07-22-2009, 02:42 PM
Monica and Lavazza,
I would assert that when you buy a music LP or CD, you receive with it a defacto license to listen to it. The advent of software which is digital nature and hence easily copied made these licenses more evident and ubiquitous as the *&#! end user license agreement (EULA) that pops up and makes you accept it before it will continue with the install. Even though you just click "accept" and move on, you are still bound by the terms of that agreement. Although through the years some of those terms have been challenged in court and determined invalid, still the majority of the terms have held through the years and are generally accepted as both reasonable and necessary.
Now, back to music. With this in mind, I went through my CD music archives and chose three works to see what they said about my rights related to the music. The works were:
Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense © 1984 Sire Records Company
U2 - Boy © 1980 Island Records Ltd
Les Miserables © 1985 Exallshow Ltd. Licensed from First Night Records
Ignoring for a moment what this may say about my taste(s) in music, I then attempted to determine just what rights were granted me with the purchase of these fine works. Here is what I learned:
The Talking Heads CD states: "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws."
The U2 CD states: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution."
The Les Miserables CD (which is a live recording of a 1985 London production of this amazing musical) states no restrictions other than noting the copyright.
At this point I could (and actually did spend an hour or two) reading up on the applicable copyright laws in the US (I'm sure a similar site exists for Australia, Lavazza) , but instead I would suggest that the simple statements "All Rights Reserved" and "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited..." probably go far enough in defining the limits of the defacto license that I received when I purchased the works.
It seems to me that you both are spending a lot of effort defining the black, white and gray that the legal system has already triaged. It is clear to me that the artists and the record labels intend for customers to use their material within the framework of the law, since it is the law which defines the copyright and its associated vagaries and through which they would attempt to seek retribution from those that violate said laws.
In short, making unauthorized copies is not allowed. This would clearly include downloading music, but not lending the original purchased product, or playing the purchased product for any number of your friends, relatives or even strangers provided that you do not receive any compensation for the playing.
Increasingly, I think that music will be more clearly licensed as the propensity of download purchases continue. As I recall, when installing my iPod software it did include discussion of the license rights that I would have for all the songs I downloaded. Interestingly though, that same software does allow me to import copies of as many of my existing music CD-Roms as I like, thus it would seem, actually contributing to the issue of unauthorized duplication. I did read about "Fair Use" exclusions, but these did not seem to include copying the material in order to change its playing medium (e.g., iPod vs CD-Rom).
For what it's worth, I agree with Lavazza, when I find myself in a gray area, I follow my moral compass and try to act according to my understanding of the intent of the laws, where the word may be ambiguous.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
I would assert that when you buy a music LP or CD, you receive with it a defacto license to listen to it. The advent of software which is digital nature and hence easily copied made these licenses more evident and ubiquitous as the *&#! end user license agreement (EULA) that pops up and makes you accept it before it will continue with the install. Even though you just click "accept" and move on, you are still bound by the terms of that agreement. Although through the years some of those terms have been challenged in court and determined invalid, still the majority of the terms have held through the years and are generally accepted as both reasonable and necessary.
Now, back to music. With this in mind, I went through my CD music archives and chose three works to see what they said about my rights related to the music. The works were:
Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense © 1984 Sire Records Company
U2 - Boy © 1980 Island Records Ltd
Les Miserables © 1985 Exallshow Ltd. Licensed from First Night Records
Ignoring for a moment what this may say about my taste(s) in music, I then attempted to determine just what rights were granted me with the purchase of these fine works. Here is what I learned:
The Talking Heads CD states: "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws."
The U2 CD states: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution."
The Les Miserables CD (which is a live recording of a 1985 London production of this amazing musical) states no restrictions other than noting the copyright.
At this point I could (and actually did spend an hour or two) reading up on the applicable copyright laws in the US (I'm sure a similar site exists for Australia, Lavazza) , but instead I would suggest that the simple statements "All Rights Reserved" and "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited..." probably go far enough in defining the limits of the defacto license that I received when I purchased the works.
It seems to me that you both are spending a lot of effort defining the black, white and gray that the legal system has already triaged. It is clear to me that the artists and the record labels intend for customers to use their material within the framework of the law, since it is the law which defines the copyright and its associated vagaries and through which they would attempt to seek retribution from those that violate said laws.
In short, making unauthorized copies is not allowed. This would clearly include downloading music, but not lending the original purchased product, or playing the purchased product for any number of your friends, relatives or even strangers provided that you do not receive any compensation for the playing.
Increasingly, I think that music will be more clearly licensed as the propensity of download purchases continue. As I recall, when installing my iPod software it did include discussion of the license rights that I would have for all the songs I downloaded. Interestingly though, that same software does allow me to import copies of as many of my existing music CD-Roms as I like, thus it would seem, actually contributing to the issue of unauthorized duplication. I did read about "Fair Use" exclusions, but these did not seem to include copying the material in order to change its playing medium (e.g., iPod vs CD-Rom).
For what it's worth, I agree with Lavazza, when I find myself in a gray area, I follow my moral compass and try to act according to my understanding of the intent of the laws, where the word may be ambiguous.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset