Redbook Keeps Surprising

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.

When you examine copying through that lens, it's easier to understand the limitations allowed on the copying and sharing of material.

Both CD and SACD formats are outstanding! Happy Listening!

*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.