Posted on 05/14/2007 8:16:26 AM PDT by tranzorZ
I think you bought a record that you could play as many times as you wanted until it was worn out. Look at it this way. If you bought the record in 1970 and then two weeks later your little sister broke it, could you have gone back to the record store, shown them the busted disk and the receipt and then said “Ok, when I bought this last week I what really purchased was an unlimited license, so give me a new copy.”?
I would say I do... who’s to say that mpeg isn’t my copy? RIAA is basically marching rapidly toward irrellevance
“I think you bought a record that you could play as many times as you wanted until it was worn out.”
I think it’s a bit more complicated. I think my rights extened well beyond just playing the LP. I could play the record. I could use it as a frisbee. I could do what I wanted with it, right, including selling it or copying it. And if I left it sitting somewhere and someone else picked it up, never would I have been accused of music piracy.
I routinely made cassette copies fo every LP I bought. Perfectly legal. Sometimes, other people listened to the music I had purchased. No problem. As long as I never tried to make money from letting other people listen or from the copies, I was fine.
So what changed and why?
Are you trying out for 'Dumbest Statement on FR'?
“The unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music is no different than stealing a gallon of milk for the corner mini-mart.”
Actually, it’s completely different. One is the theft of a physical object which leaves the victim that much poorer, while the other is the “theft” of intellectual property where, at worst, the “victim” has been deprived of a possible sale to the “thief”. There is a clear difference between real property and intellectual property.
So what changed and why?”
Under that model, nothing. You have always been able to make one copy of your CD, LP, 8 track, whatever, for your own use. I have not seen anyone dispute that and I certainly don’t.
“I could do what I wanted with it, right, including selling it or copying it”
Yes. However, if you buy the LP or CD, copy it for your own use and then decide later to sell it, you would lose the right to use the copy after the sale.
What I have a hard time with is the idea that buying an LP in 1970 gives you a use right to the material 37 years later after the original LP has been worn out for years. Let’s say the LP and your legal personal use copy were both worn out by 1980. How would you have excercised your use right in 1981?
“What I have a hard time with is the idea that buying an LP in 1970 gives you a use right to the material 37 years later after the original LP has been worn out for years.”
Well I don’t have a hard time with it. Was there a time limit expressed or implied? Perhaps impled, given the useful life of the medium back then. But what if I took exceptional care of my LPs, like some of those fancy stereo college guys did, preening and cleaning and never, ever letting anyone else operate the turntable. Would the license expire on any given date. No.
“You have always been able to make one copy of your CD”. Right. So if I make one digital copy of my CD and store it on my computer, which I use as a jukebox, then why should I be culpable if someone else copies it. Is there some theory that I have an obligation to protect the record company’s interest?
I would say the licence expires with the physical life of the item. If you buy something digital or that can be made into a legal use digital copy then you have something with a very long lifespan. In that case good for you and use it to your hearts content. If you take care of something it lasts longer. That is true of anything. Again, how would you have exploited your use right in 1981 as I asked before?
“So if I make one digital copy of my CD and store it on my computer, which I use as a jukebox, then why should I be culpable if someone else copies it.”
As long as you were not complicit, you would would not be at fault.
“Is there some theory that I have an obligation to protect the record company’s interest?”
No. And there is no reason to complain when the record company tries to protect its interest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.