Record Labels Want to Stop Copies of Burns

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/Labels+to+dampen+CD+burning%3F/2100-1027_3-5224090.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Labels+to+dampen+CD+burning%3F/2100-1027_3-5224090.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Tools under review by the major labels would limit the number of backups that could be made from ordinary compact discs and prevent copied, or "burned," versions from being used to create further copies, according to Macrovision and SunnComm International, rivals that are developing competing versions of the digital rights management (DRM) software."</i><br /><br />I initially did my eye-rolling :roll: and muttering when I read this article, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's actually a reasonable stance. If they're saying that you shouldn't be able to make a copy of a copy, I think that's reasonable. If I made a copy of a CD for my wife to put in her car because she scratches up the originals, I wouldn't mind that someone couldn't take that copy and make another copy of it. What do you think about this?

[dean_shan]

What I think? I think that's lame. They are just trying to make more money.

[foldedspace]

What happens when my cd burner blows a burn, or the media is bad out of the box? Do I lose my chance to make a copy? And I'm wondering how this could actually be done...interesting theory, but that's all it is.

[James Fee]

I guess "Fair Use" is now thrown out the window huh? :roll:

[Jason Dunn]

I guess "Fair Use" is now thrown out the window huh? :roll:

Well, is fair use making a copy for a friend or your other car? Or is fair use lending your copy to a friend so they can make copies? I think the former is fine, but the latter is a little morally dubious...

Back in "the day" when I was making mix tapes, you wanted to have the originals because a dub of a dub was horrible quality. But now that you can make a perfect digital copy, I think it makes sense to limit that somehow. I can't think of a single scenario where a CD I've copied has been used by someone ELSE to make a copy - copies that I make are for my own personal use.

Does anyone have a logical reason why making a copy of a copy should be allowed? Or just the knee-jerk reactions that I initially fell prey to? :wink:

[Doug Johnson]

I don't think that making copies of copies is right, but I also don't like people imposing restrictions on me. I feel like I'm being treated like a thief, even though I try to be as honest as I can be.

What if I never got around to making a backup copy of a CD that I legally purchased? And that CD gets lost or destroyed... The only copy I can find is a burned CD that a friend has? Should I be restricted from restoring the material that I originally licensed legally?

[Jason Dunn]

What if I never got around to making a backup copy of a CD that I legally purchased? And that CD gets lost or destroyed... The only copy I can find is a burned CD that a friend has? Should I be restricted from restoring the material that I originally licensed legally?

It's funny how the digital world changes our perception of what legally belongs to us, doesn't it? Think back ten years - if you had a cassette tape and lost it or it got destroyed, would you go back to the music store with the case and demand another copy because you "owned" it? The very concept seems absurd now, yet that seems to be how people think of things in the digital world. I'm guilty of it myself as well sometimes, but I think a reality check it in order - if you lose or destroy a CD, well, you buy a new one.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

No, if you destroy something, you claim it under warranty. :twisted: Paying twice for the same thing is NOT an option!

Seriously, I think we should judge the spirit of the action is in. If it's for a backup, go ahead. If it's to pirate, boo to you. And if it's to spread the word, it's not so clear cut; some think it's wrong, but I think it's actually a good thing. Of course the record companies think otherwise, but that's their greedy short-sighted brains thinking. =P

[Steve]

I say alright, that's fine with me. I [i]rarely[i] make copies of anything or want/need to do anything illegal, so these things don't really affect me to any degree. I wouldn't mind if they'd stop coming across so strongly, as though 98.13% of their customers are industry-damaging thieves.

[Mojo Jojo]

Interesting thoughts... Is there a legit reason to make a copy of a copy?

I am a little less involved around this issue as I keep all my music in one portable location and just bring it with me when I change enviroments so I never need more then the one original copy, however I see merit in the position of not being able to burn copies from copies.

I'll start with the reason against not being able to and why I have opinions against this idea then move into the points where I agree with the labels position.

First is what are we buying? For me, it used to be the CD or Tape itself, a physical object that was in my posession. But then it changed from buying the medium that it came on to buying the media itself. A very subtle change that might seem symantical but altered my preception of what I owned.

When it was the CD and I lost it, or scratched it beyond reading, I lost the medium and what I payed for. That was my loss and I accepted that.

When I buy the media itself the medium becomes a simple container. I pay for additional containers out of my own pocket so my perception is that I purchased the rights to the media to listen as I choose, and how I choose. If all the medium remain in my posession, I feel that the spirit of the purchase is maintained.

So I can relate to why there is objection to this proposal.

If I change my viewpoint from a legitimate consumer to a viewpoint of a record label looking at piracy and losses, the idea of open enviroments for media is a nightmare with little options on how to stop the transfer of said media to illegitimate sources.

With little resources and options to combat piracy the labels need to find a cost effective way to stem the losses. If they cannot control or deteir the theives they are only left with the option of policing the legitimate at the cost of freedom. Thus becoming a matter of balancing the loss to the consumer against the gains achieved in fighting piracy.

As I mentioned before the idea of limiting legit copies of media has less of an impact on me because my method of using the media is not effected. In looking at this I can see the value in the idea of only allowing one copy per entity or authorized medium.

If they make one instance of the media the 'Master' and any copies made from it unable to be copied again, the labels can slow down the spread of unauthorized copies. I say slow down because any signal that can be sent out can be rerecorded and become a new 'Master'. This proposal stops what is probably the majority of theft, the casual theif.

As a consumer, if you lose your copy you still have the ability to make a copy off the master within an acceptable amount of burns. In honesty how many cd's have you lost, or have had bad burns, or scratched beyond reading? 2 or 3 maybe? How many different locations do you use the media in? another 2 perhaps? These types of responses are well withing the 7 burn limit and 5 shared resouces these proposals are saying. So I see the labels as trying to hit a balance where a legitimate consumer is least effected but provides a tangable benfit in fighting privacy.

This of course is simplified as it is probably too long of a casual read as it is!

[James Fee]

Well, is fair use making a copy for a friend or your other car? Or is fair use lending your copy to a friend so they can make copies? I think the former is fine, but the latter is a little morally dubious...
Sure, but just because some people jaywalk doesn't mean they throw up walls around roads. The only "kneejerk" reaction I see is from the RIAA.

[SassKwatch]

First is what are we buying? For me, it used to be the CD or Tape itself, a physical object that was in my posession. But then it changed from buying the medium that it came on to buying the media itself. A very subtle change that might seem symantical but altered my preception of what I owned.
But you really can't buy the 'media'.....that is owned by the artist...or more likely, the record company.

IMO, music 'purchases' are more analogous to 'rental contracts' than actual purchases. The artist/record co own the 'media'. We simply rent that media to enjoy at our leisure by purchasing an easily distributable form...be that cd, vinyl, or online dl. And our 'rental contract' is good as long as the medium we used to rent the media is viable. If the vinyl or cd becomes scratched and unplayable, or the online dl file becomes corrupted, then our 'rental contract' ends and we purchase a new one.

As much as the RIAA has gone overboard with their tactics, I also find it amazing people think they should have totally free, totally unrestricted use to do anything they want with music. You'd be hard pressed to show me anything else in life that comes with such freedom. Heck, if you buy/build a house, it's likely going to have to meet building 'codes', it's use is frequently restricted via zoning laws, and if you don't maintain it's appearance to some degree, you'll probably hear about that from someone as well. If you buy a car, just because it may be capable of 150mph speeds doesn't mean you can actually drive it that fast anytime/anywhere you choose. And in both these cases, you actually do own the 'property' in question.....or at least the opportunity of ownership exists once you've dealt with the bank.

But even the *opportunity* to 'own' purchased music never really exists...unless, of course, you can afford to purchase Sony et al.:)

[Mandrake]

Erm... Doesn't this already exist in the form of the SCMS system? See: http://www.mitsuicdr-store.com/SCMS_nh.html

It means that all CDs you buy have a code saying you can make one copy. That copy says you can't make any more. Admittedly, it is easily defeated, but it does exist on all consumer audio equipment.

[The Yaz]

I lost track of one of my favorite albums while on vacation last year. When I got home and realized it, I considered downloading the album from the web (legally). In the end, I went to a used record store and was able to find the album for $8.

This was the only time that I had something like this happen to me. Generally, I only make an image of an album if I want to refresh my music choices on my PocketPC. My cd collection is treated with care. I do not make copies for friends, or even for my wife.

What I think would be a better option for the record company would be a way to purchase the album plus the downloads. For a nominal fee (maybe $2 an album) you could set up an account with the record company's web site, register the album you purchased, and then be able the download the audio files of the album in the fromat and bitrate of your choice for 30 days.

This way the average consumer has the physical album, the digital version of the album without the hassle of copying on the computer and the ability to place it where they want it (MP3 player, backup cd, etc.).

The record company would now have a person tied to that copy of the recording. If that copy ends up available on the web, then that person can be prosecuted. Otherwise, the rest of us will have the music we purchased available for listening within our circle of entertainment (stereo, car, digtal player) without dealing with any noticeable strings attached.

It would prove to the record companies what the masses know... most of us are law abiding, and the use of DRM is only hampering the majority from purchasing music without reservations.

Steve 8)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'll just pose the crux of the argument: Why is making a copy of a copy bad? Is it really as bad as it is made it to be?

[Doug Johnson]

I'm sure that the record companies would argue that you are buying a license for the creative work, and not the medium. If you were buying the medium, you would have to be free to do with it however you choose, including making copies if you so desired. They would therefore have to argue that it is the content that you are purchasing (licensing).

The term used for making a copy and listening to the copy is called "space shifting." Whether that copy be in the form of another CD, an MP3 file, or whatever, you have shifted the space where the content is being played from. Space shifting is currently allowed under "fair use."

Limiting making copies of copies is essentially telling us that we don't have the right to "space shift." While I agree that in a vast majority of cases, making a copy of a copy is probably dubious in its legality, I hate having the RIAA (or government, or whoever) tell me I can't do it. There ARE legitimate reasons for doing so, and if history repeats itself, the U.S. government would likely concur. That said, however, crazy laws like the DMCA have passed, and the RIAA seems to have a heavy hand in DC. So what could end up happening is anyone's guess.

But let's face it, how often do people who copy music illegally make 1:1 copies from CDs? Don't they just download off the Internet anyway?

[Doug Johnson]

I'll just pose the crux of the argument: Why is making a copy of a copy bad? Is it really as bad as it is made it to be?
If done without permission, it is theft. Taking something you haven't paid for. Akin to walking into your neighbor's house and leaving with something that isn't yours.

[James Fee]

If done without permission, it is theft. Taking something you haven't paid for. Akin to walking into your neighbor's house and leaving with something that isn't yours.
So we should throw everyone in jail because they might do it? Sounds like a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/) to me.

[SassKwatch]

So we should throw everyone in jail because they might do it? Sounds like a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/) to me.
I'm sorry, but that is such a weak argument.....*ALL* rules/laws/regulations are created to protect the many from the few.

I've never committed an armed robbery, nor has probably 99.5% of the population. And it's unlikely those of us who never have ever will. But would you argue that we should do away with all laws against, and penalties for, armed robbery because only a very small % of the population *might* perform such activities?

[Doug Johnson]

So we should throw everyone in jail because they might do it? Sounds like a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/) to me.

Of course not. I'm all for punishing those who break the law, but I'm also not in favor of creating silly laws for every little thing that someone might do wrong.

As a software developer that relies on sales of my software to earn my living, I am definitely in favor of punishing those who break the laws, including piracy of software, music, movies, whatever. (Although a jail sentence seems awfully harse punishment for making a copy of a CD.) But I'd prefer to trust people as much as I can. I'd really rather not punish the innocent if it isn't necessary.

I believe the RIAA has got this all wrong. What they are currently doing is going to earn them more enemies than friends. And nothing that they will ever do is going to stop those who are intent on making illegal copies of music. As long as there is a way to play music there will be a way to copy it. So they're just punishing the innocent.

It's like locks on doors. They are there to keep the honest out. 'Cause they sure don't keep out thieves. Everything the RIAA has done so far to protect their content is exactly like putting a lock on the door. I'd really rather not have any more locks on my doors, thank you very much.

[James Fee]

So we should throw everyone in jail because they might do it? Sounds like a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/) to me.
I'm sorry, but that is such a weak argument.....*ALL* rules/laws/regulations are created to protect the many from the few.
Except the law as it is represented here takes away freedom from the many which is wrong.

I've never committed an armed robbery, nor has probably 99.5% of the population. And it's unlikely those of us who never have ever will. But would you argue that we should do away with all laws against, and penalties for, armed robbery because only a very small % of the population *might* perform such activities?
OK, I was going to write a big explaination, but we are getting in the weeds. I'll just sum up my feelings like this.

This efforts takes freedom away from the many because a few idiots are stealing. Laws protect our rights, not take them away. The country was built on fair use and until the courts change the meaning of fair use, we need to force congress to respect it.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

In addition, I believe drawing analogies to physical objects doesn't make much sense. This is the digital age, and data needs to be looked at with a different POV compared to physical items.

My premise for most of my arguments regarding copy protection generally is that even if a copy is made, would the holder of the copy have bought the music in the first place? And that the copy protection schemes and laws good enough to really restrict the real pirates (those who distribute or even sell a whole load of music)?

In general I find the models the record companies use to calculate their so-called "losses" flawed. And the copy protection schemes have been plain useless to deter hardcore pirates so far. The only thing it has done is to prevent the rest of us from using the CDs the way we want, which goes back to what James has said: that the actions are taking away freedom from us, but doesn't restrict the few!

[SassKwatch]

The country was built on fair use and until the courts change the meaning of fair use, we need to force congress to respect it.
Clearly, the definition of 'Fair Use' is the crux of the matter here. You seem to be of the opinion that *any* restriction goes against 'Fair Use'. But Fair Use has *always* come with some restriction. For digital music, I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would find making copies from a copy such an imposing restriction.

[SassKwatch]

In addition, I believe drawing analogies to physical objects doesn't make much sense. This is the digital age, and data needs to be looked at with a different POV compared to physical items.
I suspect your going to have a tough time convnincing the courts that the legal concept of 'Fair Use' needs a total overhaul because we're dealing with 1's and 0's rather than physical objects.

You may *want* that to happen, but making a case why it *should* happen is going to be considerably tougher. If I were the presiding judge of a test case for which your argument against any restriction was built solely around 'because this is the digital age and things need to be viewed differently', I would be rolling my eyes and wondering how you managed to graduate law school.

And don't get me wrong...I think the whole DRM issue, from digital music to s/w product activation codes, has been handled extremely poorly by the protectors of content thus far. But I also doubt we'll wind up with a definition of 'Fair Use' of digital content that has *NO* restrictions at all. And thus far, I've not seen an explanation why the banning of making copies from copies would be a significant imposition on Joe SixPack user. There may well be one, but it's not been provided yet in this discussion.

[James Fee]

Clearly, the definition of 'Fair Use' is the crux of the matter here. You seem to be of the opinion that *any* restriction goes against 'Fair Use'. But Fair Use has *always* come with some restriction. For digital music, I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would find making copies from a copy such an imposing restriction.
I can make them now. I've been able to make them for years. The fact that I can make a "prefect copy" is irrelevant. This is a regression of my rights to fairly use the data.

Technically how is burning a cd of ripped mp3s not making a copy of a copy? Will I not be able to backup digital media in the future? I agree, fair use has always come with restrictions, but I have always been given leeway for personal, non-profit use of music.

[SassKwatch]

The fact that I can make a "prefect copy" is irrelevant.
In your opinion, of course. Though I would like nothing better than to be wrong, I suspect that opinion won't hold up in court.

This is a regression of my rights to fairly use the data.
Because you have (and have had) the technical *ability* to do so, doesn't necessarily mean you've had the legal 'rights' to do so.

Again, comparing to some mildly analogous precedent......I'm sure at whatever point automotive speed limits were legally implemented, there were already cars in existence at the time (and probably had been for quite some time) capable of exceeding those speed limits. Because the technical capability to exceed those limits existed, didn't give the owner/drivers of such vehicles the legal 'rights' to do so.

Technically how is burning a cd of ripped mp3s not making a copy of a copy?
I thought of that after posting the last message when it occurred to me that just 'copying' music from cd to the hd of the pc might be the one and only copy I could make. If I couldn't then play dj and copy individual songs of my choice to another cd, then yes, I would certainly agree that's an imposition on 'Fair Use'.

I agree, fair use has always come with restrictions, but I have always been given leeway for personal, non-profit use of music.
Yes, there certainly needs to be a continuation of 'leeway'. 'Bootlegging' has always been illegal. Even the home audiophile copying from vinyl to tape was technically in violation of copyright law. But there were so few people that did it because it was such a hassle and fairly expensive, that a blind eye was generally turned to such activities. But with the ability to create 'perfect copies' on massive scales at relatively small expense, it should be expected the heretofore 'blind eye' won't be quite so blind any longer.

[Andy Manea]

I feel - like so many others here - that copy protection most often affects the honest and innocent. If you want to make money of bootlegged CDs, you know how to circumvent any type of copy protection.

Another point I have to make here is that in some countries the governements already assume that any CD, CD burner, tape recorder, copier, VCR... is used for illegal copies of music, movies, books... and thus are ALREADY charging a tax on these things. The fact that I might just use my CD burner to back up my own data does not matter-- guilty until proven innocent over here!!! Soooo, I am NOT ALLOOWED to make a copy of anything, but since I MIGHT be doing it anyway, I have to pay a tax with every purchase of potential "copying material", and in addition to that, just in case, the copy protection has to be increased because it's still not strong enough.

Maybe they should put us all to jail after our 5th birthday because we could potentially do something illegal, but then they should also keep us under close observation after we get out because we could potentially use our new freedom to do something illegal !?!

These constant assumptions that one might be stealing really does not motivate me to support this industry with any more money!!!!! :evil:

[Pony99CA]

Erm... Doesn't this already exist in the form of the SCMS system? See: http://www.mitsuicdr-store.com/SCMS_nh.html

It means that all CDs you buy have a code saying you can make one copy. That copy says you can't make any more. Admittedly, it is easily defeated, but it does exist on all consumer audio equipment.
I was going to bring up Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) myself. The important thing to note is that this isn't new.

SCMS was created before CDs could be recorded. Back in the bad old days, somebody invented Digital Audio Tape (DAT). DAT allowed people to make "perfect" digital copies of music (assuming people actually had DAT recorders), and that worried the music industry. So they came up with SCMS, and it was eventually required in all DAT recorders.

I didn't know that it had been moved to CD recorders. In fact, it's odd that the link you pasted seems to be about CDs, but mentions "frames per second". What are music frames? :?: Maybe they just mean that the bit has a 75 Hz frequency.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

What I think would be a better option for the record company would be a way to purchase the album plus the downloads. For a nominal fee (maybe $2 an album) you could set up an account with the record company's web site, register the album you purchased, and then be able the download the audio files of the album in the fromat and bitrate of your choice for 30 days.
That's an interesting idea, but why limit it to 30 days? If I downloaded MP3s for my Pocket PC, but bought an iPod 31 days later and wanted AAC copies, why should I be out of luck?

As long as I've paid the Download Tax, let me download any format I want any time I want. That's how eBook companies like Fictionwise (http://fictionwise.com) seem to work.

The record company would now have a person tied to that copy of the recording. If that copy ends up available on the web, then that person can be prosecuted.
If they actually can link the music to the consumer, that just makes the 30-day limit more unnecessary.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

The term used for making a copy and listening to the copy is called "space shifting." Whether that copy be in the form of another CD, an MP3 file, or whatever, you have shifted the space where the content is being played from. Space shifting is currently allowed under "fair use."

Limiting making copies of copies is essentially telling us that we don't have the right to "space shift."
Actually, it's not doing that at all. You can space shift to your heart's content -- as long as the copy comes from the original.

The only problem I would have is if, as was mentioned previously, ripping an MP3 is considered the first copy, and burning that to a CD wouldn't work. However, as an MP3 isn't a "perfect copy", maybe that copy could be treated as an original -- the first generation MP3 version of the file. That would allow me to copy it to my Pocket PC. I wouldn't be able to copy the file from my Pocket PC to another MP3 player, though; I'd have to copy the version on my computer to the MP3 player.

If that's the case, we'd also need some way to easily check whether the file was an original or a copy (a new Properties bit or MP3 tag, perhaps).

Steve

[Pony99CA]

This efforts takes freedom away from the many because a few idiots are stealing. Laws protect our rights, not take them away. The country was built on fair use and until the courts change the meaning of fair use, we need to force congress to respect it.
Laws restrict rights all the time.

Why shouldn't I have the right to carry a concealed weapon? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I be able to carry that on an airplane?

Why shouldn't I have the right to smoke pot? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I have the right to make and sell heroin?

Why shouldn't I have the right to go 55 in a school zone? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I have the right to drink and drive (as long as I don't cause an accident, of course)?

Why shouldn't I have the right to earn my living as a prostitute? If you think I should, then why shouldn't my 12-year-old daughter?

The fact is that there are plenty of "rights" (behaviors, actually) that laws try to discourage. If you're opposed to some (proposed) law, that's fine and you certainly have the right to express that opinion. You can even work to try to change (or oppose) it. But don't ever try to claim that laws don't restrict "rights", because that's simply not true.

Steve

[SassKwatch]

Laws restrict rights all the time.

Why shouldn't I have the right to carry a concealed weapon? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I be able to carry that on an airplane?

Why shouldn't I have the right to smoke pot? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I have the right to make and sell heroin?

Why shouldn't I have the right to go 55 in a school zone? If you think I should, then why shouldn't I have the right to drink and drive (as long as I don't cause an accident, of course)?

Why shouldn't I have the right to earn my living as a prostitute? If you think I should, then why shouldn't my 12-year-old daughter?

The fact is that there are plenty of "rights" (behaviors, actually) that laws try to discourage. If you're opposed to some (proposed) law, that's fine and you certainly have the right to express that opinion. You can even work to try to change (or oppose) it. But don't ever try to claim that laws don't restrict "rights", because that's simply not true.
Excellent comment.....You must have been captain of the college debate team!

In fact, it may be too good. Let's hope there are no legal beagles from the RIAA watching this discussion. :D

[Crocuta]

Interesting thoughts... Is there a legit reason to make a copy of a copy?

It's funny how this conversation almost got to the obvious point, but never quite made it. CD-to-HD... that's a copy. That's it, one copy. Legit reason to make a copy of a copy? That shouldn't be hard to answer since we all do it now. HD-to-PPC for one, as Steve pointed out. Also, have none of you ever bought a new hard drive and moved your music files onto it? Oops, now go back and spend tens of hours ripping your CD collection again from scratch. New computer? Same thing. Ever grabbed some MP3s and taken them to work, or dropped them onto your laptop for a trip? Not any more.

Restricted copies from your originals? (Someone mentioned 7 copies.) 1. HD on home computer 2. HD on work computer 3. PPC 4. Portable music player 5. New HD in home computer 6. New PPC ... get the point? How long is it really going to take to use up 7 copies from the original? A year? Two? Say you only do the first 4 and never get a new device. How many CD's do you have? How long did it take you to rip them? Want to do that four times for every CD?

Sorry, but I have no interest in any CD protected in this way. There are options that allow me to make reasonable personal use of the music I've paid for while still protecting music companies from large-scale copying, but this isn't one of them. And, of course, the RIAA doesn't want a fair system; that's why they're being to obtuse about this. This is partly about being scared of massive copying, but it's also that they see an opportunity to use that as an excuse to put themselves in an even better position than before, making you buy more copies more often of the same music. All legal issues aside, I personally will not participate in such a system even if it means I go without new music.

I also feel the need to add that Lee Yuan Sheng is absolutely right that intellectual property is fundamentally different from physical property and that physical analogies do not apply. The RIAA knows it's different. That's why they're so rich. Lawmakers know it's different. That's why it's not 'theft' when you make illegal copies... it's 'copyright infringment'. Economists know it's different. They note that declining average costs of production mean normal optimization rules do not apply. It may be morally and legally wrong to take music you haven't purchased, but it is most certainly not analogous to the theft of physical property.