 2007
"Canada doesn't have a DMCA yet but politicians there are hard at work trying to change that."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071004/101819.shtml

Dated October 4, 2007.

As the linked Comment also observes, the US government has been spreading DMCA equivalents in trade agreements and otherwise.
0 Votes
+ -
"As phrased, the question has already determined that those who respond are
willing to violate law (or other legal constraints) as a result of their own evaluation
of the rightness of an action."

Don't be silly. Only the most authoritarian reactionaries are unable to distinguish
between "do you believe this is right" from "do you believe this is legal". If there's
anyone here who is not familiar with at least one or two bad laws that have been
passed in their country in modern times, no matter what their country is.

We all know that the law is out of step with reality. The more essential
consideration is what we believe our rights should be. Without expressing that, the
law will not change.
0 Votes
+ -
The question, as asked...
Dr. John 18th Oct 2007
...was correct. It isn't a question of law, it's a question of moral judgment. The law wasn't in question. Opinions and moral values were in question.

On a side note, your response here is completely off the mark. It IS legal to make copies for personal use. Therefore, your rewrite is RIAA propaganda, and nothing more.

And, on a final note - The law often does not address right and wrong. The law is cut in stone, stamped in steel, black and white. Right and wrong are not.
The law is often morally wrong, and doing the right thing is often illegal.
0 Votes
+ -
How significant is illegality?
Anton Philidor 18th Oct 2007
Though you can assert that "doing the right thing is often illegal", wouldn't you prefer to know that what you are considering doing is against the law? Isn't illegality significant enough to be an essential component of your decision?

You can decide to violate the law for various reasons or no reasons. But isn't setting up a situation in which you have to make a choice without knowing about the violation implicitly misleading you?
0 Votes
+ -
not at all.
lostarchitect 19th Oct 2007
Morality is much more important than legality, Mr. Creon.
0 Votes
+ -
"Words may be many, and yet not to the point."
Anton Philidor 19th Oct 2007
Creon?? I'm not so pettifogging.

Someone who decides to violate a law because of a belief in a more significant morality can feel that he has done the right thing. Someone who violates the law on another's advice without knowing he has violated the law would be... disappointed if there were a penalty.
As Oedipus demonstrates, ignorance of a law violation is no excuse.

My post is about providing complete information. Your response concerns the choice to be made by someone who has the information.
0 Votes
+ -
And never the twain shall meet
Ole Man 19th Oct 2007
So what is the point of your continual
flogging of those who do not agree with the
finer points of the law that you so adore?
0 Votes
+ -
The thing is....
John L. Ries 19th Oct 2007
...there are some things that are wrong because they are illegal and for no other reason, while there are some that are illegal because they are wrong. Personally, I place copyright and patent infringement into the former category, rather than the latter.

I'm in favor of limited copyright and patent systems, but I regard them as trade regulations properly enacted for the purpose of promoting creative work, not as moral imperatives. I would consider a bill to completely do away with both to be unwise, but not immoral. On the other hand, a bill to decriminalize armed robbery would be both unwise *and* immoral.
0 Votes
+ -
Well...
Anton Philidor 19th Oct 2007
... a law has the effect of penalizing actions. That makes the underlying judgment of those actions negative. When you write "there are some things that are wrong [only] because they are illegal" you've given a good definition of an unjust law.

I disagree with the basis for what I see as excessively restrictive copyright laws. But I acknowledge the consistent logic of the arguments behind that law. I consider that logic built on inaccurate impressions called "facts" and lack of understanding of the impact of the law, but resolution of that disagreement is subject to majority view. Or legislative majority, anyway.

I'm still looking for a good argument for following only those laws with which I agree.


On your second paragraph, copyright infringement can violate civil as opposed to criminal law. Making a million CDs for sale is appropriately a criminal violation, but making a copy for a friend is appropriately a civil violation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but your distinction seems to be that it's immoral to do away with criminal but not civil violations. Perhaps based on degree and type of harm to people.

Interesting question. Hope you'll clarify for me.
0 Votes
+ -
your a riaa puppet obviously.
pcguy777 18th Oct 2007
and the question was fairly phrased. this is how policy is shaped.

laws can be altered, and or overturned....

in this free repbulic we call the great U S of A.

you remind me of some chinese cyber cop patroling blogs.. just to throw in your 2 cents.
0 Votes
+ -
I think the DMCA should be modified...
Anton Philidor 18th Oct 2007
... or repealed if it can't be fixed. The RIAA companies have responded to a major opportunity for increased profits by attacking the customers who are trying to give them money.

This is about a question which overlooked an essential consideration, possibly in order to obtain a desired response.

Include the single word "legally" in the question, and I'd join the 98% saying Yes.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
About my motives...
Ed Bott 19th Oct 2007
"This is about a question which overlooked an essential consideration, possibly in order to obtain a desired response."

No, I didn't write these questions to elicit a particular response. In fact, I addressed the issue of how difficult it is to write questions like this that aren't biased in the very first post that introduced the poll.

Sorry you don't trust my motives.
0 Votes
+ -
Here's part of what you wrote:

"For the sake of argument, let?s assume that your risk of being arrested or sued for any of the activities listed here is zero. The real question is how you feel about the rightness and wrongness of personal actions when it comes to digital media. I use the words proper and OK in these questions, although I could also have chosen moral or ethical or right. Each of those words carries some sort of philosophical baggage that means more to some people than others, so if you feel there?s a better way to ask the question, go ahead and rephrase it to your heart?s content."


But if I rephrase the question to include illegality, then I might well come to a different answer, no?!

You do say that your use of the words "proper and OK" is equivalent to using the words "moral or ethical or right".

For me, those words require the answer to the question "Is this action legal?" You've made legality essential to the questions and then sopecifically excluded them in the answer.

Suppose that the answer were "I would do these things if they were legal because in my view the benefit outweighs the harm, but I would not do them because they are illegal. The risk of the penalties of illegality as well as my respect for the law requires me not to do them."
That's as moral and ethical a concern as any other.

By excluding what may be the strongest single counter to views that you admittedly favor, you've created the impression that you were guiding the results.

Sorry. I'm not trying to impugn your intentions for the study. But I wonder if you would still work your questions the same way with this consideration in mind.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
The law
Ed Bott 21st Oct 2007
You make it sound like it's unambiguous what "the law" says. I say you're wrong. Most of the fair use questions posed here are far from settled legally. The fact that the RIAA says one thing and 56 (or so, I don't have the cite handy) organizations opposed them in written testimony is illuminating.

My point is about right and wrong, which is something that every person can answer for themselves. If you throw the law in, you wind up with interpretations by people who've never read the law and have a distorted picture of what it truly says.

That's why I wrote these questions the way I did.
0 Votes
+ -
Okay.
Anton Philidor 22nd Oct 2007
Though if your questions had included a reference to law when it's likely - in your view - that the activity discussed is illegal, you might have received different answers.

Or not.

A recent study at Harvard referenced in a recent interview with a content company executive observed that a substantial number of people realized file-sharing was illegal - and therefore wrong - but did it anyway.

People have many frameworks for "proper". The income stream to a detested company may influence a decision about behavior.



As an aside, the influence of the content companies on Congress (and even the electronics indistry) has been... impressive. If the 56 organizations disagreeing with the content companies' interpretation of the law were correct, the law might thereby be proven in need of revision.

Also, the Courts have been more responsive to the content companies than to those arguing for greater freedom from copyright restrictions. So the RIAA companies could win with a minority view.
0 Votes
+ -
Please READ the Copyright Laws!
Sinbad713 27th Oct 2007
Before you start saying that people are violating the copyright laws by doing what MOST of us do, as evidenced both by the votes and by the blog article, please go and actually READ the US copyright laws. Once you have done that, you will find that it is the RIAA and their cohorts who are ACTUALLY violating those laws by denying US our rights under those laws to make personal use backup copies of ANY media-form that we have purchased so that we can be certain that we have a usable copy.

As for putting tracks on our computers and media centers, etc., I still do NOT believe that such practices are in violation of the copyright laws because those copies are, again, for our own personal use.

Copyright laws were instituted for ONE and ONLY ONE purpose. To prevent people from copying the works of someone else and SELLING those works as their own! I heartily agree with that attitude and back them to the limit in that respect, but they DO NOT limit ANYONE and SHOULD NOT limit ANYONE when it comes to making copies of works for your own personal use ONCE you have PURCHASED a copy of that work.

The bottom line is, go buy the music CD or record or book or whatever, then, according to the US Copyright laws, you have a RIGHT to make a copy of it for YOUR personal use.
In the book world a collection (say the best chapters from other books involving Buffet) can be sold for money by requesting permission from each owner who previously published it. In the USA getting permission use to be so hard that courts just let the mash up (bundle up) creator do so (assuming reasonable effort to contact the owner had been made).

It may surprise many that often no money is required to get permission. Owners usually view a citation as more valuable than a fee and will waive the fee to get the citation. This is because there is value in the advertisement a citation represents and there will be costs to advertise the bundled work. Permission usually is given for a set number of copies say 5000.

What happens after the 5000 are sold? Well here is the interesting part. The permission at that point often will require a fee. At that point overall value will have been established and a fee can be negotiated based on it. Prior to the original batch, it is unlikely that parties will agree on value.

We see this in the software industry big time. It is one of the reasons why an older version of a Microsoft Windows Tool may be preferable to the newly minted one.

During the initial run, the value of a component is hard to judge and the creator seeks only advertisement for permission. After the initial run, a value of some kind has been established and serious negotiations begin. Our best example to date in our industry would be Crystal Reports which was bundled in Microsoft tools for so long that its removal means moving to a different tool set that has Crystal Reports. IE moving from Visual Studio to IBM Rational Application Developer.

Bottom line. Microsoft did it. Was what they did illegal? Since the answer has to be no, the music industry needs to think differently. It has to think more like the book world.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you so much replicawatchesuk
0 Votes
+ -
Libraries
Jim888 17th Oct 2007
I took the poll - one source that was not mentioned was the prevalence of CDs (or DVD's for that matter) that are at your local library. You check them out for your personal use $0 to the recording industry from you - other than the tiny portion of your tax $ or less if it was donated- and following somewhat bizzare right of use laws a burned copy is.... what ? Theft?
0 Votes
+ -
Obvious Answer
soonerproud 17th Oct 2007
Of course it is theft to copy cd's you checked out of the library or to copy DVD's you rented from Netflix or Blockbuster. You do not own the copy and have not paid for the right to own the material in question. That is the definition of theft.
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree -
spacecase2 17th Oct 2007
The copy you took on loan at your local library was not
just loaned to you. It was in fact given to you on loan -
to be returned so someone else could the borrow it. But
you did pay for it. Stuff doesn't appear in the library by
magic. It is paid for by taxes, or donated. Still it has
been paid for.

If I borrow a library cd, I have paid for it with my taxes, I
burn it, I return it. I paid for it.

I pay for parks and scuff the grass too. Do I have to
reseed the lawn? Well, yeah - taxes...
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
soonerproud 18th Oct 2007
Copyright law makes it very clear that public property like cd's, dvd's and books from the library are not to be copied even for personal use. Just because your tax dollars bought the media does not give you the right to copy it. You do not personally own and posses the media (It is owned by the library) so you are not entitled to make copies of the media without infringing on copyright law.
0 Votes
+ -
And that's the whole problem...
spacecase2 18th Oct 2007
I don't have fair use of what my tax dollors pay for. There is no way to even account
for where my tax dollars go. The Gov takes our money, lets us vote (sometimes) on
how to spend it, then they do whatever they want regardless of the vote.

How do you think baseball stadiums get built? By the teams or fans? DOn't be silly.
But it's one example (Diamondback Stadium for instance). People vote, the vote is
diregarded, taxes are raised, special interest projects get built. People suffer.

Stealing is when you take something without permission. Libraries give
permission...
0 Votes
+ -
Addendum
thx-1138_@... 18th Oct 2007
Which raises another issue: for whom are the Libraries collecting borrowing fees? In New Zealand public libraries a CD or DVD is borrowed with an attached fee. In Auckland, N.Z, each time a DVD is borrowed (for example), the borrower must pay a $5 fee.

I haven't ever seen RIAA Secure collection vans turning up weekly to collect the payloads from a weeks worth of library fees either.

Are libraries acting for and on behalf of music and film producers? Somehow i doubt it. Seems the RIAA have alot to oversee - but hey, that's their problem not ours (i.e. the public).
Copying or not copying is not a patter of property of the physical object, but a matter of:
- license given to you to use copyright material
- matter of copyright legislation that give the author the right to license other clearance for copying
- matter of the aforementionned license interpretation
- finally a matter of fair use doctrine

Supreme court already said that timeshifting is fair use, so copy a rented not copy protected DVD because you did not have time to watch it in time, just in order to watch it once then erase it is clearly and definitly legal in the US.

Library building from the same not protected rented dvd is not clear

Ripping a protected DVD, even one you have purchased is deemed illegal, not becaus eyou do not have right to copy, but because you do not have right to circumvent copy protection.
0 Votes
+ -
Copying Library Copies
ken.ryan@... 18th Oct 2007
In the Netherlands, it's legal to check out a CD from the library and burn a copy for personal use, return the CD back to the library, and then continue to use that copy. You probably could even pass on that copy to others who are a member of the library.

It could be because you're a member of the library. Here in the Netherlands you pay a yearly contribution to be a member.
0 Votes
+ -
dont burn the books either!!!!

just destroy all the scanners... right?
0 Votes
+ -
Errr
thx-1138_@... 18th Oct 2007
Yeah we don't want to 'burn the books' we might get labelled Fascists/Nazis. Besides you'd just be damaging the environment -so we can scratch that idea.

;^)
0 Votes
+ -
Obvious answer?
legalista 22nd Oct 2007
Soonerproud, are you a lawyer? I'm guessing no, just a wannabe, from the absolute certainty of your answer, which happens to be wrong. happy. From Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition (a legal dictionary for lawyers) here is the answer: "Theft, n.: The felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it."

Here's another definition:
Infringement, n. Intellectual property. An act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent, copyright, or trademark owner".

Here's another:

Criminal infringement. The statutory criminal offense of either (1) willfully infringing a copyright to obtain a commercial advantage or financial gain (17 USCA Section 506; 18 USCA Section 2319) or (2) trafficking in goods or services that bear a counterfeit mark (18 USCA Section 2320).

What does this mean? Well, the definition of theft means that if you have something tangible (say, a widget) and you take it with the intent of depriving the owner of it, that is theft, because the owner does not have another "widget" to own, use or sell to anyone else. These definitions have obviously been in existence for many many years prior to the digital age. If you copy an entire CD of music, you may have the intent to deprive the RIAA of its property, and may be wringing your hands in glee at the prospect of "sticking it to the man", but YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THE TRACKS ON THE CD, since the owner possesses those tracks digitally on other CDs, which it is offering for sale to other people.

This is why music is LICENSED not SOLD. What is "sold", if anything, is the media, i.e. the blank CD, which is not digital. No one else can possess that same CD, once you purchase it and take it home. The music tracks are licensed for use to millions and millions of people. If music were "sold" instead of licensed, then those specific tracks can only have one owner - you, and once you took the CD home, no one else could have that music except you.

You can buy a car, and we say that cars are "sold" not licensed, because that car has its own unique VIN number and has specific parts that are unique to that car which are different from other cars, even if others buy a similar car with the same make, model and color. The nuts and bolts on your car are not the nuts and bolts in your neighbor's car - both of you have nuts and bolts in your cars, and your neighbor's VIN is different from yours. Similarly, only YOU have that VIN number, and those parts that came with your car.

By licensing (as opposed to actually buying), many, many owners have the right to use the same identical music tracks, subject to the terms of the license agreement.

Now look at the definition of infringement: "An act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent, copyright, or trademark owner." This definition fits the act of taking music tracks without paying, because one of the "exclusive rights" of the copyright owner is the right to charge, and be paid a "fee", for the license of the product.

So, if someone downloads music without paying the license fee to the owner (RIAA), they are INFRINGING the owner's COPYRIGHT, they are not "stealing".

This post might seem pedantic, because both stealing and infringement are wrong under the law. But it can make a huge difference in penalties assessed against the infringer, and the crimes one is charged with.
0 Votes
+ -
Gift giving?
John Zern 17th Oct 2007
You check them out for your personal use $0 to the recording industry from you

They did get money from the library. That would be no different then you receiving a CD as a gift" No money to the recording industry from you.

And you still can pass that one CD around as much as youy want, as long as you or no one else makes a copy.
After all.. its OUR TAX dollars that paid for that content.

Right?

this is obviously logical.

...if the library is a public library. (not private)
0 Votes
+ -
Oh please, can we get over this
mdemuth 17th Oct 2007
It really is simple. The library has purchased (at a discount I assume) X copies. Those X copies must be shared among all the patrons.
It is no different then my loaning you a book. While you have the book, I can't read it. I am without access to it.
By the same measure, when you borrow one of those X copies, you deny access to another patron. You don't own it, and must return it, allowing others to have access, and at the same time denying you immediate access to it.

It is very far from stealing. Only willful ignorance or an attempt to idiotically muddy the example would explain anyone not understanding.
0 Votes
+ -
good point but...
pcguy777 18th Oct 2007
the library didnt purchase it with their money.

its all our tax money that even allowed this concept to happen.

every time you buy something at a local store.. some of that tax money is allocated to the libraries annually.
0 Votes
+ -
The little tax money of yours that went to the library bought the service of being able to borow a wide range of media. it didn't buy you the right to keep all that media. besides when has taxes ever ment that you have the right to own something. Almost all of the time you simply get the service or equipment to use for a short time. Public places, you get the facilities to enjoy, but you don't own any of it. Roads and bridges toll, you gain the right to drive on the governments faster roads, you don't own the road.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course you do
ZenaPrincess 22nd Oct 2007
Own it. Perhaps you don't use it very much, but that's ok. You reserve the right to complain, file suits and generally make a nuisance over it. Can't do that with private property. And, if someone sues over a public property and wins, there is more monies going out and generally will cause your taxes to rise. Or the thing will fall into dis-repair. The main point being: IT BELONG TO EVERYONE IN THE DISRICT WHERE THE TAXES ARE BEING PAID. If we have to pay for it, then by all rights, we deserve the use of it.
0 Votes
+ -
Copyright understanding
voska 17th Oct 2007
People don't understand copyright and for the most part don't care either. If you don't create anything why would you care? I know I didn't give two hoots about copyright law till I actually had a few things that I have the copyright too. Suddenly my interest changed, odd that.

People view copyright infringement as victimless crime and to a degree they are right. It's like speeding you figure there is no harm till you run over a child. You could speed every time you drive and never get in an accident because of excessive speed but eventually someone will be harmed. It's like drugs, smoking pot that comes from criminals who launder their money in manner that funds terrorist regimes. You could smoke all the pot you want and never have a terrorist kill you are anyone you know. It's hard to imagine the harm and therefore the belief that it is wrong is not there. On top of that who's going to catch you burning that CD you borrowed from a friend? If you did get caught you'd only get a slap on the wrist anyways.

So clearly this just show the copyright law is out of step with masses and the corporation just aren't getting it.

File swapping is a different argument.
0 Votes
+ -
wow
JT82 17th Oct 2007
You have a bomb shelter in your backyard and believe that the Govt is listening in on all your phone calls. Watch ouT! they are behind you..watching your every move. Be afraid...very afraid. *adjusts tin foil hat*
0 Votes
+ -
actually some of them
Protector 18th Oct 2007
Govt is listening in on all your phone calls.

- your right, they are http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix