R. Totale
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:36:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>
panix.com> wrote:>>R. Totale
yahoo.com> wrote:>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:04:19 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>>>
panix.com> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:09:55 -0700, Tony Elka
>>>>>
shadowlane.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>if I want to sell my 2005 Ford Escape, I can, because I cannot duplicate it.
>>>>
>>>>>>If Capolk buys a CD, makes his own dub, and then sells the original, the
>>>>>>bottom line is, he'll get away with it. I'm not a lawyer so i can't say
>>>>>>for certain that he'd lose in court but there's no question he's
>>>>>>violating the spirit of the law.
>>>>
>>>>> Like I just said - me and the whole world, pal. Except, apparently,
>>>>> for you dog-fucking sh....er, saintly types - here at RMP.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure, he'll 'get away with it'. It's only pussies who try to defend
>>>>it with some inapropos legal reference, that make me laugh.
>>>>
>>
>>> Well, Dr. Intellectual Rites, suppose I laid down my $5.95 for a vinyl
>>> copy of "Tales of Topographic Oceans", which is still in a closet
>>> somewhere. Crusing the spacewaves I find I can download the same music
>>> in mp3 format. Am I legally justified in doing so?
>>
>>Well, Mr. I Can't Spell 'Rights', if you pay for it, sure. It's like buying another copy of
>>the album on CD. There's no law against that.
> Well, Col. Speling-is-easier-than-thinking, if I bought the record is
> there a "law against" me downloading an mp3 copy without paying for
> it?
Yes, unless the mp3 is being offered for free by the copyright holder. Otherwise, the law only
allows you to make a copy of a specific 'original' that you already own.
> What's the legal and/or moral distinction between that and burning
> it myself?
It's the difference between knowing the provenance of the copy, and not knowing.
If you sold your car, would you feel you had a right to keep it around to drive it now and
then? And if not, why do you think you have a right to keep that CD after you've sold it?
>>> Morally? The
>>> artistes did get paid for their work when I bought it, and were I so
>>> inclined I could make a CD from my purchased copy on my own.
>>
>>This is like saying , after I've paid for a work once in some form, I never have to pay for
>>it again. You think that's right? It would certainly have revolutionized the CD business,
>>had it been adopted in 1983.
> I'm not saying, I'm =asking=, since you've obviously put a lot of
> thought into this. What did I buy when I bought the record? If it's OK
> for me to burn a copy on CD to play in the car, is it also OK for me
> to give the record to my friend to burn a copy for me, since I don't
> own a computer?
If he burns the copy for *you*, and you retain possession of both the original and the copy,
yes, it's OK, though I'm sure the RIAA would hate the idea (they hate the ability of anyone to
make a copy of a CD, period, and the idea of people making copies for other people surely
drives them nuts). If he burns a copy for himself, that's illegal.
When you buy a CD, you don't buy a license to distribute copies of it. You get the right to
resell that one CD you bought, and to make a copy or copies of it for your own use while
you own it. It takes a special twisting of the spirit of fair use and first sale, to arrive at
an interpretation that says it's OK to work the system to get CDs for free (by selling the
original or the copy). I find such twisting to be analogous to the literalist interpretations
of law that some self-interested parties use to justify not paying taxes.
>>And what, exactly, has this to do with selling a copy that *you* made, or selling the original
>>after you've made a copy to keep?
> Nothing, but are these two equivalent? What if I tape a copy for
> myself when they play the whole thing on the radio, buy it the next
> day, and then decide I need the money more than the record and sell
> it? Has the legal status of my taped copy changed at any point?
The tape off the radio is probably illegal in the first place, and stayed that way throughout.
Again, fair use as allows you to make a copy of a 'phonorecord' *you bought already* and only
for *your own use*. There are four criteria used in ascertaining fair use, you should look
into them and see how well your scenarios fit.
Also, ask yourself, if scenario A is 'really legal', what could other, related laws possibly
mean? For example, if it's OK to sell CDs after you've duped them, why is there so much law
explicitly against lending or renting certain froms of IP such as records? Why do libraries
need special exemptions?
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
