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

[BilboBaggins]

In most cases, the original media IS your personal license proving your rights to your cop(ies).

Same holds true with digital downloads vice physical. Most of those have a unique signature encoded within establishing it's source, destination, time of purchase, etc. Read the small print on those, and it's non-transferable and the property of the original purchaser in perpetuity. Finally - something I can take with me to the grave! ;-}

Another fun bit - a lot of physical media includes a license for a "free" digital download of said material. I see a lot of these being sold or given away as gifts. Also not legal, as in this case, BOTH are for your personal use only unless you transfer ownership of the physical media.

In my opinion, another good reason to buy the media. The way I interpret this is to mean that if you donate, sell or give away the media, in cases where you can such as LPs, tapes, or cds, you are obligated under the law to destroy your now illegal copy as you no longer have the physical media in your possession.

That is just my interpretation and what a judge would decide is completely out of my control. But it would make be the logical progression.

How does it work for art? I would imagine the mechanism would be similar.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Is this your citation? Sorry, file sharing lawsuits are a different matter. You claim that the Fair Use Clause says you must retain a physical copy. Show me/us where it states this.

How do you prove that you did own it, if you have no physical media. Are you going to keep your receipt from Savers? What will that prove?

 

[whoaru99]

Is this your citation? Sorry, file sharing lawsuits are a different matter. You claim that the Fair Use Clause says you must retain a physical copy. Show me/us where it states this.

I believe the answer lies in Title 17 US Code, sections 106 - 109.

It gets pretty deep but does go into copies made for archival purposes and requirements to do so; with many twists, turns, and conditions.

 

[N8Nagel]

Last time I brought this up, I was accused of being a lawyer, so I'll state for the record (pun intended) that I'm not.

The music industry argues that you are not buying the physical media, but that you are buying the licence to use the intellectual property contained thereon.

I see a problem with this. If you have bought such a licence, it seems to me that the person selling you that licence has an obligation to provide you with media from which to enjoy your right to enjoy that property. This would necessitate the provision of replacement copies of the physical media, as and when required, for your entire life (and that of your heirs and successors, unless the licence forbids sale or transfer to a third party.)

I think this would be a much more interesting legal precedent to set, by taking a truckload of scratched and abused records into a court of law and demanding brand new (or, at least, mint) replacements for the media. If the various record companies were prepared to honour their obligation, they would be in a much stronger position to enforce the rest of the terms, including no copying, reselling or distribution.

If the record companies insist that you don't have this right, you have probably bought a physical object which is yours to do with as you please. So if you damage it, the onus is upon you to repurchase it for the full replacement cost. But in the meantime, you could make copies of the content, for your own use or for distribution, since you have bought an item and the seller retains no right to direct your use of that item, regardless of any verbiage inscribed upon it. "Do not make copies". Well, OK. I'm not making a copy of the vinyl disk, since I lack a pressing plant. I'm only manufacturing ones and zeroes that happen to closely coincide, when decoded appropriately, to the stuff that was on that piece of plastic you sold me. By the way, what's a stylus? I just bought the plastic cos I liked the colour (honestly).

I would love to get a replacement copy of the recalled copy of KMFDM's Naive that I can't get a clean rip off of... The one that has the samples from Carmina Burana. If only I knew 20 years ago that this was a big deal...

 

[mikeybc]

I would love to get a replacement copy of the recalled copy of KMFDM's Naive that I can't get a clean rip off of... The one that has the samples from Carmina Burana. If only I knew 20 years ago that this was a big deal...

Looks like there's one original on Amazon at the moment.

 

[whoaru99]

...

The music industry argues that you are not buying the physical media, but that you are buying the licence to use the intellectual property contained thereon.

...

That may be what the music industry argues, but copyright law seems to say you do own the legally-obtained copy and can for the most part do with it as you see fit inasmuch as sell it, give it away, or destroy it.

What you did not buy, in general terms, was the right of reproduction other than what seems to be covered by Title 17 USC Section 108 that talks about reproduction and archives.

 

[N8Nagel]

Looks like there's one original on Amazon at the moment.

Ain't there now and that's the point... I want a clean rip of the unedited version of Libesleid...

 

[zebra03]

Ain't there now and that's the point... I want a clean rip of the unedited version of Libesleid...

I saw it on Youtube


Video is NSFW

 

[4-2-7]

Indeed. However, so far all we have is unsubstantiated conjecture. Help!

I actually think you started the thread just to argue, you'v been here long enough to see the bickering back and forth on this topic. Why don't you call a lawyer and pay them, they will also not have binding facts. You can search the internet till your blue in the face and not get a factual answer, you can ask the site till your blue in the face and not get anywhere but a argument.

Has anyone on AK had a search warrant issued for the search seizure of their residence over this matter?

No not me, why? because it doesn't make any sense to prosecute.

 

[reydelaplaya]

Has anyone on AK had a search warrant issued for the search seizure of their residence over this matter?

You ever notice that all of a sudden a member here just disappears? Maybe only to be mentioned months or years later in a ‘where are they/has anybody heard from?’ thread. Pretty sure they’ve all been scooped up are are stamping license plates for this exact reason. They’re in the slammer, folks - doing 99+ years of hard time per song. LOL

But seriously though, I have nothing to cite but my own conscience regarding this matter. All of the music I have in a non-physical digital form, I also ‘own’ in a physical form as well. The only exceptions to that being a couple MP3 digital copies of CDs made a almost two decades ago from physical media I owned at the time but were stolen out of my truck in San Juan one night along with my good coconut machete and probably like $2 in toll-road change in the ashtray. That said, since they were in a zippered CD binder sleeve book, I still have the rear jewel case inserts in a box with all the others in the unlikely event we ever get down to technicalities.

Otherwise, I think it’s just ethical to have a physical copy of whatever I have in my digital media library.

Coincidentally, I also consider this approach to the ROMs of my Nintendo 64 games I have on my computer. In the event that Nintendo shows up, warrant in hand because Windows 10 snitches that I’ve been playing StarFox 64 through an emulator, I can pull out my stack of 64 cartridges, console, memory expansion, rumble pack and controllers, and use the same logic and defense as I would for my digital music library. “Here are my receipts” so to speak.

I remember us discussing something similar a while back and me mentioning that at first it felt weird to be able to stream commercial free full albums from Amazon Prime Music even though that’s what’s included in my membership. Now I don’t care so much because it’s led me to buy physical copies of some of those same albums, and also prevented me from buying what turned out to be crap. LOL

 

[Blue Shadow]

If the RIAA could figure out how to make the excessive profits they insist on without resorting to martial law conditions there would be no reason to concern ourselves with this issue. It is their fault for not keeping up with and out front of the new technologies as they came about. They had no idea how to continue to increase revenues in the changing markets.

Remember when CDs were announced there was talk of a price decrease because they were so much cheaper to make. Seems the powers that be thought we would forget that when the media didn't snap, crackle and pop and prices went up instead of down.

It is all the fault of the RIAA. But support your artists. Nice to see some of them doing ok without a major record company.

 

[E-Stat]

I believe the answer lies in Title 17 US Code, sections 106 - 109.

I read section 107 differently. Fair use allows multiple copies as determined by the following:

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Maintaining multiple copies of any digital data is done for the purposes of preventing loss by storage medium failure. Such is not for commercial purposes nor distribution and in no way affects the "potential marker for or value of the work".

Further, no copy protection mechanisms are defeated in that process as amended in the 1992 act. And in the case of computer programs, also protected by this act, the copy in use rarely, if ever exists on the original media.

And I find nothing at all about the original question - the requirement to retain the "original media". In a significantly increasing number of cases for both computer software and music, there is none. What's to retain?

 

[whoaru99]

I read section 107 differently. Fair use allows multiple copies as determined by the following:

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Maintaining multiple copies of any digital data is done for the purposes of preventing loss by storage medium failure. Such is not for commercial purposes nor distribution and in no way affects the "potential marker for or value of the work".

Further, no copy protection mechanisms are defeated in that process as amended in the 1992 act.

I didn't comment specifically on Fair Use. But, as I read it, I don't see Fair Use is the relevant bit regarding the topic of the post.

 

[E-Stat]

I didn't comment specifically on Fair Use. But, as I read it, I don't see Fair Use is the relevant bit regarding the specific question.

Ok. I'm responding to the title of the post: "Are We Legally Bound To Keep A Physical Copy?"

 

[whoaru99]

Ok. I'm responding to the title of the post: "Are We Legally Bound To Keep A Physical Copy?"

Yeah, so am I. I think the answer to the question of topic lies largely in Section 108 regarding reproduction and archiving.

 

[hjames]

Amazon's not exactly a bit player (pun intended). They use DRM on all their kindle downloads and have been known to wipe entire libraries based on any perceived illegalities ... ditto for DRM on MP3 music. Check the tags on those, and you'll see a license number listed in the comments. From what I understand, that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unique identifiers loaded into each specific copy. Pretty sure these files don't have a "call home" function ... yet ... but it'd be easy enough to implement if they decided to slipstream in a policy change.

Need proof that Amazon has gone through and actually deleted downloaded music on users computer ... otherwise, delete the post please. (Yes, I know about a Book or 2)

 

[E-Stat]

I think the answer to the question of topic lies largely in Section 108 regarding reproduction and archiving.

And yet, you are still unable to identify the text which states that. Why not just ask the RIAA?

"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 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.
• The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
• Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make."

I purchased the CD and thirty five years later prefer playback via a different mechanism. Or, downloaded files where there never was media involved.

I think they get that.

 

[whoaru99]

And yet, you are still unable to identify the text which states that.

Why don't you read Section 108 and opine on what you think it says?

 

[E-Stat]

Why don't you read Section 108 and opine on what you think it says?

I did. Clearly, most of the content refers to visual art maintained and shared by libraries and galleries. At the top of the list is this notable exclusion:

"(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;"

Exactly. My choice as to where to store the music is made without any "commercial advantage".

 

[whoaru99]

The particular reference of topic re. Section 108 and others, is "phonorecords". Phonorecords is defined in Section 101 as -

“Phonorecords” are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.

Things of this nature are specifically why I avoid posting single points from the Sections since they are often subject to modifications by other Sections and relative to larger context not necessarily made clear by a couple bullet points.

To 427's earlier point even lawyers don't necessarily agree on what this stuff means. And, the RIAA doesn't make law but their lawyers interpret and try to influence it. Their basis comes from somewhere and that seem to be copyright law Title 17 USC and the various Sections therein.