|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.81.70.202
I would think that selling a disk preloaded with music would be a blatent violation of RIAA!
Follow Ups:
I emailed Audigon about the ad and provided them with the link. Lets see if they do anything, or not. ;-)
The Agon seller told me in a private message that he was including the CDs.
He passed on answering whether he is retaining files, but if challenged, all he has to say is 'yes, I'm deleting everything'. So nothing gained except making a snitch out of me, which is not what I intended. I just wanted a discussion about the subject of selling hard drives with pre-recorded music and all the implications thereof.
I would have independently of this post had I stumbled across his advert. If A-gon looks into this and he satisfies them, then fine, but I wouldn't worry about him making a connection. And, based on his response to bob, he's full of sh#t.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I just wanted to see if Audiogon will intervene or simply ignore my email to them. I suspect they will do nothing as they won't want to get in the middle of what the seller might or might not do to be compliant with the law.
.
Given their track record
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
He is breaking the law.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Sounds like it.
Perhaps this small fish is under the radar of RIAA as it scans the World for big fish to fry.
Does this mean you are going to make an anonymous letter to RIAA?
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Not I. But if it's legal (fat chance), I've got a nice library I wouldn't mind making some money on!
Sure it's legal. I'll buy your collection on the following terms:
Please
a) Provide content on 3.5" HDD
b) Erase each and every electronic copy stored elsewhere
c) Put original discs in boxes for shipping.
If you keep copies and/or originals it's both illegal and unethical.
Clear enough?
That would clearly be ethical. Whether it is legal or not depends on the jurisdiction(s).
You didn't mention downloads, for which would be no CDs to package for shipping. Most downloads are supposedly "licensed" to the original purchaser and not transferable. If these "license" provisions stand up, then transferring the files would be legal as well as ethical. It is my understanding that some courts in the EU have ruled this way, i.e. the right of first sale doctrine applies to downloads as well as CD sales. Whether this will stand up and/or spread to other jurisdictions remains to be seen.
This issue is more complex where there are DRM "teeth" such as with Kindle books. There are also issues of inheritance upon death of licensee, sharing of accounts, etc...
In the US, according to the Constitution (assuming it's not a totally dead letter), Copyright exists to encourage the publication of creative works. It would seem that the present system is doing a rather poor job of accomplishing this. It is well past time to reassess the entire system, but given the corrupt political structure this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Whether the original came on a shiny disc or by e-mail or download, when you "sell" something, you don't keep a copy for yourself.
It's only confusing, obfuscated and unclear to those who have morally flexible definitions of what stealing is.
Cheers,
Presto
.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Hey Tony,Some questions and comments:
"That would clearly be ethical. Whether it is legal or not depends on the jurisdiction(s)."
Do you mean what Presto is suggesting, with his conditions? Or do you mean what the guy on Audiogon is doing, which appears to be an unconditional sale of a back-up disc of thousands of dollars worth of music that he is keeping for his own use?
"You didn't mention downloads, for which would be no CDs to package for shipping. Most downloads are supposedly "licensed" to the original purchaser and not transferable. If these "license" provisions stand up, then transferring the files would be legal as well as ethical."
Not following you. If the licenses are non-transferrable, then how would transferring the files be legal if they held up? Non-exclusive, not-transferrable licenses are enforceable, and enforced, all the time under our legal system. Also, and separately, I don't believe any license is at issue whether the music is copied from a disc or a website. When one buys a copyrighted work, one may not make copies for resale (absent an express license to do so). Period.
"It is my understanding that some courts in the EU have ruled this way, i.e. the right of first sale doctrine applies to downloads as well as CD sales. Whether this will stand up and/or spread to other jurisdictions remains to be seen."
The first sale doctrine does NOT apply to making and selling unauthorized copies, whether under the patent laws or the copyright laws. The first sale doctrine allows you to use, repair and resell the original copyrighted work (or patented invention). So, you can certainly sell a CD that you purchased, just like you can sell a book, and that's true whether what you purchase in reduced to physical medium or not. The first sale doctrine does not allow you to make or copy the work/invention and then sell the copy or the original. I doubt any courts have a held otherwise. With Presto's conditions, I at least see no harm.
"This issue is more complex where there are DRM "teeth" such as with Kindle books. There are also issues of inheritance upon death of licensee, sharing of accounts, etc..."
OK, I'm a bit out of my element here, but let's assume no DRM applies to this example. I find it a clear violation of U.S. copyright laws. Not a gray area, or even an off-white area.
"In the US, according to the Constitution (assuming it's not a totally dead letter), Copyright exists to encourage the publication of creative works. It would seem that the present system is doing a rather poor job of accomplishing this. It is well past time to reassess the entire system, but given the corrupt political structure this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon."
Like it or not, I think the point of the constitutional language was ensure that the creator and owner of creative works would know that he, she or it has a limited legal monopoly from which to profit without infringement. The notion being that if anyone could copy a creative work (or on the patent side practice a novel, non-obvious invention) regardless of whether or not he had anything to do with the creative work (or invention) would chill innovation. That might be misguided, but that's what was intended. The fact that the system may be failing doesn't open the door to allowing infringement of other people's proprietary rights. IMHO.
Josh
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12
I was referring to Presto's suggestion, not how most people would interpret the advertisement. According to fair use, ripping the CDs to disk is both ethical and legal. Also, according to the right of first sale, selling the CDs after first destroying all copies is also both legal and ethical. After that, if the buyer were to rip the CDs, doing so would be both ethical and legal. It is therefore ethical to follow Presto's suggestion. Whether it is legal or not depends on how much the law is an ass. Frankly, I could care less whether something is legal or not. What matters to me is whether it is moral or not. I would suspect that the majority of drivers on Interstate highways understand the distinction quite well. Of course, it is best to avoid violating the 11th Commandment, the one that Nixon broke.
What happened in Europe is that these "licensing" agreements were viewed as attempts to circumvent the right of first sale. There is a long history of making contracts unenforceable that are "in restraint of trade". That would adequately cover this issue, IMO. The argument is that it is entirely unreasonable to apply different terms of sale to physical goods and electronic goods.
If you go back to the original copyright laws in England, you will see the whole thing was really about control and censorship. It has never been about rewarding creators for their work. Patents are even worse that copyrights, because they cover independent invention. Most technical ideas arise in multiple minds at roughly the same time. Some types of patents, especially software patents and business methods patents, have an absurdly low threshold of "obviousness". The main benefit of the patent system is to benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller corporations, and to create a lucrative business for attorneys. (And patent consultants and experts, which I have been for the past dozen years or so.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You "could" care less? What a faux pas. Your entire argument avoids the issue, which is that bit perfect reproduction exists.
That sort of changes the parameters of copyright, as I'm sure you'll agree.
It is very easy to say that Eric will sell Tony his music collection.
But what if Eric has a bit perfect representation of that collection in reserve? Has he sold the collection or has he merely sold a physical manifestation of it?
That would be the question I'd like an answer to.
I will pass on your violation of netiquette in correcting my usage, but only if you agree that "Bits ain't just bits". :-)
What if Eric has an eidetic memory and can hear his entire collection from memory anytime he wants. Does he have to drink the cool-aid before parting with his disks? BTW, there are people with this ability, or close to it. My late wife listened three times to a recording of a Schubert sonata that I had purchased and a few months later sat down and played it all the way through from memory, nearly note perfect. BTW, there are people who say that foreign intelligence services have mind-erasing cool-aid, but please let's not go there.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, I don't have an eidetic memory, at least not for certain performances. But my devices do. That's my point.Sorry for correcting your usage, that particular phrase is a sore point for me.
When does the artist get paid if I make a bit perfect copy and sell it.
Never.
That should be obvious.
Edits: 07/07/12
How I implement my memory is my business. Or should be. :-)
The artist probably got ripped off by the record company. Whether the copy is bit perfect or not, whatever that means, is irrelevant. Most of the people who pirate music don't even know what bit perfect means.
It's only a tiny minority of artists who make big bucks off of recordings. The effect of the present system is to produce mass culture. I detest mass culture and would be delighted to see it disappear by a change in law. Artists should get paid other ways, e.g. by live performances or through patrons. Most of these "artists" should get a day job.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So it is OK to say that everybody rips off artists so it is fine for Tony and Eric to rip off artists?
I really think I'm not going to be on that particular train.
Bit perfect or not, making a copy of a music library and selling it (while retaining the original at least) is illegal. Are you now saying that's not true, or that you just don't care because our society is rotten to the core?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12
I said it was wrong and that it's not something that I do. If you knew what I do, you would know that I help artists and do it out of love of music and don't take a penny for my time, equipment or materials.
But the law is obsolete. Copyright came into existence after the invention of the printing press. It's long past time to replace it with a different system that compensates artists and cuts out all the middlemen who prey on them.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think Tony is agreeing that, in your scenario, Eric would have to delete his original after selling a copy to Tony. Or destroy his copy if he sold the original. If Eric sold a copy and kept the original, or sold the original and kept the copy, then he's not under the fist sale doctrine anymore and is violating copyright.Anyway, that's how the law would work to my understanding, and I think Tony confirmed that he agrees from an ethical and moral standpoint in his response to me.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12 07/07/12
Ah, so you would put the burden on the seller to destroy the copy?That is unenforceable. That is why this isn't as simple as it looks.
Edits: 07/07/12
Here, in a nutshell, is what I said
1. An owner can make a copy for personal use only. The law permits that.
2. An owner can sell an origininal. The law permits that.
3. An owner may not make a copy and then sell either the copy or the original.
That's what I said, and nothing more.
If a buyer has reason to believe that the seller is selling a copy or an original and keeping the other, then the buyer has a duty to avoid the transaction, just like he would have a duty to avoid buying a car he knew was stolen. I figured that was obvious, but it's not what Tony and I were discussing.
Feel better?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
No, because you left the basic question open.
If I sell you the original but keep my fair use backup am I obliged to delete it? I would argue yes, but I am not the music police.
But I'm not the music police either.
A friend of mine seriously asked if me if he could copy my iTunes library comprising 30 days of music in apple lossless files and I told him no way. First of all, it would be theft from the labels and artists whether he paid me or not, and second of all I'm not giving away music that took me weeks to rip to my hard drive. I though he was nuts to even ask - he was nonplused that I said no. Sigh.
I buy a lot of music, mostly on CDs, then LPs, and lastly a few random downloads. But I do occasionally rip library CDs and CDs my friends lend me. Of course my friend reminded me of that as though there wasn't any difference between what he was asking to do versus an occasional library rip or borrowed CD rip. I don't know, maybe he's right, but degrees matter to me. Of course I shouldn't do it at all, but then no one's perfect. What this guy on Audiogon is doing is pretty obviously criminal, and I wouldn't buy from him "assuming" he isn't keeping a copy, regardless of the price.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I agree that what Presto suggests should be legal, and would clearly be ethical and moral. As would be the hypotheticals that you give, because no one is both keeping an original and selling a copy, or keeping a copy and selling an original, under his or your hypotheticals. The guy on audiogon does not fall within these hypos though.From a policy standpoint, I agree with a lot, but not all, of the rest of you post. That's probably a discussion for another day, but I certainly agree that patents are routinely abused, especially in the software area where copyright was the traditional protection. Just look at patent troll companies like Innovations Ventures, which is anything but a promoter of innovation.
Outside of software/IT/internet, I think patents tend to play a more valid and vital role in ensuring fair profit for inventors, but of course not always.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12
nt
The seller on the 'Gon says that original CD's are included. However, he did not answer my question as to whether his new disc retained copies. So, is some kind of notarized legal statement required to get the buyer some insurance that he is not participating in an illegal transaction?
.
I don't see where he states the CDs are included, If he does it would be legal in the US as I understand it.
If he sold you the drive and the discs and he retained a copy that would be his problem, no different than someone who copies a CD and then sells it. Selling the CD is fine but keeping a copy is not.
.
I asked the "Gon seller a question and he responded positively to CD inclusion but avoided the question of copy retention. Isn't it wrong to receive as well as sell illegally?
Edits: 07/07/12
.
You are not receiving or doing anything illegal. You will have the originals so you are entitled to a copy.
You have no way of knowing and should not be concerned with how many copies he may have retained, given away, or sold.
.
nt
Being a part of an illegal transaction is wrong [period].
Playing dumb is not a defense, even if your not playing...hmmmmm
Somehow I don't think he is playing.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
"Being a part of an illegal transaction is wrong [period]."
I have been reading this thread and laughing...
How can the world legal and wrong even be in the same sentence.. :)
The thing is really very simple it is legal to sell and purchase as long as the originals are included! The buyer does not have any concern or control over what the seller does. The seller is legally not supposed to retain a copy. But this is not the buyers problem. He cannot be help responsible for what the seller does. The clean hands doctrine does not apply in this situation.
.
I said very clearly if you know he is acting illegally that is different
.
.
I'm making a legal purchase. If I know they are doing something illegal that is different but why should I suspect they are?
I can't control what other people do. I'm not out to police the world.
As a retailer is it my responsibility to have every customer sign a document swearing they obtained their money legally?
As a consumer should I have every seller sign a document that says everything they are doing is legal and every one of their suppliers is too.
Good grief man, don't you have better things to worry about?
.
It's curious what the CBC has recently done. A number of their stations are selling their collections. One wonders if they have retained digital copies. And if so, one wonders if this is legal in Canada, or just something that a quasi-governmental organization can get away with.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I used to work as a DJ and recall that most of the albums we used at the stations I worked at were marked "Promotional, not for resale" and the record companies retained the rights to them (to take them back?!?).
I just wonder if the records that the CBC stations are selling are similar to the ones I remember? If so, that surely puts a wrinkle into the sale of their libraries, doesn't it? I would think the record companies will see this as illegal.
The local library divested itself of records a number of years ago... hmmmm.
Go, Muffin, Go!
It sounds as though CBC is doing the same thing - "But with the changing tide of technology, the library has gone digital and it will be officially closing down in two weeks."
Interesting situation.
Today there must be countless hard-drives with tarabytes of information [music], it does have value and RIAA would be hard pressed to take ownership over the exponential growth of this information via copying. That one song that they owned is now 1 billion copies. How can they possibly manage.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Easy, they just open up the field to pro bono lawyers!
Correction - I should have said 'contingent fee' lawyers.
I could see that happening.
Lawyers would have no problem becoming Mercenaries in the data War.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: