iPod If I own the vinyl album, is it legal to download the same album using bit torrent?

[milo]

Whoa there yourself. First, I never said it was "the same,"

I said it was different and you disputed that. If you disagree with "different" I'm not exactly sure what other possibility you think there is since "not different" implies "the same".

You're the one who made the original claim that downloading a copy of something you own would fall under fair use and is therefore legal, so the burden of proof is on you. What part of copyright law would give people the right to download music that they've purchased in another format?

 

[IJ Reilly]

I said it was different and you disputed that. If you disagree with "different" I'm not exactly sure what other possibility you think there is since "not different" implies "the same".

You're the one who made the original claim that downloading a copy of something you own would fall under fair use and is therefore legal, so the burden of proof is on you. What part of copyright law would give people the right to download music that they've purchased in another format?

Nope. Go back and read what I've written. The point is (again) we don't know if fair use applies in this situation until this point is adjudicated. The record companies would need to make a successful case to a court that it is not fair use.

 

[milo]

The point is (again) we don't know if fair use applies in this situation until this point is adjudicated.

Well, I can agree with that.

You should be more clear in your posts, earlier you were saying that you thought fair use DOES apply, when that's clearly a stretch.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I can agree with that.

You should be more clear in your posts, earlier you were saying that you thought fair use DOES apply, when that's clearly a stretch.

I was clear, I think. I actually do assume that fair use applies to this situation until I hear otherwise (and not from the record companies, who would have you believe that fair use does not exist at all). I believe the record companies would have a very tough time convincing a court that fair use does not apply under these circumstances. As I said before, I believe the argument against fair use in this situation would be a real reach, and I suspect, full of holes. I pointed out a couple of them.

 

[milo]

I was clear, I think. I actually do assume that fair use applies to this situation until I hear otherwise (and not from the record companies, who would have you believe that fair use does not exist at all). I believe the record companies would have a very tough time convincing a court that fair use does not apply under these circumstances. As I said before, I believe the argument against fair use in this situation would be a real reach, and I suspect, full of holes. I pointed out a couple of them.

That's all your opinion, but you've still provided nothing to back it up. Again, I say that without real facts, it's foolish to assume that downloading something you've bought on vinyl is legal, or that it falls under fair use.

 

[gnasher729]

That's all your opinion, but you've still provided nothing to back it up. Again, I say that without real facts, it's foolish to assume that downloading something you've bought on vinyl is legal, or that it falls under fair use.

In most situations, you would ask yourself these three questions: Is it legal or illegal? Is it ethical/moral or unethical/immoral? Will I be caught and punished?

In the USA today, I wouldn't want to judge whether downloading music that you own in LPs is legal or not (if you download a version that comes from a CD that was remastered at higher quality or had extras added that makes it more likely to be illegal); whether it is moral or not is up to you (if you cannot find the music for sale at all that tends to make it more moral; if you could just buy the music at iTMS that makes it less moral to download it in my opinion).

And lastly, your risk of being caught and punished is small but not zero, and whether it is legal or moral or not has no influence on your risk whatsoever. (Worst case, you are given the choice between a court case and a settlement payment, and paying the settlement is cheaper than a court case even if you win the court case, so it doesn't matter in practice whether it is legal or moral or not).

 

[IJ Reilly]

That's all your opinion, but you've still provided nothing to back it up. Again, I say that without real facts, it's foolish to assume that downloading something you've bought on vinyl is legal, or that it falls under fair use.

No, that's not true either. Read up on fair use. I have. Quite a lot.

The RIAA would have us believe that fair use essentially doesn't exist. The courts, fortunately, have not agreed. You can buy the industry's interpretation of fair use doctrine if you like -- this is your privilege. But the fact remains that you, as a consumer, have fair use rights, which you can exercise until someone with legal authority (read: a court of law) says you can't. This requires that the copyright holder prove to a court that you have used copyrighted material in a way which is not covered by fair use. This is no trivial exercise, and there exists few clear, bright lines over which you simply cannot go. Each case is decided on the facts.

To date, the courts have supported time shifting as fair use, and the law seems to support the concept of format shifting as well. Note that the industry has not attempted to sue over format shifting, so there is no settled law in this regard. Does this mean that it's also "foolish" to assume that you can rip your own CD to your iPod? If not, why not?

That's all I can assume, because that's all I know. What do you assume?

 

[milo]

To date, the courts have supported time shifting as fair use, and the law seems to support the concept of format shifting as well. Note that the industry has not attempted to sue over format shifting, so there is no settled law in this regard. Does this mean that it's also "foolish" to assume that you can rip your own CD to your iPod? If not, why not?

I agree that format shifting is generally accepted as fair use.

What I don't get is why you are so convinced that a court would consider downloading a copy that someone else ripped from CD that you own on vinyl as "format shifting".

If you have read so much about fair use, why is it so hard to cite actual law to support the claim that downloading something you own in another format is fair use/legal?

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree that format shifting is generally accepted as fair use.

What I don't get is why you are so convinced that a court would consider downloading a copy that someone else ripped from CD that you own on vinyl as "format shifting".

If you have read so much about fair use, why is it so hard to cite actual law to support the claim that downloading something you own in another format is fair use/legal?

Good grief.

First, you say format shifting is "generally accepted." By whom? There is in fact no court decision which says as much. We know only that the industry has not directly challenged this practice in court. Are you going stop ripping CDs because no "actual law" permits it? I didn't think so. In fact, fair use does, until and unless the industry sues someone successfully over the practice.

Second, as I've said several times already, I don't have any evidence for the legality or illegality of downloading digital versions of music we own in another format. In reality, we know as much legally about this practice as we do about ripping CDs -- which is, essentially nothing.

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the wrong side of the coin. Fair use is not a law -- it is a general legal doctrine governed by a very complex body of court decisions. In essence, you have fair use rights to copyrighted materials until a copyright holder sues someone over a specific practice and wins. Then a new line is drawn which may or may not apply to other similar circumstances.

 

[Wilson1984]

3 pages already

Three pages of good thoughts on copy right.

Heres my 2 cents.

-------------------

Is it legal to use bit torrent to download music you already own on another format?

No.

Is it morally OK to do so?

Yes.

------------------

Laws are made to represent the morals of the society it regulates. When there is a disproportionate distribution of power and wealth laws do not benefit the masses , rather the people in power.

 

[Sirus The Virus]

This is what I do when I buy a vinyl, and I'm a vinyl addict. I download the MP3s as soon as I buy it. I listen to the vinyls around the house, and on my iPod on the go. Some artists are throwing little coupons in with the vinyls to download the MP3s of the album on their site. So it would seam that the artists are cool with us having the vinyl and the MP3s. But as far as the legal stuff goes... it's illegal according to the RIAA, but I don't care a bit. I just care about what the artists think.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Good grief.

First, you say format shifting is "generally accepted." By whom? There is in fact no court decision which says as much. We know only that the industry has not directly challenged this practice in court. Are you going stop ripping CDs because no "actual law" permits it? I didn't think so. In fact, fair use does, until and unless the industry sues someone successfully over the practice.

Actually there is a precedent for format/space shifting that was established when the RIAA sued over the Diamond Rio MP3 players back in the late 90's. The court ruled against the RIAA and thus opened the door for our beloved iPod. *que angelic choir*

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the wrong side of the coin. Fair use is not a law -- it is a general legal doctrine governed by a very complex body of court decisions. In essence, you have fair use rights to copyrighted materials until a copyright holder sues someone over a specific practice and wins. Then a new line is drawn which may or may not apply to other similar circumstances.

Fair Use is law but many people use the term "fair use" when they really are talking about allowed personal use which, as you've said, isn't exactly law, but court rulings that have created precedents for what's acceptable and what is not. Whether discussing what's allowed personal use or what is Fair Use it does, as you've said, come down to a case by case basis.


Lethal

 

[Wild-Bill]

it's illegal according to the RIAA

Everything is illegal according to the RIAA. They are nothing more than the pointy end of the greed spear. If record companies are so paranoid about losing so much money, perhaps they should stop throwing insane amounts of money at the artists on their label to do promotions and other nonsense. Pay the studio tab and use sensible marketing and stop the buck right there. Problem solved.

Hopefully someday soon the courts will order the RIAA to be disbanded and have its crooked lawyers disbarred.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Actually there is a precedent for format/space shifting that was established when the RIAA sued over the Diamond Rio MP3 players back in the late 90's. The court ruled against the RIAA and thus opened the door for our beloved iPod. *que angelic choir*

The Diamond Rio case is the one cited to support format shifting, but it's my understanding that it did not deal directly with this issue.

Fair Use is law but many people use the term "fair use" when they really are talking about allowed personal use which, as you've said, isn't exactly law, but court rulings that have created precedents for what's acceptable and what is not. Whether discussing what's allowed personal use or what is Fair Use it does, as you've said, come down to a case by case basis.

This is the fair use four-point test. Again (not being a lawyer) my understanding is that this test would apply whether it was mentioned in the Federal Code or not, as it derives from the Common Law. Copyright holders often assert that their rights trump fair use, but this doesn't mean they are correct, unless a court agrees.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The Diamond Rio case is the one cited to support format shifting, but it's my understanding that it did not deal directly with this issue.

I don't think the Diamond Rio case deals directly w/this either, but you said, "First, you say format shifting is "generally accepted." By whom? There is in fact no court decision which says as much." which is why I mentioned the Diamond Rio case because it does deal with format/space shifting. It wasn't clear to me that you were talking strictly w/in the confines of the OP's original question.

This is the fair use four-point test. Again (not being a lawyer) my understanding is that this test would apply whether it was mentioned in the Federal Code or not, as it derives from the Common Law. Copyright holders often assert that their rights trump fair use, but this doesn't mean they are correct, unless a court agrees.

Again, this might be me misunderstanding you again, but I just wanted to mention that many times the term "fair use" gets used in a general manor that doesn't distinguish between what is written law (Fair Use doctrine in copyright law) and what is just precedent set by court rulings ("BetaMax case" allowing for time-shifting).

This might just be a pet peeve of mine more than anything else.

Lethal

 

[IJ Reilly]

This might just be a pet peeve of mine more than anything else.

Now it may be my turn to misunderstand you.

I may be misinterpreting what I have read about the Diamond Rio decision, but it is my understanding that it dealt specifically with space-shifting, not format-shifting. The former may imply the latter, but I don't believe the courts addressed this issue directly in the decision.

FWIW, the text of the decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9856727

 

[LethalWolfe]

Now it may be my turn to misunderstand you.

Great minds misunderstand alike... or something.

I may be misinterpreting what I have read about the Diamond Rio decision, but it is my understanding that it dealt specifically with space-shifting, not format-shifting. The former may imply the latter, but I don't believe the courts addressed this issue directly in the decision.

FWIW, the text of the decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9856727

I've heard "space shifting" and "format shifting" used interchangeably but they certainly aren't to be confused w/"time shifting."


Lethal

 

[davedecay]

I think technically you should capture the vinyl you own, and create your own MP3s for personal use if you want to follow the letter of the law.

Downloading someone else's MP3s saves you the time & trouble of doing it, but I think that's also what crosses into the file sharing/lawbreaking territory. Not that you are likely to get busted for it, but as has been said, the RIAA are a bunch of backwards, greedy nincompoops who don't care about discussions like this. I've had to deal with them in the past (and not in a good way). Lost a sizeable live video collection, most of which was taped with permission of the bands or time-shifted from TV broadcasts. They don't care.

Contraband by their definition means the tapes didn't have the name and address of the company who produced them (silly for home recordings, no?) and thus were illegal for me to own. Never mind that the tour manager of Mudhoney THANKED ME for filming them, and gave me a free t-shirt after the show. Never mind that I traded with the brother of another late punk singer, having full permission to trade said videos.

Granted, these were video tapes and not MP3 computer files, but my point is that the RIAA are 800 lb. gorillas with not a care for the spirit or feeling of music. All they care about are dollars.

 

[kjr39]

I really do believe that, at this point, even the RIAA does not understand what is legal for someone to do with media. All they appear to know is, whatever you are doing, you are wrong...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I've heard "space shifting" and "format shifting" used interchangeably but they certainly aren't to be confused w/"time shifting."

I'm not sure. I believe the Diamond Rio "space shifting" case was argued successfully based on the Betamax "time shifting" decision. I'd like to find a unbiased layman's explanation of all this, but I haven't seen one yet.

I think technically you should capture the vinyl you own, and create your own MP3s for personal use if you want to follow the letter of the law.

Downloading someone else's MP3s saves you the time & trouble of doing it, but I think that's also what crosses into the file sharing/lawbreaking territory.

It's certainly not file sharing if you share no files (downloading is not sharing unless you're using torrent), and in terms of the law, it's difficult to know exactly when the line is crossed. The RIAA could argue that converting vinyl to digital files violates copyrights, even if it's for your own use. I think they'd have a lousy argument with little legal foundation, but as you learned, they don't always have to win in court to get their way. Intimidation works pretty well.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not sure. I believe the Diamond Rio "space shifting" case was argued successfully based on the Betamax "time shifting" decision. I'd like to find a unbiased layman's explanation of all this, but I haven't seen one yet.

I'm not saying space shifting was argued successfully based on the time shifting case, I'm saying I've heard "space shifting" and "format shifting" used interchangeably and that those terms shouldn't be confused w/"time shifting" because time shifting is something different.


Lethal

 

[milo]

First, you say format shifting is "generally accepted." By whom? There is in fact no court decision which says as much. We know only that the industry has not directly challenged this practice in court. Are you going stop ripping CDs because no "actual law" permits it? I didn't think so. In fact, fair use does, until and unless the industry sues someone successfully over the practice.

It looks like you're just being pedantic at this point. You take issue that format shifting is "generally accepted", yet you say that format shifting is permitted by fair use? It sounds like you're agreeing with me but just quibbling over wording.

The Diamond Rio case supports "space shifting" which fits the case of ripping a cd or vinyl record for portability. So there is precedent for doing that, while there has been nothing provided to suggest that downloading someone else's rip would be considered the same thing.

Second, as I've said several times already, I don't have any evidence for the legality or illegality of downloading digital versions
of music we own in another format.

And yet you keep insisting that it is legal. Until you come up with something to back it up, you may want to take it easy with that claim.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not saying space shifting was argued successfully based on the time shifting case, I'm saying I've heard "space shifting" and "format shifting" used interchangeably and that those terms shouldn't be confused w/"time shifting" because time shifting is something different.

I hear them used interchangeably as well, but I don't think this is necessarily correct, at least by my reading of the Diamond Rio decision. I believe the word "format" is used only once in the decision. Check my work -- but that's what I found. As for time shifting, the Betamax case is referenced prominently in the Diamond Rio decision. I'm not entirely certain why, but I believe the space shifting theory was seen as deriving from time shifting.

It looks like you're just being pedantic at this point. You take issue that format shifting is "generally accepted", yet you say that format shifting is permitted by fair use? It sounds like you're agreeing with me but just quibbling over wording.

The Diamond Rio case supports "space shifting" which fits the case of ripping a cd or vinyl record for portability. So there is precedent for doing that, while there has been nothing provided to suggest that downloading someone else's rip would be considered the same thing.

And yet you keep insisting that it is legal. Until you come up with something to back it up, you may want to take it easy with that claim.

Pedantic, that must be it. What I'm saying, what I have been saying all along, is that copyright holders don't get automatic veto power over fair use rights. They have to win that power in court. In both the Diamond Rio and Betamax cases which we have been discussing the copyright holders insisted that fair use did not apply. They courts failed to agree. The uses at stake in these cases were not illegal up to that point. The industry tried to prove that they were -- but lost.

Beyond that, I have insisted nothing about legality -- a concept which you seem to misunderstand. A thing is not automatically illegal if you haven't been given explicit permission to do it. Fair use rights in particular are subject to definition by adjudication. You can assume you have them unless/until a court tells you that you don't.