Posted on 04/03/2002 6:59:49 AM PST by Darkshadow
Copying CDs as easy ABCD The Copy Cat CD Duplication machines charge just $5, plus the purchase of a $2 blank disk, to make digitally identical copies of CDs in under 10 minutes. The machines are already in a number of city convenience stores, as well as printing and copying shops. Sales of home CD copying machines, known as burners, also are booming, with one city store selling more than 100 a month. Australian music expert Glenn A. Baker yesterday branded the copying of music from Australian bands in particular as "morally reprehensible" and he "couldn't imagine anything more potentially devastating for the music industry". "There is no other product that is subjected to this kind of wholesale theft, there is nothing else that so many people think: `We can just take this' ", Mr Baker said. The machines are able to operate under the same legislation as public photocopiers, where the burden of responsibility for copyright breaches lies with the user and not the owner of the equipment. Adelaide Convenience owner John Stavrou, said the coin-operated machines were popular among young people. "If people ask, we tell them it is illegal to break copyrights and there are warnings on the machines – but what they copy is up to them," he said. A spokesman for the machines' Melbourne manufacturer, Paul Teate, said the CD copier was "no different from video recorders, (audio) tape recorders and photocopiers. Music Industry Piracy Investigations spokesman Michael Speck said illegal copying already cost the Australian industry $70 million a year. Copyright investigators would take notice of in-store copyright infringements, he said. Zac Kingston of Adelaide folk duo Linus, which is about to record its second album, said the new machines threatened to destroy smaller acts. "We rely on the money we make from CDs to make a living from what we do, and if people copy that for free then that disappears," Kingston said.
By Police Reporter MICHAEL DUFFY
03apr02
NEW machines installed in Adelaide convenience stores make the illegal copying of the latest CDs and computer software – which costs artists and software designers millions of dollars – as easy as buying a loaf of bread.
The stores have begun installing coin-operated CD duplication machines fitted with software to circumvent anti-copying measures built into some CDs.
I take one of my studio/professionally recorded CDs, put it into a computer, and burn a copy.
Which of those three steps constitutes stealing?
The problem with the situation outlined in the article is that the copying is a service provided by a business for the profit of that business.
It is my understanding that "fair use" includes the copying material for personal use, and not for monetary gain. For example, you can record an NFL game off the TV so you can watch it later (say when you get home from work), but you can't take that recording of the game and use it to somehow profit monetarily (i.e., you can't rebroadcast the game, or part of it, and you can't compile highlights from different games and sell said compilation).
Reimbursed them for what? The source is my property, the blank is my property, and the computer is my property.
The idea that I did not pay for the "first one" is your fabrication.
Are we in agreement then; that nothing in this article constitutes stealing?
No we're not.
The Copy Cat CD Duplication machines charge just $5, plus the purchase of a $2 blank disk, to make digitally identical copies of CDs in under 10 minutes.
No, because the Copy Cat CD Duplication service described in the article (and the excerpted above) is based upon a business model that depends upon copyrighted material on which they have no claim. If the service were completely free it may have a chance of passing the "smell test."
BTW, I am largely arguing here from a moral position. I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. So regardless of the particular legalities of this Copy Cat business, I think it is morally wrong to make money from the work of others while failing to compensate them for their original efforts. Like I said before though, borrowing your buddy's CD to copy does not carry the same moral dilemma as does a transaction involving money. In the former, the artists loses on the opportunity cost of your purchase of the CD you borrowed. Justifiably you could say the artist really loses nothing because you would not purchase the music anyway. However, when money is involved, the artist loses the not only an opportunity cost, but loses the money you are willing to give the seller of the copied music who does not have the legal right to sell the product.
Bottom line: it's ok to trade and borrow music from friends, but it is wrong to purchase material from pirates. The Copy Cat business is essentially a more flexible form of pirating. Instead of the pirates copying thousands of CDs at a time to sell on the street, the Copy Cat business is scaled back to afford piracy on demand for individual consumers.
Don't services like this already exist in US record stores, whereby consumers can mix and match tracks from different CDs? The difference is that in the US business model, the record stores have to pay a cut to the artist/record label. Should Copy Cat develop their business along these lines, then no moral dilemma exists because the artist is justly compensated for their work.
FYI, your ol stompin grounds?
I can use a gun to rob a bank. It is me robbing the bank, not the gun.
The use of the machine described in this article, to copy legally purchased music/data for ones' own use, does not constitute stealing.
OK, you have a point here. But these machines are an awful lot like leaving a gun outside your bank for use in a robbery should someone choose. The company that put the machines in place know full well how people will use them.
...coin-operated CD duplication machines fitted with software to circumvent anti-copying measures built into some CDs.
They include the software because they know the material copied does not belong to them, and they profit directly from each copy of protected material. That's not piracy?
A virtual quote from the anti-gun manufacturer group.
"They include the software because they know the material copied does not belong to them.."
True. They know that it belongs to me..the legal and rightful owner of the protected material.
My local auto garage has computers they hook up to my car which speak GM. When repairing my car, no duty is owed to GM as it is my car being repaired.
"..and they profit directly from each copy of protected material. That's not piracy?"
Only if they manage to get a copy without my permission. They are not providing a product, the provide a service.
This is a pretty weak attempt at linking me with the anti-gun crowd and you have no basis to make such an assumption. There is a world of difference between guns and the Copy Cat machine. Guns have a dual purpose, both offensive and defensive. The gun manufacturer would have no way of knowing exactly how consumers will use the guns they purchase. Also, the gun manufacturer does not make money on each round fired from the guns it sells, but Copy Cat does make money for each CD copied in its machines. Does the software that circumvents the anti-copying technology embedded in (some) CDs have any such dual, or multiple purpose? The answer is no, this software is used for one thing only.
They know that it belongs to me..the legal and rightful owner of the protected material.
If you buy a CD that has the anti-copy technology embedded within, your purchase is a tacit agreement not to copy the CD. So you own the CD itself, but not the rights to copy the music. The record producers are kind enough to give you the added obstacle of anti-copy protection to help you live up to your end of the deal. Of course, if you don't like the terms of the sale, then don't buy the product. (I actually recommend the "don't buy it" strategy because I think the record companies are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Anti-copy technologies ultimately pit record companies against their customers - not a good business strategy in my estimate. Many music consumers will find alternatives.)
...they hook up to my car which speak GM. When repairing my car, no duty is owed to GM as it is my car being repaired.
It's your car alright, but it sounds like GM is the ONLY place you can take the car for service. It's not a "duty" per se, but the technology used by GM binds you to their service. Don't you think that GM has included a "duty" in the pricing of their services to which you are beholden?
They are not providing a product, the provide a service.
This raises an interesting point because the distinction between goods and services is blurred. Products that fullfill needs or wants essentially provide services to the consumer. For example, when you buy a car you are purchasing transportation. Likewise when you purchase CDs, you are buying entertainment. The ethereal nature of music itself (not the media) makes it hard to identify simply as a "product." Virtually everything consumers purchase provide them with some sort of service. Most successful companies recognize that their products are more than just widgets. Consumers associate all kinds of properties and characteristics with products that help marketers and advertisers differentiate products in the market place and develop a service orientation to the customer.
Anyway, no real disagreement that Copy Cat is a service oriented business, but so what? The services Copy Cat provides are based upon the reproduction of protected material that does not belong to them, and they gain profit everytime someone infringes on the copyright of another.
I see no problem reselling or giving away your paperback. Reselling a paperback (or a CD) means effectively transferring the rights to use the copyrighted material to another. What would be wrong is if you were to reproduce the book and then sell the reproduction.
I'n not so sure that's a good analogy. When other stuff is stolen from your car, you have no extra authority to duplicate it without buying it again, right? When someone steals your music, and you legitimately use a copy, then there are essentially 2 licenses to the art created. That's not really fair, is it?
If my music collection were stolen, I'd fill out a report with my insurance and buy new music with valid licenses.
Bull$hi+. In fact those 'CD's that contain this anti copying technology are not properly 'CD's. They violate the spec, Philips is sueing to make them remove the CD logo.
In any case anti copying technology does nothing to my fair rights ability to make a backup. If their technology is so weak (it is) as to be easily defeated, I will. That is just as soon as they release a CD with anti-copy worth listening to. Celine Dion? They are protecting us from that caterwailing. Nobody would have bothered ripping it and sharing it unless it was copy protected.
It is the thief that is a thief.
Nonsense, at least on the music end. Very few musicians make money off of their recording deals - most in fact, lose money, and become indentured servants to the record labels, locked into contracts until they've "paid off" the costs of producing/marketing their albums. If you want to support an artist, particularly a "smaller singer" or group, go to one of their live shows and buy some merchandise. That money usually goes directly into the artists' pockets.
There may be legitimate reasons for not supporting the copying of CD's, but pretending that doing so hurts the artists themselves is misleading. It hurts the monolithic record labels, and many people don't mind doing that at all.
And I might add that the library charged a nickel per copy. The probably charge a quarter now. Thieving profiteers! Oh, wait... it's the local gummint profiting, I guess that's OK.
Not only that, but I don't even play my original CDs in the car, I prefer to make copies, because car CD players tend to scratch CDs at times.
Good thing the cops can't stop you and examine your CD collection.
I am not so sure that you have a "right" to fair use copying as you define it. I think it better to think of this in terms of the old concept that possession is nine tenths of the law. You possess the CDs and appear fully committed to copying them, regardless of the terms of sale underwhich you obtained the CDs in the first place. Read through my previous posts though, and you will see that my problem with copying is when someone makes money with protected material that does not belong to them. If you are not making money, it is harder for the industry to contend that you are damaging their interests with your copying activities. I think the problem with your position, at least as how your position is expressed in your post, is that somehow you think that copying CDs is a matter of entitlement.
As to the anti-copy technology, I hope that Phillips wins the lawsuit (sounds like they have a case). But how does that prevent the industry from adopting new standards that would allow for the anti-copy technologies? Furthermore, when these stopgap measures fail, won't this just add more fuel to the fires of those seeking to take control of consumer electronics and hardware? Work arounds will always be there, but when they take control of the machines the methods of circumvention will be more difficult for the average person to obtain.
The problem with this entire effort on the part of the industry and control freaks in the government is that it goes beyond protection of a copyright into the realm of profiteering and price gouging of entertainment consumers. Those advocating the control of hardware and consumer electronics are paving the way for a pay-per-view system of distributing music and videos the likes of which we have never seen. If the industry has its way, a decrease demand for entertainment products will follow, and consumers will look for alternative sources of entertainment.
No attempt made to link you with them. Your argument, rather, uses their exact logic.
"the gun manufacturer does not make money on each round fired from the guns it sells"
The bullet mfg does. So what? (doesn't Winchester also sell ammo?)
"If you buy a CD that has the anti-copy technology embedded within, your purchase is a tacit agreement not to copy the CD. So you own the CD itself, but not the rights to copy the music."
No such 'agreement' exists. I am well within my rights to copy my CD onto tape (no anti-copy technology hinders this) so that I may enjoy the artists music while driving. There is no reason to favor tape, & wire, but discriminate against CDs.
Short of profiting from the artists work, the law allows me do to what I wish with my CD. As long as they are for my own, non-commercial, use; I can make as many copies as I wish.
If my computer does not have a burner, I am free to use yours (with your permission).
"it sounds like GM is the ONLY place you can take the car for service"
Regardless of how it may sound, GM is hardly the only place I can have my car serviced. Were GM to force me to be bound to their service, they would be breaking the law.
"the distinction between goods and services is blurred"
This is playing word games. The difference between a product and a service is quite distinct. Black & white.
The purchase of a car is not 'buying transportation' any more than paving a road, tossing quarters at a toll booth, or de-icing the wings of an airplane. Purchasing an album of Snoop-Doggy-Dog's is not 'buying entertainment' any more than buying a turn-table, or paying my electric bill.
"The services Copy Cat provides are based upon the reproduction of protected material that does not belong to them, and they gain profit everytime someone infringes on the copyright of another"
Copy Cat does not reproduce anything. They help me, & you, make copies of that which already belongs to us. What we choose to do with those copies determines whether laws are violated or not.
Let's not shift our responsibility onto someone else simply because they were unwittingly used in the furtherance of a crime.
To put it more succinctly, with no intent to link you with the anti-gun crowd...
Guns don't kill people, people do.....Or
Copy services don't steal from studios, people do.
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.