I think there are a few instances that are clearly unethical:

Putting files on P2P so that all the world can download them.
Ripping a CD and then selling it or gifting it while keeping use of the file.

I like to think in terms of fair household or family use.
Eg. even itunes allows it's DRM files to be played simultaneously on different computers on the same household wi-fi and to be used on several Ipods.
Taking that cue, I see no ethical problem with my teenage son putting my CD's on his Ipod while they are also on my Ipod.
I have 1 SB3, 1 SB Receiver and a Transporter .
I could play the same song in 3 different rooms.
That isn't so different from someone who has a whole house speaker system fed by 1 CD player.
All of this type of use is ethical to me.
I realize ELK draws the line a bit before this but that seems a bit extreme. Eg. I am about to listen to a song, do I call my kid to make sure he isn't listening to the same song?

Again all this use seems to be supported by the record companies that license Itunes for their DRM music. So I feel comfortable following that example.

Quote:
itunes allows it's DRM files to be played simultaneously on different computers on the same household wi-fi and to be used on several Ipods.

I didn't know this. This is quite interesting.

So you could download an iTunes compatible DRM protected file and load a copy on your iPod and a copy on your friend's iPod?

This surprises me. I assumed that the iPod had a unique id and the files would be linked to that id, similar to what is used with mapping information purchased for use with a GPS. The software can only be used on one GPS unit and is linked to that unit.

I'm more familiar with the Zune than iPod, but I'm sure their usage models are very similar. For tunes purchased through the Zune store, you can sync (transfer) those tunes from the host PC to any number of Zune devices. For tunes acquired through their subscription service (not available on iTunes) you can sync to up to 3 Zunes.

IIRC, in Canada, the licence is for the given household. Not the individual copy. It is at the least a licence for the one one who owns it..to make as many copies as they PERSONALLY desire. What if the original fails? we are allowed to make backups of what we have paid for.

We are even allowed to take the lid off audio and video gear, or any electronics, for that matter-no matter WHAT the given sticker or security sticker may say. We cannot touch anything, but we're allowed to look inside what we own.

There are sound reasons for these laws.

Quote:
I'm more familiar with the Zune than iPod, but I'm sure their usage models are very similar. For tunes purchased through the Zune store, you can sync (transfer) those tunes from the host PC to any number of Zune devices.

Interesting.

Does the license agreement state for whom these copies can be made, such as family members, household or the like? Otherwise the only limitation on the number of copies is the number of Zunes that can be connected to the PC.

A separate issue:

I understand the incentive to make a copy of a CD one hasn't paid for, but why pay for a CD and make it available to others? (leaving aside those that declare hatred of all recording labels as evil).

I'm not going to put my Ferrari on the corner so that anyone who passes by can take it for a spin.

Who reads EULAs? I doubt the Zune software will check the ownership of a connected device then go to a geneology database to determine if there is any immediate relationship prior to syncing a song (guess it's possible though). Of course a physical connection between the Zune device and the PC is required. This is hardly in the same league as posting a song to BitTorrent.

If there was a device that allowed you to make a perfect copy of your Ferrari for only a few pennies, would you put a copy on the corner for us to drive?

Quote:
This is hardly in the same league as posting a song to BitTorrent.

Absolutely. Additionally, it sounds as if the DRM is controlling how many copies can be made and how. If the DRM does not object one must assume that the owner of the file does not object.

Quote:
If there was a device that allowed you to make a perfect copy of your Ferrari for only a few pennies, would you put a copy on the corner for us to drive?

You bet!

Just let me get off the road first.

Quote:

You bet! Just let me get off the road first.

Does this mean you would support the ability to clone any number of Ferraris as long as there is only one set of keys?

As long they are my keys.

Then I could afford to crash occasionally on a road course.

Quote:

In England it is illegal to make even a single copy of a CD.

Elk, with all due respect, your assertion is factually incorrect.

Quote:

Quote:

In England it is illegal to make even a single copy of a CD.

Elk, with all due respect, your assertion is factually incorrect.

I'm happy to be corrected (one way to learn) but it is currently illegal to copy a CD or rip it to your computer in England.

As you like the BBC as a source, see, e.g., Much newer article than that cited above

The Act itself: Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988

As in the US however, the British recording industry is not pursuing those that copy for their own personal use on an eMPty3 player. This position is set forth in the article you linked.

A change in English law is in the works to allow a personal copy to be made. I believe this to be a good idea and hope the US Congress does the same.

Legality, schmegality

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

In England it is illegal to make even a single copy of a CD.

Elk, with all due respect, your assertion is factually incorrect.

I'm happy to be corrected (one way to learn) but it is currently illegal to copy a CD or rip it to your computer in England.

As you like the BBC as a source, see, e.g., Much newer article than that cited above

The Act itself: Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988

As in the US however, the British recording industry is not pursuing those that copy for their own personal use on an eMPty3 player. This position is set forth in the article you linked.

A change in English law is in the works to allow a personal copy to be made. I believe this to be a good idea and hope the US Congress does the same.

Elk,

The article you reference dated 8th January is relevant to a secondary issue (ie. the sale of second hand goods whilst retaining a copy of the recorded works). This is a similar venture by the Government of the UK to attempt to implement laws already in place in Florida, amongst other states, to stymie the second hand market where royalties and revenue streams remain unaccounted.

The Copyright designs and patent act does not cover - nor did it anticipate - individual copying legislation as its primary function is to prevent "commercial piracy".

The making of a single copy of a (bought and paid for) recorded work for personal use only is not illegal - indeed, to the best of my knowledge, not one individual in the UK has ever been prosecuted for doing so (hence the "technically illegal" reference in the latter BBC report you linked to).

In order for it to be illegal in the true sense of the word - and in compliance with those terms within the 1988 Act which deem it to be illegal - it would have to infringe the copyright holder's "Economic rights" and that, normally, involves distribution of some sort. It has been brought to the Government's, and labels, attention that those who copy recorded works, retain that copy and sell on their original copy are impacting on the economic rights of the copyright holders, and ultimately the artists.

They are in clear breach of sections 16 & 17 of the '88 Act and, as such, the Government are seeking to prosecute / punish them under clearly defined legislation rather than attempt prosecutions under an Act which bears no real relevance to the digital age.

The primary targets here are models like ebay with their sellers trading millions of second hand recorded works weekly and no revenue streams being accounted to labels or artists.

It's a case of "Watch this space".

Best wishes.

Apparently the English recording industry is taking the same position as the US industry; neither is concerned with the copying or ripping of CD by the original owner for personal use.

English law is more clear than US law in that it clearly is illegal in England to make a copy. The issue is undecided under US law.

The phrase "technically illegal" is silly, either it is legal or it is not. "Technically illegal" is like "sort of pregnant", a nonsensical term.

Whether one is likely to be prosecuted is a question separate from legality. Of course, if a law is never enforced it should be re-written to conform with existing mores or repealed.

Hi again Elk, thanks for coming back on this matter, much appreciated.

English law has always been of the opinion that it should not, post the advent of digital format shifting, be concerned with the ripping of a CD by the original owner for personal use - hence my earlier reference to the lack of any prosecutions in relation to same. The US law on this matter is something I am not familiar with so I cannot comment on who is taking the lead from who.

It is not currently, nor has it ever been, illegal to "rip" a copy of a CD for personal use. This is why we now find ourselves at a juncture whereby the '88 Act is being reworked. There is nothing in the '88 Act that would guarantee a successful prosecution because there is nothing in the '88 Act which is pertinent to format shifting of a digital nature. I understand why people get confused / perplexed by the issue but the fact remains that you cannot be prosecuted for actions or behaviours that are not deemed (either in statute or legislation) to be illegal or where no provision for same exists.

Prosecution and legality are interdependent - we are not in the business of prosecuting people for not breaking the law - in this case a law which does not factually exist.

Best.