If iTunes Match matches a pirated song, is it now a legal song?

[1458279]

If someone has a song that was pirated and uses Apples iTunes match service, and the song is matched, then the user deletes the pirated song, is the new 'matched' song legal?

I've heard discussion on this being a way to convert pirated songs over to legit songs, but I don't see how Apple could do this, unless Apple is basically giving away songs without knowing if you are the legal owner of the songs.

 

[SpyderBite]

Technically, if it can be matched you will receive a dmr free version of the song. However that does not make the original method of obtaining the song legal. I don't have any pirated music so I didn't bother to read the T&C in its entirety. But, you might want to do so before matching your own library.

 

[Ccrew]

If someone has a song that was pirated and uses Apples iTunes match service, and the song is matched, then the user deletes the pirated song, is the new 'matched' song legal?

I've heard discussion on this being a way to convert pirated songs over to legit songs, but I don't see how Apple could do this, unless Apple is basically giving away songs without knowing if you are the legal owner of the songs.

The answer is yes. Once the song is obtained from Match it's procurement "legitimizes" the ownership. The way Apple justified this to the record companies is that every time you play a song via Match the artist gets a royalty. That royalty is a mere pittance, as in fractions of a cent, but even those add up when millions of people are playing a song.

I won't traipse down the rocky path of a discussion as to how it was obtained, it's immaterial here as the way Match works as it doesn't matter how it was obtained to the service.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

That doesn't make the song more legal no, because you still stole it in the first place.

 

[1458279]

I think it was TWIT TV that was talking about this a while back. They mentioned that it was kind of an amnesty for pirated music, but they didn't get into if that was the design or simply the result.

So does this only apply to music that is thru the cloud or can you use these new songs on a non-connected device (iPod Classic)?

Edit: just saw this post from late last year, looks like the classic won't work unless I can load it from match using iTunes.

P.S. Your iPod classic can't download anything since it is not an iOS device and lacks any type of wi-fi connection. So you don't have to worry about iTunes Match anything when it comes to your iPod classic.

Edit again: looks like it requires iOS 5 or mac/pc running iTunes 10.5.1 So I wonder if you can get it from iTunes to an iPod classic?
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/instant-expert-secrets-features-of-itunes-match/

Edit: Looks like there might be a way using backup and restore: https://discussions.apple.com/message/19297436#19297436

 

[Risco]

Legal, yes. Moral, no.

 

[Major.Robto]

Its fine, I do it all the time to be honest.

I have a extencive cd colection that got distoryed so I just downloaded my albums again.

 

[1458279]

Its fine, I do it all the time to be honest.

I have a extencive cd colection that got distoryed so I just downloaded my albums again.

I always wondered about that. If you OWN a CD why can't you convert it to .mp3 You've already paid once.

And, why can't you sell the digital downloads that you've paid for?

I hope Bruce Willis sues, it doesn't seem right that you pay for something that you can't sell.

Speaking of right, legal and moral... fining someone $80,000.00 per song? WOW

I'm a software developer, I know all about people steeling digital things, but I don't sue for $80,000.00 per app that's been stolen.

 

[pdjudd]

I always wondered about that. If you OWN a CD why can't you convert it to .mp3 You've already paid once.

No. Legally speaking you don't own anything but the plastic disc. The content on the disc is never owned by you at all and is actually licensed to you. It does contain the allowance of transcoding, but you cannot sell those tracks since you don't have the permission to sell those derivatives. At most you can sell the disc and the license that goes with it.

I hope Bruce Willis sues, it doesn't seem right that you pay for something that you can't sell.

He isn't - there was never any such suit ever considered. Willis daughter said the whole thing is bogus.

 

[gnasher729]

If someone has a song that was pirated and uses Apples iTunes match service, and the song is matched, then the user deletes the pirated song, is the new 'matched' song legal?

I've heard discussion on this being a way to convert pirated songs over to legit songs, but I don't see how Apple could do this, unless Apple is basically giving away songs without knowing if you are the legal owner of the songs.

It is not legal, but some evidence that it is illegal has been destroyed. Note that the metadata is unchanged. So if you have an illegal download and in the comments it says "pirated by the evil hacker", then the matched song will have the exact same comments.

The answer is yes. Once the song is obtained from Match it's procurement "legitimizes" the ownership. The way Apple justified this to the record companies is that every time you play a song via Match the artist gets a royalty. That royalty is a mere pittance, as in fractions of a cent, but even those add up when millions of people are playing a song.

Absolutely wrong. For starters, using iTunes Match for pirated songs is against the iTunes Match license. And artists don't get any money when you play a song via iTunes Match. The artists get a portion of the money that you pay for iTunes Match.

 

[Ccrew]

And artists don't get any money when you play a song via iTunes Match. The artists get a portion of the money that you pay for iTunes Match.

Not wrong.

http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/02/apple-imatch-the-first-royalties-are-in.html

 

[MichaelLAX]

The answer is yes. Once the song is obtained from Match it's procurement "legitimizes" the ownership...

Not wrong.

http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/02/apple-imatch-the-first-royalties-are-in.html

It has to be true: he read it on the internet!

I notice that you are big on giving legal advice on this forum. Could you let us know where you are licensed to practice law?

For example, practicing law without a license is a crime in the State of California: Business and Professions Code section 6125 et seq. (and appears to be one in Virginia, as well; where MacRumors is legally established: Code of Virginia - Title 54.1 Professions And Occupations - Section 54.1-3904 Penalty for practicing without authority)

 

[26139]

Amnesty

That doesn't make the song more legal no, because you still stole it in the first place.

Correct, but it sorta works as an amnesty program. I'm slightly more likely to buy all my music from iTunes now, even though I was a pretty heavy customer before.

I think any way they can get some money to the artists is a good thing. Sure they could give more, but this seems to work.

 

[MichaelLAX]

I'm a software developer, I know all about people ste[a]ling digital things, but I don't sue for $80,000.00 per app that's been stolen.

Somewhat of a naive approach to the problem.

Are you going to finance the $50,000+ in legal fees, court costs and discovery costs out of your own pocket to protect your app, and then we will see how much you will sue for...

If you are lucky enough to get a foolish copyright attorney to take your case on contingency (or more likely a blend of upfront fees and contingency), he then becomes your financial partner and you better be sure he will sue for the maximum amount that he can recover!

In any event, where did you read that someone was liable for $80,000 per song? Sounds a bit inflated... Got a link?

----------

No. Legally speaking you don't own anything but the plastic disc. The content on the disc is never owned by you at all and is actually licensed to you. It does contain the allowance of transcoding, ...

Not according to the Recording Industry Association of America and some copyright attorneys. However the question has never been tested in court.

And quite honestly many with the ability to test the issue do not want to because of the huge number of "copyright criminals" that would be created if they obtained a judgment on their behalf and the public outcry that would result therefrom.

Much was made of the fact at the time, that when then President George W. Bush was asked during an interview what music he had on his iPod, he included The Beatles (BEFORE their music was authorized for digital distribution)... So obviously George W. (or his tech guru) ripped the music from his CDs (WE HOPE! )

 

[Ccrew]

It has to be true: he read it on the internet!

I notice that you are big on giving legal advice on this forum. Could you let us know where you are licensed to practice law?

For example, practicing law without a license is a crime in the State of California: Business and Professions Code section 6125 et seq. (and appears to be one in Virginia, as well; where MacRumors is legally established: Code of Virginia - Title 54.1 Professions And Occupations - Section 54.1-3904 Penalty for practicing without authority)

I think you need to read up on the definition of practicing law.

----------

In any event, where did you read that someone was liable for $80,000 per song? Sounds a bit inflated... Got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

"2nd civil jury trial, U.S. District Court (MN) June 15–18, 2009 Liable Statutory damages of $1,920,000 ($80,000/song)."

 

[MichaelLAX]

It has to be true: he read it on the internet!

I notice that you are big on giving legal advice on this forum. Could you let us know where you are licensed to practice law?

For example, practicing law without a license is a crime in the State of California: Business and Professions Code section 6125 et seq. (and appears to be one in Virginia, as well; where MacRumors is legally established: Code of Virginia - Title 54.1 Professions And Occupations - Section 54.1-3904 Penalty for practicing without authority)

I think you need to read up on the definition of practicing law.

The difference between you and me is that if I am wrong about the definition of practicing law, I won't be going to jail; but if you are wrong...

In any event, where did you read that someone was liable for $80,000 per song? Sounds a bit inflated... Got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

"2nd civil jury trial, U.S. District Court (MN) June 15–18, 2009 Liable Statutory damages of $1,920,000 ($80,000/song)."

Good thing you're not an attorney, or you would be liable for malpractice! I guess you did not even bother to completely read your own Wikipedia link:

"The following January, Judge Davis reduced the amount of the damages to $54,000 under the common law doctrine of remittitur, characterizing the original damages as 'monstrous and shocking.'"