Copying library CD? You just broke law

[The Straight Story]

Copying library CD? You just broke law

Borrowing can quickly turn to stealing when patrons pick up music at their local libraries.

Copying compact discs is illegal, but library employees say they generally can't prove it's occurring except in the most egregious cases.

"Copyright is an important issue, but it's difficult to oversee," said Ann Moore, Upper Arlington Library spokeswoman. "Once they take materials home, we can't control what they do with them."

Copying music or a book from a library CD is a form of piracy just like illegal downloads on the Internet.

The recording industry sent Ohio State University 2,336 notices about instances of students' music piracy during the 2007-08 school year, but companies can't track copies of library disks unless police catch someone selling copies.

...

"One fellow was obviously trying to systematically download our entire collection and coming in every two days. We told him to slow down a little bit."

...

They also could set up a computer system that flags repeated withdrawals of stacks of CDs over short periods of time. But library employees would have to be careful not to monitor content.

http://fwix.com/share/20_6cb76f09a0

[hobbit709]

1. You can't hardly go outside and breathe

without breaking some law anymore.

[The Straight Story]

2. I think you just broke one by posting here, were you smoking while you posted?

:rofl:

[WillParkinson]

3. Wait...

You're breathing MY air? And you didn't pay for the rights?

Son, that's gonna cost ya.

[hobbit709]

4. You want your air back?

Let me add a little impure methane first.
:rofl:

[Rex]

43. I've got some really nice bottled air, right here in my trenchcoat.

You need an eye? I've got z-ray, twice as good as x!

[imdjh]

5. Sick of this. nt

[BolivarianHero]

6. Wow...Seems a bit different than usual...

Normally, I get crucified by "liberals" and moderates when I attack the copyright Gestapo and the abuses of the entertainment industry.

[crispini]

7. Because -- gross generalization follows --

your average person (including your average DU'er) can totally see themselves copying a CD from the library now and then, whereas nobody but geeks know how to find pirated music on the intertubes. ;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Of course it's against the law. Always has been. That's called copyright.

[fasttense]

9. Ridiculous, minor laws that are selectively enforced are a symptom of a totalitarian government.

In China, for example, they have laws that require a citizen to notify authorities, and get authorization, to travel to another city. These requests are rarely approved. Yet citizens must move between cities every day in order to work and shop.

The law serves the purpose of keeping these citizens quiet. If you complain about consumer products or conditions of work, you can be arrested because you have traveled illegally. So, if the government wants to get rid of you, they have a built in reason they can use. And it all looks so legal.

In the US, these unenforceable laws are designed to allow corporations to selectively enforce them. If they find you are a threat to their ill gotten gains, why there is bound to be a copyright infringement law you have failed to follow. And it all looks so legal.

[Odin2005]

10. The Intellectual Property Nazis suck.

[Viking12]

19. Until, of course, it's your intellectual property someone is stealing

[WonderGrunion]

11. Classical music enthusiasts don't have to worry about the RIAA brute squad

http://www.classiccat.net/toplist.htm

Classical music MP3s. Free and 100% legal. Centuries dead composers are all public domain.

[pipi_k]

13. Decomposing composers are free!

And they never bitch about royalties

:7

[WonderGrunion]

15. An interesting hypothesis to consider

If everyone only listened to public domain music, the RIAA would go bankrupt and collapse allowing the Music industry to restart without it's influence.

[pipi_k]

17. I do my part, lord knows...

As a Baby Boomer, most of the music I like isn't popular enough to merit massive downloads, so a lot of it really is out of the public domain.

I'm not really into the modern stuff, so the RIAA isn't making a whole lot off of me anyway. Nowadays I buy mostly used CDs and copy the music to my MP3 players. A couple of thousand songs keeps me happy.

:)

[Art_from_Ark]

51. However, the performances are usually copyrighted

And each recording artist/orchestra/ensemble will usually add an extra note or two, here and there, to establish a claim that it's their performance whose copyright is being violated, if, for example, it is broadcast over the radio without proper authorization/ acknowledgment..

[HamdenRice]

16. But I thought the "performances" were copyrighted?

Thanks in advance for your answer, cause if you're right I got some downloadin' to do!

[WonderGrunion]

18. Here's a link to a BMI article discussing this

http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/232988

Let's play "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire." First question: Is classical music in the public domain? If so, you can play it in a restaurant, hotel or retail store without paying royalties to the composers. Answer: If you're thinking "yes" will be your final answer, you'd be wise to use a lifeline. Picking the correct answer requires a substantial knowledge of music.

"Many classical works are newer than they sound," said Tom Annastas, BMI Vice President, General Licensing. "The question is more difficult because people don't define classical music the same way," he said. "Is classical music played by symphony orchestras? Sometimes, but not always. Aren't classical composers dead? Mozart and Beethoven earned their wings some two centuries ago, but many classical composers live and work today."

Classical music can be performed by one person with a guitar, flute, synthesizer, piano, or harp. It can be played or sung by any combination of instruments or voices, either acoustic or electronic. Even if the composer is no longer above ground, his or her work can be protected by copyright law for 95 years or longer. Works created after January 1, 1978 can be protected for the life of the composer plus 70 years, before those works move into the public domain.

So any work composed before 1913 would legally be public domain.

[HamdenRice]

20. I'm asking a slightly different question

Suppose the music was composed in 1800 and is clearly in the public domain, but the musicians performed it in 2008.

Isn't the copyright of the performance separate from the copyright of the music, such that downloading for free isn't allowed?

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. Yes- the copyright on the recording is separate from the coyright on the music

which is also separate from the copyright on the published score (if there is one).

So, let's take Mozart Symphony No. 3 - clearly, the music itself is public domain: anyone who wants to perform it can do so without having to pay royalties to anyone.

However: the symphony, unless they have someone who wants to hand-write all the scores out from a Mozart original, is going to have to purchase and/or rent the sheet music from the place that DOES have the copyright on whatever version they are printing. Since the music is public domain, there might very well be 10 or 20 or 50 publishing houses that offer copies of the music. So, the orchestra can buy the scores, and then they can use them ad infinitum all they want, and even record them.

BUT - if they decide to go with rental scores, then they will pay money to the rental agency pursuant to whatever agreement they come up with, AND they might have to pay an extra surcharge if that sheet music is used to create a recording which will be distributed on CD, over the radio, or whatnot.

AND THEN: if the orchestra makes a recording of the symphony, then that specific recording is copyrighted by the orchestra (or CD company, or whoever decides to take it). Plus, whatever PHYSICAL version of created (CDs, tapes, 8-tracks) will have their own copyrights, and the live radio broadcast might have its own, and so on.

AND, let's say the recording is a live recording, and a DVD is made of the performance - then the visual images and sound of DVD is also copyrighted, as is any special features, such as commentary, documentaries, and so on.

And so, even from a public domain work, many copyrights can be created.

And so it would be illegal, then, to make copies of the CD, DVD, or live broadcast.

TO MUDDLE IT MORE: Let's say that it's not an ochestra that performs the Symphony No. 3, but Millie Von Arranger creates an arrangement of the symphony for 6 saxaphones, marimba, and aspic-covered jackass, which is then performed, recorded live, and made into a DVD. Millicent can now also copyright her version of the score, and the choreographer who came up with the dance for the aspic-covered jackass can copyright that dance, and then one also has the other copyrights that come through the process as outlined above.

Let's also say that there are 10 publishing houses offering the 1737 (I'm just making years up here, don't take this as a fact) version of the Symphony No. 30 (copied from a manuscript published in 1737). But then let's say that in 2008, Boosey Hawkes decided to publish a new edition of the symphony, using Mozart's original handwritten pages as well as some later versions, trying to come up with some sort of "historically accurate version" - if they do so, then publish it, they now (since it was 2008 and we're only in 2009 so far) have the ONLY copyright on what music afficionados are calling "The Definitive most historically accurate version of the symphony as Mozart intended it to be!" and so orchestras worldwide want to perform only this proper version - for the next 75 years (or whatever the limit is), Boosey Hawkes has EXCLUSIVE rights to this version, unless they decide to sell it or offer it for free or what have you, and so all those orchestras have to pay BH in one way or another to get and perform that music.

So you can have a year 1735 public domain symphony with a 2005 copyright on an arrangement with a 2007 copyright recording made from the 2006 copyright published score put out on a 2008 copyright CD and 2009 copyright DVD using video that is copyright 2007 (done during the recording session) and a subsequent 2010 copyright book called "The making of the score and the DVD!" that has photographs in it that are copyright 2005 (of Millie writing the score), 2007 (of the recording and rehearsals), 2008 and 2009 (of engineers mastering the CD and DVD), and maybe some photos copyright earlier (1962 copyright photo of Millie as a child, perhaps a photo of George Solti from 1978, and a still from a copyright 1958 movie about Mozart, and a copyright 1998 photo of a copyright 1975 painting by De Koonig).

And every copyright can conceivably have its own revenue/royalty stream.

Make sense?

:crazy:

[WonderGrunion]

28. Agreed, it is a muddled affair.

I had to read through a crap load of websites to even understand the basics of all the intricacies involved.

Bottom line. The link I originally posted has links to the performers websites where they offer the recordings for free copy.

[csziggy]

50. That is all as clear as mud - thank you!

But where can I buy a DVD with the performance by the aspic-covered jackass?

[havocmom]

24. The back of my Bach cd says the CD is copyright protected

Also my DVD of New Year's Day concert in Vienna, and all other classic music CDs/DVDs we have in the house.

Music free; artist preforming it & company producing it is protected. OK to preform the music without paying composer royalties (would be interesting to see someone try and cash THAT check), but every 'performance' recording in my music library (and it's good sized) seems to be protected.

[Arcana]

38. Pointless

Isn't getting your music from your library or anything from your library or borrowed from a friend getting to enjoy it for free?

[havocmom]

40. Free to enjoy for a period of time. Can't copy a book at the library

The library would be breaking the law if it let you copy more than a few pages of any book. The books are also free to borrow and enjoy. But copying is not lawful.

[Touchdown]

48. Which brings up the next question. When they start e-books...

will the just allow you to download it at the library to your Kindle, whatever? Can you keep it on your HD forever, or will it have a kill date and disappear off your HD in a couple of weeks? What's to stop you from copying that e-book onto another hard drive?:shrug:

You know e-books are coming to libraries eventually, so how would that work?:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

58. The libraries that are offering e-books for borrowing

are set up in a way - and I think it only works with the Sony readers, I can't remember, it's an article I read about a month ago - but the library beams the book to the reader and it comes with an expiration date so it self-deletes at whatever the checkout time is. AND it's copy in the library's computer is coded so that only one copy (or however many copies the library purchased) can be out at any time, like if they were real books.

It'll be interesting to see what happens as electronic readers become more popular.

[havocmom]

60. Libraries in our state collectively buy x number of copies of a title

Patrons check them out, just like print books. If all copies of a title are out, no more check outs until they are 'returned'.

Same with downloadable audio books.

[spanone]

44. you get to enjoy it, not steal it

[WonderGrunion]

27. You're mostly right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

The pertinent points are as follows.

A sound recording is different from a musical work. A musical work would be a composition (notes and words). Publicly performing a musical work does not constitute "publication" in the sense of the copyright law. (Presumably, a musical work is published when the score sheets are published.) Making a sound recording of a performance of a musical work requires the permission of the performer. (17 USC 1101) Performing a musical work requires the authorization of the copyright holder of that musical work. (17 USC 106(4)) Distributing phonorecords made from a performance of a musical work also requires the authorization of the copyright holder of the work performed. (17 USC 106(3)). A sound recording is copyrighted separately from the musical work it records. Publicly distributing phonorecords of the sound recording constitutes publication of the sound recording. (17 USC 101)

So there are four different copyrights to be considered for a sound recording:

* The copyright of the composer
* The copyright of the texter, if any
* The copyright of the performer, and
* The copyright of the producer of the record

In the case of broadcasts, there's also the copyright of the broadcaster on the broadcast to consider. The copyrights of performers/record producers/broadcasters are called the "neighbouring rights" or "related rights" in many countries. All of these have to have expired before the work enters the public domain.

Sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972 are not covered by U.S. federal copyright law.<7> They are, however, subject to U.S. state common or statutory laws until February 15, 2067.<†> On that date, federal copyright law will preempt state law, i.e., federal law will supersede any state laws in matters concerning the copyright of such sound recordings, and such sound recordings will then enter the public domain in the U.S., as federal law explicitly states that no such recordings "shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after" that date. (17 USC 301(c)) Sound recordings made on or after February 15, 1972 are covered by 17 USC (that is, the federal copyright law), and state law is irrelevant for such later recordings.

So recordings that are published after Feb 15th, 1972 are covered by copyright. A performance is not covered by copyright unless it is actually published. The website I posted earlier has links to the performers websites where they provide free downloads of their performances, so these would constitute a release to the public domain and not covered by copyright. Any performance made after Feb 15, 1972 can be subject to copyright enforcement by the RIAA.

It would be wise to check before copying.

edited to fix link

[hunter]

32. There are many, many very talented artists, too many for the "mass market."

My dad's an artist, my mom is a writer. Before retiring my dad was a teacher and my mom was an office manager. Sadly, most artists, even exceptionally gifted artists, don't make it to the "Big Leagues" where art is bought and sold as a mass market commodity.

Every writer is not going to be another J.K Rowlings, every musician a Bob Dylan. Most artists will have to keep their day jobs.

For the vast majority of artists (and probably even the mass-marketed artists) free distribution of art on the internet increases public exposure, and increases their opportunities for selling their art.

I very much enjoy searching out art that is not force fed to me by the giant mass marketing machines. My wife and I buy paintings and other graphic arts from local artists, we buy CD's from local performers, and I very much enjoy sifting through sites like http://www.jamendo.com or http://www.magnatune.com looking for treasures and sending a few dollars onto the artists, money they would never get from the mass marketing machines.

The wheels grinding us into the dirt are turned by all the hopeful people chasing the carrot dangling from the stick. Most people never reach the carrot, and those that do will often have it snatched away from them by their corporate handlers unless they are very savvy and streetsmart like J.K. Rowlings, for example.

With modern electronics and the internet the cost of reproducing and distributing music has become negligible. We should see this as an opportunity to increase the art in everyone's life, and to increase the opportunities for artists to sell their art. Many of the old ways of marketing art cannot be expected to survive in this radically changed environment.

And thank you for the link to classiccat, WonderGrunion! I hadn't been there before and I know I'll enjoy exploring it.

[WonderGrunion]

37. That's the important thing, it's not just classical music

Many, many artists donate music to the public domain every day. A good search can put you in touch with several talented artists that the current radio/album paradigm would never lead you to discover.

Everyone should seek out free music. When you find an artist you like, support them by buying their albums direct from their website. The modern music industry stifles artists far more than it promotes them.

[cemaphonic]

49. That's only half-true

The actual music composed is public domain, but the recordings are copyrighted (unless they are very old obviously), and so is most published sheet music. Enforcement is another matter, of course.

Clicking on a few of the links on the site you posted (nice find BTW), it looks like a lot of the recordings they link to are "free for personal use" recordings provided by the performing artists, and thus legit for download, but they are still under copyright. You could still be sued for damages if you compiled them into a commercial album, for example, which is not the case with public domain.

[WonderGrunion]

61. You are correct

The term "Public Domain" isn't completely accurate. Enjoy the MP3s though. I love that site.

[Coventina]

12. I've been wondering how long it was going to take the RIAA

to start complaining about this.

:eyes:

Next thing you know, it'll become illegal for libraries to loan CDs.

[msongs]

14. it should be legal to come in yer house n take all your computers - private property laws suck nt

[Milspec]

21. Of course you did

[ChoppinBroccoli]

22. All This Crap Started........

.......when the music industry stopped viewing their patrons/fans as customers and STARTED viewing them as cash delivery mechanisms. That's all you are to the RIAA: a thing that hands them money. I've heard all the arguments before. If we don't criminalize our customers, we'll go out of business! Yeah, just like public libraries put book stores out of business (how fitting that they're using the library system now). I remember when the music industry complained that radio stations playing music over the airwaves would put them out of business. Just like VCRs and video rental stores and HBO would put the movie industry out of business. I also remember when I was a kid, if a buddy got an album (during my youth, it was cassette tapes), he'd lend it to you so you could copy it, and nobody complained about that. Besides, if it was a really good album, most people would ditch the copy and go buy the album anyway. Nowadays (and I know this because I have a basic knowledge of copyright law), if you so much as LEND your album to your wife so she can listen to it in the car on the way to work...........YOU JUST VIOLATED COPYRIGHT LAW!!! That's right. According to Copyright, you're not even allowed to LEND a CD............to ANYONE. And guess what will happen to CDs in public libraries when the RIAA finally figures THAT one out.

And here's what the music industry fails to understand: this is all of their own making. How many times did YOU go out and buy an album because you liked the one or two hits you'd heard on the radio, only to find out that the other 8-10 songs on the album sounded like hammered shit? I got burned like that MANY times. And what was MY recourse? The music industry just needs to own up to the fact that until they give us a QUALITY product, we're NOT going to want to pay for crap. I've downloaded an album or two in my day. And if it was good, I always went out and bought it. If it was crap, it got deleted. That's all the music industry has to fear from downloading: crap products. The fact that they've freaked out over downloading just tells you that they KNOW they're giving us crap (and overcharging for it), and that they have no intention of changing that.

The next time you have an inkling to feel sorry for the poor, downtrodden music industry, just take a look at how much they're charging for a CD these days, then go on the internet and find out how much it actually costs to MAKE that CD. Can you say about a 38 bazillion percent markup? And I'm sorry, but I stopped feeling pity for the music industry when I paid 100 bucks to see the Eagles in their "final reunion tour ever" (1994), sit a country mile away from the stage, and they played for less than an hour.

[RoyGBiv]

25. +1

I have no sympathy for the so-called music industry.

[Raineyb]

29. Don't forget that the RIAA also gets a peice of the money you spend on blank media.

If I remember correctly a small part of the cost of buying blank media (tapes, CDs, DVDs and upon doing a quick google search the recorders as well) goes to the RIAA. So not only do they screw their customers, look at them as thieves, and have an outrageous markup on their product of dubious quality but they also make money when you buy your blank CDs and the burners you use to make your mixed CDs. (or back in the day mixed tapes)

I would not waste my time feeling sorry for the RIAA. They can go to hell.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Yep. And FUCK LARS!

[spanone]

42. that's all you are to anyone selling anything....a customer

[HughBeaumont]

26. According to those bunch of lunatics . . .

. . . copying a CD that I PURCHASED to MY COMPUTER for the purpose of putting the CD onto MY MP3 player for MY PRIVATE NON-SHARED USE is apparently a violation of copyright law.

So I flip the giant bird to this lame industry (which has been legally stealing asstons of money from musicians for decades while viewing their own customers as thieves) until they're willing to drop this paranoid means of "doing business" and move into the new millennium.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Um... if they copy the media, they would only have to check it out *once*.

[WonderGrunion]

33. They'd have to check out each item they wanted copied once.

Unless he's got a monster book bag and the library allows unlimited simultaneous withdrawals, that would require multiple trips.

[BlooInBloo]

35. From the OP: "repeated withdrawals". Each item to be copied would need to be checked out...

only once. "Repeated withdrawls" would not be a useful thing to track, if media-copying is the concern. Indeed, "repeated withdrawls" are *precisely* what media copying is meant to *avoid*.

[WonderGrunion]

36. I took that to mean repeated withdrawals from the category (CDs)

Not repeated withdrawals of the same item. Remember, the feds can track our library usage now.

[Ron Green]

34. SUPPORT LIVE MUSIC!

That's the ticket.

[Posteritatis]

57. +1 (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

39. You know me. The laws for individuals should fit neatly on a single side of one sheet of paper

Laws are for keeping corporations and the government on the straight and narrow and protecting consumers.

[spanone]

41. why doesn't eveyone work for free? if you write songs you should give them away?

or if you create art is should be free?

or if you write books you should give them away?

of course it's illegal

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. A continued point of outrage to me are the so-called liberals who don't think artists should be paid

"Fuck the music industry, CDs should be free! There should be no copyright protection!"

Fuck that. Fucking irritating beyond belief.

The same assholes who think it's funny to copy CDs and "screw the man" are people who, I'm sure, would froth at the mouth in righteous rage if someone broke into their house, or if their employer said "I'm only going to pay you to do this action once, since there's no reason to pay for just repeating the same action".

Fucking hell.

[hunter]

46. The hard reality is that it costs NOTHING to copy music, movies, and soon books.

As a society we've got to figure out a way to deal with that. Any punitive measures will likely result in complete anarchy where copyrights become entirely meaningless and enforced only for purposes of harassment.

If 90% of an artist's fans are declared to be pirates than 90% of that artist's fans can be legally harassed.

Now, to make the discussion a little more interesting, suppose an artist's fans tend to belong to some political faction not in power, and you can see where this is going... download your favorite anti-establishment political anthem illegally, a bootleg copy of 1984 perhaps, or John Lennon's Imagine, an angry rap classic, or hell even Candles in the Rain and risk fines or jail time... Is that the world we want?

I'm not sure what the answer is. How about you, Rabrrrrrr?

I suspect we are entering another era of sinecures, subsidies, and patronage for artists unable to make a good living from personal appearances or art that is not easily reproduced. And as it has always been and always will be most artists will not be able to support themselves by their art, no matter their talent.

[The Straight Story]

53. Actually, on that last bit:

or if their employer said "I'm only going to pay you to do this action once, since there's no reason to pay for just repeating the same action".

Happens all the time to people like me, programmers. Write an awesome program they use it all the time and give it to other departments or to whomever they like.

[Posteritatis]

56. I'd be a lot happier if artists were paid *properly*

My brother's an on-again-off-again professional musician. He's doing alright now chiefly because the group he's in now has started doing all their production up to running off the albums in-house, but when his earlier stuff was attached to even fairly local companies he'd get a pittance at best off each album sale. (They're also doing the music as hobby-with-a-paycheck, but that's beside the point.)

If the guys making the music are putting out albums that sell reasonably well and are the only people involved in the process who actually wind up deeper in debt despite the sales, the process itself is hosed. He managed to get away from that, which pleases me to no end, but a lot of artists haven't yet, and wind up getting screwed by The Man and The People both at once.

I certainly don't think they shouldn't be paid; if anything I think they're often sadly underpaid for what they do. Anyone who thinks anywhere near most of the cost of buying an album goes to the people whose content is on it in the first place needs to look into how wrong they are. It just ain't right.

[Rabrrrrrr]

59. I agree with you on that one - the ones attached to an industry get very little

thankfully, with the Internet, small town artists can get their music out to the world and to their fans without having to go through a mega-distributer; and with cheap recording software and computers, pretty much anyone can set up a studio in-home and do some incredible recording work.

[Kievan Rus]

47. More corporate fat-cats whining.

Then again, you'd better do what your corporate overlords demand...after all, look at what happened to peaceful G-20 demonstrators in Pittsburgh!

All corporate pigs ever do is whine about how they don't have enough money, in spite of the fact they'll make more in a day than most people in Africa will in their lifetimes.

[csziggy]

52. I've talked to people online who do that with Netflicks

Rent videos, copy the DVDs, return the videos. Mostly they consider it a way to time shift their viewing, but I doubt they throw away the DVD copies once they watch them.

For people who copy their LPs to CDs or who rip their CDs to MP3s then sell the originals, technically that is copyright violation. You can make copies of your own originals for your own use, but that "right" is relinquished when you no longer own the original.

RIAA is going to lose this fight in the long run. Copyright law as it is written is nearly unenforceable and extending the lifetime of the copyright just makes it worse.

[aikoaiko]

54. Libraries are not responsible for people who borrow and copy digital info

The person who does the copying is.

[704wipes]

55. my thoughts on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhaB7wx96Fg&feature=related