[zeebe]

Hello, my family recently moved to a new house, and all of our CDs are still packed away until our basement gets finished. I really miss listening to some of my favorite CDs and I did not have time before the move to copy them to itunes. Is it illegal for me to download them using Acquistion or some other means? I mean I own the discs, just can't get to them.
Thanks in advance for your help!

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

You'll have to answer to Jesus if that is what you mean.

[Athens]

legal no, will u get in trouble for downloading a few NO.

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

You'll have to answer to Jesus if that is what you mean.

OK, why would I have to answer to Jesus?

[von Wrangell]

Answer to the question. Who cares?

Download the songs if you can't wait. You won't be sent to GTMO.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by zeebe

OK, why would I have to answer to Jesus?

Because it is stealing one way or another.

Secondly. WHO CARES!

[starman]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

You'll have to answer to Jesus if that is what you mean.

WHY must you do this kind of bullsh*t?

To actually ANSWER the question - I would be careful about downloading from anywhere. If you get caught, having the CDs in your posession may not matter.

Is it legal? Well, I can't answer that because it's a very gray area, but it's certainly not something your peers would consider wrong. The RIAA may not care if you bought every Green Day CD in your home town and downloaded one song because you left them at a friend's house.

Just be careful.

Mike

[Randman]

I own a car but it's at the shop. Is it legal to take another car? It is the same model.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Randman

I own a car but it's at the shop. Is it legal to take another car? It is the same model.

You're comparing stealing something PHYSICAL to something DIGITAL. Not the same.

Mike

[starman]

Oh, and not for nothing, but nobody gave this guy as much flack, and he's asking for a lot more:

http://forums.macnn.com/77/gaming/264067/anyone-have-a-copy-diablo-ii/

Mike

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Because it is stealing one way or another.

Secondly. WHO CARES!

How is it stealing if I OWN the CDs?

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by Randman

I own a car but it's at the shop. Is it legal to take another car? It is the same model.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. I am talking about something that costs $12, compared to what you are saying could be over $100,000 depending on the car.

[starman]

The problem, zeebe, is that right now, there's no way to tag that you actually own the CDs. When you download something off the net that's copyrighted, all someone (read: RIAA) sees is your IP address. They don't care that you own the CD. How can they know?

The current music ownership/licensing issue needs a lot of work. It's nobody's fault, I don't think anyone saw this coming in 1984 when CDs were released. Now technology has brought us to the point where we demand instant access to everything, but there's nothing in place to prove that we bought the license.

Mike

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by zeebe

Hello, my family recently moved to a new house, and all of our CDs are still packed away until our basement gets finished. I really miss listening to some of my favorite CDs and I did not have time before the move to copy them to itunes. Is it illegal for me to download them using Acquistion or some other means? I mean I own the discs, just can't get to them.
Thanks in advance for your help!

Yes, according to the record companies, if you can't get to your CD's because they're packed away, you need to buy another copy if you want to listen to them. After all, how would they know if your box turned up "missing" in your friend's basement! You are guilty until proven innocent, and you need that magic disc in order to be legal. You Dirty Filthy Pirate!



Seriously, though, you currently don't get a "right" to download tracks if you already own the CD, even though you've already paid for them, because the source you acquired them from is important. Go figure. I'm not saying that is morally correct, I'm just saying that's what the law smells like to me. But you can go ahead and do it anyway, secure in the knowledge that if you're one of the .0001% who gets sued, since you have a better case, you'll give all your money to your lawyer and not to the RIAA....

[Randman]

Originally Posted by starman

You're comparing stealing something PHYSICAL to something DIGITAL. Not the same.

That's bull sh it and you know it. Stealing is stealing.

The CDs are yours, use them. You own the CDs, but that does not give you any legal right to acquire the music in illegal methods.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by starman

You're comparing stealing something PHYSICAL to something DIGITAL. Not the same.

Mike

Have to agree with you on this one. You have not stopped another user from using the product. Someone who takes law could probably turn this into 'legalise'.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Randman

That's bull sh it and you know it. Stealing is stealing.

The CDs are yours, use them. You own the CDs, but that does not give you any legal right to acquire the music in illegal methods.

No, you own the license to listen to that music (digital form), it's just handed to you on a CD (physical form). You still own the license to listen to the music. The flaw is that there's nothing to say "I paid for the license".

Mike

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by starman

Oh, and not for nothing, but nobody gave this guy as much flack, and he's asking for a lot more:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=264067

Mike

He wasn't really asking for more: the CD image would have been useless without a key, anyway.

But if I had seen that thread, I probably would have whipped out Mr. Monkey Pirate anyway.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by starman

No, you own the license to listen to that music (digital form), it's just handed to you on a CD (physical form). You still own the license to listen to the music. The flaw is that there's nothing to say "I paid for the license".

Mike

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like sometimes you are only buying the physical CD with bits strategically placed on it, and oter times you are really buying a license to listen to the music and are limited in how you can manipulate those physical bits, depending on what is more advantageous to the RIAA at the time....

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

He wasn't really asking for more: the CD image would have been useless without a key, anyway.

But if I had seen that thread, I probably would have whipped out Mr. Monkey Pirate anyway.

You know, I am not a pirate at all, so I don't know why you gave me that. I have never illegally downloaded software. I have used some shareware pass the date the programmer has provided, but most of the times that was because I forgot I had the software on my computer as I hadn't used it in a while. I was just wanting to make my life a little easier by getting some of my favorite songs on my iPod with out having to open 10-15 boxes looking for them.

[suvsr4terrorists]

I was under the impression that it's kinda like software.... you can make copies, but only one can be in use at any time. This could be taken two ways:

1. No, don't download them, since they're copies of someone else's CD, you have no way of knowing if they're playing it the same time you are.

2. Yes, download them. They're identical copies of what you would have made had you ripped your CDs, and since they're NOT being played you should be able to play your MP3 versions.

- Rob

[starman]

Rob makes a good point. If zeebe downloads them, how is anyone to prove he didn't rip them from his own CDs, assuming they don't find that they were downloaded in the first place?

Mike

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by starman

The current music ownership/licensing issue needs a lot of work. It's nobody's fault, I don't think anyone saw this coming in 1984 when CDs were released. Now technology has brought us to the point where we demand instant access to everything, but there's nothing in place to prove that we bought the license.

What difference does it being a CD make? People were taping each other's records long before then.

[budster101]

Legano-milegano...

Does everyone here have the receipt for:

- Their furniture?
- VCR
- TV
- Clothing
- Other gadgets?

If not, prove you are the owner and did not steal them...

The fact is, you have every right to download them and listen to them without fear of being prosecuted.
If they come after you, produce the cds and they'll be on their idiotic Nazi way...

If you do not have the cds, you should not download anything. The probelm is as mentioned before, they don't know you own them, so if you download the lot, they you are risking a visit and potential fine.. which would be squashed should you produce the cds and receipt for when YOU paid for them... get it?

I don't.

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

What difference does it being a CD make? People were taping each other's records long before then.

I always wanted to know about that too. I never heard any thing like this when I was a kid and my friends would make copies of their tapes or records. Is it because of the quality of the product now that everyone is making such a fuss or is it because of the ease of access to it?

[starman]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

What difference does it being a CD make? People were taping each other's records long before then.

But the difference is that you were dependent on the few people you know with what you wanted.

EDIT: Also, there was no way to track it.

Mike

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by zeebe

You know, I am not a pirate at all, so I don't know why you gave me that. I have never illegally downloaded software. I have used some shareware pass the date the programmer has provided, but most of the times that was because I forgot I had the software on my computer as I hadn't used it in a while. I was just wanting to make my life a little easier by getting some of my favorite songs on my iPod with out having to open 10-15 boxes looking for them.

Exactly. I believe you, I really do. But the way the law is stacked in the content providers' favor right now, if your IP address happens to be seen grabbing stuff on one of these networks, you will get sued, you will be presumed to be guilty because they have evidence of your "crime", and you will need to hire a lawyer to plead your case. It is unfair and bogus, but that's life right now. If you don't like it, write your congressman the next time some idiot copyright law comes up.

Besides, monkeys in pirate hats are funny.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

What difference does it being a CD make? People were taping each other's records long before then.

The difference is that analog tapes degrade from copy to copy. Plus, it takes time to make each analog copy.

The digital audio on a CD can be copied quickly, and it's contents distributed to the world at light speed. And since content providers currently view each individual instance of illegal copying as a lost sale, $16.99 per CD * 4+ billioon people on earth = more money than I have!

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Exactly. I believe you, I really do. But the way the law is stacked in the content providers' favor right now, if your IP address happens to be seen grabbing stuff on one of these networks, you will get sued, you will be presumed to be guilty because they have evidence of your "crime", and you will need to hire a lawyer to plead your case. It is unfair and bogus, but that's life right now. If you don't like it, write your congressman the next time some idiot copyright law comes up.

Besides, monkeys in pirate hats are funny.

OK, I thought it was a rip on me. Sorry about the rant, but I am so sick of the music business right now with all of this sh#t going on. I remember about a year or two ago they passed a law that was SUPPOSE to make the cost of CDs go down (in the US) but that hasn't happened. There is now way the cost of CDs should be over $9. Apple kind of changed that with the ITMS but, there are rumors now of the prices going up there also.

OK, the discussion can end, I know what I am going to do, wait for the basement to get done and then rip them to my ipod. I appreciate everyones comments, either positive or negative.
Thanks

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Randman

I own a car but it's at the shop. Is it legal to take another car? It is the same model.

It's not the same, music is not a car. Ask cpt. cangarooski, or better, do a search, he explained the legal details in a previous thread. When you purchase the CDs, you have the right to `consume' the music.

My take on it is this: you paid for it, so you have the right to listen to it.

[Millennium]

It's only legal if the entity you're downloading from has permission to redistribute the songs, and in the case of Acquisition this is almost certainly not the case. Although downloading songs from CDs you already own is technically not piracy, you could still be considered to be trafficking in stolen goods, which is a crime in its own right. Although you might be able to claim innocence if you didn't know the music was being illegally distributed, it's not reasonable to assume that someone offering songs over Acquisition has permission to redistribute them, and so you don't have that defense.

[starman]

Millennium makes a good point.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like sometimes you are only buying the physical CD with bits strategically placed on it, and oter times you are really buying a license to listen to the music and are limited in how you can manipulate those physical bits, depending on what is more advantageous to the RIAA at the time....

If you buy the CD, you own the CD and you have purchased a license to use it … otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all. The copyright is what is worth the money, not the CD or anything. Nor did you buy the copyright or something, you just bought the right to listen to it. I bought a couple of songs from the iTMS. I didn't get a CD, just a license to listen to it on something like 5 computers and many, many, many iPods.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by starman

When you download something off the net that's copyrighted, all someone (read: RIAA) sees is your IP address.

Well, that's why you would use TOR.

-t

[Atomic Rooster]

It is legal in Canada. A surcharge is put on every digital device (hard drive) or blank tape, CD, etc. just for this reason.

Being in Minnesota you could tell yourself and try and convince yourself you're taking advantage of "fair use".

[OpenStep]

no it is not legal. rip all your cds into itunes then sell them on ebay

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

It is legal in Canada. A surcharge is put on every digital device (hard drive) or blank tape, CD, etc. just for this reason.

Being in Minnesota you could tell yourself and try and convince yourself you're taking advantage of "fair use".

I thought they got rid of the surcharge?

[Diggory Laycock]

Technically illegal: probably, yes.
Morally Wrong: no.

Chance of being 'caught' - tending towards nil.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

I thought they got rid of the surcharge?

They did???

Is it still legal then?


Do I have criminal mind?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by zeebe

Is it illegal for me to download them using Acquistion or some other means? I mean I own the discs, just can't get to them.

It is perfectly legal for you to have MP3s of songs you own on CD. But acquiring those MP3s from a peer to peer network would be unwise. Because of the nature of those programs the RIAA could still prosecute you on the grounds of intention to distribute the files. Just go find the box of CDs. In the ten minutes you spend downloading the songs you could have gone and found your stuff.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Answer to the question. Who cares?

Download the songs if you can't wait. You won't be sent to GTMO.

Why do you bother crawling out of the PL? That was completely worthless. It addresses nothing and while he would probably never see jail time the cost of having to settle the suit would put a serious damper on his future.
If a thread comes up here like someone asking for hummus recipes I am sure someone will page you so you can add your two cents.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman

To actually ANSWER the question - I would be careful about downloading from anywhere. If you get caught, having the CDs in your posession may not matter.

Has anybody ever been prosecuted for downloading music? I don't think even the RIAA has tried that — not even their lawyers are audacious enough to argue that they've suffered big losses because somebody downloaded a Robbie Williams track at some point. They always bust people for sharing music, because then thousands of people may potentially have downloaded it. Though they do try to fudge the difference to scare you out of doing it.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by budster101

Legano-milegano...

Does everyone here have the receipt for:

- Their furniture?
- VCR
- TV
- Clothing
- Other gadgets?

If not, prove you are the owner and did not steal them...

The fact is, you have every right to download them and listen to them without fear of being prosecuted.
If they come after you, produce the cds and they'll be on their idiotic Nazi way...

If you do not have the cds, you should not download anything. The probelm is as mentioned before, they don't know you own them, so if you download the lot, they you are risking a visit and potential fine.. which would be squashed should you produce the cds and receipt for when YOU paid for them... get it?

I don't.

I retract the above statements that may lead you to act in an illegal manner. You should go get your CDs and then upload them.

It's the safest thing to do.

[Miniryu]

I'm make this simple:


1. It's illegal to download the songs.

2. Once they're downloaded, it is perfectly legal to own them.

When you purchased the license to listen to that music you also purchased the right to own a back-up copy of it. The chances are super super super slim that you will get caught downloading the music- as someone else already pointed out, no one has been prosecuted for downloading (only uploading). How deeply burried are the CDs anyway?

[zeebe]

Well, I played the safe way and found the CDs I wanted. It took me about 2.5 hours to find them all, we have so much crap. Thanks again for the advice from everyone.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by zeebe

Well, I played the safe way and found the CDs I wanted. It took me about 2.5 hours to find them all, we have so much crap. Thanks again for the advice from everyone.

Well, so now you can go on to downloading the CDs that you haven't bought YET

-t

[cpt kangarooski]

Wow, take off for one long weekend and look what happens.

zeebe--

I really miss listening to some of my favorite CDs and I did not have time before the move to copy them to itunes. Is it illegal for me to download them using Acquistion or some other means? I mean I own the discs, just can't get to them.

It is illegal. A good argument could be made in favor of the download being a fair use, provided that all that happened was a download, and you owned lawfully made copies of all the same things, but there's always uncertainty with fair use.

Scandalous Ion Cannon, Randman, Millennium--

Because it is stealing one way or another.

That's bull sh it and you know it. Stealing is stealing.

No, it is not stealing; there are important differences between the two. There is no need whatsoever to mislabel copyright infringement as stealing to either try to state what it is under the law, if you want to be even vaguely correct, nor if you are trying to make a moral argument, any more than you would have to say that kidnapping or arson were stealing, and therefore wrong. Lots of things can be illegal, lots of things can be wrong, and there is no need to try to lump things under one category, especially when this introduces errors to the discussion. Perhaps the claims of stealing are hyperbole, meant to appeal to people's emotions, but that sort of argument only muddies the waters, and I'd like to not see it here.

Although downloading songs from CDs you already own is technically not piracy, you could still be considered to be trafficking in stolen goods, which is a crime in its own right.

It cannot be. This has been tried in the past, and has been shot down in the courts. The remedies under the Copyright Act are the sole remedies for the act of copyright infringement. Good try, though.

starman, dreilly1, oreocookie, miniryu--

The current music ownership/licensing issue needs a lot of work. ... [T]here's nothing in place to prove that we bought the license.

No, you own the license to listen to that music (digital form), it's just handed to you on a CD (physical form). You still own the license to listen to the music.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like sometimes you are only buying the physical CD with bits strategically placed on it, and oter times you are really buying a license to listen to the music and are limited in how you can manipulate those physical bits, depending on what is more advantageous to the RIAA at the time....

If you buy the CD, you own the CD and you have purchased a license to use it … otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all. The copyright is what is worth the money, not the CD or anything. Nor did you buy the copyright or something, you just bought the right to listen to it. I bought a couple of songs from the iTMS. I didn't get a CD, just a license to listen to it on something like 5 computers and many, many, many iPods.

When you purchased the license to listen to that music you also purchased the right to own a back-up copy of it.

No.

A copyright consists of several enumerated exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce the work in copies, to distribute the copies, publicly perform them, etc. Merely using the work is not covered. This means that it is impossible for it to be copyright infringement if you simply listen to a CD.

However, until the CD has been sold to you, someone else owns the tangible object. Since you cannot listen to it without accessing it, and since it's the owner of the CD that can control access to it, the right to listen to a CD is simply an aspect of ordinary private property rights. It is exactly like how the owner of a car who determines who can drive it, not the car manufacturer. Of course, even a person with the right to drive a specific car cannot disobey traffic laws, just as a person who bought a CD cannot disobey copyright laws. But those laws don't govern everything: you can drive at any safe speed within the speed limit, just as you can do anything with a copyrighted work that doesn't infringe.

This means that listening, not being covered under copyright, is ok. Making new copies, which is covered under copyright (with only a few exceptions) is not ok. When a copyright expires or is otherwise not applicable, then copying is ok too.

The very concept of licensing works to consumers is abhorrent and novel. It's mostly isolated to the software industry (where it is absolutely unnecessary) but is beginning to spread. Personally, I think it's a practice that we ought to abolish. Only in unusual cases is licensing even marginally useful to anyone.

Now, iTMS may indeed involve a license, and I wouldn't be surprised. Not having used it, I wouldn't know. But it doesn't much need one, and it is harmful to customers that there should be one.

Incidentally, AFAIK, the RIAA has never made even the slightest claim that CDs involve licenses normally. It's just people who are sadly too accepting of the concept of software EULAs that seem to be making this up out of nowhere. I blame the software industry for pushing their useless and harmful concept on people. Software should be sold or otherwise conveyed, not licensed, and would be more satisfying to all parties involved, I think. Some is, but not enough.

suvsr4terrorists--

I was under the impression that it's kinda like software.... you can make copies, but only one can be in use at any time.

No, making copies is what's (generally) prohibited, not use. Although in the software field, under the statutes (which are often superceded by licenses where applicable) you can make all the backups you want, and can make all the copies necessary to use the software on a computer.

ReggieX--

What difference does it being a CD make? People were taping each other's records long before then.

None, really. The RIAA used to be against home taping, when people did that. Some of us may be old enough to remember their 'Home Taping is Killing Music' ad campaign. Better still was the response of the Dead Kennedys, who accepted this premise, and helpfully sold an album on tape with one blank side to encourage it. After all, home taping was killing music, and they wanted to help.

Presently, some reproduction of music, such as home taping, is perfectly legal if you are careful about how you do it.

Captain Obvious--

Because of the nature of those programs the RIAA could still prosecute you on the grounds of intention to distribute the files.

This is a somewhat muddled statement, but it is basically wrong. You'd have to actually have done so. Of course, the downloading is arguably equally illegal, so it doesn't matter much. The reason RIAA, MPAA, et al normally go after other targets is for strategic reasons, not legal ones. They try to go after the networks that facilitate infringement, and the suppliers of infringers, which if they were successful, would starve the people at the bottom of opportunities to infringe, without having had to go through the bother of suing them too. It's a head of the snake thing.

Miniryu--

When you purchased the license to listen to that music you also purchased the right to own a back-up copy of it.

Not only is there no license, but there is also no right to make backups of music.

dreilly1--

you'll give all your money to your lawyer and not to the RIAA....

Now there's a statement I can support wholeheartedly.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

a lot of stuff.

Ok, I appreciate you taking your time. But it did NOT make things any clearer.

What part of the process of downloading music that you already own on CDs is illegal ?
And why so exactly ?
In real life, could you ever get it in trouble for that, or is it a mere academic question ?

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by zeebe

I understand where you are coming from, but this is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. I am talking about something that costs $12, compared to what you are saying could be over $100,000 depending on the car.

Tragedy of the commons. Why do you think Napster was so popular in the first place? One guys says, "It's only a few bucks. Who cares?" Problem is, so did a few million other people. The principle is exactly the same.

It's legal (at lest for now) for you to rip your own CDs and use them how you like. It's illegal to put them on a network and share to anyone else who wants to download them. Likewise, it's illegal for you to download from someone else who has them up for everyone to download (regardless if you own it already.)

[cpt kangarooski]

turtle777--

What part of the process of downloading music that you already own on CDs is illegal ?
And why so exactly ?
In real life, could you ever get it in trouble for that, or is it a mere academic question ?

The downloading part of the process.

Copyrights actually consist of several enumerated rights. One of these, at 17 USC § 106(1) is the right to make more copies of a given work. (n.b. that a copy is defined in § 101 as being any material object in which the intangible creative work is embodied, e.g. a CD is a copy containing a sound recording and a musical composition)

When you download a copyrighted work, you necessarily are embodying it into a hard drive, or RAM, or whatever. This is copying, and therefore it is infringing.

Now, any otherwise infringing activity might be noninfringing, if it is a fair use. The four factor test commonly used to determine if a use is a fair use or not is at § 107. In the case of downloading, three of the four factors are against it being fair right off the bat. The best that a downloader can possibly say is that the fourth factor -- the commercial effect of the act -- is in his favor, if he already owns the CDs.

Of course, note that this is the same situation that anyone ripping CDs onto a computer must face, and it is of dubious fairness itself. I would hope that a court would not care much about the method by which one obtained a copy of music if one owned a lawfully made copy of the work in question. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Of course, it is unlikely that one would get sued for mere downloading (n.b. that if one is uploading too, as invariably happens with torrents and perhaps some other methods) but not for any legal reason. Only because it's poor tactics for RIAA to go after one downloader, when going after an uploader could in effect take out the people downloading from them as a side-effect. The higher up on the chain, the greater the ancillary benefits of suing them; downloaders are at the bottom.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Incidentally, AFAIK, the RIAA has never made even the slightest claim that CDs involve licenses normally. It's just people who are sadly too accepting of the concept of software EULAs that seem to be making this up out of nowhere. I blame the software industry for pushing their useless and harmful concept on people. Software should be sold or otherwise conveyed, not licensed, and would be more satisfying to all parties involved, I think. Some is, but not enough.

What I was thinking of when I wrote that was the kerfuffle a while back over used CD's. Some artists (Garth Brooks come to mind) were implying that people who bought and sold used CD's were cheating the artists out of money, because they don't get their cut of each sale past the first one. They didn't come out and say "you're not buying the CD, you're just buying a license to listen to it which you can't transfer", but that's what they were implying. I would think that content providers would love to license content rather than sell it, because licensed content can get around all those silly "first sale" rights that you have when you buy a CD.

Also, this isn't the RIAA, but before Jack Valenti left the MPAA, he was asked about the legal uses of DVD copying software for backup purposes, and he said something along the lines of "It's unnecessary. If you want a backup copy of a DVD, buy a second one". Nobody comes out and says that the content is licensed, but that's certainly the way tey want to treat it, to my untrained eye.