Copyright Violation

Why is it legal for Circuit city to do this, but not for me? :question:

A question soon to be asked in a courtroom near you, no doubt.

"transfer must be made from an original copy of your DVD collection"

ha ha ha . . . some poor fool thought that would actually make a difference!

They actually expect people to pay $10 for one copy? :crazy:

Might as well buy another copy from the store...aaaahhhhhh, I see

Key word is transfer, not backup (or duplicate or copy). I bet there are plenty who don't know how to get a DVD video on their video capable iPod.

Jebediah wrote:

Key word is transfer, not backup (or duplicate or copy).

You'd think that would be a key word. But the AAs have issued statements on both sides of that distinction.

The way I understand it is that it works like this. If you buy a "song", you can transfer that song onto any and all other media. If you transfer ownership of the original medium to someone else, you must destroy ALL copies that you made, in ALL media. So, I can buy the vinyl, copy it onto a cassette, reel-to-reel, and into my comuter, and burn a CD and put it onto my MP3 player - but if I seel the vinyl, I have to erase or destroy all the other copies I have.

This old article is all I could find, quickly, that supports my understanding.

"It's perfectly legal for you to make copies of your own music for your own personal use," says Robin Gross, EFF's staff intellectual-property attorney. "It's called 'fair use.' It's your legal right to do so, even if the copyright holder doesn't want you to."

So if you want to take all your Radiohead albums, rip selected tracks from each of them, and burn a mix CD for your own use, there's nothing wrong with doing so.

But when you make a mix CD for someone else, or create a CD from music downloaded from a source such as Napster, things get tricky.

If you were to pass your Radiohead mix CD along to a friend, fair use becomes debatable. If listening to a track on that mix CD inspires the friend to run right out and buy a copy of Amnesiac, then you might have a case for it being a fair use of the material, according to the EFF. Not so fast, the RIAA counters; that Radiohead CD is legal only if you also hand over to your friend all the legally purchased Radiohead CDs you used to burn it.

Well put, Spexx.

Does anyone else think it's an odd business tactic to sue the crap out of your customer base?

Au Contraire, my guess is that the MPAA will also go this route....


as a side note......

most of the most popular p2p sites/networks target by the RIAA had a substanstial body of work *not* covered by RIAA copywrite.

headsplice wrote:

Does anyone else think it's an odd business tactic to sue the crap out of your customer base?

It works. I was just reading about this. They are getting a positive cash flow from their legal department. They file so many of these lawsuits that they have figured out the boilerplate forms and strategies to use. There's an economy of scale that their adversaries don't have. If you are sued by them, it's cheaper to settle than to defend yourself, even if you are certain to win. So most people settle. They are making money at this. In fact, as record and CD sales decline, this may be the only business model they will have left.

They're nothing but a bunch of goddamn extortionists. :mad:

If I'm a musician, how the hell is the guy who downloads my song for free my "customer base"? That's a red herring if ever I've heard one. He doesn't become my "customer base" until and unless he actually pays me for something. You know. Like a customer does.

Depends on what the return is. If 100 people know your music and 50 of them buy you've sold 50 copies. If it gets out on P2P and 500 people here it and you get 51 sales... What I'm saying is there are a lot of bands who want their stuff to be heard; a certain % will buy if they like.

huzzah for those bands. that still doesn't make the guy who downloads it for free my customer.

Does it if they buy your music? What if they buy it a few years later?

Back on topic... I think there would be problems if they medium was the same. DVD to DVD blank for instance. DVD -> iPod is probably legal enough.

Jebediah wrote:

DVD -> iPod is probably legal enough.

Yes, but the people doing the suing can't even make up their mind about that... They've come out on both sides of the issue.

smoothmoniker wrote:

If I'm a musician, how the hell is the guy who downloads my song for free my "customer base"? That's a red herring if ever I've heard one. He doesn't become my "customer base" until and unless he actually pays me for something. You know. Like a customer does.

But you're not doing the suing. The RIAA is suing, on behalf of/representing,
the music business, isn't it? And aren't they suing the people who buy music, ie, customer base?

Are you saying they don't sue people that ever buy music?
Or people that buy music never copy their buddies disc?

My objection is they have huge war chests and legal staffs that steamroller over everybody in their sights, just because they can. I never will approve of "let God sort 'em out".

Then they want the power to destroy my PC if they suspect I have pirated music. There would have to be a payback for that.... just couldn't let that slide. :headshake

Flint wrote:

Yes, but the people doing the suing can't even make up their mind about that... They've come out on both sides of the issue.

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

Jebediah wrote:

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

Actually, it's probably like those disclaimers on photograph and document copying machines that place the responsiblity on the users to insure that it is legal for them to be copying the item.

Jebediah wrote:

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

My point is that the AAs, the ones doing the suing, can't give a straight answer as to whether transfering a DVD to your iPod is something they think is okay or not. Meaning: at their discretion, they could decide to sue over this or not. It's up to circuit City is they want to skate on this thin ice or not, but the AAs have made it clear that pretty much anything you do, no matter how harmless, is fair game to them, in the face of all common sense.

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

Would that be entrapment or enabling by Circuit City? I guess the moral is to do your copying in private (or at worst find the local nerd and pay him / her to do it).

I don't use purchased cds in my car or walkman... I only use copies of cds I have purchased.
If a cd has copy blocking software on it I will not buy it, that artist does not want my money.

richlevy wrote:

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth :).

I too have heard that.

smoothmoniker wrote:

huzzah for those bands. that still doesn't make the guy who downloads it for free my customer.

Nor the guy who buys or leases it. That guy is the recording company's customer. And when the record company decides to stop selling it, as they eventually do with 95% of material, there won't be any customers at all because it won't be available at any price.

melidasaur wrote:

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth :).

It is probably more 'first sale' than 'fair use'.

BTW, read the Wikipedia on 'first sale', it has this little gem.

Microsoft was countersued in Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504) for violating the Clayton Act. In Microsoft v. Zamos, after unsuccessfully trying to return legally acquired unopened copies of Microsoft Software purchased at a student bookstore, as specified in the Microsoft EULA, Zamos sold the software on EBay for a profit of $140.00 . Microsoft investigators sent a message to Zamos, through eBay's website, asking whether the disk containing the software included the phrase "not for retail or OEM distribution." Zamos confirmed by return email the same day that the disk did include the phrase. Microsoft then sued Zamos claiming that "Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained... Defendant's acts of copyright infringement have caused Microsoft irreparable injury." and sought legal fees and the profit from the sale.
Zamos responded on Jan 3, 2005 by countersuing Microsoft with Clayton Act charges and further charged that, "Microsoft purposely established and maintained a sales and distribution system whereby rightful rejection and return of merchandise that is substantially non-conforming is either impossible or practically impossible due to the ineptness of its employees, unconscionable policies, malicious intent and deceptive practices," thus engaging in fraud and violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act.
Microsoft offered to drop the case when local Ohio papers carried the story. Zamos however refused to drop the case until Microsoft apologized and paid for the cost of copies of legal documents at the local copy shop. In March 2005, Microsoft and Zamos agreed to a settlement, which included a non-disclosure agreement with regards to the settlement terms.

Way to go Mr. Zamos!:thumb:

edited:
Here's a better link to the Zamos story.

To this day, Zamos's greatest critic remains his girlfriend. "She thinks it's wrong to sue anyone ever, and that I should have just gotten out of it as fast as possible, but I have a different view of the legal system," he says. "I think it's the only real way to effect any change. There are a lot of problems with this country, but at least I can defend myself in a court of law, which is saying a lot."
Zamos ponders what would have happened if he hadn't put up a fight. "I would have just declared bankruptcy, gone to grad school, and moved in with my girlfriend, like I was planning on anyway," he says.
When asked if he'd ever consider being a lawyer, Zamos answers, "Are you kidding? I hate this stuff!"
He plans to go into pharmaceutical research.