

I bought a CD, not a licensing agreement - onreact-com
http://gcn1.posterous.com/i-bought-a-cd-not-a-licensing-agreement

======
haroldp
Exactly right. You don't have a license to the CD.

If a work has been given a copyright, the government has granted the holder a
temporary, limited monopoly on reproduction of that work. When you buy a CD,
you will almost always see, stamped somewhere on it, (c) Copyright $year,
$holder, All Rights Reserved. This is not strictly necessary, but they just
want to make it clear: No Rights Granted.

The copyright holder has all the rights to the work, and you are granted none
beyond "fair use" rights (quoting small portions for critique, backup, resale,
etc) defined in copyright law. You _specifically_ don't have a license.

~~~
pyre
> _The copyright holder has all the rights to the work, and you are granted
> none beyond "fair use" rights (quoting small portions for critique, backup,
> resale, etc) defined in copyright law._

So how do you work the DMCA in there? It's legal for me to make a backup of a
copyrighted work... but if the copyrighted work is 'protected' then I can
still make a backup copy... but no one is allowed to sell or distribute the
means to make that copy?

Couldn't the argument be made that the copyright holder is actively trying to
take away my fair use rights by using DRM?

~~~
haroldp
Oh, well, the DMCA is bullshit, that's how.

My understanding is that the "backup" of a DVD isn't really illegal. However,
reverse engineering, or circumventing a DVD's copy protection scheme is.
You're guilty of hacking, not copyright violation. IANAL.

~~~
pyre
The 'technicality' is that you're allowed to create a way to circumvent the
DVD's copy protection scheme, but you're not allowed to sell or distribute it.
Therefore, anyone that wants to make a backup of their DVDs has to crack the
DVD copy protection scheme on their own. They can't (legally) get a product to
do it for them.

------
phsr
When will recording companies realize the issues with the current system?

I really wish iTunes operated like Steam. You buy a song, and can download it
as often as you need to. You dont have to worry about deleting/losing your
MP3, because you could just go download it again, no charge.

I commend bands like NIN and Radiohead, where they offered an album for
digital consumption at no cost. In reality, bands make most of their money
from touring anyway

~~~
DanielStraight
Correction, bands which have become popular through radio and CD sales make
most of their money from touring. Most bands with no record sales have no
ticket sales either. And most bands with no record label have no record sales.
You're creating a distinction where none exists. The entirety of an artist's
effort goes toward their income. Whether it's direct or indirect is really not
the point.

Google makes most of their money from ad sales, but if everyone blocked all
ads and only used Google through web scrapers, _no one would buy ads from
Google_. If you rob traffic from Google's page, you are robbing from Google,
_even if they make no money from their page_.

~~~
phsr
In the end, only the popular bands make money anyway. Even if you sign with a
major label, if nobody likes your music, they aren't buying your album, or
your concert tickets.

My point was that a band will make more money on tour because the record label
takes a huge chunk of the albums sale.

The real money is in producing music. :-P

~~~
DanielStraight
Sure, but how many bands that aren't on (and have never been on) a record
label have over a million album sales? Are there any? The simple fact is that
without record labels, most artists would be even more broke than they already
are. It is possible that another model for music marketing and distribution
could be created, but right now, it doesn't exist. Artists need record labels;
record labels need record sales; therefore, artists need record sales.

------
nudded
The copyright law[1] applies to everything that is created which has a
original form and is in itself original (ergo not a copy).

Hence the music you buy is protected by this law.

Hence you can not ask the author to get a spare cd. Since he's not obliged to
give you one. Also everything you want to do with the music is determined by
the law.

[1] i am talking about the law that protects original creations, not the one
where you have to pay for a patent.

~~~
jerf
"Hence you can not ask the author to get a spare cd."

That's not really the question. The question is, now that I have this
scratched CD, why is it wrong for me to hop on a torrent and replace my
scratched bits?

Obligation to produce a new CD would indeed require an actual contract, but
"new CD" is not the same as "replacing my music".

The real problem this exposes is that the law has a concept of "source of the
bits", such that "bits from your CD player" are different from "bits from a
torrent you downloaded", even if they are otherwise identical. Standard
reference to the "color of bits" essay:
<http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php> ... and I'll
basically defer the rest of this comment to that essay since I doubt I can
improve on it here.

------
eas
A very interesting and well-done course on many of the vagaries of US
copyright law from MIT OCW (video lectures) that might be relevant to the
discussion:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-
Compute...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-
Science/6-912January--IAP--2006/CourseHome/)

Especially lectures three and four:

3) Copyright applied to Music, Computers; Napster®; Peer-to-Peer File Sharing

4) Software Licensing; DVDs and Encryption

------
roc
I empathize with the general frustration at the media industries' desire to
have it both ways.

However, there does seem (to me) to be a logical and reasonable limit to our
rights to the music we buy. While I think it's perfectly reasonable to do
_whatever_ non-commercial activity I want with a CD I've purchased, I'm not
entirely convinced it's useful or good to extend that to _commercial_
activity. (Say: duplicating the CD you bought and selling it for profit)

And if you're anywhere on the spectrum other than the 'end copyright' extreme,
it seems that you partially agree that there is _some_ reasonable basis to the
argument that a CD isn't _just_ a CD, that there is some implied contract that
limits use.

~~~
skolor
_A CD isn't just a CD, that there is some implied contract that limits use._

Well, no. You should be able to do anything you want with that CD. The music
on it, however, is covered by copyright, which should be protected on some
level.

As far as actual copyright law, I agree that duplicating a CD and selling it
is bad. I feel that duplicating a CD and giving it to your friend to hear is
good (and reasonable). Some place in the middle lies taking parts of the music
and creating new music out of it, which is where I find rather murky. At what
point does it become too much of a sample, or at what point should royalties
be owed?

------
rubinass
RE: why software and mp3s are under license (in addition to copyright
protection).

All creative works fixed in a tangible medium of expression get copyright
protection. But without a license, they are useless. We are able to use
software and mp3s only after we COPY them to our hard drives. The act of
copying is reserved for the copyright holder. Without a licensing agreement,
nobody would be legally allowed to transfer the copyrighted data we acquire.

------
floodfx
anyone here actually buy CDs? other than signed (and still sealed) CDs or
really interesting ones like (moldover's), I haven't purchased a new CD in
years...

maybe I should considering the MP3s I do buy require me to agree to Amazon's
licensing agreement.

eloquent argument nonetheless

------
onreact-com
Don't buy the CD, steal it. It's more affordable than stealing music online:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=802145>

;-)

