From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z
quoted 7 lines The point is not the media, but the material. You can't distribute a>
> The point is not the media, but the material. You can't distribute a
> copyrighted, marketed piece of music in any format, for profit or not,
> without permission of the owner of the copyright. If you have that
> permission then you're in the clear. If you don't have that permission
> then you're breaking the law.
>
OK, now I'm confused. Does not this revision of Copyright Law say that we
may copy for noncommercial use?
quoted 11 lines No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
> of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
> distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
> audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
> analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
> consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
> recordings or analog musical recordings.
>
> 17 U.S.C. 1008.
>
Cutting out the parts on "devices", it reveals:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright
based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for
making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
First, you must define *WHAT* is being referred to when it says "copyright."
That is, *WHAT* is being copyrighted? By the wording in this code, it could
be referring to the devices and mediums instead of the (p)+(c)'d audio
recordings of other artist's material sold on 12", CD, cassette, etc...but
these semantics don't make sense.
So, we must assume it is indeed about artist&label's copyrighted material.
Thus, I now interpret this code as follows (in regards to the consumer):
"Just because a consumer owns and uses digital recording devices, analog
recording devices, digital recording mediums, and/or analog recording mediums
does not imply that copyright is being infringed -- that is, the consumer owns
a 'weapon' (device&medium), but this does not necessarily mean that he or she
is a 'murderer' (copyright violator); thus, having one of these devices or
mediums is not 'probable cause' enough to allege the consumer with a copyright
violation. One must be caught in the act of using the device&medium for
COMMERCIAL use before one can be alleged with violation. However,
NONcommercial use is permitted."
But then we come to the problem of defining "noncommercial use".
Chris Hilker interprets this as "We can copy as much CDs, cassettes, or
records and give them out (FREE) to our friends or whoever." Is this
noncommercial? It appears to fit the definition. But is this what our
copyright law-makers had in mind? As Phil Z says, this seems intuitively
wrong...which I would have to agree.
Well, it's frustrating that we have to try to interpret THEIR words for what
THEY had in mind, rather than interpreting it in our own way...this is making
loopholes and could get one into trouble.
This is my interpretation so far. But I'm confused over what they mean by
"noncommercial". Anyone?
-DJKC
Furthur thoughts: Sure one may copy an original CD onto cassette for personal
use, but may one sell the original and keep the cassette copy? Would one have
to destroy the copies?
FAX label only puts out 500 copies of each track. When they sell out,
would they be damaged by bootleggers or other copyright violators who copy
these tracks? (commercially or noncommercially) They may be entitled to
certain royalties, but they've made the core profit by selling-out already.