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

MikeLaRiviere

macrumors regular
May 25, 2004
188
0
It's a very good thing I put in the request not to discuss abortion, contraception, capital punishment, etc., because at first thought my own post was going to include numerous examples along those lines. However, I think yours is a good point that we can accept the plurality of morals regarding the situation yet must recognize the singularity of the law. Therefore, your point makes sense that only after we change the law can we discuss it on a purely ethical level.

Mike LaRiviere
 

mherz

macrumors member
Aug 11, 2004
55
0
I am joining in late to this discussion with a question whether there is different chances of getting caught when downloading / uploading music, depending on the category of music.
My point is, that when you were to share a file called e.g. "Dido - life for rent.mp3", it is clear and obvious to everyone, that this file is ripped off from your or someone elses CD, which was originally sung / recorded by Dido, and you dont have a right to share it.
But, if the file is called "Bach Cello Sonata 1.mp3", is there any reasonable way for a record company to check and proof that this file is not one that you recorded yourself, or a friend of yours, because he/she is excellent in playing the cello. Maybe it sounds a bit theoretical, but as there are often hundreds of recordings of the same piece floating around, and, at least theoretically, one can record the piece oneselve and share it. Wouldnt that mean that sharing classical music is, only from the point of getting caught, a lot safer than sharing pop music?
Any experience with that?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,634
0
Wow, there is a lot of confusion in this thread. And it's no wonder, because copyright is a confusing idea. The trick is to pay attention to what it's called, copyright, the right to make copies.

For a minute, let's ignore the special "fair use" exceptions that have been added over the years, and look at the original deal. You buy a book or tape or CD, you aren't getting the copyright. The publisher who printed the thing you bought is the one who had the right to make the copy you bought, not you. All you get is the right to read/listen/view that copy.

Now, there is the fair use doctrine, which in some respects is peculiar to the US. In the case of music, it was made somewhat explicit by the Audio Home Recording Act. That law grants the additional right (not a license -- you didn't get one of those -- it's a right granted by AHRA) to make backup copies for personal use, and one of the places you are allowed the put your backup copies is on a computer peripheral. That's why devices like the iPod are designed to work the way they do, to take advantage of the special computer peripheral exemption. In general, digital copies are forbidden, and that's the reason you see so few standalone digital recorders (and when you do see them, like DAT and MD devices, they are required to add copy protection).

And yes, with that fair use thing being a quirk of national law, that does mean that devices like the iPod are technically illegal to use in some countries.

There was always the right to lend books and recordings, but not to make and give away additional copies, because no license to make copies was ever granted.

There have also been court decisions that granted limited personal rights to record broadcasts for time shifting purposes.

Since AHRA, we of course got DMCA which took away some of those extra rights if the publisher has added copy protection.

Computer software has always been a little bit different, because it's necessary to make at least one copy (into memory) to make any use of it. That's why programs had to include licensing agreements in the first place. All the other strings that have been added are, well, businesses being businesses.

So anyway, all of that is the reason you can buy something and then be allowed to do so little with it. You really don't own the content.

[edit, never did finish...]

Anyways, where the DRM stuff comes in is because all the rights are tied into making copies, and electronic transfers break the whole concept of delivering a copy to the purchaser. So, the seller in that case has to grant a limited license to copy, because otherwise the purchaser wouldn't have the right even to keep the download. In that light, the DRM schemes being attached to music are typicially more generous than what, for example, CDs offered. The big difference, of course, is that DRM actually interferes with things the purchaser doesn't have the right to do; a lot of the freedom built into traditional media was actually just the ability of purchasers to overstep the rights they actually were granted.

So, that's where all the conflict comes from. It's not that rights are being taken away -- those rights were never really there -- it's that people are becoming upset when they realize how meager those rights really were all along.
 

cb911

macrumors 601
Mar 12, 2002
4,127
4
BrisVegas, Australia
just a quick side note... KC, you mentioned about not having the same piece of software on more than one machine? luckily most licence agreements allow you to have the software installed on a desktop machine as well as a laptop, under the same licence. that can be very handy. ;)
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
No no... it's having the same software installed on more than one computer while more than one of those computers with the software on it are running at the same time. Though about your desktop and portable computer argument... I'll let that one stand, since I never heard of that before and thus can't verify it. Err...use that to your benefit, I guess.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.