this contradiction always confused me. either way the official company is “losing a sale” and not getting the money, right?

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!

      This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.

    • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      When I used to use CD’s if I had a rare CD I’d copy it and listen to the copy. That kept the original from getting scratched.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Eh, technically it is only criminal if he distributed it. US (and I think international) copyright laws has provisions for “personal backups” of media you have purchased. There is nothing illegal about ripping a copy of a CD to your computer or burning an image of a game disc, only if you allow the copy to leave your personal possession. It is so you can keep a copy in a fireproof safe and not lose access to your property in the event of a disaster.

          Not that you needed to be told and I get the sarcasm; I am just a habitual pedant and felt the need to utilize the opportunity for a PSA.

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.

      Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it’s because people themselves are silly and don’t actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Anecdotal evidence is literally evidence of one (which disproves “zero” claims). Collections of anecdotal evidences make statistics making your dismissive statement dumb.

              I’m adding to the pile. I can name literally over a dozen people in my childhood who copied Discs.

              • PunnyName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Start naming. Organize the names. And their experiences, and start collecting over time, if you wanna go that route. Because otherwise, you’re just some random words in the ether.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  We are… you have 3 in front of you. Out of the probably 300-400 people who’ve looked at this thread you’ve seen 3 people answer affirmatively. You’re watching it happen in real time!

        • mhague@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Burning CDs. That’s how I know most people didn’t know how to do it, or want to put in the effort. You had to go buy a stack of CDs, hope your computer supported burning, had to make sure players could support the burned disc (depending on if you made a music disc or data disc, if it was rewritable), and spend the time to burn the disc.

          Contrast that to ctrl+c ctrl+v.

          There’s more people who can ‘duplicate’ digital files than there were people burning CDs.

    • TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we’re talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.

      (Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it’s not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that “copy” infringes copyright.)

      Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Technically Step 2 should be legal, as covered by the old VCR case law (I think it involved Sony). Making a backup of a VHS tape or audio casette was legal, thus it should be legal for other formats, also.

        However the sneaky bastards then went and lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM. So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with writing the raw files to a drive, but if you have to crack the DRM to get the files to play then you’re definitely doing something unlawful.

        Disclaimer: “should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment lol what I say is not in any way legal advice. Also, it could be that the VHS law was more about “time-shifting”, ie recording live TV so that you could watch it at a more convenient time.

        Copyright also used to only be a civil offense, meaning law enforcement wouldn’t come after you, but a rightsholder might. However, they lobbied over that as well and ended up with a relatively low bar - if the value is over something like $1,000 then it’s automatically considered commercial and “criminal” copyright infringement.

        • TootSweet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Regular audio CDs don’t have any DRM. (Unless it’s a data CD filled with audio files that have DRM or some such. But regular standard audio CDs that work in any CD player, there’s no DRM. The standard just doesn’t allow for any DRM.) And so the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions wouldn’t apply to CDs.

          But as for the Sony case you’re referencing, I’m not familiar with it, so I’ll have to do more research on that.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            Pretty sure it was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Sony were actually the defendant, with their Betamax format. It does seem to focus primarily on time-shifting, ie recording live to watch later, however the reason for this was that the content was already available to the viewer and thus the copying should be permitted fair use. The Supreme Court also quoted Mr Rogers’ testimony in their ruling.

            “Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the ‘Neighborhood’ at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it’s a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that, with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the ‘Neighborhood’ off the air, and I’m speaking for the ‘Neighborhood’ because that’s what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been ‘You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.’ Maybe I’m going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.”

            Applying this reasoning to new technologies has since been debated back and forth through the decades with little clear resolution. Subsequent cases have sided with the rightsholders (eg against Grokster and Limewire), but the reasoning behind them was all over the place. They addressed the purpose of file sharing technology and concluded that those services existed primarily to facilitate copyright infringement, rather than addressing the matter of personal backups.