Redbook Keeps Surprising
TEchnical descriptions are a tool to help determine what interests you. After all, you have to choose what to try based on something. I know I cannot try everything no matter how much I might like to. After that though, yes you gotta just trust yours ears to determine if chosen product is truly for you or not. |
Jon, I must agree wholeheartedly. "you know who you are" needs serious professional help coupled with serious medicine (spoon fed so he doesn't inadvertently swallow the "wrong end" of the pill and thereby dramatically reduce the benefit. It's sad when someone behaves in a way that they would spend most of their time standing in a corner facing the wall. I think it's in about grade 3 when children are taught not to interrupt and to stay on the topic. Cheers to all-except you know who :) |
So, let's see if I have this right ... If I burn a copy of a CD that I own to play in my car for personal enjoyment, I'm okay as far as "the law" is concerned. But ... If I play the burned CD in my car for awhile, then give it to a friend at no charge, just as a gift, then I'm an "unethical" person? If I have an expensive bicycle that I replace with a new one, and I give my old bicycle to a valued friend at no cost, am I then somehow "cheating" the manufacturer of the old bicycle out of a sale? How about if I sell my old bicycle to a private party ... does that make me an "unethical person?" I like the philosophy of The Grateful Dead ... "Once out into the air, it is no longer ours, it belongs to our fans." They even allowed private recordings to be taken at their live concerts. That's why we have so many Grateful Dead bootlegs. My take? If I buy a new CD, the musician makes money. The CD at that point is my personal property. It no longer is the property of the musician or the studio that produced it. It is mine to do with what I want. The musician doesn't deserve to make money in perpetuity on resale, after resale, after resale of the same CD. No more than the bicycle manufacturer deserves to make money from subsequent resale of used bicycles. There are just too damned many attorneys who are desperate for work out there ... and they are grinding the country to a halt with their rules and regulations. Enough is enough ... OP |
^^^ And by the way, Redbook CD's can sound fantastic when played back through a highly resolving system. One key is to find the recordings that were done by a recording engineer who kept his hands off of the control panel knobs and has left the reverb dial alone ... and just lets the natural sound of the recording come through. Those are the CD's that sound terrific. So, what are we supposed to do to remain "ethical?" Are we supposed to buy fifty crappy sounding CD's until we find one that's worth keeping? And what is the "ethical" thing to do with the crappy sounding ones? Would that be to just throw them in the trash? Would it be to just accept the crappy sounding ones and learn to live with them? I submit that the unethical ones are those who own the studios that produce crappy sounding digital recordings and then gouge the public for an inferior product. They have become their own worst enemy. Let's get it straight ... Most of the studios today are run by a bunch of bean counters who couldn't care less about the end user. For them, its all about the money, and nothing else. OP |
Hi bsmith, In my system, it’s just the opposite. The ripped cd file sounds better than the cd spinning in the super heavy transport of my old Esoteric K-01. Many others in audioland have also found ripped files to sound better than cd’s. To be fair, I have also upgraded to the new generation Esoteric N-05 dac/network player. The usb implementation in the N-05 is miles ahead of the K-01. New digital gets cheaper and better in doing wonders for redbook. When I switch to hi-res files, the difference isn’t that dramatic. My entire redbook collection now sounds better than ever and the good recordings sound as good as hi-res. Jon. :) (Ptss, we can only hope YKWYA doesn’t come forth to tell us what I already know about the chip residing in the Esoteric N-05) |
bsmith I’m with you on this bbsmith, playing the original cd always to me sounds more "wholesome, natural and sweeter" compared to a ripped or even downloaded ones, which to me sound a bit "hifi" and a bit in your face, which can to me at first give the wrong impression of better dynamics. But it’s a forced squeezed in your face type of dynamic and not enveloping easy following "bigness of body" type of dynamic that the cd gives, maybe all the added conversions of the ripped/downloaded ones have more jitter involved, who knows? Cheers George
|
My cd player is a Vitus SCD-025Mk2 rbcd player. It employs a heavily modified Phllips Pro 2LF transport, modular design, 4 x custom-made UI-core psu's and uses sample rate conversion to minimize jitter via a new Q8 stereo-synchro upsampler from EngineeRED (formerly Anagram Technologies) which accepts pcm signal from 32 up to 384 kHz with 8 x oversampling
(using true extrapolation like the Soulution 745), and accepts DSD64/128
via its asynchronous USB board. It delivers a 24/384 kHz pcm signal that drives 2 x
mono ADI1955 d/a converters. The output stages are taken from the SL-102 Mk2 preamp. Vitus design and build their own master clock in-house. This player also has wide bandwidth (to beyond 2.5MHz). The design in Hans Ole Vitus's hands is very well executed. It is very resolving, yet smooth and non-digital at the same time. In fact it is the most analogue-sounding cd player i've heard. Bad recordings still suck mind you, but they suck a lot less on this player compared to most ss rbcd players. After hearing some great rbcd's on this player such as the Marten Supreme Sessions, XRCD24's & DXD's, I don't pane for SACD. Yup, RBCD keeps surprising.. |
One more time, and let's see if I can make this clear. One can do what one wants with the original recording. One can play it (but not in public), resell it, give it away, throw it away or rip it *for one's own personal use*. The one thing one can not do is keep the ripped copy of a CD or a track and then dispose of the original, or vice versa. It's neither legal or ethical to make copies of a CD, Redbook or otherwise (think "Enhanced" CDs), and sell them or give them away. Likewise. it's neither legal or ethical to make any kind of a copy of a recording and then sell or give away the original. Possession of the original is one's license for "fair-use" of the copy. If one doesn't have the original, one can't have a copy, no matter how one came by it. It's not at all like selling or giving away a used bicycle. You haven't duplicated the bike. If one starts exactly duplicating the bike, and potentially violating associated patents and trademarks, and then giving away or selling the duplicates of the bike, you'll then have a similar situation, and a potential legal problem. It's the same with recordings. It is absolutely illegal and unethical to give away that burned duplicate of a CD. Playing the duplicate in your car makes no difference. You don't own the music on that duplicate CD to give away. The Grateful Dead can do what they want, but most people in the music industry aren't in the position or of the disposition to be so generous. Copyright law can be bizarrely complex, and highly lawyered. But the basics are pretty straightforward, and fair to all. BTW, whether or not a ripped copy of a CD sounds better/different/worse than the original will certainly have much to do with the format it's ripped to and then what hardware is used for playback. An mp3, especially at a low bit rate, played through some cheap USB arrangement won't sound nearly as good as a WAV file that is an exact duplicate of the original and then played through a high-end system. |
bsmith 6-26-2016 5:15 pmIf the software used for ripping (and the settings of that software that were used) assures that the file is a bit-perfect copy, and if playback in both cases uses identical hardware (i.e., the CD and the ripped file are played back from the same computer or other device), one possibility is that the difference is due to differences in computer-generated electrical noise that is riding on the signal provided to the DAC (whether that DAC is internal or external to the computer), resulting in differences in jitter. Of course if the rip is not done in a manner that assures bit-perfect quality, or if the playback hardware is different in the two cases, anything is possible. Regarding the copyright law issues that have been discussed, LP2CD has provided outstanding answers IMO. With regard to the bicycle analogy, another way to look at it is that both the new bike and the one that is given away (and used by someone else) have been purchased and paid for. That is not the case, of course, when a CD is ripped and then given away. Regards, -- Al |
@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. |
Hi Dave, Hopefully LP2CD will provide the more specific reference you requested (which I am not in a position to readily do), but I see it this way: If the CD is ripped and the copy is given away or sold (either case being clearly illegal as stated in the RIAA reference you provided), one user has an original that has been paid for and another user has a copy that has not been paid for (from the perspective of the copyright holder, at least). The same holds true if it is the original and not the copy that is given away or sold. Why should it make any difference which user has the copy and which user has the original? Best regards, -- Al |
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. |
dgarretson 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. The RIAA obviously has an interest in this matter, but it is not an arbiter of copyright law. What's often misunderstood about US copyright law is that it isn't really based on assuring revenue for content creators. It's actually based on artists being able to control distribution of their work. The revenue then flows from that control. |
*Sigh* As I've already noted, copyright law gets weedy and complex, fast. I'm not a lawyer and others seem willing to wade into it deeper. More power to them. In short, if one disposes of a commercial CD in such a manner that some else can own it and copy it, then one should also delete any copies of that CD one has made for themselves, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT IS FAIR TO THE MUSICIANS et al. The musicians deserve to be paid and make a living rather than being ripped, ahem, off. Likewise, don't be giving away (or selling!) copies. Simple. And if I've managed to guilt-trip someone, good. Someone suggested giving the original CDs to the library. Fine, do so, but you still have to delete your rips. And it's a good bet that the library will not circulate the donated CDs. If they accept them at all, they'll sell them. Libraries are a whole different world of copyright. E. g. much of the time, libraries have to pay *substantially more* than the retail price of a book for circulation to make up in part the potential loss of sales of that book. Think about it a bit and it makes sense. One of the unfortunate consequences of the internet, and digital technology, is people these days seem to think everything ought to be free. Didn't work that way so much with LPs. |
So how is a large retailer of used CDs, LPs and DVDs able to buy from me the originals I have purchased new and then stock them for direct resale to someone else? I don't see them contacting labels and artists to provide them royalties. In this way, many people are entertained by only one original purchase. This must be unethical, if not a violation of royalty rights. I have purchased a lot of used CDs and movies, too. Are these retailers paying into some large royalty pool that is paid out to artists or studios? |
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. |
Thank you dgarretson, and exactly. As I have said repeatedly, one can dispose of the original recording however one sees fit. One mustn't, however, retain, or worse sell or give away, *copies* of copyrighted recordings. Retailers, or libraries, or others selling "preowned" CDs operate under the assumption that copyright restrictions on copying have been observed. The reality, of course, may be less than perfectly compliant, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. And certainly one shouldn't congratulate one's self for shorting the composer/performer/musician/et al. BTW, if anyone is interested in how to effectively and cost-efficiently shelve 1000's of Redbook or otherwise CDs, I have some good suggestions (I think...) based on my own experience. |
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. |
I wish the record labels worried as much about sharing the profits with the artists (and for dead artists, their estates & families) FAIRLY themselves and in proportion to the artists’ actual contributions versus the record label’s, to the same extent as we are worrying about what are essentially and primarily the record label’s and retailers profit-making rights on this thread. Bear in mind, I am not intending to start a flame war..... *****I just wonder if anyone has stopped to think whether or not some dead (or still living) jazz artist/group and their families are seeing extensive and meaningful multiples of real royalty percentages proportional to the talent required to make the music as label after label comes out with the latest LP pressings in various weights and packaging, various CD, XRCD, SACD, DVD-A, BluRay DVD, etc...and so on and so forth. For example, I have multiple different releases of Miles Davis, Freddie Hubbard and other dead jazz artists in various formats and releases. I have paid new for every one of them from 1st-run retailers/labels so I’ve done my part and ’obeyed the law’. *****Do Miles’ or Freddie’s families (or foundations) really see the amount of money they should based upon Miles’ and Freddie’s actual creation of the music from the record label and retailer or is the bulk of the money from the ’latest and greatest pressing or remaster’ really nothing more but a great annuity business and profit opportunity for those record labels and retailers time and time again based upon a one-time licensing of the ’use of the master tape’????? Don’t get me wrong,..I’m grateful for every ’better’ edition of albums I love, hitting the streets and if I buy them, my shelves. I’m grateful for the continuous innovation and improvement however, I see this "mill mentality" where everybody and their mother is putting out copies of ’the great albums’ at no small price (that only seem to be going up...); I’d be willing to better that Miles’ and Freddie’s families (and everyone alive or dead like them) only see a pittance by comparison to what they, the reasons the music exists in the first place, deserve. If we want to worry about something meaningful, let’s worry about that first, and less about what is really record company/retailer profit opportunity protection veiled by some legal issue. More calmly,...if I buy an CD, LP, SACD, Movies on DVD or BluRay, etc.. pay full price and thus abide by the law, play it, enjoy it, and decide to make a copy of it to retain (on hard-drive, etc.. which I very rarely if ever do in the first place) then sell it or give it away, what’s truly wrong with that? |
I had a Sony CDP-101 in 1984. After this I bought a Phillips CD player and later a Sony external PCM device which converted my SONY betamax video player into a PCM audio recorder. I bought an Onkyo CD player after this and later a Nakamichi and still later a Pioneer with the stable platter. Now I own a Rega Apollo and an older Sony ES player. I run the Apollo into a Schiit DAC and the Sony into a Benchmark DAC. I just play CDS and listen. If it sounds natural, I like it. Some CDs sound like crap, especially the early ones from the 80s and 90s. I do think the guys at Schiit audio make very good DACS that are up-gradable. That is a plus. I don't concern myself with PCM or ladder style DACs or multibit. That makes me feel like a gearhead tech lover and I am a music lover. If it sounds good to my ears.... great! |
zephyr24069 ... if I buy an CD, LP, SACD, Movies on DVD or BluRay, etc.. pay full price and thus abide by the law, play it, enjoy it, and decide to make a copy of it to retain (on hard-drive, etc.. which I very rarely if ever do in the first place) then sell it or give it away, what’s truly wrong with that? It's a copyright violation, that's what's wrong, because you can't profit from someone else's copyright. Whether that troubles you enough to avoid the practice is another question. |
Is there a moderator we can reach out to? Pretty clear that a warning is far overdue. Why on earth would any of you ditch your physical discs? You might need a back-up. Further, it's fairly obvious that ripping and selling is wrong. As for redbook, well, the sound quality will depend not only on the DAC but on the mastering work (same goes for hi-res PCM or DSD). Those who are seriously interested should join the Steve Hoffman forum and search for threads discussing specific albums. |
Cleeds/others who know the law: One other serious question,...consider this scenario; I buy a disc from a regular retail source, pay the prescribed market price, listen to it, don't rip it or save it in any way and then grow tired of it, and give it to a friend/donating it; is that a violation of copyright law as well? Asking this as I've had the thought of leaving my entire setup and collection to my son but on the chance that when I leave this earth, he either accepts it full-on or if he doesn't want the hassle of what is now over 10,000 discs, I may ask him to donate it to a music library at a college that I favor but I do not want my estate in violation of copyright law. I would think a lot of audiophiles with LP or CD/SACD/etc...collections would have similar thoughts (about family members at least). One other side note; I mentioned the pictures of my system/collection; the shelf photos were taken in early July 2014; if you stop over today, you'd see there is alot more added and none subtracted (and much sitting on the floor in need of shelves). Not bragging, only further supporting the comment that I do in fact 'avoid the practice' as mentioned below. dh901: if your comment about needing a moderator to issue a warning is directed in some way at me, let me know what your issue is, if one still remains and we'll deal with it. |
To the original topic,...RBCD does keep surprising both in terms of RBCD traditional formats that are on the market as well as what I would consider RB variants/offshoots like XRCD, XRCD2 and XRCD24. There are some phenomenal discs on my shelves (Cafe Blue from Barber is indeed among them) as are various Shelby Lynn and Melody Gardot discus and myriad others of all sorts of musical styles that amaze me daily as to how they sound. Part of it is the front-end i have is known for extracting every bit of detail there is precisely from the disc and the downstream system/cabling is chosen for its overall musical effect however, there is no mistaking that the quality of RBCD format pressings and the mastering that goes into them from many labels such as Venus Records, Stockfisch Records and many others has gone off the charts compared to ten, twenty and thirty years ago. The format and peoples' creations for it have finally (IMHO) become audiophile-grade over the last few years.... |
zephyr24069 " ...consider this scenario; I buy a disc from a regular retail source, pay the prescribed market price, listen to it, don't rip it or save it in any way and then grow tired of it, and give it to a friend/donating it; is that a violation of copyright law as well?" No, that would be perfectly legal. If the disc became a collector's item and you sold it for substantially more than you paid for it, that sale would be legal, too ... as long as you didn't retain a copy for your use. |
... consider this scenario; I buy a disc from a regular retail source, pay the prescribed market price, listen to it, don't rip it or save it in any way and then grow tired of it, and give it to a friend/donating it; is that a violation of copyright law as well? ... can I assume the same would apply to (after my death and therefore no longer using my discs) giving it all to my son or if he does not want it, to a music library as a donation?Cleeds is correct. Simply put, copyright law imposes restrictions on copying. If there is no copying, there is no violation. Regards, -- Al |
Okay ... I like to make cassette copies of some of my favorite vinyl LP's and play them in my car ... especially on road trips. Am I violating copyright law in this instance? What if I make a cassette copy of an LP and give it to a friend? Or, how about if I rip an LP to a CD disc, then play the CD in my car ... or give the CD to a friend? Is that against the law too? In fact, just this morning I ripped two LPs to one CD disc ... a mono copy of a Woody Herman LP, long out of print, and a mono copy of a Tony Scott LP, also long out of print. Then, I ripped the copied CD to another CD ... now there's one CD for my car and one CD for a friend who requested it after hearing both LP's on my system last night. Thousands of used CD's are sold on Ebay and Amazon each week, so that must be legal it seems. There are thousands of CD recorders sold ... I have the home version of the Tascam Pro made by TEAC. If its illegal to make a copy of a music CD ... why are Tascam and TEAC in business? I have installed a good program on my PC that makes excellent copies of CD's. Why is that software maker and the computer maker still in business? While I have purchased countless numbers of used CDs via Ebay, from thrift stores and garage sales, I have never sold a copy to anyone. I am not in the recording resale business. Ethics? Um ... how many posting here remember when CD's first came out? Remember when all of the vinyl was stripped from the record store shelves almost over night and everything was replaced by CD's at $18.99 a pop for terrible sounding digital recordings? No violations of ethics by leaving the consumer with no choice other than to pay exorbitant prices for a lousy product, eh? Ethics? How may posting here are sick and tired of buying full price CD's, only to get them home to find that they are drenched in digital reverb, have screechy strings and are pretty much unlistenable ... unless one finds running dental floss through one's ears enjoyable? Ethics? Okay, so I guess in order to really be on the up and up, I'll have to start telling my friends to go pay collector prices for the out of print stuff and just forget me making any copies for them of the absolutely unattainable stuff too. Oh, and no more copies for the car either. Crapolla, we certainly live in a complicated, over-regulated statist world, do we not? I think I'm getting old. OP |
oregonpapa " ... I like to make cassette copies of some of my favorite vinyl LP’s and play them in my car ... especially on road trips. Am I violating copyright law in this instance?" This is not nearly so complicated as some here seem to want to make it. For your own personal use, you can make copies of copyrighted material that you own. You cannot distribute those copies, regardless of whether you charge a fee for them, or whether you give them away. @oreganpapa you still make cassettes???? You have a car that has a cassette player? That’s downright quaint! |
Cleeds ... Yes, I have a low mileage 2005 (just turned 64,000) Lexus LS 400 that has a Mark Levinson sound system in it. You should hear how it sounds when a really clean vinyl record is recorded onto cassette and then played back on a good car system like the Mark Levinson. Nothing "quaint" about it really. Nostalgic maybe, but not quaint. Just as a point of interest, I have a cassette recording of a live broadcast of a piano/cello duo that I recorded off of my FM tuner years ago. That darned recording sounds like the cello is in the car. No joke. |
It is legal to copy any music to a tape since tape manufacturers pay royalties per foot of the tape. Same is the case when you copy to "Music CDR", that is slightly more expansive (because of royalties) than plain CDR. As for copy vs original sound - copy might sound better since ripping software can read the same sector multiple times. CDP cannot do this, working in real time. Samples under scratches (along the track) will be: <4mm will be auto corrected, 4-8mm interpolated, >8mm lost. CDP might change the sound by interpolating a lot of samples on scratched CD. By ripping you can "refresh" scratched CDs. On the other hand CDR and CD might behave differently in CDP (different reflection) while computer servers might introduce jitter. |
oregonpapa " ... I have a low mileage 2005 (just turned 64,000) Lexus LS 400 that has a Mark Levinson sound system in it." Very cool! That car is only barely broken in! "You should hear how it sounds when a really clean vinyl record is recorded onto cassette and then played back on a good car system like the Mark Levinson. Nothing "quaint" about it really. Nostalgic maybe, but not quaint. I can imagine that it sounds fantastic. In the cassette era, I had various high end car cassette decks in my cars, and they sounded great. A standout was the Nakamichi TD-700. That was a terrific unit. @oreganpapa, I didn’t intend for my "quaint" remark to be derogatory. I’m sorry if you took it that way. But recording cassette tapes from vinyl - which I’m sure was once common for many of us - now just seems ... quaint. But that’s a nice thing! |
kijank It is legal to copy any music to a tape since tape manufacturers pay royalties per foot of the tape.I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Yes, there is a small royalty fee paid by manufacturers for each CD-R they sell, but there is no such fee on tape. Again, for legitimate copyrighted material that you own (CD, LP, whatever) it is legal to make copies of that content for personal use. It's permitted under "fair use." |
I’m still not clear on the copyright. If CD-R (or Music CD-R) is intended for personal backup only then there is no need for any royalties, since I paid them once buying CD. If small royalties are paid per CDR than copying friend’s CD should be considered legal. Non-commercial sharing between friends or family was considered in 1989 a "Home use" and was legal according to government. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_2/DATA/1989/8910.PDF page 5, right column: Legal Status of Home Copying as Private Use-In this report, OTA defines “home copying” (of copyrighted materials) as an essentially private, noncommercial activity, so that “home copies” includes copies shared with or given to friends, but not homemade copies that are bought or sold. This definition is consistent with the definition of private use in the 1986 OTA report on intellectual property.One can argue, that only fraction of royalties were paid on CD-R, but remember that most of people use CD-Rs for the other purpose, including data, or personal backup, where royalties are not necessary - more than making up for the difference. It can also be argued, that stores loose business when people copy CDs, but furniture stores also loose business when people make their own furniture. People who produced media (CD-Rs) and artists were paid - no harm done? Here is the list of the media levy in different countries, including US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy |
