Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
14,413
1,041
Bergen, Norway
In some countries, all blank media has a tax on it which is then distributed to the RIAA (I think) because it is assumed that you will only use it for illegally recording copyrighted media.
Nah... the levy, at least here in Norway, is to pay for legal copying of music and films*.

You are allowed to copy music and films for personal use, and you're even allowed to share your legally acquired material, ie. bought, rented, borrowed at the public library(!), etc, with "your closest friends and relatives".

Downloading copyrighted** material is illegal, even if you 'own' the material on other media.

On the last review of the law (which actually made it illegal to download stuff, uploading has been illegal "forever"), it was touch and go for a while, because the suggested law text was much, much stricter, e.g. on copying for personal use, like ripping CDs for use on iPods etc, but since our Minister for Culture was an iPod user all turned out nicely in the end... :D

* Computer software, including games, are actually specially protected and aren't technically legal to copy, even for backup purposes. But since most EULAs gives you this right anyway, most people don't care even if, again technically, Norwegian law trumps any EULAs.

** Copyright (©) doesn't really apply in Norway, or most European countries, AFAIK, but all is regulated through special law which basically regulates the same...
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,485
1,571
East Coast
One final note - BitTorrent doesn't necessarily involve uploading or distributing. You can turn off the upload part (reduce upload bandwidth to 0) and only download. Many BT hosts don't like this and will give you a low priority. You can up your share ratio a bit by putting legal files (Firefox, Linux distros etc) up for upload and distribution.

Kinda off topic, but what would be the legal classification of upload 99% of the torrent? Let's say that you only "shared" 99% of a torrent and the last 1% was not uploaded by you.

Does that constitute illegal file sharing? I mean, after all, you haven't shared anything but a bunch of bits and bytes. Without that last piece, what you've shared isn't really anything.

Or am I way off base?
 

The Toon Master

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2006
321
0
No it isn;t

Hell, some music companies believe if you buy a CD, you need to rebuy it again on a downloadable service to use it..

I swear i thoguht i saw a vinyl ripper for 150 somewhere, but i might be wrong..
 

CanadaRAM

macrumors G5
Kinda off topic, but what would be the legal classification of upload 99% of the torrent? Let's say that you only "shared" 99% of a torrent and the last 1% was not uploaded by you.

Does that constitute illegal file sharing? I mean, after all, you haven't shared anything but a bunch of bits and bytes. Without that last piece, what you've shared isn't really anything.

Or am I way off base?

You're way off base. You can't avoid copyright infringement by leaving off the last second of a song, just like it's still bank robbery even if you leave $1.00 behind with the teller.

"A bunch of bits and bytes" is precisely what is the property of the copyright holder, whether it is software, music or a Hollywood film.
 

eRondeau

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2004
1,159
382
Canada's South Coast
"A bunch of bits and bytes" is precisely what is the property of the copyright holder, whether it is software, music or a Hollywood film.

OMG!!! I just downloaded a '1' followed by a '0' and then another damned '1'!!! I'm sure that's the exact same bit pattern as the first three bits of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vita" by Iron Butterfly!!! They're going to hunt me down like a dog! I'm so screwed!!!

(I think this does raise a valid point, however, as to just how many identical bits are required in order to claim copyright infringement. After all, if your sampling rate is low enough -- all digital music sounds exactly the same.)
 

statikcat

macrumors 6502
Mar 20, 2007
263
0
Of course it is illegal. You own the songs on Vinyl only. That is like saying you get a free upgrade to DVD because you own the VHS. *slaps face*.
 

balamw

Moderator emeritus
Aug 16, 2005
19,366
979
New England
Of course it is illegal. You own the songs on Vinyl only. That is like saying you get a free upgrade to DVD because you own the VHS. *slaps face*.

Unfortunately the **AA makes this murky, by saying that when you purchase media (CD/DVD) you are actually only licensing the content. So essentially, you don't own diddly, except perhaps for a plastic coaster that can be used as a mirror. You have a restricted license to play the content.

The Engadget story is further proof the ??AA are out to lunch. suing people who still do buy music on CD. :rolleyes:

B
 

kavika411

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 8, 2006
617
3
Alabama
Of course it is illegal. You own the songs on Vinyl only. That is like saying you get a free upgrade to DVD because you own the VHS. *slaps face*.

I like your gusto. I assume you think is illegal to rip a CD you own into iTunes, as such would be changing the medium from CD to AAC.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
See to me, that's bull. It's one thing to say "I bought a 2G iPod, therefore I should be able to upgrade to a touch for free" but since you've already paid for the music, you should be able to listen to it in whichever format you desire.

I agree that you should be able to. And you certainly can download it and go ahead and do it.

It just isn't legal.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Unfortunately the **AA makes this murky, by saying that when you purchase media (CD/DVD) you are actually only licensing the content. So essentially, you don't own diddly, except perhaps for a plastic coaster that can be used as a mirror. You have a restricted license to play the content.

No matter what they'd like you to think, the music industry cannot unilaterally revoke your fair use rights. If you own the CD, it's fair use for you to format-shift it for your own purposes. This stuff was decided a long time ago, back in the age of tape.

To the original question: I think the real issue here is the torrent method. If you downloaded music which you already own from a PTP network then I think a good case could be made that this is fair use. I'd sure like to see the RIAA successfully sue someone for having digital copies of vinyl records they own, no matter where they got them.
 

barijazz

macrumors 6502
Dec 29, 2007
326
1
You need to check if the song/photo or movie you download off bittorrent is copright (c) or creative commons(cc). Any movie art photo song etc. is automatically protected under creative commons. If the artist goes and gets a copyright so that only they can legally distribute the copyrighted item then you cannot. But much like going 65 mph on a 60 mph road no one really cares.
 

theBB

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2006
2,453
3
You could pay somebody to rip your vinyl into mp3, so downloading is ethically OK in my book. Of course, that does not mean you'd be legally OK.

The big catch is the aspect of file sharing software forcing you to allow others to download from you while you are trying to get what you need. That means in order to exercise your fair use rights, you'd be aiding and abetting others' illegal activity. It would be kind of asking somebody to rip your vinyl into mp3 and letting them keep a copy of the files for themselves as payment.
 

Fahrwahr

macrumors member
May 23, 2007
91
0
Southeastern U.S.
The legality of media is always a very bizarre thing anyways. For example, if you buy a blank VHS tape and tape an episode of Survivor, it's legal for you to own and watch that tape, but only for a limited amount of time. That means that after about three months, you are legally obligated to tape over that episode of Survivor or you have illegal media in your home.
Can you point me to an online source for this requirement? The sources I've found regarding time-shifting (the term that apparently refers to taping a television broadcast for later use) don't refer to any specific time limit (although I suppose rights may vary by jurisdiction).

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

(Not that I'm a fan of Wikipedia or would vouch for the accuracy of its content, but at least it's a start.)
 

CanadaRAM

macrumors G5
To the original question: I think the real issue here is the torrent method. If you downloaded music which you already own from a PTP network then I think a good case could be made that this is fair use. I'd sure like to see the RIAA successfully sue someone for having digital copies of vinyl records they own, no matter where they got them.

But, there may be a difference between the digital copy and the analog copy on LP. Lets take for example, a downloaded track that has been remastered, or has 5.1 sound, or extra CD-only features. That's a different product than you have on LP. Owning the LP doesn't give rights to having a different product.

Then it can also be argued that you own rights only to the analog reproduction on LP (and whatever your personal-use archiving to digital might be done from YOUR LP - scratches, pops and all).
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
But, there may be a difference between the digital copy and the analog copy on LP. Lets take for example, a downloaded track that has been remastered, or has 5.1 sound, or extra CD-only features. That's a different product than you have on LP. Owning the LP doesn't give rights to having a different product.

Then it can also be argued that you own rights only to the analog reproduction on LP (and whatever your personal-use archiving to digital might be done from YOUR LP - scratches, pops and all).

I know -- I've made what the lawyers call a "rebuttable presumption," or some such thing. But I'd like to see the RIAA make the case that a record company's digital version of song is somehow a "different product" than the same song digitized from a record owner's vinyl. This argument comes with the apparent presupposition that fair use is only fair use when the copy is inferior to the original. That'd be a novel argument, with all kinds of implications, if it was ever accepted by the courts.

The copyright violation incidentally is committed by the person who gives the song away, not by the person who receives it.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
No matter what they'd like you to think, the music industry cannot unilaterally revoke your fair use rights. If you own the CD, it's fair use for you to format-shift it for your own purposes. This stuff was decided a long time ago, back in the age of tape.

Sure, of course you can dub a recording to a different format. But that's totally different than owning it on vinyl, then downloading someone else's CD rip.

You need to check if the song/photo or movie you download off bittorrent is copright (c) or creative commons(cc). Any movie art photo song etc. is automatically protected under creative commons. If the artist goes and gets a copyright so that only they can legally distribute the copyrighted item then you cannot. But much like going 65 mph on a 60 mph road no one really cares.

I think you have it backwards.

All material like that is automatically copyrighted, whether the creator applies for copyright or not.

Creative commons is a special release contract and much more recent. Material doesn't fall under CC under the creator specifically declares it so.
 

RedTomato

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2005
4,155
442
.. London ..
Unfortunately the **AA makes this murky, by saying that when you purchase media (CD/DVD) you are actually only licensing the content. So essentially, you don't own diddly, except perhaps for a plastic coaster that can be used as a mirror. You have a restricted license to play the content.

I agree with what you say. I'd like to point out for the benefit of others, that following their argument that you don't actually own the medium, you only own a licence to play it, it therefore follows that that licence, which you've legally purchased, applies whether you are playing it from CD, a rip or a downloaded file.

This hasn't been examined in a court (I think) because the **AA avoid any case that would seriously examine it.

CanadaRAM's point about the licence not applying to a version with extra features applies tho. Purchasing a screen print or lithograph of an artwork is different to purchasing a poster of it on cheap paper. (and realistically you would expect to pay less for a scaled down 240x180 version of a film than the full 1280p Blu Ray version.)
 

balamw

Moderator emeritus
Aug 16, 2005
19,366
979
New England
This hasn't been examined in a court (I think) because the **AA avoid any case that would seriously examine it.
Which is why I originally said it was murky, on purpose, thanks to the **AA. They don't want it to be clear that ripping a CD for iPod use is legal or not, 'cause they want the right to sue you no matter what.

No matter what they'd like you to think, the music industry cannot unilaterally revoke your fair use rights.

Doesn't stop them from posturing or trying to restrict what can be done.

I'm fully in agreement with you, I think their position is wacky, and furthermore their current business model is really flawed. Everyone involved loses: The artists, the "consumers" and the labels with the current status quo. Oops! I guess I forgot one group that wins no matter what. The lawyers.

The "music industry" is a tangled web of individual deals and contracts which seems harder to navigate than the US tax code. As such it is due for major overhaul to face the new realities.

Perhaps a levy based system like that used on other countries might make things simpler to deal with.

B
 

CanadaRAM

macrumors G5
And just to be clear, the levies in Canada (and presumably other countries) do NOT go to the RIAA. They are collected by a non-profit society that distributes them to the artists and publishing companies.

The RIAA is an industry lobby group funded by the record companies and publishers. They do not collect royalties from your purchases, any more than the College of Physicians and Surgeons collects your doctor's bill.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Sure, of course you can dub a recording to a different format. But that's totally different than owning it on vinyl, then downloading someone else's CD rip.

Says who? Every copyright case is different, and AFAIK, this particular point has never been adjudicated. Failing any actual law, the industry would like us to believe that we must purchase and repurchase our music every time the reproduction technology changes. Doubtless this is good for them, but that does not mean it's a legal requirement.

Doesn't stop them from posturing or trying to restrict what can be done.

Exactly, but this doesn't mean that they'll always succeed. Like I said, I'd love to see the industry try to convince a court that owning digital versions of music you originally purchased in another format is not fair use, no matter where you got the digital versions.

EDIT: Looks like we have that case, which is being discussed in another thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
 

eRondeau

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2004
1,159
382
Canada's South Coast
The "music industry" is a tangled web of individual deals and contracts which seems harder to navigate than the US tax code. As such it is due for major overhaul to face the new realities.

Many years ago I went to college with an adult student who was a working session musician. Very interesting fellow. Keep in mind this was in the pre- file-sharing days. He once commented that music was the only industry that was obsessed with suing their own members as a matter of day-to-day business. So now, 20 years later, not much has changed -- except now they're suing their customers too. I wish I could turn the tables and sue the record companies for some of the sh*t they've sold me over the years.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
Says who? Every copyright case is different, and AFAIK, this particular point has never been adjudicated. Failing any actual law, the industry would like us to believe that we must purchase and repurchase our music every time the reproduction technology changes. Doubtless this is good for them, but that does not mean it's a legal requirement.

Whoa there, you're going way beyond what I said. The courts have said that format and time shifting is fine. If you want an mp3, go ahead and rip your vinyl.

But you're the one jumping to unproven conclusions by insisting that ripping a vinyl record is the same as downloading the torrent of something you own on vinyl.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Whoa there, you're going way beyond what I said. The courts have said that format and time shifting is fine. If you want an mp3, go ahead and rip your vinyl.

But you're the one jumping to unproven conclusions by insisting that ripping a vinyl record is the same as downloading the torrent of something you own on vinyl.

Whoa there yourself. First, I never said it was "the same," only that the industry has never been called upon to make an argument against it in court (and I think the legal theory would probably have to be quite novel), and second, I pointed out the inherent problem with torrents, which share even as they download (the sharing being the copyright violation). As for jumping to unproven conclusions, I think you are the one who is assuming that the music industry has copyright enforcement powers that have never been established in a court.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.