What is considered "legal" copying?

[Steven J. Gross]

I am not too familiar with the copyright/piracy type laws out there- but does anyone know what is legal to copy for personal use, and what would be considered illegal? I am not talking resale here.

 

[Mr Bill]

The RIAA would like you to believe even home taping or copying (for your own use) of something you already own is illegal. Under the strictest interpretation it could seem so.

But for folks of reasonable mind, if you make a copy of something you own for yourself only (a road copy or the car for example) and do not share or give it away, you're okay. Once you give it to someone, then you're pushing the issue. If sell it then you're definitely breaking the law...

Others here will want to post their own interpretations of "the rules" so we'll await their input...

--Mr Bill

 

[Harry]

As long as you own a purchased original, then copies for your own use are considered fair use..

As Mr. Bill mentioned, giving a copy to anyone else is theoretically illegal, - at best a grey area.

Selling a copy to anyone is against the law - no doubt about it.

Harry
...why yes, it IS Friday!, online

 

[Rudy]

The "Fair Use" laws state that you may make a copy of a recording only for your own use. And yes, it is illegal to make someone a copy of something, under the same law.

 

[Captain Bacardi]

Reminds me of the saying that everything is legal until you get caught.



Capt. Bacardi

 

[Harry]

There's a grey area though. If I make a copy of WARM on CD and sell it to someone - that's wrong. If I sell them an LP of WARM along with a CD copy, that's borderline legal. There are a lot of semi-legitimate businesses and folks on eBay who do just that. They'll 'copy and clean up' YOUR album, when in reality all they're doing is selling you a cleaned up copy of their own album along with a beat-up old LP of the same title.

Reminds me of some auctions I've seen where you can bid on a Bic pen - any amount you like - and the winner gets a 'free' set of rare Beatles bootleg CD copies.

Harry

 

[Rudy]

Reminds me of some auctions I've seen where you can bid on a Bic pen - any amount you like - and the winner gets a 'free' set of rare Beatles bootleg CD copies.

Actually, some sellers are doing that to get around concert ticket scalping. eBay's rules say you cannot sell a ticket for more than face value. So, they'll sell you something like a hat or other item.

 

[Steven J. Gross]

There's a grey area though. If I make a copy of WARM on CD and sell it to someone - that's wrong. If I sell them an LP of WARM along with a CD copy, that's borderline legal. There are a lot of semi-legitimate businesses and folks on eBay who do just that. They'll 'copy and clean up' YOUR album, when in reality all they're doing is selling you a cleaned up copy of their own album along with a beat-up old LP of the same title.

Reminds me of some auctions I've seen where you can bid on a Bic pen - any amount you like - and the winner gets a 'free' set of rare Beatles bootleg CD copies.

Harry

• 
  It is WILD!

 

[Mike Blakesley]

all they're doing is selling you a cleaned up copy of their own album along with a beat-up old LP of the same title

There is a similar thing in the movie business. A lot of theatre owners collect prints of old movies, but if they want to show that print to the public, they have to rent a copy of the film from a distributor. The distributor's beat-up copy stays in the film can, while the collector's clean copy plays for the crowd. Happens frequently at film festivals.

 

[dostros]

The idea that producers, musicians and songwriters receive a portion of revenues from their work seems to be behind these laws. But since the dawn of time (since my teenage years, in fact ) I have enjoyed shopping in used record stores. As far as I know, these second-hand stores that sell records and cds do not pay royalties to the artists whose records they sell.

Does that mean these stores are breaking the law?

David O

 

[Harry]

The 'used' market is a totally different animal - and though the RIAA would like to stop the practice, it's just not going to happen.

Buying any used product of any kind by its very nature denies the 'creator' of any profit. Buy a used Chevy from Joe's Used Cars and General Motors will get nothing from the sale. Buy an existing house from a seller or realtor, and the original builder gets zero.

So while the RIAA would like to get their greedy hands around the used recording market, there's little sentiment to allow it.

Now, if a used record dealer is selling PROMO product - now, maybe the RIAA has a little ground to stand on. Promos were never designated for sale in the marketplace, and therefore their sale in ANY market should legally not be permitted. I know that eBay sometimes cracks down on this - intermittently ending recording auctions with the word "promo" in it. And I've seen sellers retaliate by using more creative language to describe theor promo items - sometimes as simply as replacing the o's in promo with zeros - "pr0m0".

Harry

 

[LPJim]

One of the local used disc outlets -- since gone out of business -- had a thing going where you "bought" the disc for $12, traded it in for $7 and "lost" $5 on paper.
In reality you took home a CDR.
Don't know whether the outlet's closure had anything to do with their scheme being exposed or not.
JB

 

[Mike Blakesley]

The reason the "used" market is OK in the eyes of the law is, that when you sell your disk to the store, you give up the enjoyment of it. The person who buys the disk then buys the enjoyment you gave up. There's no need for the record company to be involved.

If you look at computer software licenses, it says that if you sell the software, you also have to give up or destroy any copies you made. I have always wondered if, *technically,* the same wouldn't apply to music. If I sell a CD to a used record store, but I made a copy of it for myself, then I really should get rid of my extra copy as well if I wanted everything to be strictly copasetic. Otherwise, there is more than one person enjoying the work.

Not that I'm pushing for this scenario of course!

 

[Rudy]

The reason the "used" market is OK in the eyes of the law is, that when you sell your disk to the store, you give up the enjoyment of it. The person who buys the disk then buys the enjoyment you gave up. There's no need for the record company to be involved.

It's actually very similar to software: buying music is like buying a single-user license for that recording. When you want to transfer ownership to someone else, you are also giving up your right to all usage (your "license" in other words) to use that recording any further. Which technically means you should destroy all "personal use" copies you have.

The record companies (or more specifically, the RIAA) sees it differently--their myopic view is that a used product sale is a loss of income on a new product sale. I don't see why it should be an issue since technically, someone is giving up their ownership rights when they turn in a used CD at the store, or sell it to another person.

 

[Ed Bishop]

For years, the major chains didn't sell used CD's, for fear of losing ad dollars from the majors. But as that support--and profits--plummeted, many have decided, the hell with it, and now I see used CD's and DVD's all over the place.

With catalog titles, most--but not all by any means--are older editions, when listeners 'upgrade'(Heh)to a rermaster...I've found some nice sounding stuff that way I might otherwise have not bothered with.

 

[Rudy]

For years, the major chains didn't sell used CD's, for fear of losing ad dollars from the majors. But as that support--and profits--plummeted, many have decided, the hell with it, and now I see used CD's and DVD's all over the place.

It's great for profit. I know in our market, typical markup on used product is 100%...in other words, they buy for $5, sell for $10. I know some retailers work on razor thin margins, especially smaller ones who have to compete with the "loss leader" companies like Best Buy. All about survival these days.

 

[Brasil_Nut]

Long ago, I was actually contacted by someone who offered to sell me a video based on my musical interests. The amount? Well over $200. "Make me an offer," was all the message said. Impossible to tie them down to a specific dollar amount.

Bottom line, I eventually decided that no matter how much I wanted a VHS copy of this item, it wasn't worth the extra expense -- not to mention the cost of postage, another cost I would have incurred.

So, my question is this: do these laws apply only to US products? Are they universally enforced?

Jon

 

[Sonic_Eccles]

Oh no!!!!!!!!!! Got to run and get my power magnets as I think I saw the Copyright Police heading to my door.



Whew! Nope just some dude selling magazines. Or maybe he was trying to get a look at all my burned CDs and will be back with the brainless copyright police?!!!!!!!!!!!

What am I thinking, I don't have any MP3's other then my own stuff, well ok and maybe a CD or 2 that a friend held me at knife point to take home. It was just in self-defense I took them home. I'd throw them away, but I can't see loading up our landfill with usable items.

The RIAA and Hollywood both need to update themselfs. If you don't want people ripping you off, sell at a fair price.

 

[TallPaulInKy]

Buying any used product of any kind by its very nature denies the 'creator' of any profit. Buy a used Chevy from Joe's Used Cars and General Motors will get nothing from the sale. Buy an existing house from a seller or realtor, and the original builder gets zero.

Actually, selling used material falls under a right of first sale. The musicians and company that produced something received their just payment when it was originally sold new. After that they have no rights to that copy, as they received just payment. You as the purchaser can sell, or give away the item without any further payment to the company. That's why when you buy a CD or album, you can play it as much as you want without paying the comapny any fees.

To try to get around this one video chain (Circuit City I think) tried to market DVDs that would only play a few times (say 5) then if you wanted to see it more you had to buy another copy, they self distructed basically. In other words, you were "buying" not the DVD but paying for the 5 plays. Needless to say it didn't last.

 

[Rudy]

To try to get around this one video chain (Circuit City I think) tried to market DVDs that would only play a few times (say 5) then if you wanted to see it more you had to buy another copy, they self distructed basically. In other words, you were "buying" not the DVD but paying for the 5 plays. Needless to say it didn't last.

That was the short-lived DIVX that Circuit City and a bunch of entertainment lawyers dreamed up at the dawn of the DVD era. (And that was my problem with it--it was an inferior competing product that only clouded the marketplace and made DVD's early future uncertain.) Basically you bought a cheap DIVX movie and were able to play it five times; if you wanted to play it more, you had to "purchase" a license for it through your DIVX player, much like you order pay-per-view movies from DirecTV, and even there, you could only play that disc on that one player that it was unlocked on.

Stunk worse than week-old fish, it did.