Elk

"I am largely responsible for all this 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin' barrack-room lawyer stuff that this thread is now scraping the bottom of the barrel with. I mentioned that I ripped a CD or two from the local library on another thread, now transferred here." No one is requiring you to visit. It has overall been an open, positive discussion. It is telling that a discussion of what the law actually provides is, to you, " scraping the bottom of the barrel." You have been happy enough here and elsewhere to repeatedly post on the "law" as you imagine it. Off to record a chamber concert. Carry on, all!

"If somebody makes an unauthorized copy of a file, it doesn't change the value of the original file (apart from slightly reducing the potential market for it). If somebody steals my car, it reduces the value of the car for me to a fairly significant extent." It is admittedly an imperfect analogy and one we are struggling with as a culture. What is the value of a file, readily copied? Is the value of music as a digital file less than a hardcover book because it can readily be copied? I drew the analogy to illustrate why the proper measure of damages is the loss sustained by the owner - not by the potential gain of the thief. That is, a CD or download sells for $X/copy. The loss by theft of that copy is $X. Keep in mind that the amount is reduced by production costs, etc. Thus the potential actual loss is greater for a download than a physical CD. Ironic in a way.

"Dicta is no less potent authority, necessarily, just less compelling." Not even close. It has no precedential value whatsoever. You can cite dicta (or a dictum) if you would like, but a court has no duty to pay any attention to it. You also run the risk of the court asking you if you have any law supporting your position. Seriously, Kimo, please stop making "factual" assertions that are clearly based only in your Internet searches, not reality. These various holdings, court opinions, procedures, etc. you claim simply don't exist. "Furthermore, I believe that the industry would prefer not to take a chance on the court clearly stating this [ripping of owned copies is not infringement] in an opinion." Nonsense. The industry doesn't care one way or the other if you rip/transcode CDs you own. It has said so. It makes zero difference if a court so holds. Besides, a court will have an opportunity to rule on the issue only if the industry sues someone ripping a CD. This is never going to happen.

"I don't think that's true. I'm old enough to remember when cassettes were being heralded as the killer of the music industry, and the RIAA tried to get a surcharge affixed to the sale of every tape." I didn't mean to imply that the industry did nothing, which is why I wrote "the industry was not very aggressive." It limited its efforts to lobbying. We are in agreement that the current situation of fast, perfect copies is very different for the industry. "One of my pet peeves is how the RIAA tries to calculate damages, as they view each unauthorized copy as a lost sale." This makes sense however. If you steal someone's car offered for sale, the loss he sustained is not a measure of whether the thief would/could otherwise buy the car. The loss is the value of the car, what was taken. A digital file is no different. If you don't want to be charged with the value of the item, don't steal it. "And the current system -- where redbook quality files are only available in a physical format, which I then have to rip, and then "dispose" of the CD -- is ludicrous." 16/44 should also be downloadable. I suspect the industry hoped that limiting downloads to MP3s would help eliminate piracy of CDs. With compressed formats and broadband this is a lost hope.

"Can I keep a copy of my music on my girlfriend's computer to listen to when I visit her?" How is this question any different than all the others in the same vein? It's an obvious "no." Easy, legal solution: load your iThingee with the music of your choice and bring it along. No IP owner will object.

"The point and question is not whether it's legal or not. It's all illegal if the music companies can make it so, and they're trying to do so at every turn." Legality is not up to "music companies" and, in fact, they have expressly stated they are more open to reproductions for personal use than the law currently allows. If you want the law changed, speak with your Congressman. "This whole problem really stems from lack of trust, duh. I think businesses are the main culprit here, although one can argue the chicken/egg bit." Both sides are at least equally responsible. When copies were made in real time, such as on cassette, the industry was not very aggressive. Once copies were quick to make, infinitely reproducible and made universally available the industry had reason to worry. We all know people who have music libraries consisting primarily of illicit copies. Many college campuses found that Napster was taking up over two-thirds of their entire network bandwidth - this wasn't trivial "I'm checking out a new band," but rather wholecloth empty-the-vaults theft. The rationalizations to justify IP theft are fascinating in how self-serving they are: "I don't like the sellers, they are slimy, therefore I can steal;" "My product wore out or was replaced with a new one, thus I can steal;" "I like only a couple of tracks of them album, I should steal it;" "The sellers don't trust me, I can steal;" "It's only a virtual copy, not a physical object, what difference does it make?" "If everyone was here they could listen to it, therefore it is OK to make a copy for them when they are gone." No one would make these arguments about a toaster or a car: "My toaster broke, it was junk and the industry replaced it with a new version, it was designed to wear out, I couldn't return it after six months when it failed, a new technology of toaster oven is available, others steal and the toaster industry doesn't trust me. I don't like GE, it's a big, nasty corporation that wants to make money. Bastards! I want a toaster at both my house and when I visit my girlfriend." "Bingo! I am entitled to steal a toaster." If the product the industry is offering worthless, we wouldn't want it. As consumers we have sent the opposite message - the music is good, we want it no matter what - we will even steal it.

I am sure you know the legal answer to both questions, but great job loading them up with extraneous, emotional hyperbole. And who says vinyl is obsolete? Many of us would disagree.

"How real is that? Can they change their minds at a later date and decide to sue? If yes, then any "safe harbor" is nothing but the thinnest of illusions." They could change their minds. However, there is concept in the law called estoppel. This precludes a party from taking advantage of another's reasonable reliance upon previously made statements or actions. For example, MGM has argued before the court that it considers ripping to be acceptable and states this on its website. The court is not going to allow MGM to now go forward with a claim of infringement based upon ripping. It is estopped from doing so. I would thus consider the safe harbor granted by the statements of the RIAA and individual copyrighted holders, such as MGM, to be quite definitive. "I would be greatly surprised if a court were to hold that the making a copy of a CD for one's own personal use would not constitute fair use, while making a copy of a DVD under similar circumstances would." I have not seen a case that clearly holds that a consumer's copying of the DVD constitutes Fair Use. This, of course, doesn't mean that no such case exists. :-) The cases that have addressed the copying of DVDs have been in the context of defeating digital copy protection. These cases, such as RealNetworks, have held the removal of such technology is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There is dicta that "it may" be Fair Use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD, but the actual issue has not been before the court. As I have previously opined, the court may very well hold at some time that a ripped copy of digital media is not infringement. In any event, I have no concern making ripped copies of media I own.

". . . the copying of a song from a CD that one purchased to one's own Ipod for one's own personal use is an infringement. Please provide authority, which states that this would not constitute fair use." To resolve the question, you need to approach it from the opposite direction. To assert ripping a CD constitutes Fair Use, you need to find an explicit holding by a federal court declaring this to be the case. We do not need a holding explicitly stating that copying a CD is infringement to know that it is illegal. The Copyright Act grants the copyright holder exclusive right to make reproductions. *Any* copying is infringement unless there is an express exemption. Again, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to an allegation of infringement, not a set of rights. I don't understand your comment about "the sing song" with respect to the RIAA's statements that it will not enforce its rights against those that rip CDs for personal use. They represent the copyright holders. If they decide they are not going to bring claims of infringement for this activity you are free to engage in it. The activity remains infringement according to the strict terms of the statute, but the copyright owner has provided you with safe harbor to rip and transcode. That is, you will not be sued. In the absence of such a lawsuit, the court will never have an opportunity to rule on whether ripping a CD is Fair Use. Thus, I do not expect we'll ever see such a holding.

"The "enforcement" part is what I would think untenable. It means you have to cede control of your library to a third party." Paul, this is indeed one of the difficulties. It is also one of the dilemmas of putting oneself in the position of a legitimate retailer of "used" previously-owned digital recordings. Just how does one establish that the seller of the used download didn't retain a copy for himself? It was an easy question with respect to physical copy of a book. It is difficult to replicate even a paperback. We can all tell whether a book is the original printed copy. There is no such guarantee with respect to a downloaded file.

Don't second guess your ears. If you do not hear an improvement there is none.

In both the UK and US the consumer has no right to copy a CD in any form, any transfer of its contents to a computer infringes upon the copyright holder's right of exclusive reproduction. But you already know this. It is clear this thread has run its course.

"On the other paw, what would make the most sense to me is simply to open my library over the network to those few friends. Nothing gets copied, but they can hear the music on my dime." There is a strong similarity to lending a book. On the other hoof, there is the possibility that you could listen to the same music at the same time. Now there is a clear infringement even if making the copy itself is acceptable. I like the idea of enabling sharing in a fashion where you can make your copy available to a specific person and during this time your access is restricted, a high-tech loan. This is possible with many books on the Kindle. You can loan your book to another but cannot read it at the same time. This is the equivalent to loaning it out.

"You live in a democracy (well, sort of). The laws merely codify the generally agreed behaviour of that society, musicians included." We in the U.S. actually live in a Republic, but leaving that aside, laws serve many purposes. Some reflect a desire for simple order, such as speed limits and parking restrictions. There is little morality involved. Others are critically important to a functioning society such as prescriptions on assault. Still others are aspirational. Law, science, the arts are all human institutions that can be improved upon.

". . . it's all about the feeling and impression one gets from the music when it's played back . . ." Yep.