ipod question, but I guess really a legal question

[randy]

so you good folks helped me to understand how to use itunes. at least for burning my CD to the hard drive in MP3 format.

 

So Ryan comes home for three weeks R&R before leaving for Iraq. He burns his 500 CD collection to our hard drive. once again awesome

 

So my wife comes in, and says COOOOOOOL, can you hook the PC up to one of these new wireless stereo systems, so I can play the music whenever I want.

 

I say sure, sounds like a great idea, but you will not be able to play Ryan's CD's

 

She says why not, it is on the hard drive.

 

I then go into about an hour disertation on legal use of CD, i.e. intullectual property rights. She and Ryan both get all upset, and tell me I do not know what I am talking about, and that everyone else does it, etc, etc, etc.

 

So do I understand this or not

 

Ryan buys 500 CD's and loads them to a MP3 player, ipod 20 gig unit. Now Ryan can still play those CD on a portable player, or on his ipod etc etc. But Ryan should not now, give those CD's to his Mom and let her play them, while he listens to them on the ipod. In simple terms two people are listening to the same item, purchased only once. Basically now that Ryan has ripped his whole CD collection onto the computer, and downloaded it to his Ipod, basically the CD's are just like a disaster recovery plan.

 

I am pretty sure this is correct. So I believe somehow itunes is programed for this, and once Ryan has downloaded the songs to his ipod, if Cathy tries to play the songs, or to download the songs to say her iriver unit itunes will know that and not allow it.

 

Can anyone explain how this will work, and am I correct. I can not believe itunes or any market leading similar product will allow a song to be played multiple times by different users. I thought that was the whole point of the crack down on napster and other sites.

 

so, can cathy burn a CD afte Ryan burns the list to his ipod

can cathy play the songs on the PC (i.e. do not burn them) just listen to them on the PC after Ryan burns them to his ipod

Can Cathy burn CD to play in her portable CD player after Ryan burns them to his ipod.

 

I say no to all three, Cathy and Ryan say yes. There is a bike detailing riding on the answer so let us know.

[David]

I say no to all three, Cathy and Ryan say yes. There is a bike detailing riding on the answer so let us know.

 

Get your apron on, your knee pads on, and start rubbing.

[Deaner]

If you rip songs off an iPod, the computer your ripped to needs to be registered to that iPod. I think one iPod can register like 7 computers. That's the technical side. On the legal side you really shouldn't be ripping music. But with so few people controlling what we hear anymore ripping is the best way to get new music. You still should by the discs now and again to support the artist.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

 

"Get your apron on, your knee pads on, and start rubbing."

(That was funny!)

 

David's right.

 

I missed whether you ripped the cd's in question onto a pc or a mac,

but if it was a mac, they have a cool little doodad (I believe it's called

"Airtunes") that allows you to wirelessly play the mp3 files on your mac

over your stereo. Pretty neat.

 

Go to Mac Mall or apple

site for more info.

[smiller]

On the legal side you really shouldn't be ripping music.

 

There is nothing either illegal nor immoral about the act of 'ripping' (copying) a track from a CD to a hard drive or personal player if you own the CD and the copy is for your own personal use.

 

While a little bit less clear, as a practical matter I think most individuals and courts would support use of a purchased CD or DVD by other members of the same household when used incidentally. Sharing material with your friends however would pretty clearly cross the line.

 

BTW you guys must be a lot of fun at parties...

[Stan Walker]

Stealing someone's potential profits seems to be goverened by different rules than stealing someones already realized profits. As a 'older' person I don't see the difference, perhaps someone would explain it to me?

 

Stan

[Mike O]

Stealing someone's potential profits seems to be goverened by different rules than stealing someones already realized profits. As a 'older' person I don't see the difference, perhaps someone would explain it to me?

 

Stan

 

Stan,

 

Can you give me an example of what you mean by stealing someones "already realized profits"? (i.e. short of robbing them of their money)

 

[maybe I'm getting old]

 

Regards,

 

Mike O

[randy]

so basically the artist loses out on my wife buying the CD, and that is ok. Wow I thought intellectual property rights and basic economics would stop this. So Ryan goes out and buys a CD, rips it to his ipod, leaves for Iraq, cathy (they both love a band called BOND, no not james) and Cathy sits at home listening to the 6 BOND albums on our PC over our wireless home stereo, and BOND does not care, and it is not illegal.

 

Oh well I do not do aprons, or knee pads, that is what money is for, I guess Cathy's bike gets taken to the local detailer.

 

thanks, I am glad I am not an artist, but sure makes it nice for my pocket book. Cathy says there is a couple dozen CD's Ryan has that she is looking forward to listening.

 

And overall I do not mind loosing this bet, the detailing will be a lot cheaper than the CD's would have cost me. I am sure of that.

[Stan Walker]

"already realized profits"

 

Just that, money already in their pockets.

 

Stan

[DavidEBSmith]

Unfortunately, Greg Haverkamp isn't taking Copyright Law, Cyberspace Law, Entertainment Law, Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property, or Intellectual Property Seminar next semester . . .

[Deadboy]

I have thought about this also, and I think the main difference (or how I rationalize it) is if you were to "sell" the ripped files to a 3rd party (family member or not) vs. giving them the files. Did you ever copy a tape of a favorite record back in the old days? Was that stealing if you lent it to someone (or gave it away)?

 

Does the artist lose money? Perhaps, but possibly you have now exposed someone to an artist they may not have considered buying anyway, and by allowing them to hear it they in turn buy other albums/attend concerts etc.

 

Strictly speaking it is probably illegal, but morally it doesn't seem so bad....you do speed once in a while don't you?

[codinn]

We are living in interesting times where the technology has surpassed our means of controlling it.

 

Before MP3s and digital recorders, time, availability and reproducibility were issues. You COULD record something if you wanted to, but you had to FIND it, it took a lot of TIME and the QUALITY of the recording was inferior to the original.

 

The original post outlines the dilemma perfectly: now you have perfect quality of 500 CDs basically instantaneously.

 

If you had done something like this in the past, like taking the masters of 500 albums and recording them onto cassetes and giving or selling them to anyone there would be no doubt that you were working hard at getting something for nothing and transferring it to someone else. I.e unethical intentions.

 

I have seen otherwise normally honest folks get all bent out of shape trying to explain how ripping a friend's CD collection was ethically OK. The only real reason people are doing it is because it is so easy and the chance of getting in trouble is miniscule. That and it is easy to portray record companies as money-grubbing bad guys.

 

The truth is that it is unethical. It hurts to think that your wife and kid would be that way. To be cliche', it is the principle of the thing.

 

Now speeding, that's OK!

[David]

The truth is that it is unethical.

 

Okay. So now we've heard your opinion that it's unethical, kindly foisted on us. But here's the real issue: is it legal to rip MP3s for personal use and allow an immediate family member to use the CD from which it was ripped? It will be an interesting read.

 

I'm honestly interested, and I'd love to learn.

[codinn]

Apologies to all for using the "T" word.

[DavidEBSmith]

Okay. So now we've heard your opinion that it's unethical, kindly foisted on us. But here's the real issue: is it legal to rip MP3s for personal use and allow an immediate family member to use the CD from which it was ripped? It will be an interesting read.

 

I'm honestly interested, and I'd love to learn

 

So would the rest of us, because (not legal advice blah blah blah) I don't think there is a definitive answer. Making copies of CDs and DVDs and selling them at flea markets is pretty clearly illegal. The recording industry would like it if (through force of law or force of technology) you had to buy a separate copy of each song for your home audio system, your car, your computer, and your office. Most everything in between is a shade of gray.

 

If I buy a CD, and I do these things:

 

- rip it to my office computer so I can listen to it at work

- make a copy disk so I can listen to it in the car and if it melts in the summer heat or gets stolen, no big deal

- rip it onto my iPod so I can listen while I'm riding around on my bike

 

most people outside the recording industry would probably think it's OK. Are those legal actions under the Copyright Act? It's unclear. Am I depriving somebody of revenue by not buying a CD for the office, a CD for the car, and the songs from iTunes for my iPod? RIAA would say yes.

 

If I then start passing around digital copies of the songs to people who might have bought them? That looks less legal. But is it different than lending a book to somebody? What if they don't like the digital copies I give them, so they wouldn't have bought them anyway?

 

The big problem is we have legal paradigms for tangible things like books and paintings and phonograph records, but not for digital things. We try to shoehorn digital things into the paradigms for tangible things, but it's a poor fit. And meanwhile the RIAA is throwing money at Congress to get laws favoring them, and Tivo is throwing money at Congress to get their spin on the laws.

 

It's a mess. That's all I know.

[smiller]

Am I depriving somebody of revenue by not buying a CD for the office, a CD for the car, and the songs from iTunes for my iPod? RIAA would say yes.

 

The RIAA did say yes. It's kind of mind-boggling that even as the RIAA continues to press for draconian restrictions on reasonable personal use of recordings they seem to be unable to understand why consumers just don't take their rantings seriously.

 

The link below details the result of the RIAA's attempt to ban personal MP3 players (yes, they did that) which seems to have backfired and ended up affirming use of portable players and copying music to a hard drive.

 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

[randy]

yes, i actually did a lot of research. and while i respect the gray area discussed above,for me personally, YMMV, Ryan buying a CD and ripping it to an ipod is for convience,i.e. he can not listen to both recordings at the same time. Well I guess he could, but to no reasonable advantage. so i believe we have seen and will continue to see personal devices thrive.

 

Now, the theory, proposed above, that by letting an immediate family member listen, on the idea they may like the music and start buying actual CD's that has merit. I know Cathy would not take the risk of buying some of the artist Ryan has in his collection, but she has found a couple new artist she likes.

 

However I do agree with the concept above about the ease of use. When Cathy saw all those songs on the hard drive, the first idea was, he now I have lots of new music.

 

I do think 10 years ago, she, nor I would have ever considered dupping our music and letting someone else use it. That was wrong.

 

but now having 6,000 songs just sitting on a PC hard drive, seems almost wasteful.

 

And like David, I do not know the answer. My first gut feeling, was, Ryan paid for the CD (ok well I really did but that is another whole topic) and for Cathy, or me, or one of his friends to be able to theoritically listen to the song at the same time as Ryan would be, is like cheating the artist out of thier income.

 

No these postings have shown another side of the argument.

 

I still believe, Ryan should be able to burn, rip, store, or save how ever he wants, that is just him pursuing convience.

 

however Cathy using it is (to me) stealing.

 

but if there is not strict rule of law, then they technically won, and I owe the detailing. That is fine I can live with that, but so long as this does not start some sort of flame war, I would like to know where this whole subject is going.

 

Overall are we heading to a more strict interrpetation of property or less? Just wondering.

[Stan Walker]

As an ex-musician, as a photographer, and as a creator of computer software, I do NOT want copies of my creations used by others without my permission. It's one thing if I give them away, it's another if someone just takes them.

 

You can pass a law saying it's legal. It will be harder to convince me it's right. I find it scary that 'is it legal?' is more important than 'is it fair?'.

 

Stan

[sgendler]

If your son lives in your household, then it is perfectly legitimate for the cd to be listened to. I own 1,000+ cd's, many of which live on my ipod. When I am out of the house with that ipod, my wife is free to listen to those cd's. There isn't a court in the country that wouldn't uphold that. It is considered fair use. I own the thing for use within my household, and a portable audio device would appear to qualify as use within 'the household.'

 

Ripping a cd and then giving the physical cd to someone else who wouldn't normally have access to that cd is a different story. That is making a duplicate for the express purpose of preventing a sale.

 

If your son will be leaving all of his belongings at your house (thereby being a member of your household who is away to fight a war), then i would argue that use of the digital rips is perfectly fine by your wife. After all, she could always just go dig the physical cd out and play that. If his stuff won't be kept at home, then if you want to be legal stickler, then you shouldn't listen. iTunes won't stop you from doing so, however. When you rip your own cd's (as opposed to downloading them from iTunes Music Store), there is nothing preventing you from making as many copies as you want, and you can play them through as many devices as you want. It is up to you to do the honorable thing. Personally, if you would have access to the physical disks, anyway, then i don't see any harm in it, particularly if you would be unlikely to purchase your own copy of the cd if you didn't have such access.

 

The point is to uphold your own sense of honour. If, by your actions, you are not depriving the artist of revenue from a sale, and you didn't go out of your way to procure the copy, I think you are in the clear, morally, if not legally. But be rigorous about actually purchasing material that you would want to own should that collection not be available to you. Unless you are trading copyrighted material online, there are no copyright police who are going to come kocking on your door.

 

--sam

[David]

You can pass a law saying it's legal. It will be harder to convince me it's right.

 

Stan, is it possible that you are moralizing a bit? My point is that Randy shouldn't care so much what you or I think is moral (because the variance is staggering when you start asking people what "moral" means), but instead he should concentrate on what he thinks is moral. And of course what's legal should inform that.

 

Not that it matters all that much, but I know many professional musicians personally and I can't think of one of them who would object to Cathy, Ryan's mother, listening to his CDs while he listens to MP3 versions of them.

 

I find it scary that 'is it legal?' is more important than 'is it fair?'.

 

Well, find me some source that brings our various senses of "fair" together and I'm with you. Meanwhile, I'll start with the law and then let that inform my own sense of what's fair, choosing to break or keep the laws that make sense to me (just like you do, whether you admit it or not). In this case I've yet to see someone show me that he's breaking the law.

 

Nearly one-third of my income is from IP sources, so it's not like I'm discussing this in a vacuum. When I was thinking through how to handle a publication that we put out every month, we figured we'd address it specifically. It comes out in print and via PDF. We said they could duplicate it mechanically or digitally as much as they want for internal use (within the company), but that it could not be shared outside those boundaries without another subscription. That seems reasonable and fair to me. If I were writing software like you are, though, I would write something more restrictive.

[smiller]

Randy/Stan, since the thread has covered several related topics it's not clear to me precisely what you are objecting to. The copying of a personally-owned CD to other devices for your own use? Family members listening to each other's CDs while at home? A family member listening to each other's CDs while the owner may be away at school (or war)?

[randy]

smiller, my specific issue was/is, first legally, as noted by many posters, and then second what is fair. I understand Stan's position, it is valid, but on this case (I know it scares me) I probably lean more towards David's response, i.e. to some extent the legality of the event does influence what I think is fair.

 

I will say when this started I felt pretty strong, the music was Ryan's it was his CD's. For the last year Ryan and his CD's have been at twentynine Palms, CA, so now way Cathy could use them. As noted if Ryan came home or Cathy and I went and visited him then yes, all of us listening to his CD's (despite my protests to the contrary) I would not consider legally or morally incorrect.

 

Now I am in a different situation, Yes Ryan home is my home. I know he lives on base, but the fact remains all his mail is my home, I maintain a bedroom for him, he files his taxes under my address, so if we can lets agree on that point. Otherwise this discussion would really get crazy.

 

So yes, Ryan will leave all the CD's here at our home while he is in Iraq, or for that matter when he comes back and heads back to Twentynine Palms, CA. While I seem to be in the minority, I think, my own opinion, no facts, that for us to be able to listen to a song at home, that Ryan is listening to over in Iraq somehow seems like double use, of a single purchased item.

 

I will admit, I am less sure of my position on this now, then I was a week ago. But I do appreciate all the diverse comments.

[ghaverkamp]

Unfortunately, Greg Haverkamp isn't taking Copyright Law, Cyberspace Law, Entertainment Law, Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property, or Intellectual Property Seminar next semester . . .

 

Hopefully, Copyright Law in the spring.

 

Regardless, I'm a little gunshy after my last foray into legal questions on the board.

 

Greg

[Matts_12GS]

More importantly, who is going to host the BMWSPRORTTOURING FTP site so that we can maintain a club archive of them?

 

 

Seems like a whole lot of energy focused on an issue that didn't really deserve it to me, but then again, I don't make my living via development or distribution of IP/related items.