whoaru99
Epic Member
Refer to post #50.
Also, have look at this then you can probably dig more on your own if you want from the leads there.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/llc/copyright/RightsBuyer.html
Copyright. Are We Legally Bound To Keep A Physical Copy?
Refer to post #50.
Also, have look at this then you can probably dig more on your own if you want from the leads there.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/llc/copyright/RightsBuyer.html
For the most reliable, up-to-date information, I would ask an attorney who works in this field of law. The fair use copy is supposed to protect the owner of the cd or lp in case the original is stolen or destroyed. I suppose you could destroy it on purpose. My take on it is that the only problem is when you keep your copies to use but give away the original to someone else to use.
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
Never actually stated that Amazon had in fact deleted downloaded music on a users computer - that's just how you read it. Edited rather than deleted the post, as it WAS a bit vague on a couple points regarding DRM enforcement on MP3 downloads that could have caused some confusion.
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
Happy to be of service ...
(see tip of hat below) <G>
I DO see a whole lot of legal type arguments here, but worth stressing is more a common sense and civilized approach to the artist's rights. If you can't see that some things are right, some things are rights, and some things are inherently wrong, put yourself in the artist's shoes and see if your opinion changes ... I think Napster proved that the "everyone else is doing it" argument doesn't hold water. And as mentioned earlier, KODI is currently in the same boat, with it's days being numbered. Making that illegal certainly won't stop the practice of ripping and distributing video out of un-authorized channels - just make it harder.
(see tip of hat below) <G>
I DO see a whole lot of legal type arguments here, but worth stressing is more a common sense and civilized approach to the artist's rights. If you can't see that some things are right, some things are rights, and some things are inherently wrong, put yourself in the artist's shoes and see if your opinion changes ... I think Napster proved that the "everyone else is doing it" argument doesn't hold water. And as mentioned earlier, KODI is currently in the same boat, with it's days being numbered. Making that illegal certainly won't stop the practice of ripping and distributing video out of un-authorized channels - just make it harder.
I continue to ask a question everyone thus far has ducked - what makes CD based music inherently different from legally downloaded content where there is no media involved? I buy from multiple websites where you choose either physical media or a download. Are there different legal standards governing that simple choice?
Surely doesn’t make sense to me if there are. When given the choice, I always download content. I have zero use for having to park and maintain(?) something on the shelf that offers no functionality nor value to me. I have only one spinner in the house across five systems and it is used for playing movies.
Last edited:
If someone is saying they're different, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the distinction. I did purchase a James Hooker album via downloading since that's the only way I saw it marketed. So my original download is my original, and I made a back-up of it, just as I do all my computer files. When I changed computers, my original was gone, since I wiped the hard-drive clean before donating that computer to Goodwill, but I still have a copy on my new computer as well as a backup. I'm not seeing a problem there with respect to copyright law as long as I'm not making additional copies to give away.
I love having physical media to play. Lp's are more fun than cd's, but sometimes cd packages come with very interesting booklets to read.
You nailed it. Institutions always lag disruptive tech. Commercial and legal systems in place to sell intellectual property simply haven't caught up with digitally transmitted version of that property. They're wasting time and money "protecting" the buggy whip business while the Model T's roll off the (DSL) line. Once they're forced to address the central contradiction you bring up (forced purchase of obsolete media), all the convoluted justifications for their current stances presented here and elsewhere will simply blow away like dust in the wind.
SA-708
Appalachian-American
It appears that by purchasing a physical phonorecord (my usual choice), I have clearer right under the first sale doctrine to resell my CD/LP/etc. than those that purchased only a digital file. See Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.. I can easily and legally sell a used CD, but the sale of a "used" MP3 file is not so simple.
DavidF
Active Member
Copyright. Are we legally bound to keep a physical copy?
I don't have citations or case law to cite.
But I would turn this question around to answer in different context.
If we do not have the physical CD, are we allowed to possess a digital copy?
For sake of argument, let's replace "physical copy" with proof of purchase of an authorized copy.
I would say, no, we are not able to keep a copy if we do not have proof of ownership. It seems to me that position is pretty clear.
I don't have citations or case law to cite.
But I would turn this question around to answer in different context.
If we do not have the physical CD, are we allowed to possess a digital copy?
For sake of argument, let's replace "physical copy" with proof of purchase of an authorized copy.
I would say, no, we are not able to keep a copy if we do not have proof of ownership. It seems to me that position is pretty clear.
Sorry , I missed that . Thanks
Do you have "proof of ownership" for all that you own? Can you cough up a receipt for everything?
again this is a nebulous area, where you are at a disadvantage.
If you buy a cd, you buy from the record company, distribution company or a company licensed to distribute and the rights you gain are governed by interstate commerce law. on a download however, you are NOT dealing with the record company or any distributor, but rather the entity you downloaded from - the most popular being amazon who has purchased rights to almost everything. they can and do even ship, hard copies of cds of albums no longer in print. I hear they even have contracts in place to produce tape and vinyl.
that being said, if you read thru the agreement to 'buy' and download music (or not) you find, you are really just renting it and you do grant them access to any and all of your devices and if it is stored omn your own system, they are allowed to gain access if they need to. read about it: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201380010
really tho, the title of this thread answers its own question. you have attached sovereign rights to any object you own. if you no longer own that object....
eta: you may also want to review 'first sale' doctrine, first tested in 1908. not only can you buy a CD, but you can sell it, and they can sell it etc. of course the arguments expand from that, that if you have sold it, you also sold your extension of the copyright and by reasoning, fair use.
destruction or loss, is considered a sale for legal purposes.
Last edited:
+48V
hi-fi or die
OP Checking back in on the tail end of a busy weekend. It appears the thread has taken off and bearing much fruit for thought. And aside from just one or two snarky/dismissive replies and one unnecessary incendiary pot stir comment, this has proven to be a remarkably civil, educational, engaging discussion.
Kudos kind kiddos.
Time to go catch up and read further, hand out some likes, and return reply to some salient posts.
Kudos kind kiddos.
Time to go catch up and read further, hand out some likes, and return reply to some salient posts.
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
No problem ... you're allowed as many copies as you want - as long as they're for personal use. My entire library is in FLAC on my home machine, and I also have a few thumb drives full of MP3s of those files for when I'm on the road.
Now - that said - I seem to remember yet another gray area when it comes to "concurrent use" ... ;-}
restorer-john
Addicted Member
That is inconsistent with what I have read which essentially said it was legal to make a copy for backup purposes. I have seen nothing stated where multiple copies were legal, whether for personal or other purposes.
The discussion is a good one, especially for those considering offloading their physical media.
It's not applicable to me however, as I don't own or possess any downloaded files or copies of discs I no longer have. In fact, the only copy I regularly use is of a particular technical test disc as I can't afford to damage the surface of the disc on CD players I repair.
As far as I was concerned, buying a CD containing content, gave me the right to play that content and own the physical carrier of that content, in perpetuity, in a public non-performance, private/domestic situation where I derive no financial benefit from the content.
It seems that downloaded files have no such protections and licenses can be revoked at the copyright owner's will. In short, there is essentially no ownership of the media itself and no ownership of the physical carrier because there really isn't one.
I can will, give away, sell or destroy my CDs. I cannot, I believe, legally lend them to my friends AFAIK. That said, I'm sticking to physical- it does me fine.
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
Multiple archival copies? I rotate three backup sets here ...
Another example from Amazon - they regularly feature "autorip" with their physical media. That allows you to play the physical media, play the digital version from their "cloud", AND download it to your portable media (which in my case would be a thumb drive or SD card on my "smart" vehicles. The only caveat I see there is they MAY be required by some record companies to insert unique tracking data in their downloads.
Oh - just to make things interesting, their EULA doesn't require that they provide you with an exact copy of the purchased physical media.
There are sometimes multiple versions of albums that vary from one another. We'll provide you an MP3 version of the album that we determine is comparable to the version you purchased.
oooOOOoooo-kayyyyyyyy ... wonder if RIAA ever signed on to that or it just slipped by their little litigators? Yet another example of why lawyers should NOT be allowed to make laws!
Also, I've seen reference to multiple copies for personal use being OK as long as they're ripped directly from the physical media. Seems to me, MP3 is able to track "generational" changes and store those in the files when they're copied. Don't quote me on that. Then again, if my entire library is ripped to FLAC, and I use those to make the MP3's, and they're for personal use only ... (mutter mutter)
PS - got this directly from the RIAA website. Nothing about how many copies you can make, as long as they're for personal use ...
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 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.
And of course, the obligatory small print, also from RIAA ...
* This site is intended to educate consumers about the issues associated with the downloading, uploading and consumer copying of music. It is not intended to offer legal advice or be a comprehensive guide to copyright law and the commercial uses of music.
EDIT > > Almost forgot to include a link to avoid any legal repercussions! Oh nooOOoosss!
https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/
Anyway - kinda like that guy in the Pizza Hut commercial trying to wrap his head around all the extra cheese ... <G>
Last edited:
+48V
hi-fi or die
Consider this reply not only to you but to address the group as a whole regarding your question.
While proofs of ownership is a related notion brought up by many here, the main point/purpose in the OP was to find out (group source) where some apparently very sure of themselves and the law posters emphatically state here and in past threads that it is a legal stipulation of the Copyright Act that one must retain a physical copy of their music once it is ripped for use. As I stated in the OP, I’ve been in and re-around the Digital Music rights issue for many years and have studied a great deal of Title 17 U.S.C. and amendments.
That I know of…it’s simply not there…anywhere. But it’s an extremely deep chasm and very very possible (despite my experience) that I’ve missed where retention is spelled out. From what I’ve read and what is born out in other posts here is that with regard to music it’s vaguely inferred or left open for interpretation…at best. Again, I welcome responses (with cited language/excerpts from the Copyright Act) from those that maintain that retention of CD’s/physical media is stipulated by law and to stand corrected and more learned.
In any event, as intended, this discussion is turning over some pertinent leaves directly related to the OP as well as spurring some other interesting side related thoughts and opinions.
robgmn
Super Member
Long thread, and I may have missed this and am just duplicating a thought:
The law doesn't speak to retention of the original, but what about licensiing?
When you buy the original, you get the license of ownership. You also get the right to make copies for personal use. You may have multiple copies, but you aren't going to listen to more than one at a time, right?
When you give up the original, you also give up the license to listen to whatever is on that original (music, audiobook, etc) . When you give up that license, you have also given up the license to have backup copies, and you will now have backups of something you don't legally own.
And yes, having the same music in both of your cars so you and your spouse can listen is technically illegal.
And not something anyone really cares about in the big picture.
The law doesn't speak to retention of the original, but what about licensiing?
When you buy the original, you get the license of ownership. You also get the right to make copies for personal use. You may have multiple copies, but you aren't going to listen to more than one at a time, right?
When you give up the original, you also give up the license to listen to whatever is on that original (music, audiobook, etc) . When you give up that license, you have also given up the license to have backup copies, and you will now have backups of something you don't legally own.
And yes, having the same music in both of your cars so you and your spouse can listen is technically illegal.
And not something anyone really cares about in the big picture.