Hi Al, that seems logical. However, with respect to infringement the law may be more concerned with quantifying real rather than theoretical damages to the copyrighter. Clearly, there are greater damages associated with large scale selling or sharing of digital copies than with the resale of a single original CD at the retail level. Some lawyers on the blogs make other distinctions, such as contrasting the resale of an old out-of-print CD original to the purchase new CDs acquired expressly for the purpose of duplication and resale. The former resale may actually benefit the artist, as re-sale in the secondary market may stimulate renewed interest in their work. The issues of the passage of time, the seller's intention and degree of commercial interest are all variables. In the final analysis this particular issue is a nit for the industry and should be as well for us. Every point made by the RIAA regarding prohibitions against copying for commercial purposes is expressly in the context of reselling digital duplications.
Redbook Keeps Surprising
I was a Best Buy to get a memory card reader for my computer. Looked at the CDs and saw a few in the bargain bin that I would like to have, only a few dollars. Came home, ripped them with DB power amp, picked the best cover art. Transferred to my Aurender through the NAS and played away. WOW, impressive sound and I really enjoyed them both. I like the High Res downloads and my SACD collection but am often really impressed by good Redbook CD. It really is the music that counts.
Showing 4 responses by dgarretson
@lp2cd Please provide a more specific reference regarding the illegality of disposing-- for profit or otherwise-- of an original CD after making a digital copy for personal use. The RIAA seems to be vague on this point. http://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/ It is clear that it is illegal to sell copies, but I see nothing regarding prohibition on resale of the original-- which is not only protected by fair use, but also by legal transfer of ownership. The issue of reselling an original appears never to have been litigated, and the legal blogs I see on the subject are full of controversy. The Betamax and Groakster cases and a 2013 Supreme Court decision protecting the resale of textbooks seem to be the principal precedents. At this point the resale of an original appears to be legal arcana. |
This clarifies the distinction between copyright and ownership of the material object in which it is embodied: "Copyright Law of the United States of Americaand Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92 § 202 . Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material objectOwnership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object." And the US Supreme Court's 2013 decision on "first sale doctrine": http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/resale-rights-you-bought-own.html Particularly: "Here in the States we have something called the “first sale doctrine.” It simply means that once a tangible copyrighted work (or something with copyright in it) is sold lawfully the first time, the original copyright owner no longer has rights over the physical item. After that, the buyer can do whatever he or she wants with it — sell it again, donate it, whatever. That’s why you can legally hold a yard sale or sell computers on eBay. The resale right applies only to the physical item sold, not copies." That protects the reseller of the original CD and subsequent resale of the material item through commerce. |
lp2cd, "One mustn’t...retain...*copies* of copyrighted recordings." That is precisely where we differ. I see nothing in the law that restricts retaining a fair-use copy for personal use and then disposing of or reselling the original material object. The copyrighted interest in the original material object legally ceases at initial purchase. Fair use allows for a copy or copies for personal use. Subsequent resale of the material object does not retroactively cancel what was formally protected as fair use. However, the sale of the fair use copy or copies of that copy is illegal. What "one mustn’t do" may be a moral decision, but is not in law as far as I can see. Even in a moral sense, I can’t see how it hurts the artist. In college campus parlance, it is at most a "micro-injury." The real damage is done through file sharing and resale of copies, whether in a commercial interest or not. And this is why the RIAA focuses its discussion on duplicates and not on originals. I do agree that you raised an interesting discussion. |