Ethics

Sort

Is it wrong to copy CDs from your public library? I mean, for years, my local library didn't even have music, making this whole pirating issue a non consideration. Then I moved near San Francisco, where I have three libraries within ten minutes of my house, each having thousands of CDs. Now I'm tempted, now I want to be a sinner in the hands on angry God. These are my taxes! And the mind is great. I just save myself the time of checking it out again. When I'm done, I'll delete it off my hard drive. Anyone else dealing with such dilemmas?

cafreema

Nope. Library is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Craig

hoosfoos

Craig, aren't you a lawyer?

mommio

What's that got to do with it?

Doofy

Hmm, wonder what the RIAA thinks?

"There's no ambiguity about the law," Recording Industry Association of America spokesman Jonathan Lamy said. "If you are taking a CD out of the library that you are renting and you are making a copy of it that you own, that's illegal."

Angela Washelesky, a partner at Reed Smith who heads that law firm's trademark practice in its Chicago office, called ripping library CDs "total and complete copyright infringement. The fine for that kind of thing is $250,000 per copyrighted work. It is amazing to me that people do not know this."

Yeah, that's pretty amazing all right. Link to (inappropriately) completely quoted news story and messboard discussion here. These movie collectors seem to generally agree that the practice is a little dodgy but they've all done it. Some invoke the "publicly funded" argument, which seems a little convenient.

amclark2

What about ripping things that you own, selling them back to a used cd place, and keeping the copies? A while back when there was a debate on that at emu, I looked and looked for an RIAA opinion on that and couldn't find one. I figured that meant they knew that it was ok, at least legally.

As far as the library, my opinion is it's not legal or ethical to copy library stuff, but damn near impossible for anyone to enforce.

elwoodicious

[insert obligatory fuck the RIAA comment here]

thomnottom

The RIAA also thinks that ripping your CDs to use on your computer or mp3 player is illegal, so I'm not about to take their word for it.

I'm kind of tired of deciding what's right/wrong when the whole system is completely fucked. I got another 50 free credits at eMu via an ad I found. Should I be concerned about whether or not Rhino is getting paid for 8 tracks from Baby Huey when the guy died 40 years ago? Is a single one of those Nigerian musicians from the 70s going to see a dime from the numerous Soundway comps I get? It's just plain ridiculous at this point.

Ethically speaking I don't really see much wrong with it, with one caveat - that you continue to buy music. To me, once you stop buying music altogether and simply rip or d/l from free sources you're crossing a line. But if you're buying 20 albums in a month and then rip 5 others you want to listen to from the library, who cares? Personally I'd probably still end up buying it somewhere else if I really want it, but sometimes it's just not worth the effort.

amclark2

Thom, I see a huge ethical problem with what you said:

I got another 50 free credits at eMu via an ad I found.

But you don't share this ad with anyone else? Nice. Keeping free credits all to yourself is definitely not ethical.

But seriously, I like your point about continuing to buy music. As long as someone's spending as much money as they realistically can on music, (which most of us probably are) why does anyone care how much they get for that price?

thomnottom

Ask an ye shall receive I try not to abuse "new member" trials too often, but considering how many times my "add a friend" offers never went through I do it on occasion.

It's like driving a car. I doubt we all follow every rule of the road exactly, but as long as you try to be safe and follow the important ones it shouldn't be a big deal.

frogkopf

I do the occasion rip of Library CDs or get the odd album from a friend, and don't have any qualms about it, since I pay for about 99% of the music I consume. I also occasionally rip an album or two for friends, which almost always works out to the artists' advantage, since the my friends are the type to buy other albums and pay to go to the concerts if they like what they hear. What does bug me is the kids my nieces' and nephews' ages that have several hundred albums worth of music on their iPods but have never bought an album in their lives. I always nag them to go see the show and buy a t-shirt while there.




Does that link work to re-up fallow existing accounts, or just for new accounts.

frogkopf

@hoosfoos

????

Everyone know that lawyers and ethics are like oil and vinegar....

thomnottom

I'm pretty sure just new accounts. But since they told me when I cancelled that I would lose access to everything I had before, don't I need to create a "new" account now? ... That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

amclark2

if you re-open your old account you will re-gain access to everything again, or at least I did last time - so you may not want to burn that bridge. And anyway you don't want them to give "indieboy" to some factory plant now do you?

frogkopf

One way to find out. Someone look up the user "ihatekennyg" at eMu and tell me if there is still a profile and a MyDownload list for it.

This was a user that I created with one of the cheap Mp3 player/180 download dealios that Circuit City was clearing out for $15 a few years ago. The membership expired about 2 years ago. if it's still there, eMu isn't deleting old accounts.

(I can't do it because I don't have any active accounts)

mommio

Yes, froggie, it's still there, downloads list, too.

frogkopf

Thanks!

There you have it. Emu said a few years back that they would nuke old member profiles after 6 months, but it appears that aren't going through with that threat.

thomnottom

I was being somewhat facetious in my claim. I know they haven't nuked any of my old accounts. I only had 2 before this year - my regular long term and one that was for... overseas purchases. I re-opened my second account with no problem a good year or 2 after killing it. Everything was still there - I even re-downloaded a couple albums that had been lost.

Sort

Here's my further take on this, sidestepping the nuclear attacks on old emu accounts, is that a CD is not that different from a book. I stopped buying books almost completely, including new releases. A book is meant to be consumed once for most folks. When I get a book at the library, that writer or publisher isn't getting any money from me, and worst still, writers don't do concerts. Nobody is browbeating libraries for providing current releases. If I copy a CD, chances are extremely good that I will listen to it - if I really dig it - three or four times in the next year, and then most likely less each year until maybe once every two to four years. So I'm cool with copying it for now. For me it's not about ownership - I never share my music and I certainly don't brag or show off what music is in it. I'll listen to the copy five or six times in my life on average and if I love it, I'll go to concerts or buy more of their music.

And wait a minute. I came into eMu existence post Circuit City cards. That's a whole other level of crack. 180 for fifteen dollars? Is that right?

I missed out. I had some great fun the Best Buy 100.

cafreema

Okay, here's my full view on the library thing. Remember, while I am an attorney in my real life, nothing I say here is legal advice and no one who reads it is a client of mine.

Anyway, I see it this way, violating a copyright is by sharing said copyright with others. I am unaware of any decisions that say simple possession of copyrighted material can be a violation (that doesn't necessarily mean said decisions aren't out there somewhere, I'm just unaware of them if they are). This is why the RIAA only went after those who were making their files available for others. Accordingly, if they believe that getting CDs from the library is illegal, it is the library they have a beef with (as well as used book/cd sellers, garage sales, etc.). Even the RIAA isn't stupid enough to go after public libraries.

Craig

Dr. Mutex

In the US, the Home Recording Act guarantees your right to copy for your own use any recordings you acquire by legal means, and do so until your CD drive wears out*. It says nothing about whether you own it, or whether you keep it. This is part of what we got in exchange for destroying the consumer DAT recorder as a piece of usable audio gear, as well as a surcharge on blank audio tape and blank Music CD-R's. In retrospect, I think We The People made a good deal.

*replace drive, lather, rinse, repeat.

edit: I'm not your lawyer either. I don't even play one on TV.

thomnottom

IANAL, but the HRA does not seem to apply to CD drives and computers. The surcharge for royalties was only ever placed on DAT and certain other related digital media. CD-Rs, CD burners and hard drives are generally exempt because they are not "primarily for audio recording". MP3 players are exempt as long as they rely on another device to make those recordings. However these exemptions only seem to mean that they do not require DRM and do not have to include the royalty surcharge, not that it's OK to make personal copies with them.

Doofy

In the wake of this discussion, I was innerested to note that my local liberry has a big old sign by the copy machines warning about copyrighted materials, and how they will shut you down if perceive you to be violating copyright. No details on what constitutes a violation...you would think that a very high percentage of people using those machines are copying copyrighted materials, however.

Meanwhile, there is not a word or warning about duping music, and indeed I regularly see people ripping big old piles of CDs onto their laptops. (Those CD drives will rattle when ripping scratched-up library CDs, too!) Anyway, interesting that the level of concern about printed materials differs from that about recorded materials. One might speculate that there's a difference in perceived legal risk.

amclark2

There's also a significant difference in practicality between books and music - there are not many books that would be cheaper to copy at $.10 per page than to just buy, not to mention the effort involved - maybe kids books I guess but not much else.

Bad Thoughts

there are not many books that would be cheaper to copy at $.10 per page than to just buy, not to mention the effort involved

You never used a digital camera in a library before, did you? To me it's a g-dsend: I don't have to check out fifty heavy books, and I can take archival material with me to the bar/cafe/anyplace other than the stuffy archive.

amclark2

I like actual books. It makes me wonder if the music industry wouldn't be doing better if they had stuck to a more likeable physical format like records or tapes. In fact, what if all the major record labels switched back to selling only records and tapes? That would seriously cut back on piracy.

thomnottom

LPs have continued to be a popular format for the past decade or so, with lots of indie bands still releasing EPs and singles that way (albums, too). Cassettes have also become somewhat popular thanks to bullshit hipster aesthetics. Honestly, I don't understand how tapes are even remotely likeable by anyone (aside from ye olde mixtapes).

kargatron

A few thoughts:
- It's a mistake to conflate legality and ethics - the former ideally focuses on the latter, but in practice often diverges significantly. Ethics should predominantly concern itself with identifying harm done - the law is often quite arbitrary about that issue.

- Personally, I don't consider libraries particularly ethical regarding usage compensation for IP. I think of these issues in personal terms of "purchase substitution" - how much of my access is the result of substituting compensatory purchases with (for example) library access (or borrowing, or free downloading, etc). In terms of books, I (imo unethically) indulge in LOTS of purchase substitution with my library borrowing. Yes, there are lots of pro- arguments for libraries in social contexts, but I'm referring to my personal use. Without libraries, I would be spending a lot more money on books then I do, and reading fewer of them. That "fact" leads me to consider my own use of library content as unethical.

I view borrowing a cd from the library in the same light. And copying the library cd is to me that much more obviously unethical.

In general, I think libraries should pay per-rental fees to the IP owners. That strikes me as much more equitable than current (American) situations. And yes, that would increase library costs.

Of course, how unethical is the next question. Harm isn't a binary condition: a little harm is a little unethical, a lot of harm is a lot unethical.

mommio

Without libraries, I would be spending a lot more money on books then I do, and reading fewer of them.

It's just the opposite for me. My book collection is overwhelming, and I am slowly purging. I have a hard time letting books go. I just could not justify spending more money on them, plus there was no more room for them in the house. They are piled too high already. So, the library has become a lifesaver for me. Gotta have my regular book fix! I also check the "ordered" list and put in a request for new titles I would like to read. Sometimes I have been one of the early ones, sometimes I have been way down the list, but the book eventually arrives.

I really haven't paid any attention to the library's CD collection. I have more music than I have time for listening, and this is another area where I have cut back on spending.

Way back in my apartment days, I checked out art to decorate the walls of my apartments. I don't even know if our Main has the art collections these days. I do know my branch does not. It's pretty darned hard for the average person to copy a nice art print. ;-)

Katrina

I love you all, have I said that lately? I read allofit, and if I left you out of the credits, don't despair.

elwoodiciousCommentTime7 days ago edit delete
[insert obligatory fuck the RIAA comment here]

But you don't share this ad with anyone else? Nice. Keeping free credits all to yourself is definitely not ethical.



I'm kind of tired of deciding what's right/wrong when the whole system is completely fucked.


I do the occasion rip of Library CDs or get the odd album from a friend, and don't have any qualms about it, since I pay for about 99% of the music I consume


In the US, the Home Recording Act guarantees your right to copy for your own use any recordings you acquire by legal means

IANAL - yes, I'm anal too....erm, what does IANAL mean>?

kargatron - It's a mistake to conflate legality and ethics - I adore your whole post on this. and will be tinking or thinking about it the next few days

mommio - Way back in my apartment days, I checked out art to decorate the walls of my
You and I are lucky enough to have lived in places that did this!

Katrina

hoosfoos, yeah, what's that got to do with the love going on here? Your post was some bad karma. Becasue you're jealous you didn't pass the bar or something...for goodness' sakes. explain your comment so I can give you the love again. it just seemed mean. I'm trying to turn this into love....so I' thinking I'm at a concert and