I have read and posted to the very popular topic of copying and file sharing. I don't know the law. I don't know the law probably because I have never seen a label or posting on merchandise (cd/book/computers) identifying what my legal rights to use are on those products. A lot of you have posted very valid points and responses to what is going on currently with artists/music and movie companies and "their" music/movies. I have given numerous examples of other products that don't seem to fall into the same category as music CDs and DVDs. With music and movies we are allowed to buy them but then our use is restricted (or the attempt to restrict use). I'm wondering why this only (seems) to apply or seems to only be an issue with music and movies? Some of you say that the issue is copying, some say sharing. Some say that it's due to revenue, some of you say that it's because it's just not right.

I'm going way out here and I hope that you can follow a long and bare with me on this.

If you buy an apple tree from a nursery or home depot or any place that sells apple trees (take it home and plant it) are you not allowed to give some apples to your neighbor or friends/family? Are you not allowed to take a seed from one apple and plant it to grow another apple tree?

Is this not the same as when we buy CDs or DVDs? I think my example applies since you are taking one product (the apple tree), copying it and sharing it when the company you bought it from gets no further revenue than the original cost of the apple tree.

If I take a picture of the Mona Lisa (I know I can't because the museum won't allow any photography for other reasons than duplication), should I be prosecuted for file sharing or duplication? If my examples are not good ones then please feel free to make other suggestions.

What is Implied intent or implied use laws mean? The term "implied" is up to interpretation. How do I know what they are trying to imply?

Why would any of us buy something if the actual rights and ownership still belong to (for example) the record company, the artist, the movie company, the writer? I'm so confused and just don't understand this.

And how come companies can monitor what we are downloading or force our internet providers to monitor and report back what our activity is, or how come some companies can monitor or view what we store on our computers (isn't that trespassing?)?

Please, I would love to hear from all of you no matter what your point of view/opinion is.

Thank you
[Edited 11/29/07 0:39am]

The apple tree isn't a very good comparison, the people in the nursery didn't invent apple trees, they just grow them, as can anybody.

The issue is intellectual property. When you buy music or films you're buying the right to listen/watch, but the actual content remains the property of the copyright holder and therefore permission is needed in order to copy it.

I, for instance, write software. If you buy the software I write what you're actually buying is a licence to install and use that software. It's not yours, it still belongs to me - it's only yours to use. So if you make copies to give away or to use on other machines then you're infringing on my intellectual property rights and I sue you.

I don't really know what the 'implied use' thing is about, can you post an example of this wording ?

Companies can monitor what you're downloading simply because it's possible to do, and there's no law against it.

Well I heard that!

I guess if you have someone over to your house, and you share a recording of an artist through your stereo, you are promoting the artist's work. If you make them a copy of the work, It isn't as clean sounding as a professional pressing...and would continue to downgrade if that person copied a copy.

If you take a photograph...Of a friend, and your friend is happy that you have it, that doesn't mean that the person wants you to distribute that image to others.

If I gave a friend a poem about that friend...I would be offended if that friend gave it to someone else.

We shoot darts toward a target. Anything outside of the bullseye, is less than the intention.

the music you buy, written by another, is yours to enjoy. It is not yours to copy, technically. It is not yours to sell for use by others.

Whatever you do for a living, how would you feel if someone took it, and gave it away for free, or used it in a way you didn't agree to?

I don't remember signing a license agreement the last time I bought a cd or dvd. So i'm not sure where it's written on the product that i purchased what the terms of use are for it. So basically by your reasoning any company that manufactures any product is entitled to tell you how you can a can't use the products we purchase?

My point for writing this is because i feel that i don't really own anything that i buy anymore. That it seems that i can buy whatever and use it, but when the original manufacturer doesn't like what i'm doing with the product they can then tell me what to do with that product or take steps to put in writing something to bar you from using the product in the way i want to.

oh and the apple tree...the nursery didn't invent or manufacture the tree. i guess the inventor would be your god or whatever belief in higher power or evolution you have (so the nursery to would be misusing and profiting from something thats not theirs). And since my religion says that my god put the plants, trees and animals on this earth for my consumption then that means that the nursery has no right to charge me for it because my god already gave it to me for free. i think that is kind of funny.

ok, so I guess I should revise my original comment. When is something really truly ours? if we buy a product it's really still not ours.

Oh, is it legal to make a copied backup of your cd or dvd on your computer?

Skillz4 said:

Essentially you have done. When you buy a cd or dvd you are agreeing (whether you like it or not) to abide by the terms of use. And yes, the terms of use are clearly stated on every cd and dvd you buy. There's some fairly standard wording used which I can't remember at the moment, but it includes words like 'copyright', 'unauthorised', 'duplication', 'publication', 'will be prosecuted'.


Yes, pretty much. That's what patents and copyrights are for - to protect the inventors' rights as to how their creation is used.


You never did. It does seem sort of odd, but that's the way it works.


Not really, they can only prevent you from using it in ways that are prohibited by the terms of use. If you wanted to, for instance, super-glue ten copies* of Planet Earth together and use them for clay pigeon shooting then there's nothing to prevent you doing so.

*I believe that ten is the optimum number of cds to glue together to create a perfectly weighted and balanced clay pigeon, and given the abundance of unused AOL (and Planet Earth) cd's in the world, much cheaper than the alternative clay versions.


I guess what you're paying for there is the work they put in to nurse a little apple pip into a fruit bearing tree. I think they'll probably continue to charge for the trees until god issues a cease and desist. At least they don't insist on getting a royalty for every apple it produces.



As far as I know yes, that falls under fair use, as long as those copies are strictly for personal use.

As an artist in the new digital age. there are some harsh reality situations I have to deal with. As all artist will from now on. the Cd is going away there are so many ways to get music. The new thing will be to go a different direction. Like to give away jump drives with videos, music and extras. There are so many choices available. To compete at all you have to think of different. People can email songs now. Hell you can yousendit a complete movie, right? so as an artist I have to think of ways to connect different and make profit different. So shutting down every single file sharing server in the world will only create other ways to share music. IMO companies need to work with the file sharing thing as opposed to fighting it.

Thank you for opening my eyes to a lot of this.
But I do have a question...

How do libraries and rental stores get away with or around these laws?

You can (for free) get books, audio books, CDs and DVDs from any local library.

Rental stores are obviously renting and sharing for profit the majority of DVDs made.

Skillz4 said:

Cause they have bought a license to rent out cds/dvds, therefore they have permission to do this.

<<Cause they have bought a license to rent out cds/dvds, therefore they have permission to do this.>>>




what kind of license? Librarys also?




So if I bought a license to rent cds/dvds but charged nothing for the rental fee, then that is perfectly legal for me to do?
[Edited 12/5/07 12:12pm]
[Edited 12/5/07 12:14pm]

Skillz4 said:

Uhhhh...I don't know where you live, but the libraries here make you give the stuff back after a specified period.

Skillz4 said:

Well, I'm not sure but I think this is an example of the term "implied".

Skillz4 said:

I wouldnt know how this works, but they must have the permission to do this.

I really don't see why this whole issue seems to be so hard to understand for
some people. It's all common sense really, try putting yourself in the artist's
shoes for a moment and you'll soon work out why copyright etc. is important.

Great thread!

Regarding libraries...

Libraries don't buy separate licenses to loan out materials -- the "license" that comes with the work stays with the work, when it is loaned out and when it is returned. It would be much cheaper for libraries to buy one copy, make dozens of copies, and then loan out the copies. But they can't do that. They must buy (unless donated) each and every copy if they are going to loan them out. If one of those copies loses some pages, or one of it's cassettes/discs break, then a copy can be made to replace only those particular damaged pieces (up to a certain degree) since the "license" was already paid for when the "master" (original) copy was bought. Otherwise, libraries should not be circulating "copies" no matter how generous some people are with their taped copies of movies from HBO. (These "illegal" copies get thrown in the garbage instead).

Libraries and schools often have the option of buying DVDs/videos at different prices. If a school purchases a DVD at $19.99, they will not be able to show it to a class. They can pass it from teacher to teacher, or student to student, but no more. Teachers are often in violation of copyright law when they show movies (usually at the end of the school year) to their students. Now if the DVD costs $120, it most likely comes with a public performance license, and even then it is usually restricted to small groups only (for example a classroom of 30 people). The more people you want to share it with, the more you're going to pay. So... if music CDs were meant to be shared with a large number of people, they would be at least ten times as expensive. Instead, you're paying for the right to listen to it yourself -- which usually includes the exception that you'll be listening to it only around immediate friends and family. In addition, radio stations must pay for the right to broadcast music (outside of many independent artists) for public consumption. You just can't buy a CD and start playing it or making it available to the entire world. You do not have that right... unless you PAY for it.

Note that libraries do not loan out Windows Vista, Microsoft Word, and other major software titles. The licenses that are purchased with the software do not allow for it. And those software titles that are loaned out by libraries include licenses (if you read the booklets) saying that whoever borrows the software and installs it on their computer must remove the software from their computer before passing it on to the next user (or returning it to the library).

Libraries do purchase movie licenses for public performance rights when playing movies for their patrons (no matter how small the group). They don't have to buy the license with each individual movie (which is often the way its done in public schools) but instead they can purchase umbrella licenses which cover the public performance of movies produced by dozens of production companies. It goes without saying that Universal, Disney, and Warner licenses will be more expensive to purchase than those of smaller production companies.

Libraries also purchase licenses to subscription based databases and these come in different flavors -- license to make the database available inside the library only, to your patrons only, to your community only, to your region only, or available to anyone who can access your website through the internet. (This is why you sometimes need your library card number to access certain parts of your library's website -- the license may restrict use to its patrons only). These licenses go up in price with each instance. Some of these licenses are much cheaper if the "data" is something that can be returned or expires after a set amount of time, for example a downloadable audiobook which corrupts after a month or so.
[Edited 12/7/07 0:00am]

Genesia said:

it's still sharing...

WOW...more questions and uncertainty.

Libraries accept books, magazines, cds (or whatever), that are donated to them. Ok I got that. So then the library loans them out...right? So at what point is this considered sharing? Let me give you this scenario...I just went to my local library (and yes I do have to return the item after a certain amount of time), and got a classical cd. I took it home listened to it, and liked it. I didn't pay for it, the library didn't pay for it (because it was donated), so does this make myself and the library in violation of copyright laws? What is to prevent the library from making copy's of it or anyone else that borrows it? I've actually been to the local libraries in my area and seen CDs/DVDs that are cdr/dvdr with printed labels that the libraries (in this case all of the libraries that I've been to), and the libraries are loaning out these obvious copies of CDs/DVDs.

The word copyright says COPY in it...not sharingright or copyandsharingright...

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

Ok so we can't copy and share...then why is it ok for companies to monitor what we download or scan our hard drives for content? Isn't that illegal? don't they need a search warrant? Why are they monitoring my connections and to whom or who I'm connected with? if I'm connecting and communicating via my computer, aren't I guaranteed a right to privacy just like a phone call?


I got so many damn questions...
[Edited 12/7/07 7:55am]

Skillz4 said:

But you don't own it.

Obsidian said:

I totally agree. I'm learning a lot from this thread.

The small print on media states "no unauthorised lending etc". Libraries are authorised to lend due to the fact that they purchase a licence, the proceeds of which go to the artists/authors in the same way that radio stations can publicly broadcast music by buying a license from (in the UK) the Performing Rights Society. The rules are different to ordinary members of the public purchasing music (unless you wish to go to the trouble of buying a licence just so you can "legally" lend a cd to a friend)

I'm so glad I put this up and have asked so many questions, because I'm learning a lot bout this.

Ok, so libraries when they receive a donated book CD or DVD they contact the publishing company/recording company etc. and notify them that they have that item and then pay the license to share it?

And to clarify; owning and sharing are two different things. If I buy something then I own it and then I share it. A library is indeed sharing.


I think the music industry and the movie industry is run by a bunch a greedy $%^&s. Ok, I'm done venting.

thank you all for being patient and informative.

i have many guitar and piano books of his in notation/ does this mean i cannot play anything in the book that might be heard because its not mine?

Genesia said:

Yes, exactly. It isn't sharing anymore... sharing means one item is being used by multiple people... there's an inconvenience associated with that.

When you borrow from the library or a rental place, only one person can listen to the particular CD "at a time" as long as nobody is making copies.

So the consumers still have an incentive to buy the CD if they want to be able to listen to the CD whenever they want. It is inconvenient to share one CD among a bunch of people... they'd rather just buy their own CD.

But if you make copies, it is a totally different thing... you've duplicated the product. You have the product and the person you give it to has his own copy. It's no longer sharing. You can listen to your copy whenever you want regardless of whether the other guy is listening to his copy... any incentive to buy the CD is gone.
[Edited 12/10/07 7:23am]

Skillz4 said:

Suppose a family was sharing a car... different times different family members were driving it. Now a cloning device is invented... The car is cloned multiple times... each family member has his own car. Is it still the same type of sharing?

coolcat said:

Hmmmm...when you download music or any files, only one person at a time can download....so I guess you can say that isn't sharing either because of the inconvenience.

A hypothetical, lets say I buy a CD and I make a back up copy on my computer. I open/use a file sharing program to download freeware items or transfer documents from my pc to my friends pc, and in the process my back up copy is being downloaded. I can make a copy of my own disc per the copyright laws. I'm allowed to use a file sharing agent because I'm allowed to share my documents with anyone else (personal or work related). So is what I'm doing now wrong?

It's my opinion that the internet is all about sharing, whether it's information, stories, digital items...it's all about sharing and then there are some that are for profit, and some that get a few freebies.

If the recording industry doesn't want sharing then they need to do what Prince is trying to do. Just shut down the internet to everyone accept for themselves and their own profit and gain. I don't see the recording companies having any issue with free advertisement that they get on youtube or any other video based site. I constantly see videos with the recording companies name on it (usually the lower left hand corner of the video)...shouldn't they have to pay for the advertisement? Or how bout the music and video itself is a commercial promoting their artist.

It's just my opinion and my observation.

But this forum has opened my eyes to a lot of proper procedure and ethics.

Thank you all!!

Skillz4 said:

Multiple people can download at the same time from the same site. Also, multiple sites can host the file...

Even if it's one at a time, it is still more convenient than going to a store or ordering a CD online and spending $10-$20. Unlike the library rentals... here the incentive to buy a CD is gone. Why would people buy CDs if they could just download them for free?

Another hypothetical situation... a record label spends $100,000 on the making of an album and printing CDs... they sell 1 copy. It gets put online... everyone that wants to listen to it downloads it... So nobody buys the CD. It's a huge loss for the company. Is this an acceptable situation?



You can share your own personal documents that you own the copyright for... I don't see how you're allowed to share items that you don't own the copyright for...

Just curious... are you advocating that music should be completely free to listen to?
[Edited 12/11/07 9:03am]