Thursday, February 16, 2006
Copying CDs Violates Copyright?
It's been a while since I've had something to say, here, but the latest spewage from the RIAA requires some kind of response. Apparently, copying content from a CD to a portable digital media player does not constitute "fair use" of the content on the CD. Well, I find this very interesting on many levels.
First, there is the threat that the RIAA, if successful, could start taking action on just about everyone, since I'm sure that many of us (note to RIAA: not me, of course!) have made copies of individual tracks and placed them on different media (cassette tapes for those of us old enough to remember them, CDs for the more modern of us). Valentine's Day has historically been a popular day to make these mixes for loved ones, and I think the timing of the RIAA position may have been inspired by this date. I'd hate to think that every time any of us made a mix tape, an angel lost its wings.
Second, I think this is an interesting change in the dynamics of user rights in the space. Originally, I griped that the rights you have with a purchased CD were greater than that of a digital music download. This position taken by the RIAA really reverses the concept. Now, when I pay $0.99 for a track on iTMS, I actually enjoy more rights than I do if I buy a CD at Virgin Megastore. I have to wonder how these retailers enjoy being scuttled by the industry they are members of.
Finally, a successful defense of this position would certainly have far-reaching implications. Will software companies not allow archival backups of their software? Or will they charge exhorbitant retroactive license fees to allow this behavior? Is Tivo now an infringing product in the video space? Insert your question here; I'm sure you have one.
The point of this blog is that, as the community of digital media users, we should accept that we have a role and a responsibility to make sure the we apply good thinking and make sure that the laws come out fairly. Considering all the money we have all poured into these companies over the years, I think it's the least they can do to let us reasonably use the content we've paid for.
First, there is the threat that the RIAA, if successful, could start taking action on just about everyone, since I'm sure that many of us (note to RIAA: not me, of course!) have made copies of individual tracks and placed them on different media (cassette tapes for those of us old enough to remember them, CDs for the more modern of us). Valentine's Day has historically been a popular day to make these mixes for loved ones, and I think the timing of the RIAA position may have been inspired by this date. I'd hate to think that every time any of us made a mix tape, an angel lost its wings.
Second, I think this is an interesting change in the dynamics of user rights in the space. Originally, I griped that the rights you have with a purchased CD were greater than that of a digital music download. This position taken by the RIAA really reverses the concept. Now, when I pay $0.99 for a track on iTMS, I actually enjoy more rights than I do if I buy a CD at Virgin Megastore. I have to wonder how these retailers enjoy being scuttled by the industry they are members of.
Finally, a successful defense of this position would certainly have far-reaching implications. Will software companies not allow archival backups of their software? Or will they charge exhorbitant retroactive license fees to allow this behavior? Is Tivo now an infringing product in the video space? Insert your question here; I'm sure you have one.
The point of this blog is that, as the community of digital media users, we should accept that we have a role and a responsibility to make sure the we apply good thinking and make sure that the laws come out fairly. Considering all the money we have all poured into these companies over the years, I think it's the least they can do to let us reasonably use the content we've paid for.
