Freenet Creator Debates RIAA 806
smd4985 writes "Over at CNET News.com, there's a good coverage of a debate between Ian Clarke of Freenet and Matt Oppenheim of the RIAA." In discussing whether it's "legal and moral to create and use Freenet", which is "a radically decentralized network of file-sharing nodes tied together with strong encryption", the RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that Mr. Oppenheim likes to contradict himself. Observe:
He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight.
I also thought this was interesting:
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."
Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?"
It seems that even when the RIAA is right (people really are breaking the law and infringing the rights offered to their members by copyright) their propaganda is more important to them than their real and legally defensible position.
Check out Ian's journal (Score:5, Interesting)
Infringers (Score:2, Interesting)
Good job they don't consider freenet a threat... (Score:4, Interesting)
Freenet is awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
How can freenet be immoral? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait, nevermind....
Did the RIAA guy just admit P2P wasn't a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
The tone of that statement seems to imply that P2P is not a threat to the RIAA... which seems contrary to their entire defense.
I have to say, the Freenet guy came across very well in that debate since he was able to flow between humor and fact. The RIAA really needs to hire some PR people that don't seem so angry all the time. As long as they keep up this approach to PR, the more the public is going to go against them.
Bye Bye Dinosaurs! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Just as the motor car replaced the horse and cart, so will the Internet replace most of the roles performed by today's recording industry."
The whole RIAA rant is useless because the RIAA is on its way to obsolesence. They can hip and holler all they want, but in 15 years they won't even exist. Even the legal system and/or Congress won't be able to protect them for long - we live in a capitalist society, and in the end efficiency rules.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is this: its actually rather difficult to shoplift anything besides books, CDs and other small objects. Those objects - the small stuff - are priced around this "shrinkage" (just ask anyone in retail) though, because of this. You cant shoplift a car, period. So, since stores know they only have to worry about small (size wise, not cost wise) they establish security mechanisms (such as RIDs, cameras, etc.) to try and prevent that shoplifting.
Now, if you're a copyright holder, how do you do the same thing? If I were a storeowner, I can keep an eye, literally, on all my merchandise. You cant steal from me without being in my store. But with music and other file sharing/whatever you want to call it, you can steal from the copyright holders from anywhere that has internet access. Obviously, this means the only way to prevent theft of this sort is (a) DRM(ooooh, I hear the 'boos' from the
There's one possible alternative: make it so cheap to acquire the material legally that functionally no one steals it. The Apple Music store is a step in this direction, but the resistance its facing from Artists (such as Linkin' Park, Alanis Morissette, etc.) and Lables (for reasons ranging from protection of the 'album' as a form of presentation by artists, to simple economic protection of markets) makes this quite difficult to accept as the solution.
Good and ill (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarke: If it is moral to make guns, knives or anything else that can be used for both good and ill, then it is certainly moral to create something which tries to guarantee a freedom that is essential to democracy.
Doesn't it seem a little silly to divide everything in the world into exactly 3 categories: those that can only be used for good, those that can only be used for bad, and those that could be used for either? Doesn't it make sense to say that there are some things that are much more often used for good than for bad (e.g. knives), so they're fine? And some, such as guns, where the trade-off is a lot more questionable? (So in most countries they are significantly regulated.)
Freenet may eventually contain a political treatise from the oppressed citizens of a dictatorship, but it will probably contain copyrighted songs, movies, porn, etc. by a factor of a hundred thousand to one. Supporting anonymous political speech is more good than illegal copying is bad, but by a factor of 100,000?
Reverse that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do car companies sue you when you share your car with other people by giving people a lift? Do car companies require each person you give a ride to, to pay a license fee?
I hate the fact that if we are going to treat information as physical property, that unlike real physical property, in which the person who buys it truely owns it, when it comes to information theres a double standard, the person who buys it actually is paying to listen to it, and its in a very strict fashion
In my opinion no company has a right to tell you how to use something you paid for.
Re:This is actually interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.
My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?
Just think about it
because the illegal uses of cars is overwhelmingly small compared to the legal uses of cars? (as a form of transportation)
If 90% of the car uses were related to crimes (9 out of 10 cars on a highway are used as getting away from another scene of a crime), you bet the lawsuits would be everywhere.
Just think about it
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:3, Interesting)
I can not think of any right now. Is that a sign that the laws are wrong or that we are wrong? I would say that the laws are wrong, I actually enjoy pirating, it is great when you do not have anything to do. Just start a 800 Mb download and the afternoon is saved. Praise piracy!
Re:And thats whats wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if they try to tell me that I can't create a copy of a CD for personal use - whole different story.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now they want the same rights when searching for us "criminals".
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's the RIAA's alegation that I'm not buying music, I'm only buying a disk and acompaning license to play the music on the disk, I have paid legitimately for a licence to that music, so when the disk became unusable I retrieved my validly licensed content from the only available source, Napster.
Blank CD's cost a quarter. If the RIAA had supplied me with an avenue to obtain a replacement copy of my damaged media I would have had no need for a file sharing service. Without them I would have had to pay for a second license (in which case one would assume that since I own two licences I could make enough copies to match the number of licenses I've obtained).
Even Microsoft has a replacement media program. If your disks are damaged in some way and unusable you can send them to Redmond and they'll ship you another copy.
And, (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright law gives you some freedoms with the work you just purchased. You are not required to keep your proof of purchase around forever, sorry
we're not talking about corporate software licensing here, we're talking about buying cds and records in the store, which is a standard, normal sale...
I repeat, there is no license agreement... implied or otherwise. The only reason you cannot make copies of the product you bought and sell them to others is because copyright law says you can't, as you aren't the holder of the copyright.
Let me repeat that. I don't have to keep my receipts around. I can make a copy of a CD I bought, and throw the original in the garbage. I'm not breaking some law.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Interesting)
The BSA is doing it today. Why is it a stretch to think the RIAA will be doing it tomorrow?
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
If they want to force you to produce a reciept they have to convince a judge to force you to produce it. That probably won't happen.
How are they gaining any rights? Anyone can take anyone to court for anything!
Reading comprehension 101. The quote I was refering to is from an RIAA official who was implying that they needed more rights than they have now to investigate infringement. You have effectively argued my point for me. They have all the rights they need already. Now, stop being a fucking idiot and go annoy somebody else. (Was that up to your rudeness standards?)
Re:stealing bibles? (Score:4, Interesting)
How late can the Music Industry be? 5 years + ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I may be alone, but i believe that people would spend considerable money to download music. First, the price must be right. 99 cents for a song sounds pretty damn good to me. 50 cents sounds even better.
As a lifelong music collector with over 50 crates of vinyl albums (no idea how many that is) and at least 100 gigabytes of mp3's, I can say that If such a system was in place, I would gladly pay to purchase digital music. I am not trying to cheat the system when I download music, I am trying to avoid ripping the vinyl that I have purchased. Vinyl must be ripped in real time. I could never rip my whole collection. It is just impossible.
My parents would pay for downloaded music. My sister would pay for downloaded music. My friends would.....
RIAA why are you wasting time going after these people. Present the world with a legitimate alternative and draw the line between criminals and law abiding downloaders.
Piracy hasn't hurt microsoft one bit. There will always be pirates and theives. You are not trying to sell product to them. The lord knows that I would rather pay for a
Yet here we are, 5 years down the road from napster, and a computer company has taken the initiative that the music industry is frighened to death of.
This is just further evidence that no matter how great the art form is, the BUSINESS of music SUCKS!
In the immortal words of Q-Tip
Industry Rule #5080 : Record company people are shady.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. (Unless you're being accused by the government.)
In civil law, you AREN'T "innocent until proven guilty." Your just charged with a tort--not "guilty", but neither culpable nor free from cost until a jury decides the truth on the preponderance of the evidence.
Now, if the accuser has no reasonable suspicion that you've committed a tort, and they sue you anyway, you can probably countersue for the tort of harassment / fradulent litigation.
As for RIAA's alleged illegal acts--catch them in the act and turn them in for it. But until there's proof, they're "innocent until proven guilty" of any crime. (I suppose that you could take them to civil court...)
(Oh, and to be clear: IANAL.)
A pox on both yer houses... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Freenet thinks its main role is going to be making nice things happen in China, and saving pregnant teens, he's either the most naive technologist who ever stepped into the sun, or he wins the Eddie Haskell award.
If the RIAA thinks they can find everyone, they're just as naive. They do have the law on their side on the face of it - and I would rather they find a way to pay-and-get in a modern fashion than bullying the world out of bad habits.
The videotape/VCR analogy loses here because you have to ship tapes around and make them in real time - it is economically obnoxious to do so, so everyone has a vcr, everyone tapes off the air / time shift views and virtually nobody ships tapes around to from their homes to anyone who wants it. The rental system does what we need in that regard.
So far, Apple's got it about as right as anyone has - we'll see if people actually will support it though - in this way the whole how-do-i-get-digital-music thing is rather like 'the prisoners' dilemma' - cooperate/gain a little and everyone gets someting - default, steal, cheat, or get greedy, and everyon gets screwed.
Why not make sharing (for personal use) legal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Think about it...because whether we legislate it or not, this is where we're heading. I like it.
Re:Legal and moral... [ot] (Score:2, Interesting)
Even here you struggle to convince yourself guns are evil because their only (in your mind) use it to kill and maim.
However, you do not seem to be able to rationalize why p2p, which (to copyright holders) is only used to spread copyrighted work, should not be illegal.
Guns can be used for sport. P2p can be used for sharing iso's. Both do have valid uses.
So, now we are down to a few options. We outlaw guns and p2p because both can be used for evil. Or we allow both p2p because though guns and p2p can be used for evil, they are not inherently evil, the users can be. Or we live with our dualism, the fact that we are a "me me me" (think seagulls in Finding Nemo "mine mine mine") society.
Personally I opt for option two.
Re:A pox on both yer houses... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think they believe the most important role is the freedom of speech, and acknowledge that it will be used illegally, but that is the rub. Freedom of communication applies to both criminal and non-criminal.
The videotape/VCR analogy loses here because you have to ship tapes around and make them in real time - it is economically obnoxious to do so, so everyone has a vcr, everyone tapes off the air / time shift views and virtually nobody ships tapes around to from their homes to anyone who wants it. The rental system does what we need in that regard.
Well, not in the U.S. I have heard that other countries have places to rent movies that are actually copies of the movie, or even video tapes made from inside a theater.
Anonymous Speech vs RIAA interests (Score:2, Interesting)
Oppenheim didn't really answer this question, nor has anyone else from the RIAA or any similar organization. Instead they put forward the assumption that all anonymous file-swapping systems are inherently designed for the sole purpose of copyright infringement.
If anonymity is truly necessary for free speech (as the courts have upheld), then isn't the anonymous trading of files an obvious side effect? Oppenheim also decided to completely ignore the fact that Freenet is being used in places such as China, where anonymity really IS necessary, and not "necessary" in some legalese definition, "necessary" as in "if the government finds you they will kill you". Does the RIAA honestly believe that pro-democratic Chinese dissidents should be denied an anonymous file-sharing technology simply because it can also be used to circumvent copyright? I'd love to hear them actually answer this question.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also appauled that anyone would even consider this theft, or lisencing, which is absolute bullshit. It's fairly standard; you get the media, you can do anything you want with it within fair use and unregulated use. There is no eula, no blanket contract, nothing. Software is usually lisenced, which is BS, and they do that to keep us dumb to how the program works. There's an auful lot of trust in bringing a robot into your home to be a slave, and turning it on and seeing what happens. Same with software; you have no way of telling what's inside of it and if that protection via lisence was taken away software would be a helluva lot more secure and if you had to include source code...
Another thing is that nobody has to proove they purchased anything. You can be accused, sure, but there is a time limit on reporting a theft. Now, with a car or something very valuable you're supposed to keep records, and if someone comes to you, accuses you of stealing a car 3 years ago, there's no police report and you've got the title they're fucked. If they accuse you of stealing a dining set and you don't have records, and they don't have proof, they are fucked.
Same situation for the RIAA: the proof they have is that you had the file up for sharing. If they download it, since they hold the copyright it's legal. They have to somehow proove it was being uploaded to someone else which they can't proove, they can only proove intent, not an actual act. If I have a CD or MP3 it's assumed I baught it or own it and I don't have to show you jack shit no matter who you are. You don't have to proove you purchased it, it's they have to proove you didn't purchase it.
Re:Really, Mr. Oppenheimer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rule number one of communication: when misusing a word, don't emphasise it. This word, "impossible": it doesn't mean what you think it means.
If one were to, say, own half of the nodes on the network, it would be incredibly easy to know where almost all traffic is coming from. If one were to, say, set up a dozen or so high-throughput nodes, flood the network with announcements, and force the nodes into a certain data specialisation (a lot of hacking of Fred, no doubt), it would become quite practical to see exactly which nodes are requesting and which nodes are inserting data relating to that specialisation.
"Breaking" Freenet, like all good things in life, is not impossible. Its degree of practicality is proportional only to the amount of resources you have. The RIAA has a lot of resources. The RIAA can, I would believe, afford to set up a few hundred Freenet nodes. Anyone with a few hundred nodes can trivially monitor the comings-and-goings of most Freenet data.
Telling where any given file on Freenet is coming from is not impractical, let alone "impossible" (snort), given enough resources.
How does Kazaa make money? (Score:3, Interesting)
The same way Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and others make money off consumers distribution. Advertisements and other little things.
Do the calculations, artists would actually make more money off this system than the current system because they'd still own their copyrights and would take in 100% of the profits made.
Example1 [iuma.com]
Example2 [harvard.edu]
Currently artists dont profit at all off distirbution and record sales unless they sell 500,000 records, in the new system even if you sell 1000 records you'd get something because you'd still own the copyright.
Re:My One Remaing P2P Question: (Score:2, Interesting)
"I get up and leave the room, needing to go check on the burgers on the grill. My friend is the only one listening to the music. Is this copyright infringement, because my friend is listening to a copied CD that I'm willingly playing for him? I've made an authorized copy and I'm playing it for a friend - that's all I've done so far."
No, it's not copyright infringement, because it's not being reproduced and distributed; this amounts to a "private showing," of sorts, like the type your friendly neighborhood FBI Warning says is okay whenever you loan a movie to your friend.
"Suppose we take it a step farther. My friend really likes the band, and he swipes the CD while I'm not looking. I don't notice because I was too busy fiddling with the burgers, and he switches on the radio in it's place. Am I guilty of copyright infringement because my friend's taken my CD, or is he guilty of theft from me, for which I'm certainly not going to prosecute if I ever find out, or is my friend guilty of copyright infringement, taking a legal copy of a CD from me?"
Your friend would be gulity of theft, and you'd probably want to look into getting a different friend.
But no copyright infrigement has taken place, because the actual music has not being copied. If you made your friend a copy of the CD and gave it to him, *then* you'd be guilty of infringement.
"If there's NO copyright infringement at all in this situation, then what happens if I set up my computer to transfer files, I've got legal copies on my computer, and someone else takes them without me having given explicit permission?"
The key difference here, though, is that P2P works because you take the files you want to share and (in the case of KaZaA) put them in a folder named something blatantly obvious like, "Shared Folder." Nobody is really going to believe that you just "accidentally" dropped 500+ copyrighted files into that folder without knowing that someone else who downloaded the same software you did can come in and copy them to their machine. It could be argued that by placing said files in the share folder (or otherwise making them availble to the network) you are giving others permission to copy them, because if you didn't want them copied, you wouldn't have bothered to expose them in the first place.
I have dozens of ripped songs from my CD collection on my machine, but none are openly availible to the 'Net. Someone would have to hack my system to grab them, and if so, then it's not a hard defense to prove that they were copied against your will (which really sounds weird....).
Matt
Filesharing is major achevement of human kind! (Score:1, Interesting)
Another good point to consider, when technology advances, people or companies lose their income when the products they make become obsolete. Does anyone cry over horse carriage makers? What about when workers lose their jobs when factories robotize? Most of the time such workers are kicked out and nobody gives a damn.
So why should anyone take the record companies seriously. Theyre dead meat. They ought to be thinking up new business ideas instead of fighting the tide. Its no use. Give up!
Re:Really, Mr. Oppenheimer? (Score:3, Interesting)
The recording industry has every sign of being a dying industry trying everything it can to milk out a few more years of profit before collapsing into a state noone would recognize. Suing individuals is a horrid idea that will not help sell their music.
As far as actually being able to keep bandwidth down, it is a horrible idea that will make the US fall farther behind the Asian markets in economic terms. If you have to kill the entertainment industry in order to allow people the bandwidth to do interesting things on the internet, so be it. The US will eventually have the bandwidth the Koreans enjoy, just hope for all our sakes that it doesnt take too long or we will lose our status as the economic powerhouse of the world.
Re:The RIAA is in over its head - WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, but...hypothetically (don't try this at home kids) I go to a CD store and buy the top CD for cash. Then I come home, rip it using (take your pick) direct digital rip, analogue hole, special software to bypass copy-protection, take your pick, and place the results out on all 57 or so P2P networks. You can't miss that it's out there and rapidly proliferating faster than you can trace.
How does any watermark in existance trace that mass produced piece of silver plastic back to me?
I didn't even mention that I cut this baby lose using the local WiFi hotspot while enjoying an extra large cup of coffee with endless free refills.
Copyright of the CDs only (Score:1, Interesting)
Most people are completely missing the copyright point. The music companies have the sole right to duplicate the CDs. You have the right to play it. Playback used to be an instantaneous analogue process, but since the advent of radio and public address systems allowed playback over multiple speakers in real-time.
Now, with digital media, there can be a considerable delay between reading the media and reproducing the sound. An MP3/Ogg file can be seen as a temporary buffered image for later playback. Also note that by making a MP3/Ogg, you did not copy the CD, you still have only one CD, so you have not contravened the copyright act.
The law does not describe the modern situation.
Freenet is a powerful tool (Score:3, Interesting)
Ian Clarke is an articulate technologist, and Freenet is a cool project. But if Slashdotters and all computer users everywhere don't put their money where their mouth is, then all the clever software in the world won't win this fight.
The RIAA and its employees in Congress will pass more draconian laws because they have power and we don't. They will outlaw computers if they have to, because computers have rendered them irrelevant.
They will only stop, or rather will only be stopped, if all of us choose to exercise our power as consumers and voters. What are those things?
1. As a consumer, stop buying CDs. Stop buying band merchandise. Stop buying concert tickets. CDs and merchandise feed the RIAA. Concert tickets feed ClearChannel. Send them the message that you want out of this abusive relationship. Deprive them of the dollars they pay their lawyers and Congressmen with.
2. Discourage your friends, family, and coworkers from buying CDs and tickets. Offer to burn them copies of the music they want instead. If the 50 million people using P2P in America did that for just 5 other people not online, then that's the entire population of the country that has no more use or dollars for the RIAA.
3. Call your representatives and ask them if they support you or the RIAA. If you don't like what you hear, then don't vote for them. Tell others not to vote for them. Use florid language if you must, because you can be sure that the RIAA won't be afraid to.
Yes, these are little things. Yes, if you're the only one doing them, then how can they possibly make a difference? But a wise man once said, "It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little. Do what you can." Besides, you're not alone; you're a member of an army of 50 million people. If each does a little, it amounts to a heck of a lot.
At the very least, the very, very least, stop using the RIAA's language and terms to talk about this issue! Copying files is exchanging information, and exchanging information is NOT stealing. Neither is it piracy. So stop calling it that. You can't convince even the most sympathetic politician that stealing is OK. But you probably could persuade them that file sharing is a good thing. Think about it. Then do it.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:4, Interesting)
While I have not read the document in its entirety, I would like to draw your attention to a particular portion:I have yet to find an analysis of what works are covered under this Act. However, it would appear that all works whose creators are compensated by this fund are eligible for home copying. It truly is a royalty that you pay when you buy "Audio" CD-Rs.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one thing that bugged me about one of the arguments made by the RIAA in this interview. Oppenheim said that 90% of the people using Grokster were downloading illegal content or something like that. The problem is he conveniently ignored the people who were downloading legitimately. Your case is exactly what some people were doing. Some didn't want to lug lots of CDs around anymore so they downloaded what they already had and put it into a playlist. Some people wanted to find new bands to buy CDs for. I wish I could give you numbers, but the best I can do is say 'substantial'. Even today that's true, otherwise the 'billions' of songs the RIAA is claiming are flying around the net would equal a HUGE dent in their sales. The 5% loss they've reported has plenty of explanations outside of file trading.
His response to that question really burned me up seeing as how I used Kazaa over the weekend to find some demo software. (and yes, I said *demo* software, not pirate or cracked software.)
Hmm I wonder if I can redistribute demo programs on P2P like that legally or if I have to have permission first. It'd certainly take the wind out of the RIAA's sails if everybody did that, thus costing the parent company less to get their product tried out there.
Re:Thats what I dont ageee with. (Score:1, Interesting)
Funnily enough, making a copy of something copyrighted (as if there's some kind of process to go through - I fill in form 345B and my work is copyrighted?) and giving it away in exchange for cash is illegal. Making a copy of a copyrighted work and giving it to a friend for nothing is perfectly legal.
there's a reason communism fell, ya know.
Communism fell? It seems to work well for some communes. Perhaps you're thinking of Soviet Russia, which is an entirely different story.
I copied "Ken Park" with the blessing of director (Score:2, Interesting)
It is causing a furore here because of the censorship issues, and Larry Clark (the director) has been interviewed by several media channels on the issue.
When asked what he thought of people "illegally" downloading his film off the internet, his reply basically condoned the practice:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s896904
In this instance, because the director cannot profit from his work in this country, I don't see how it can really fall under copyright infringement. Mind you, the free PR and overseas sales he gains from our nation's stupid censors will far outweigh any potential sales he may have had if the film had not caused controversy.
So in this instance P2P provided the freedom for me to make my OWN choice to watch the film, despite our government censors saying I can't. I'd consider that a fairly good use for P2P, and Freenet is a natural extension of this principle of freedom to choose without being persecuted or arrested for it.
Quizo69
You do NOT need a license to play a CD! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sweet Mary, mother of God, where do these monkeys come from? As soon as I find out, I'm going to patent the "infinite source of energy by harnessing infinite supply of people who don't understand copyright."
Assuming you're buying a CD (or a record or tape, assuming you can find one), you are purchasing... a CD. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly not a license. You'll notice that if you walk into your local Music and Other Stuff Store, that a CD and speaker cable is rung up exactly the same. After the purchase, you own that one particular copy of the CD. That sales transaction is exactly the same as, say, when you purchase a chair. You own that CD, and you own that chair. You can sell the CD, loan it out, give it away, play it, incorporate it into some abstract sculpture, use it as a coaster, or microwave it. You don't get any license because you don't need any license!
Now, that CD is marked "Copyright 2003, Some Big Company, All Rights Reserved." What's that mean? In a technical, legal sense, it means absolutely nothing. Thanks to the Berne Convention, in most countries (including the United States) you don't need to put any sort of copyright label on your work. You get copyright protection, free of charge, even if you don't label it. The label is just a warning. That way if you make a copyright infringing copy, you can't claim to the judge "but your honor, I didn't know it was protected by copyright," because the Expense Music Industry Lawyer will respond, "It's clearly labelled."
So, what does your free-of-charge, automatic copyright protection grant you? A number of things, but most of them can be summed up in the key protection: the copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute copies. That's just about it. (You're also notably forbidden from public performance. If you squint a bit, public performance looks like distributing copies.) So, while you own that one specific CD, copyright law specifically withholds the right to distribute copies. This has nothing to do with a license. You don't need a license to cross the street, no, you're free to cross the street, but disallowed from jaywalking. Similarlly you're free to use and own that particular CD, but your disallowed from distributing copies.
This whole "license" concept is bullshit that the copyright based industries are trying to confuse people with. The software industry has been particularlly successful in convincing people that they can change a sale into a license after the fact. That this idea does not have any sort of strong court support yet doesn't bother them. Don't be confused by this deception!