Legal & Ethical Questions in the PC Audio Age

Kijanki,

LOL!! Can you send me a kosher ham? '-) On second thought - send it along with a few hundred CD-Rs of your favorite CDs!!!!!

On your second post, it is not the READING of the copyrighted work that is illegal, it is the unauthorized COPYING of the tangible medium. Then there are what are called "fair-use" exceptions to this rule - such as the right to make a copy of a CD if you already own it (assuming you paid for it originally). PLUS, libraries have paid for the license to have the books (and certain limited copying is permitted under the fair-use doctrine).

There are many more rules and a body of case law interpretting copyright laws and infringement. As such, since I am not an intellectual property attorney, I won't try to advise you much beyond what I teach in my Law & Ethics class as I'd be out of my area of exeprtise.

Frank

Frank- great posts. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this most important subject.

Tell me, How do all you supremely ethical people rationalize spending huge sums of money (by the standards of most people in the world) on stereo gear and cds while most people don't get enough to eat?

I would say that being a glutton while people starve is a far more egregious ethical lapse than giving away a copy of a cd that you purchased, wouldn't you?

I can recommend some very ethical and effective charities if you don't know of any.

Frank

Thank you - I was mixing fair use with unauthorized copying. I know that RIAA was objecting at one point to making copy for yourself (thief=victim)

I know that copying CD from another person is illegal but at the age of compact cassette and Reel to Reel tape recorders copying was OK (I think) since tape manufacturers paid small fee per foot of the tape to go into fund/pool that was redistributed to artists based on amount of sold records. Now we have as well Music-CD-Rs that probably have similar provision to pay back to artists (a little more expensive than regular CD-Rs).

Everything is getting a little fuzzy since some performers sell only downloads. In addition there is digital radio, HDTV, Ipods etc.

I know that according to RIAA copying your own CD to Ipod is illegal (format change). It might be illegal but is it immoral (I paid for CD)?
RIAA is afraid that once CD gets transfered into unprotected MP4 it will spread to other Ipods. Tracking is also more difficult since there is no physical object (CD) to trace.

Tomcy6,

Personally, while I do agree that compassion and concern for your fellow man are worthy and admirable goals, your apparent condescension that us "supremely ethical people" are somehow hypocritical or unethical because we are buying stereo gear when others are starving is both disingenuous and misplaced. The very fact that you have posted on this thread means you own or have access to a computer. Could we "supremely ethical people" not repsond by asking why would you have such a decandent luxury when others are starving? See where this goes?

Let's face it, everything beyond food and water in life is a "want" not a "need." Therefore, since the only necessities in life are food and water, I can always say that purchasing ANYTHING beyond those necessities when others are starving is unethical (since they do NOT even have food and water - why should you have a house or electricity?). Do you have a watch, a car (other than say a beat up old Yugo), a TV, a PC, a refrigerator, a stove? Well, if so, others in Darfur or the Sudan or even America don't have those luxuries so, using your standard, you too are also one of us "supremely ethical people". I see how it appears that giving away a CD is somehow less offensive than not helping others who are less fortunate when we are buying expensive gear, but two things come to mind: (1) the guy who cannot afford even buying a CD can now accuse YOU of being unethical because you are buying CDs when he can't eat; and (2) giving away that CD is STILL not your copyrighted material to give away whereas at least the guy who buys expensive gear is only spending HIS money that he has the right to do. Does this make sense?

Being ethical IMHO does not necessarily mean we assume the absolute responsibility for the welfare of others. That said, I do think that charitable giving and care for others is a good thing and something we should aspire to. But singling out people who buy high-end audio as unethical because their money could be better spent in your opinion is a dangerous path to follow. Who then judges who has too much and who is decadent or wasteful? Yes, I DO see how looking at people who, in our opinion, waste sinful amounts of money when other are starving appears so imcompassionate. However, I don't think "unethical" is necessarily the adjective I'd use to describe them.

Even in a communist society, it is the governement that disributes the wealth and assumes the "responsibility" for the welfare of the masses.

Just my $.02 and, as always subject to opposing views and scrutiny.

Frank