CD copying - what if?

[Sarah CB]

I bought the entire Focus on the Family Narnia series and our family (especially one ds) loves them. Now we think that the CD case they were kept in is lost. Ds is very upset and I thought about going out and buying a new set of CDs. But, I already bought the first set - so would it or would it not be ethical to ask a friend to copy her CDs if I had already purchased my own set but lost them?

[GothicGyrl]

*I* don't think it is unethical, but I'm sure most will disagree. IMHO, you've already paid for them, you shouldn't have to pay twice, so if she is willing, go ahead.

 

Of course, there will be some that state copyright laws, which I don't think apply to this situation. In a pinch, you could explain they are backup copies of ones she owns and you are just borrowing them.

 

In any case, I don't think it unethical at all and quite honestly, no one is going to come knocking on your door over it.

[Elisabeth in IL]

hmmmmmm, I'm not sure about that one. If you had lost a pair of shoes, you would either have to do without or buy a new pair. If you were able to borrow a pair from a friend, great, but you both wouldn't have the shoes at the same time. Technology makes the "morality call" on this type of instance more difficult. As GothicGyrl said

no one is going to come knocking on your door over it

. If you want to be above reproach and sure of your decision, you could call Focus on the Family and ask them.

[Ellie]

I bought the entire Focus on the Family Narnia series and our family (especially one ds) loves them. Now we think that the CD case they were kept in is lost. Ds is very upset and I thought about going out and buying a new set of CDs. But, I already bought the first set - so would it or would it not be ethical to ask a friend to copy her CDs if I had already purchased my own set but lost them?

 

I wouldn't ask someone else to do it, and I wouldn't do it for someone else. As Elizabeth said, if you lost a pair of shoes, you'd go buy another pair, yes? Asking someone else to copy the set for you would be depriving the copyright holder of income that should be his.

 

Also, like Elizabeth, I would want to be above reproach. I would suck it up and buy a new set.

[Colleen]

As others said, if you lose something that's not reproducible, it's gone. The fact that you already paid for it is immaterial. The copyright laws are applicable here, so to that end, it's illegal. Ethically, it doesn't sit right with me.

[Remudamom]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, and I know it's not the popular mindset here, but I've transferred training vhs tapes to dvd. The vhs was wearing out and I'm not going to buy them over again on dvd. Too expensive. I won't sell copies of course.

 

If your friend didn't mind I'd get a copy of the one you're missing. I think that's reasonable.

[Karen sn]

I think it's legal to buy music/movies and make back up copies for your own personal use.

[JudoMom]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, and I know it's not the popular mindset here, but I've transferred training vhs tapes to dvd. The vhs was wearing out and I'm not going to buy them over again on dvd. Too expensive. I won't sell copies of course.

 

If your friend didn't mind I'd get a copy of the one you're missing. I think that's reasonable.

 

But if you'd lost them, you couldn't make the copy to DVD, so that's different. And I believe the OP has lost the entire set, not just 1 of the disks. If it was just 1 disk, I might be inclined to agree with you, but I can't agree with copying the entire $50 set.

[Elisabeth in IL]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, and I know it's not the popular mindset here, but I've transferred training vhs tapes to dvd. The vhs was wearing out and I'm not going to buy them over again on dvd. Too expensive. I won't sell copies of course.

 

If your friend didn't mind I'd get a copy of the one you're missing. I think that's reasonable.

 

 

I don't think that your situation is the same as the OPs. You didn't loose them and your not asking your friend to make copies for you.

 

I think the OP should call Focus on the Family. I wouldn't be surprised if they said that she could do it just because she asked. Of course they might not say yes then the moral dilema is solved but it may not be what the OP's hoping to hear.

[Colleen]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, and I know it's not the popular mindset here, but I've transferred training vhs tapes to dvd.

 

You're not disagreeing; you're just talking about something different.:)

[Kris]

The first thing I do with new CDs is make a copy of them *for our personal use.* They are so easily scratched and unusable, I'm still trying to figure out why this format is such a good idea. I've got 8-tracks that still play, but CDs that don't work right out of the box.

 

We don't make copies for family or friends and we don't ask them to do that for us. It doesn't have anything to do with whether "no one is going to come knocking on your door over it." It has to do with the fact that it's wrong -- and illegal.

 

Apparently, amongst my son's friends, they do quite a bit of copying CDs and exchanging them. He isn't allowed to copy CDs for his friends or accept copies from them. He understands why. He doesn't like it, but he understands it.

 

I'm not holding out a lot of hope that he'll stand by this when he's out on his own. I'm pretty sure the "everyone does it" and "no one will catch us" mentality will take over. But I *am* hoping that sometime somewhere he will remember that "the right thing isn't always the easy thing."

[Daisy]

I think calling Focus on the Family is a great idea.

[Laura in VA]

I would either call Focus or purchase a new set. Even if you think it's okay, your friend may not and that would be an uncomfortable situation for her.

[readwithem]

The sets are fairly reasonable these days - I've seen them for < $25.

[Mama Lynx]

You did pay for them. If you had thought to make yourself a back-up copy, you'd still be listening to them. As long as your friend does not make money off the cds she copies for you, I think you're fine. No one is losing income here, which is what the copyright laws are meant to prevent.

[Sarah CB]

I was mostly considering the fact that if I had thought to make back-up CDs this wouldn't be an issue. We have all of our other CDs on our computer so losing anything else wouldn't have been an issue. Copying a friend's CDs would be like retroactively making back-ups for myself. If purchasing something and making back-up CDs doesn't rob the artist of royalties then how does purchasing something and then making a copy of someone else's identical CD rob the artist of anything?

[GothicGyrl]

I was mostly considering the fact that if I had thought to make back-up CDs this wouldn't be an issue. We have all of our other CDs on our computer so losing anything else wouldn't have been an issue. Copying a friend's CDs would be like retroactively making back-ups for myself. If purchasing something and making back-up CDs doesn't rob the artist of royalties then how does purchasing something and then making a copy of someone else's identical CD rob the artist of anything?

It isn't. As mamalynx said, you would have made a backup of these cds had you thought of it, and as long as your friend has not already made a backup set, then this set could be consider such.

 

I won't get into the aspect of downloading stuff or anything like that--suffice it to say, you are not breaking any copyright laws if she has not already made a back up copy. That's what your copy would be. And as long as she isn't selling them to you, then no one is getting robbed.

[Kris]

If purchasing something and making back-up CDs doesn't rob the artist of royalties then how does purchasing something and then making a copy of someone else's identical CD rob the artist of anything?

 

The difference is one is illegal and one isn't. You could have made a back-up, but you didn't. You want to get a retroactive backup from a friend, but it doesn't work that way. The artist is being deprived of income because you lost your original CD(s) and instead of buying new ones, you want copies from a friend.

 

There is very little likelihood that the "copyright police" will be visiting your house to collect from you. The only ones who will know what's happened are you and your friend. There are all kinds of rationalizations and arguments that can be used to try to make it okay.

 

There's only one reason it's not: it's illegal.

 

Trust me, I definitely feel your pain. No one is made of money, and sometimes making the right decision is really tough when money's tight and you've lost something expensive. But all the mental gymnastics in the world don't change the true reality of this particular situation.

 

Hope this works out for you in a way you're happy with.

[GothicGyrl]

Ahh I was hoping someone would bring up the artist. No, the Artist is NOT being robbed of royalties!! That's why this whole thing is such a big stink. The artist gets a flat cut off the first set of sales of the album, then makes nearly all of his money touring. Not off of subsequent sales.

 

On top of that, the record company takes its cut right off the top, before the artist gets paid. So no, this is NOT robbing the artist, who likely didn't get paid much in the first place. It's taking the money out of the already 80% off the top cut from the record companies--and quite honestly, I've no problem doing this.

 

Please research the RIAA and recording artists. You will find out that MANY artists have no problem with people getting their music because they realize it is the record companies that are doing the actual robbing. Marilyn Manson, Duran Duran, Timberlake, many big name artists (3 on my own myspace) are offering their music for download!! And they are doing so because they make their money touring, not off of record sales.

 

So no, it isn't illegal--or at least not the way the record companies want you to think. :) They are the robbers here.

 

Sarah--in the end, you do what you feel is best. *I* won't begrudge you this once.

 

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html (RIAA takes innocent people to court and gets smacked down)

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html (Courtney Love sepaking OUT against the RIAA and record companies wanting to stop them)

 

Just google "RIAA/Recording Artists"--you might not like this, but you will see I am right.

[Kris]

Ahh I was hoping someone would bring up the artist. No, the Artist is NOT being robbed of royalties!!

 

Which doesn't make it any less illegal to copy the CDs. It's simply another attempt to rationalize doing something that's illegal and unethical.

[GothicGyrl]

Which doesn't make it any less illegal to copy the CDs. It's simply another attempt to rationalize doing something that's illegal and unethical.

See the links I posted. Even the artists are supporting it. So it's not rationalizing anything, even the artists agree with us.

[Kris]

See the links I posted. Even the artists are supporting it. So it's not rationalizing anything, even the artists agree with us.

 

Which doesn't make it legal to copy the CDs. Yes, you are rationalizing. You want to copy CDs and you're looking for an excuse to circumvent the fact that it's illegal -- something to make it "okay."

 

It isn't okay.

 

A lot of people are doing it, too, and have been for a long time. That doesn't make it okay, either.

[GothicGyrl]

To each their own.

 

Sarah will do what she thinks is best. That's all that matters.

[Mama Lynx]

It is possible to apply common sense to the law. It is possible to follow the law to the letter, and be unethical and immoral. It is possible to break the letter of the law, while maintaining its spirit and doing no harm.

 

That's what the choice comes down to. Do you fall on the side of being ruled by the letter of the law, or by using your own knowledge of ethics, harm vs. good, common sense, and the spirit of the law?

 

I'm not going to argue one vs. the other. That's what it comes down to, though, and people on each side in this discussion will never, ever agree or come to a consensus.

 

Sorry for being no help ;-)

[Colleen]

To each their own. Sarah will do what she thinks is best. That's all that matters.

 

Presumably, yes, Sarah will do what she thinks best. She asked our opinions as to the ethics of the situation and in answering, some of us have also noted the issue of legality. It is illegal; there's no question about that. You stated otherwise, Toni, and Kris is simply correcting you on that. You can disagree as to what is or isn't ethical, you're altering facts to justifying their ethical stance. Better, I think, to simply say, "Yes, technically it's illegal, but practically speaking, I'm okay with side-stepping that fact."

[Renee in NC]

When I lost a SOTW CD, they sent me a new one free of charge when I called Open Texture. I would not copy someone else's.

[kdeno]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, and I know it's not the popular mindset here, but I've transferred training vhs tapes to dvd. The vhs was wearing out and I'm not going to buy them over again on dvd. Too expensive. I won't sell copies of course.

 

If your friend didn't mind I'd get a copy of the one you're missing. I think that's reasonable.

 

 

You are allowed to have a back up copy, I think this is fine :-) ...although what do I know?

 

Kari

[Deidre in GA]

Ahh I was hoping someone would bring up the artist. No, the Artist is NOT being robbed of royalties!! That's why this whole thing is such a big stink. The artist gets a flat cut off the first set of sales of the album, then makes nearly all of his money touring. Not off of subsequent sales.

 

On top of that, the record company takes its cut right off the top, before the artist gets paid. So no, this is NOT robbing the artist, who likely didn't get paid much in the first place. It's taking the money out of the already 80% off the top cut from the record companies--and quite honestly, I've no problem doing this.

 

Please research the RIAA and recording artists. You will find out that MANY artists have no problem with people getting their music because they realize it is the record companies that are doing the actual robbing. Marilyn Manson, Duran Duran, Timberlake, many big name artists (3 on my own myspace) are offering their music for download!! And they are doing so because they make their money touring, not off of record sales.

 

 

 

 

hey GothicGyrl -

 

i agree with a lot of what you post but your info is off base a bit here. i am one of those artists who makes their living off of sales. you state that artists make a flat rate off the first volume of sales and then nothing on subsequent sales; that is flat out incorrect. the performing artist is paid a percentage of sales for all sales. how soon they pocket this money depends upon if they were advanced money, how large that was, and how large their production and promotion budget was. perhaps that is what you are thinking was a flat rate payment. you are correct that some artists may never see a dime because the record company recoups their expenses out of the artists share before the artist finally makes enough sales to have checks mailed to them. thus, many artists mostly make their money on touring but that doesn't mean that their sales stop being tallied and count for nothing.

 

also, every sale generates two kinds of artist revenues; one for the performer and one for the songwriter and publisher. the songwriter and publisher cut is mandated by copyright law and is always paid unless the performing artist is the songwriter and has contractually agreed otherwise. so illegal copying steals from the performer and the songwriter.

 

you're right that many artists don't care. you're wrong to think that it applies across the board. i am an grass roots independent artist and illegal copying definitely affects my ability to survive.

 

gotta go. kiddo needs to sign in for his online writing class!

[GothicGyrl]

Diedre--ancedote does not equal data. You are not who is being spoken about with my example. If you mass produce your music, then you fall under what I said. If you do not, then your example is just that--an example.

 

Ancedote does not equal data. YOU might be affected but the keywords here are "grassroots independant artist". For what we are talking about, I am in fact, correct. For you and your example, you do not fit in to this conversation because you are not in the mainstream (by way of your grassroots independant name), therefore, I'd have no knowledge of your existence unless I personally bought something from you.

 

Since that isn't what I am talking about, your example does not fit. Since I am referring to mainstream, KNOWN artists, who have the benefit of advertising campaigns and the like, my cites and such, are applicable.

[Deidre in GA]

Diedre--ancedote does not equal data. You are not who is being spoken about with my example. If you mass produce your music, then you fall under what I said. If you do not, then your example is just that--an example.

 

Ancedote does not equal data. YOU might be affected but the keywords here are "grassroots independant artist". For what we are talking about, I am in fact, correct. For you and your example, you do not fit in to this conversation because you are not in the mainstream (by way of your grassroots independant name), therefore, I'd have no knowledge of your existence unless I personally bought something from you.

 

Since that isn't what I am talking about, your example does not fit. Since I am referring to mainstream, KNOWN artists, who have the benefit of advertising campaigns and the like, my cites and such, are applicable.

 

my personal example may qualify as anecdotal, however my information is not. i have been involved in the music industry all my life and am well acquainted with the contractual variations that abound. i stand by my statement that your asssessment of how mainstream artists are (or are not) paid is misinformed. also, people are not just copying mainstream artists. the thinking that justifies digital downloading is applied across the board and thus does affect us mom & pop operations.

[GothicGyrl]

Since you are not mainstream(yet), you really do not know how all mainstream artists function. What applies to Metallica or Duran Duran will not apply to you and vice versa.

 

I won' go on the merry go round with you on this. I stand, you stand. It's a truce.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The artist gets a flat cut off the first set of sales of the album, then makes nearly all of his money touring. Not off of subsequent sales.

 

That may be the case for big recording artists like Madonna. It may be a totally different case for the artists (voices, writers etc) who put together a radio drama, which has little chance of making money on tour.

 

It is also not the case for many authors of books (to extend the copyright discussion a bit). DH wrote a book of WWI history. He gets a check every couple of years which is his royalties on any copies that have sold in the interim. Any copies that are created in another way (say on a university library copy machine) are books that are not sold and for which he is never paid.

[Sarah CB]

I fully agree that downloading or ripping albums that one has not purchased is wrong. I would not do that.

 

My thoughts on this were that since I already had purchased this set of CDs, copying it would not be wrong.

 

I really just got thinking about it because of that thread that dealt with copying CDs from the library. That's not something I would do, but I wanted to see what other people thought of this situation - where I had already paid for that particular audio but couldn't find the hard copy of it. My copy is *somewhere*. What if I copied my friend's CD so that I had the set on my computer but then I found my set - then it would be Ok?

 

I haven't given up hope for my CDs yet. I am still trying to find them. And yes, the set isn't that expensive - I probably would end up purchasing them a second time if I wanted to replace them. The discussion was very interesting.

[GothicGyrl]

Eliana,

Let's just say I have strong "right and wrong" beliefs as well and this particular instance doesn't fall under my "wrong" radar. ;)

 

I don't want to get in to any further discussion about this. I don't think it is wrong and I don't think what Sarah was wanting to do was wrong. I just do not.