Copyright. Are We Legally Bound To Keep A Physical Copy?

There are a lot of Dudley Do Right types posting in this thread. I bet they never speed while driving and do everything 100% in accordance with the law.:rolleyes:
"C'mon, you guys all do it too, don't you?"

Comments like this are how you identify the guys freely swapping, distributing and downloading rips.
 
No, they're not.:rolleyes:
I was mainly poking fun at how ridiculous some of the nitpicking in this thread has gotten.

Agreed. Fourteen pages of finger pointing, panty twisting and rather fake indignation really needs to come to an end. Somebody say something about speaker cables so the thread gets closed.
 
Agreed. Fourteen pages of finger pointing, panty twisting and rather fake indignation really needs to come to an end. Somebody say something about speaker cables so the thread gets closed.
I doubt it will get closed because it has actually been fairly civil. Just because the thread exists, doesn't mean you have to pay it any mind.
 
Trying to address a question about legal requirements certainly may involve excruciating levels of detail. Participation is not mandatory.
Have you seen me participating much in this thread? Nope. I responded to someone who quoted me.

Indirect accusations of wrong doing are not mandatory, either. But that didn't stop them from being made.
 
Despite a couple minor and expected dustups, there’s actually some interesting and dare I say, educational diatribe happening here.

So to whichever mod(s) have been watching this thread…thanks for keeping the doors open. :thumbsup:

Mice will play.... Need time to catch-up on posts and weigh back in. Much more to contribute and ponder.
 
If a mod has been watching, can we just delete the threadcrappers who didn't even bother to read the title of the thread before they started flinging pooh like angry monkeys?
 
If a mod has been watching, can we just delete the threadcrappers who didn't even bother to read the title of the thread before they started flinging pooh like angry monkeys?
I never even think about it one way or the other ever since 'the industry' attempted to block the manufacture of cassettes, or tax each and every one fifty cents, or put a premium on each and every cassette machine capable of recording... this happened back in the eighties... after that I lost all interest. If I want to do whatever with a source for my own use, I do it. Big deal.
 
If a mod has been watching, can we just delete the threadcrappers who didn't even bother to read the title of the thread before they started flinging pooh like angry monkeys?

Yeah, as long as participants stay to the point about legal requirements, rather than moral positions, it could run a long time.

That said, I think it's on about round three of the same/similar points being made.
 
Now that the main fervor of the OP has indubitably been put to rest (...no physical copies are required by copyright law), for the time being, here's a backtrack related sidebar question...

Is it even legal/allowed/exempted per the Copyright Act- USC Title 17 (any section) to rip/copy music CDs to another medium for personal use with anything other than "approved" devices? <--See most relevant exemption in AHRA section linked in OP.

The general consensus and ground swell of opinion is that "ripping" (aka. format shifting) by the public at large is covered under the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act.
Is it? Yet again, I maintain this assumption is up for debate and not a given right.

The AHRA specifically deals with and protects audio recording device manufacturers for copyright infringement. The way I read it (verbatim and spirit) is that this exemption does not apply to "protecting" and/or granting any such exemption for individual consumers.

As for...the Fair Use section, it is keenly designed to allow specific exemptions for usage for educational, news/entertainment/satire broadcasts, print media, public libraries, etc. concerns. Not individual Joe Blow consumer at large.

So, in essence, if you use/have used an an "unauthorized device" (i.e. your PC) to make copies of of music CDs you are guilty of copyright infringement under the law. Doh!...buh bye all self-righteous rippers? :eek:
 
Last edited:
Now that the main fervor of the OP has indubitably been put to rest (...no physical copies are required by copyright law), for the time being, here's a backtrack related sidebar question...

Is it even legal/allowed/exempted per the Copyright Act- USC Title 17 (any section) to rip/copy music CDs to another medium for personal use with anything other than "approved" devices? <--See most relevant exemption in AHRA section linked in OP.

The general consensus and ground swell of opinion is that "ripping" (aka. format shifting) by the public at large is covered under the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act.
Is it? Yet again, I maintain this assumption is up for debate and not a given right.

The AHRA specifically deals with and protects audio recording device manufacturers for copyright infringement. The way I read it (verbatim and spirit) is that this exemption does not apply to "protecting" and/or granting any such exemption for individual consumers.

As for...the Fair Use section, it is keenly designed to allow specific exemptions for usage for educational, news/entertainment/satire broadcasts, print media, public libraries, etc. concerns. Not individual Joe Blow consumer at large.

So, in essence, if you use/have used an an "unauthorized device" (i.e. your PC) to make copies of of music CDs you are guilty of copyright infringement under the law. Doh!...buh bye all self-righteous rippers? :eek:
Since the law doesn't specifically cover many things, court case decisions do. One example would be the "Betamax case" which determined it was legal Fair Use for a Joe Blow consumer to record a TV show for later personal viewing (which covers both time-shifting, AND medium-shifting).

Ripping a CD to another medium for personal use MAY be legal, depending on the medium (a music CD-R is OK, but a data CD-R is supposed to be a no-go; tape is OK as it falls in the same realm as the Betamax case).
Another factor is whether the CD has any type of digital protection. If it does and you circumvent it to make a digital copy, then you are breaking the law (DMCRA). An analog copy wouldn't be breaking the law, since there is no digital protection that you would need to circumvent in order to make the copy.

Now, although the AHRA is somewhat explicit as to the type of equipment used (a CD-R on a PC is considered not an "allowed" recording device since it and the PC are not specifically sold for the purpose of recording music), a clarification of the Act was provided due to the case involving Rio and their MP3 player.
""[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, "

That clarification pretty much legalizes it regardless of the equipment used.
 
Back
Top Bottom