March 7, 2006 11:24 AM PST
CD-swap network to slip through copyright loophole?
- Related Stories
-
Are Usenet fans vulnerable to copyright lawsuits?
February 24, 2006 -
Hollywood hails P2P shutdown
February 22, 2006 -
File-swapping leaders nearing D-day
February 1, 2006 -
British file sharers to pay record industry
January 27, 2006 -
Kazaa owners may face time in jail
December 14, 2005
New online service facilitates trading of physical CDs, for a buck a swap. Says system sidesteps pitfalls of file-sharing.
The story "CD-swap network to slip through copyright loophole?" published March 7, 2006 at 11:24 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
This is not by accident. The labels have been incensed by used CD sales since the practice started and were careful to create new licensing language with digital copies to exclude this, in the same way they've used DRM to prevent fair-use by making it illegal to "unwrap" a protected disc in order to practice your fairuse rights.
You can possible send out your own CDs under this program and get credits, but you may not ever get to use them (like Peerflix) all - so one would have essentially have gave away their music. Take your discs and sell them to a record store, buyback site or online marketplace, receive the money and get what you want when you want it and then do it all over again. There would be less headache and risk for either the casual or avid music fan.
There would be an arguement made that music is not used the same way movies are, but to be honest, I'm a huge re-watcher of movies and as I've aged I probably watch favorite movies as many times as I listen to many CDs. Not to mention renting CDs would ******* the same as movies: I rent it to see if I like it. If I'm still listening to a couple weeks later when I return it, I know I like it enought to warrant purchasing the CD. I don't buy CDs much anymore because I got tired of getting burned; ending up with a $15 CD that I listened to twice and can't return.
Besides, movies cost far more to make than CDs (to produce the content, not the physical disc itself) and if the movie industry can profit in a model where people view their content a single time, you have a hard time convincing me that the music industry can't do just as well, especially given that CDs cost as much or more than movies despite the cheaper production costs.
The recording industry would object just as strongly as the movie studios did. Back in the 80's, though, there was no DMCA. Standard copyright laws didn't protect them from places buying a movie and then renting it out. This is, in fact, the reason WHY the DMCA was written - to offer protection on the upcoming formats (they knew that tape was soon going to be obsolete, and just threw in the towel).
Again, the reason you CAN rent a DVD is because the movie studios realize they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they succeeded (which they probably could, if they wanted to).
The record industry still feels they've been severely damaged from file trading to allow anything even remotely similar to it. They'd fight it with everything available to them, and win.
CNet's tech law news is the bomb. Reselling, gifting, and
otherwise disposing of legally purchased original copies of any
copyrighted material is totally legal.
It's called the "first sale" doctrine, and it's not a loophole. It's a
deliberate policy decision to protect the rights of used
booksellers, used CD/record shops, etc. The copyright holder
has no legal claim on all downstream profits from the material
copies they sell, something I expected any CNet author to know.
Everybody who has posted here, including the author of the
article, needs to read 17 USC 109 RIGHT NOW. It's available
here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109
Note what it specifically allows: the sale of used copies of
"phonorecords," which includes CDs. (In a tidbit that prevents
your Netflix idea, Mind Your Own Business, it also specifically
forbids for-sale music lending libraries.)
Consider how utterly assinine it would be to write a Publishers'
Weekly article about a copyright "loophole" that allows people to
trade or sell used books. For those who understand copyright
law at even a basic level, this headline is as asinine.
I've been less high on CNet since they let the PFF hack post his
terrible diatribe against HR 1201 last fall. This ill-informed
headline takes another nick out of their credibility in my book.
original copies of any copyrighted material is totally legal.
It's called the "first sale" doctrine, and it's not a loophole. It's a
deliberate policy decision to protect the rights of used
booksellers, used CD/record shops, etc. The copyright holder
has no legal claim on all downstream profits from the material
copies they sell, something I expected any CNet author to know.
Everybody who has posted here, including the author of the
article, needs to read 17 USC 109 RIGHT NOW. It's available
here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109
Note what it specifically allows: the sale of used copies of
"phonorecords," which includes CDs. (In a tidbit that prevents
your Netflix idea, Mind Your Own Business, it also specifically
forbids for-sale music lending libraries.)
Consider how utterly assinine it would be to write a Publishers'
Weekly article about a copyright "loophole" that allows people to
trade or sell used books. For those who understand copyright
law at even a basic level, this headline is as asinine.
I've been less high on CNet since they let the PFF hack post his
terrible diatribe against HR 1201 last fall. This ill-informed
headline takes another nick out of their credibility in my book.
Robert
I'm no expert in it, but the standard copyright laws allow much more freedom than the DMCA. For instance, you can legally make a backup copy of any VHS tape you own (it's not digital, so DMCA doesn't apply). You cannot, however, make a backup copy of a DVD you bought. Sure, lots of people do it, but it violates federal law.
Bottom line, Title 17 could very well be irrelevant since DMCA would supercede it.