this contradiction always confused me. either way the official company is “losing a sale” and not getting the money, right?
In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.
I don’t personally agree with this view, but I believe that’s the argument.
I buy disc.
I rip contents of CD to computer.
I sell disc.
DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!
This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.
I’m back, it’s me DP
Not very fun fact: The developer from that video got arrested for cp possession
You’re totally right, that’s not fun at all!
You rather had them walk free? /S
deleted by creator
STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM
The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.
Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it’s because people themselves are silly and don’t actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.
Where were you in the early 2000s? Lol
I don’t know anyone who didn’t do this.
Anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is literally evidence of one (which disproves “zero” claims). Collections of anecdotal evidences make statistics making your dismissive statement dumb.
I’m adding to the pile. I can name literally over a dozen people in my childhood who copied Discs.
nuh-uh
Burning CDs. That’s how I know most people didn’t know how to do it, or want to put in the effort. You had to go buy a stack of CDs, hope your computer supported burning, had to make sure players could support the burned disc (depending on if you made a music disc or data disc, if it was rewritable), and spend the time to burn the disc.
Contrast that to ctrl+c ctrl+v.
There’s more people who can ‘duplicate’ digital files than there were people burning CDs.
Netflix’s mail service was great for data hoarders.
Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we’re talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.
(Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it’s not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that “copy” infringes copyright.)
Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.
In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.
Technically Step 2 should be legal, as covered by the old VCR case law (I think it involved Sony). Making a backup of a VHS tape or audio casette was legal, thus it should be legal for other formats, also.
However the sneaky bastards then went and lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM. So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with writing the raw files to a drive, but if you have to crack the DRM to get the files to play then you’re definitely doing something unlawful.
Disclaimer: “should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment lol what I say is not in any way legal advice. Also, it could be that the VHS law was more about “time-shifting”, ie recording live TV so that you could watch it at a more convenient time.
Copyright also used to only be a civil offense, meaning law enforcement wouldn’t come after you, but a rightsholder might. However, they lobbied over that as well and ended up with a relatively low bar - if the value is over something like $1,000 then it’s automatically considered commercial and “criminal” copyright infringement.
Regular audio CDs don’t have any DRM. (Unless it’s a data CD filled with audio files that have DRM or some such. But regular standard audio CDs that work in any CD player, there’s no DRM. The standard just doesn’t allow for any DRM.) And so the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions wouldn’t apply to CDs.
But as for the Sony case you’re referencing, I’m not familiar with it, so I’ll have to do more research on that.
Pretty sure it was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Sony were actually the defendant, with their Betamax format. It does seem to focus primarily on time-shifting, ie recording live to watch later, however the reason for this was that the content was already available to the viewer and thus the copying should be permitted fair use. The Supreme Court also quoted Mr Rogers’ testimony in their ruling.
“Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the ‘Neighborhood’ at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it’s a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that, with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the ‘Neighborhood’ off the air, and I’m speaking for the ‘Neighborhood’ because that’s what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been ‘You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.’ Maybe I’m going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.”
Applying this reasoning to new technologies has since been debated back and forth through the decades with little clear resolution. Subsequent cases have sided with the rightsholders (eg against Grokster and Limewire), but the reasoning behind them was all over the place. They addressed the purpose of file sharing technology and concluded that those services existed primarily to facilitate copyright infringement, rather than addressing the matter of personal backups.
which is eyactly why piracy isn’t theft.
it can still be a crime, just don’t call it what it obviously isn’t.
It isn’t piracy, either. It’s filesharing.
See Richard Stallman, “Ending the War on Sharing”:
When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.
It never used to be a crime. Bastard lobbyists!
There are companies out there that do allow this for digital licenses. Arturia, an audio software and hardware company, lets you de-register and sell a license key to someone else, who can re-register it. They don’t charge any fees for it at all either, like some companies do. It’s not hard, most companies just don’t care about you as a customer
Can’t you transfer a game to other people on Steam? They treat it like a physical item where after giving it away you loose access IIRC.
Not if you already activated it.
It used to be possible to buy games as gifts and and them to your inventory to give to somebody ( or activate it yourself ) later.
Now, when you want to gift a game. You have to immediately select the person you want to send it to.
That’s too bad… I guess I can’t think of a digital example that’s an analogue of the physical one after all
Maybe this should be enforced by law. At least for digital purchases which are basically a license.
The only things you can easily give to others are DRM free things, like the games you can buy from GOG. But in that case it’s also easy to copy.
Because 🤡
(there is no actual reason)
Ahem actually it’s because 🤑 💰 💸
Physical media doesn’t have the luxury of endlessly replicating itself via a simple copy and paste.
Distributing data to everybody is the only communism that works.
Endless replication, creates endless intelectual and creative wealth and diminishes financial wealth to zero.
One thing to keep in mind that may be relevant: copies of non-digital things are different than digital copies.
Digital (meant here as bit-for-bit) copies are effectively impossible with analog media. If I copy a book (the whole book, its layout, etc., and not just the linguistic content), it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn’t true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
If it sounds like an infinite money glitch on the digital side, that’s because it is. The only catch is that people have to own equipment to interpret the bits. Realistically, any form of digital media is just a record of how to set the bits on their own hardware.
Crucially: if people could resell those perfect digital copies, then there would be no market for the company which created it originally. It all comes down to the fact that companies no longer have to worry about generational differences between copies, and as a result, they’re already using this “infinite money glitch” and just paying for distribution. That market goes away if people can resell digital copies, because they can also just make new copies on their own.
What about physical media containing digital data, e.g. a CD?
It’s technically illegal to make a copy of that data for yourself and then to sell the original (while keeping the copy). That obviously doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but…
it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn’t true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
There is one exception: reposted memes, they are losing pixels more and more. /s
Legally speaking you don’t own the digital files, you have a license but you don’t actually own it.
So, why can’t I buy and sell license?
Ehhh they’re technically wrong. You don’t own the media with physical formats either. There’s just nothing they can do about it if they want it out of your home.
I believe there was a recent EU ruling that mandated that this must be allowed.
I’m not sure of the details, however.
In a way, NFTs were supposed to solve this.
That was the only argument about NFTs that seemed interesting. But instead we got stupid cartoon monkeys.
Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.
You literally can. Check out kinguin
That is no different with CDs, DVDs, etc. It’s written on all of them. It’s a limited license, which is why you can’t host screenings and charge people with your physical media.
It’s in the name. Copyright. As in, the right to make a copy.
It’s perfectly legal to sell a digital good as long as you don’t retain it as well.
It’s illegal to make a copy of a book and then sell that copy.From probably the most biased source possible: https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/limitations-on-a-copyright-owners-rights/first-sale-exceptions-copyright/
As they point out, most digital works are licensed, not sold, so there are terms and conditions associated with how you can use them.
So it’s perfectly consistent, just grossly out of date for it’s intended purpose of “make sure writers can make money selling their books without worrying that getting copies made will be pointless because someone else will undercut them and leave them with 1000 prepaid copies of their book that everyone bought cheaper”.
We should have a system that preserves that original intent of “creators get compensated”, without it turning into our culture gets owned by some random company for more than a lifetime.
deleted by creator
Iirc there was an online ebook market in the Netherlands where you could resell your ebooks. This was deemed illegal because there is no way to guarantee the seller has deleted his own copy after it was sold.
There is no difference, they just want you to believe there is a difference.
Cos if you believe it then they can make more money.
The point: GREED that’s the difference.
Its legal in the EU. You can sell your windows key for example, despite the windows eula disallowing it
Usually, when the question is “why is copyright restrictive in these evil and/or dumb ways” the safe bet is that the the answer is “Disney.”
There’s a few things about this
- Many times you don’t own the digital good, you subscribe to it. No I’m not joking, that’s why services can usually take it away at any time. You normally own “a licence to play it on a single PC” or similar.
- This isnt apples to oranges per se. Selling digital goods is fine, it’s copying it. Similar to how photocopying a book and selling it would not be okay.
- It’s important to note there is a narrative push by companies too. They spend lots of money putting videos on every DVD saying “downloading is stealing” because if society thinks piracy and stealing is the same, it helps them litigate and make more money.
- Your idea of a lost sale is a hard one, from a media company point of view, it’s about making money. So if you can make people believe “a download is a lost sale” or “sharing a digital file is a lot sale” etc, then you can use that to sue individuals, isps, sharing sites, search engines etc and make more and more money while also having more power over your product.
if you live in the EU you own your digital purchases.
It’s kind of not tested though.
If you’ve never been given the option to download it and save it and use it from there, how would you “own” it if the streaming service takes it offline?
If you can’t transfer ownership of something, or have it past the lifespan of the shop you bought it from, do you really own it? I would say not.
It is tested. In court. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
I’m in the EU. How do I download movies I purchased on Amazon?
You do not. Or we have a different definition for owning.
Because companies have money, and money makes laws.
because making a legitimate copy of a book is a lot more work
The legalese in the US (which might as well be everywhere as you need to have compatible copyright with the US to have a trade deal with the US, and your country is in trouble if it doesn’t have a trade deal with the US) is basically that:
- If you buy a physical copy, you’ve become the owner of that one copy of the IP contained within. As the owner of that copy, you can do stuff with it like read it, display it, destroy it, or sell it on to someone else thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (but you can’t do other things like copying it, unless it’s a DVD as there’s a specific exemption for the copy your DVD has to make to RAM in order to decode the DVD). There’s nothing the copyright holder of the original can do to stop you exercising these rights.
- If you buy a digital ‘copy’, you’ve not bought a copy, you’ve bought a licence to use one of the publisher’s copies that they’ve given you permission to have on your device(s). They’ll also have given you permission to do things like read it if it’s an ebook or play it if it’s a video game, but as it’s their copy, not yours, you don’t automatically get rights to do anything they’ve not explicitly permitted you to, and it’s not in their interests to permit you to sell it on unless they think you’ll pay enough more for a resaleable copy that it covers a potential future lost sale.
I’m sure plenty of publishers would love for the second set of rules to apply to things like books, and from a quick googling, it seems like occasionally academic textbooks have included a licence agreement instead of you actually owning the physical book, but I imagine that most publishers are concerned about bad PR from attempting this with a hit novel and also don’t want to be accused of fraud for having their not-a-book-just-a-licence on the shelf next to regular books and thereby tricking consumers into thinking they were buying a regular book. EA attempted to double-dip over a decade ago with Battlefield 3, which included a copy of the game (with regular First Sale Doctrine rights) and a licence key for the online pass (which wasn’t transferrable) and got bad press because of it. Newer PC games often come as a key in a box with no disk or a disk that only runs a web installer, so you’ve not got a copy of the game to claim you’ve bought and obviously only have a licence, and this seems to have caused less upset. This wouldn’t work with a book, though, as you have to fill in the pages at the printing factory, and can’t magically do it only after the user’s got it home.
Because they somehow don’t consider that someone could have copied the books or discs before reselling them, but it immediately comes to their mind with digital copies riddled with DRMs
Logically yes, downloading or a sharing a digital file is a “lost sale” - but as Aaron Swartz said - “lost sales” are also caused by Earthquakes, Libraries/DVD Rentals, Negative Yelp reviews, Market Competitors, and so on. Why just blame it on file sharing…
