3 ms·

If I download the mp3 copy of a CD I own a physical copy of, am I a criminal? Did I steal from the artist? To the first question, I would say that you are guil

by byoung2 16y ago

If I download the mp3 copy of a CD I own a physical copy of, am I a criminal? Did I steal from the artist? To the first question, I would say that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Compare it to buying a bootleg DVD of a DVD that you already own that was scratched and is now unplayable, or sneaking in to watch the re-release of Avatar now that you own it on Blu-Ray. To the second, no you haven't stolen anything from the artist, since the artist (well, really the record label) still has the original item.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of piracy? I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier. (And, yes, I do believe in paying for the music I listen to.)
- jerf 16y ago
  Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though. Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them to just keep this out of court.
  - wildjim 16y ago
    I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.
- byoung2 16y ago
  * it is legal to have a digital backup of your media* I was referring to the act of downloading the mp3 from a website vs ripping the cd directly to your computer. Similar to the situation of growing your own pot for personal use vs buying it from a drug dealer.
Bootvis 16y ago
Was downloading music you already owned really illegal in the USA pre-DMCA? After all, the music company did sell you the right to listen to that music. I know it's legal in most of Europe.
- wildjim 16y ago
  But isn't legal (even now) in the UK. Though I believe they're reviewing copyright law, atm.

by byoung2 16y ago

SoftwareMaven 16y ago

How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of piracy? I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier. (And, yes, I do believe in paying for the music I listen to.)

jerf 16y ago
Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though. Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them to just keep this out of court.
- wildjim 16y ago
  I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.
byoung2 16y ago
* it is legal to have a digital backup of your media* I was referring to the act of downloading the mp3 from a website vs ripping the cd directly to your computer. Similar to the situation of growing your own pot for personal use vs buying it from a drug dealer.

Bootvis 16y ago

Was downloading music you already owned really illegal in the USA pre-DMCA? After all, the music company did sell you the right to listen to that music. I know it's legal in most of Europe.

wildjim 16y ago
But isn't legal (even now) in the UK. Though I believe they're reviewing copyright law, atm.