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

[+48V]

Complete bull. Its prohibited as written on every LP that I know of (CDs too).

To clarify this and another related notation of this point if I may. From what I recall from my Business Law class eons ago, there's a big difference between a contract and statutory law. The license language on the LP/CD jacket is a contract that one accepts when they offer "consideration" (i.e. pay money or offer in kind remuneration). Violation of said contract gives the copyright owner significant actionable reason to sue. But it does not mean that the violation is stated illegal as such in the Copyright Act.

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

Here again, this is an example of a mutually agreed to contract between Amazon and the copyright owner(s). It does not impart the law necessarily.

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.

Per bold...indeed that. Agreed an argument.

 

[sKiZo]

Here again, this is an example of a mutually agreed to contract between Amazon and the copyright owner(s). It does not impart the law necessarily.

Maybe? Maybe not? Only pertinent publicly available small print I've found concerning Amazonian agreements with copyright owners is that they'll insert tracking data in the downloads if asked ... even that doesn't stipulate who would be doing the tracking or for what purpose ...

 

[+48V]

The law doesn't speak to retention of the original, but what about licensiing?

Indeed... a considerable side point to the OP. Your post came in as I was composing my last. Which I think addresses your question. Laws and Licenses are two different critters.

And yes, having the same music in both of your cars so you and your spouse can listen is technically illegal

By law, I don't believe that is in fact "illegal". It may not sit well with a dated RIAA argument, but I don't think there's anything "on the Congressional books" deeming it explicitly illegal. I'm compelled to think this would be considered "space shifting" and not ultimately in violation of the AHRA (see OP for Audio Home Recording Act - 1992.

There was a fairly prolific and precedential case (RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia) in 1998 where it was held originally and on appeal that DMM's Rio MP3 player was "in harmony with the main purpose of the statute: "the facilitation of personal use." It's relevant... but dated. Much attitude and outlook has changed since. Yet as far as I know the AHRA stipulations remain virtually unchanged and unchallenged since this decision. And "space shifting" content would still pass court muster today.

 

[+48V]

Maybe? Maybe not? Only pertinent publicly available small print I've found concerning Amazonian agreements with copyright owners is that they'll insert tracking data in the downloads if asked ... even that doesn't stipulate who would be doing the tracking or for what purpose ...

?? Not following you here. It's late/early and my typically well honed brain is pretty tuckered and somewhat soaked in malted barely beverage. So help me out; I'm not sure what you are questioning here exactly.

--as to tracking data....---
Generally, acknowledging and accepting tracking code tidbits is an anti-piracy thing. Gives the CO substantial muscle in court should they find "your" file on P2P networks. Amazon, et.al. is obligated to inform the consumer of this tracking mechanism.

 

[zebra03]

Tom Petty hates me , or is it Lori ?

 

[+48V]

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.

Yup. Thanks for the deep dig and adding some appropriate focus. There are indeed somewhat relevant hints in the sections you note. T'was why I included the breadcrumb links in my OP.

"many twists, turns, and conditions." As with most laws, the Copyright Act with it's amendments, redacted paragraphs, subsections, and substitutions is orders of magnitude worse than the Bible with it's centuries of begats and begots.

Initially, rather than direct folks to one specific Act or section, I left it open so to be more conducive for individual's to search all acres in that they may stumble upon bits I'd missed or glazed over. Now that the thread has matured and digested, I'll steer you/me away from sections 106 - 109 and say that the Audio Home Recording Act- AHRA {sections but not limited to 1002-1008-1009} is where the most meaty and pertinent law language resides. As it's particularly germane to the subject at hand, would there have been any sort of specific stipulation about personal use copies and retaining original media, the AHRA is the most logical and fitting place. Yet it's nowhere to be found. In other words, if retaining physical media was a bona-fide and noteworthy conviction in order to follow the spirit of the law, why is it not there?

 

[Mark B]

Yup. Thanks for the deep dig and adding some appropriate focus. There are indeed somewhat relevant hints in the sections you note. T'was why I included the breadcrumb links in my OP.

"many twists, turns, and conditions." As with most laws, the Copyright Act with it's amendments, redacted paragraphs, subsections, and substitutions is orders of magnitude worse than the Bible with it's centuries of begats and begots.

Initially, rather than direct folks to one specific Act or section, I left it open so to be more conducive for individual's to search all acres in that they may stumble upon bits I'd missed or glazed over. Now that the thread has matured and digested, I'll steer you/me away from sections 106 - 109 and say that the Audio Home Recording Act- AHRA {sections but not limited to 1002-1008-1009} is where the most meaty and pertinent law language resides. As it's particularly germane to the subject at hand, would there have been any sort of specific stipulation about personal use copies and retaining original media, the AHRA is the most logical and fitting place. Yet it's nowhere to be found. In other words, if retaining physical media was a bona-fide and noteworthy conviction in order to follow the spirit of the law, why is it not there?

If it was a contract that would certainly be specified. Laws tend to be broadly drawn and rely on cases to establish such details.

 

[reydelaplaya]

Well, borrowing something from the library isn't a transfer of ownership, and, depending on the patron, borrowing music that they end up enjoying could just as easily lead to a sale. I know that's how it worked with me when the library used to have lp's on hand to lend out. Quite often I would end up buying a piece of music that I might not have taken a chance on without hearing if from the library first.

This is what I was getting at when I mentioned the ‘free’ streaming feature of Prime Music. Being able to listen to a piece of work in its entirety has prompted me to purchase a physical copy more than a few times.

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.

I'd add to that, the technology is there for producers to use protection technology, and that puts the ball in their court if they're really interested in minimizing copying. Not to say there aren't ways around DRM, but then you've definitely crossed to the dark side if you use them.

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>

A couple of the purchases I’ve made through Amazon came with that autorip feature. It was nice to be able to listen within seconds of the purchase while the physical copy was being packed and shipped off. I have noticed that it’s true though, a couple of the albums I’ve purchased are not exactly the same between the physical and the autorip download.

 

[+48V]

If it was a contract that would certainly be specified. Laws tend to be broadly drawn and rely on cases to establish such details.

I completely agree.

While certain sections are and can be excruciatingly detailed and specific, when it comes to present unforeseeable ramifications, Congress critters intentionally craft and cast a wide net and leave the future proofing up to the courts. Hence, this is precisely why I recoil and object when I see armchair statements proclaiming that "retaining originals" is "the law" because it says so per the Fair Use Doctrine, or "it's part of the DMCA", yada....

ala Judge Judy, "If you can't show me, it doesn't exist".

 

[E-Stat]

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:

Read it more closely. That refers to The Music Library Service defined in 1.5 and 4.2. Not for purchased content.

I don't upload content to be stored by them. Instead, I use the E-Stat Music Library that I maintain locally and have granted no such right to their access.

 

[whoaru99]

... In other words, if retaining physical media was a bona-fide and noteworthy conviction in order to follow the spirit of the law, why is it not there?

I think because it would be redundant to the legally-obtained phonorecord stuff already in Title 17.

In days past it was much simpler. If push came to shove you could point to the physical media and say, "I have the legal phonorecord.", and that would be the end of that aspect.

The latter modifications such as AHRA do not dispose of the legal phonorecord aspect, they only attempt to clarify situations in which you can't be charged/prosecuted for personal use copies of legally-obtained phonorecords.

Again, demonstrating legally-obtained phonorecords in the past was easy...you had something to show. Which, by default, means you'd be able to show it if it came down to it, and how could you show it if you did not have it? You couldn't.

So, does it necessarily need to be written verbatim that you must keep the legal copy? I think not necessarily, since that is part and parcel in being able to demonstrate having a legal copy in the first place. All that being the predicate to being able to make copies for personal use.

 

[quaddriver]

Read it more closely. That refers to The Music Library Service defined in 1.5 and 4.2. Not for purchased content.

I don't upload content to be stored by them. Instead, I use the E-Stat Music Library that I maintain locally and have granted no such right to their access.

I did, read it closer. the asked topic was non-physical copies for that response and even if you purchase a download, its the same and they clearly spell out:

About Record Company Required Metadata

Some record companies require us to insert identifiers in the metadata that accompanies music when you download it from the Digital Music Store or your Amazon Music library. This includes music you have purchased from Amazon.com and matched music imported to your Amazon Music library from your device. These identifiers may include a random number Amazon assigns to your order or copy, purchase date and time, an indicator that the music was downloaded from Amazon, codes that identify the album and song (the UPC and ISRC), Amazon's digital signature, an identifier that can be used to determine whether the audio has been modified, and an indicator whether the music was purchased from the Digital Music Store or imported to your Amazon Music library.

Songs sold in the Digital Music Store that include these identifiers are marked on their product detail page. These identifiers do not affect the playback experience in any way.

when you download content and do not purchase a physical copy, the download is provided by the aforementioned provider and is governed by the rules in place when you certified you read it, understand it, and agree to it as evidenced by the 'buy it now' clicky you hit.

I dont know why the thread is 6 pages long when the OP question is answered by inspection. mebbe people feel the need to pontificate on what they would like things to be but one thing is clear: the music industry has won every single violation case. thats a hellofa load of precedents and in most cases, the defending (losing) arguments were presented by actual attorneys.

or to put it in laymans terms, use the spare set of keys to try and drive the car tomorrow, that you sold yesterday.

(full disclosure: I am not an atty. nor do I play one on TV but I asked exactly these questions 2 decades ago from my own retained IPL atty and got the answers outlined. In the intervening 20 years, the consumers position has gotten even weaker. AND, they have had in place the ability to gather evidence of violations. Fly low and avoid the radar or full speed ahead? your choice.)


ETA: there are implications of digital rights law that most do not realize...in the past, you purchased a car and it was your car, and unlike every other purchase except your home, a legal authority grants you title to it (which is likely why they call it a title) and this title gives you even more sovereign rights EXCEPT for the digital management. At last count, my '03 deville has 16 computers on the buss. My '16 rav has 34. by law, the OEM retains all rights to the software AND hardware for each of those. sticky wicket? if they reclaim their rights, you lose the fitness of your machine. but they can do it. the PR would be a disaster if they did so, but is it? OEMS derate diesel performance by up to 70% if you fail to fill the tank with cat piss so clearly, the notion that you dont fully own your vehicle and its operation is well tested.

 

[KeninDC]

I do telecom, media, and criminal law. I have 25 years of experience with reading (and writing) federal code. As noted above, there is nothing specific in the code or case law that requires you to hang onto all your CDs once you've ripped them for personal use. But the originals sure would help you prove you owned the originals if, let's say, Warner Brothers came after you for your ZZ Top files (an unlikely scenario, IMO, unless you are sharing them). I would personally be comfortable ditching all my CDs and keeping copies on my hard drive as long as I was not sharing either intentionally or inadvertently. But I'm an attorney who knows how to work with government lawyers, so what I would do and you should do depends on your comfort level.

Where the RIAA and movie studios get involved is when you share your collection with others. When you download or upload a movie using bittorrent or something similar, the movie studios and record companies can and will find you (your IP address). If they want to. Their foremost concern is currently selling movies and music. Pursuant to authority under DMCA, they will contact your ISP. Your ISP is then obligated to eventually (there are steps) shut you down or they can be held liable for the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. I get these DMCA notices on behalf of my clients from media company lawyers all the time.

 

[E-Stat]

I did, read it closer.

Just changed to answering a different question.

Ok, Amazon edits the metadata. That in no way supports your assertion that they have access to my library - UNLESS - I use the Amazon Music Library Service which requires logging into same.

Why stream content from them when you already have it?

 

[quaddriver]

Just changed to answering a different question.

Ok, Amazon edits the metadata. That in no way supports your assertion that they have access to my library - UNLESS - I use the Amazon Music Library Service which requires logging into same.

Why stream content from them when you already have it?

you're not reading. if you download the content and do not use their service, it clearly spells out that they mark the content and you give permission for them to access it. its not spelled out HOW they intend to access it, but it matters not, you said they can. whether they have the secret govt button that gains backdoor entrance or they send rocko and meathook over to your house to take it from you, or they simply sue you - dunno - its immaterial. you said they could.

i dunno why this is so hard to grasp...you gave them permission. how many threads or posts do I have here telling people to read the eula?

 

[E-Stat]

you're not reading. if you download the content and do not use their service, it clearly spells out that they mark the content and you give permission for them to access it.

When using the Music Library. Read the first sentence of 4.2 as many times as it takes.

You and I must read English diffferently. Refer again to 1.5 and 4.2 where you’ll find the term used multiple times.

 

[quaddriver]

When using the Music Library. Read the first sentence of 4.2 as many times as it takes.

You and I must read English diffferently[sic]. Refer again to 1.5 and 4.2 where you’ll find the term used multiple times.

(if I knew how to do the rolling eyes emoticon, I would insert it here)

Amazon's digital signature, an identifier that can be used to determine whether the audio has been modified, and an indicator whether the Music Content was purchased from the Store or imported to the Music Library Service

as I said before, I only included PARTS of the online data in response to someone asserting they did not know how to look it up. My latest quote was from ANOTHER part of the multi multi part amazon legal agreement as alluded to from the quoted original source above. If it appears in whole or in part on multiple amazon pages, well shitfire....might be a chance that a) it is important and b) they mean it.

And as I said before, if you PURCHASE, to download, take home, put on a chip and NOT using the library service, (which I have an entire directory on this computer dedicated to) your agreement is STILL with the library service and you STILL agree to the terms. They cant spell it out any more clearly.

You are free to contact them and get confirmation. Which at this point, would be your best course of action.

 

[sKiZo]

If it was a contract that would certainly be specified. Laws tend to be broadly drawn and rely on cases to establish such details.

Therin lies the confusion. I've been having fun with the Michigan No Fault insurance laws here lately ... what started out as around 100 pages is now up to well over 11,000 total to have to wade through, what with opinions, addendums, and judgments, oh my ...

Anyway - I found myself correcting the primary lawyer a few times, saving a couple potentially disastrous oversights and mis-interpretations. (see loophole 127v4 section 4307 sKiZo vs The Universe 2017)

?? Not following you here. It's late/early and my typically well honed brain is pretty tuckered and somewhat soaked in malted barely beverage. So help me out; I'm not sure what you are questioning here exactly.

That post was responding to your ...

this is an example of a mutually agreed to contract between Amazon and the copyright owner(s).

Prove it ... (sorry ... couldn't resist) ...

As I said, the only PUBLICLY cited restriction or agreement I've been able to track down is that Amazon must insert tracking data if requested by whoever controls the copyright. That's right on their website under the aforementioned page regarding Autorip.

how many threads or posts do I have here telling people to read the eula?

Awwwwwwww ... do I HAVE to???

 

[parman]

These kind of threads have been beaten to death before. I remember one where people were claiming it was illeagle to sell your own copy and illeagle to buy someone elses because the artist didn't get royalties. I don't believe that is true.

 

[hjames]

As long as people stay CIVIL and courteous to each other, this thread CAN, and hopefully WILL continue.