There is no right to copy music
Last December, a Washington Post editorial suggested that the RIAA was going after individuals for copying music from legally-purchased CDs to their computers. This story made big news, but it turned out to be completely false. The RIAA was going after individuals who were distributing music online, not people who were just making copies of their music. The Washington Post issued a correction to the editorial, but the story didn’t die there. Despite the facts proving the story wrong, there are some that still think the RIAA believes that they think every individual who rips his CD collection to his personal iPod is a thief and a potential target for a lawsuit.
What is the basis for this belief? Well, one of the things behind it seem to be the fact that the RIAA hasn’t come out and said that an individual has a right to make copies of music – even for personal use. As stated on one of their sites:
Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
- The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
- The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
A writer at Wired who has written many posts on this issue had the following evaluation of the quote above:
Taken apart, what does it mean? Ripping MP3s is unauthorized. Under copyright law, anything unauthorized is infringing, unless the Fair Use doctrine defends the action as “non-infringing.” But the RIAA doesn’t believe that Fair Use covers MP3 ripping. So when they say unauthorized, they mean “infringing.” But that infringement won’t “usually” bother them until you start distributing.
So, since the RIAA won’t say that ripping mp3s is a right, they are saying that it’s not a right. And that must mean that they think it should be illegal. Therefore, the RIAA is totally against mp3 ripping (and presumably, only doesn’t go after iPod users because of the negative press it would generate).
I think that this type of logic isn’t fair because it takes some things out of context, but it raises a good question. Is copying music for your own personal use a right? Or in other words, do you have a right to make copies of music you purchase, regardless of what the creator of that music thinks? I’ve thought about it for a while, and I’ve come up with my answer: No. There is no right to copy someone else’s music.
But why?
In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff wrote (page 356):
All such claims involve a contradiction: if my right to life entails a right to your labor or its product, you cannot have a right to liberty or property. If my unearned claim is not satisfied, my “right” is violated; if it is satisfied—as a matter of right, regardless of your choice—then your right to life is violated; you become a rightless creature, who functions by my or society’s permission. Free milk for part of the population, as one political theorist puts the point, means slave labor for the rest. The “right to enslave,” Ayn Rand observes, is a contradiction in terms; it means the right to infringe rights.
Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand’s view of rights, I don’t think there is any getting away from a fact in the quote above: Two people can’t have a right to the same thing. For example, if I have a right to the money I earn from my job AND my neighbor’s kid has a right to an education that is partially paid with my money, we can’t both be right. Either I get my money, or the neighbor’s kid does. To pick one option necessarily negates the other.
The rights of two individuals cannot conflict, otherwise they wouldn’t be rights.
When it comes to music, I believe that the music artist who creates the music has the right to that music. To have a right to your music means the ability to control its distribution and to guarantee that you are properly attributed. It is because of this that I think there cannot be a right to copy an artist’s music. To have a right to copy their music, independent of the terms in which you obtained their music, necessarily negates their right to control their property.
I like illustrations, so here’s a quick example (from my trusty GTD pad):
Here is an artist who wants to sell his music and a buyer. The artist is putting a condition on the sale, forbidding the buyer to make any copies. In this case, the buyer would have no right to copy that music, even to his iPod. He made an agreement with the artist not to do so. To say that the buyer has a right to make a copy of that music (regardless of the agreement he just made with the artist) is to say that the artist has no right to make that type of agreement when selling his own property.
Context is essential
To honestly answer the question “Do I have a right to copy my music?” a proper context has to be established. What music are you talking about? Were there any stipulations on the purchase? Is the copying for your or another person? If you’re just copying your own CD in a private folder on your own computer to listen for yourself, the answer is probably yes. If you’re copying your CD into a P2P folder in order to distribute the music to other P2P users (similar to the Jammie Thomas or the Thomas Howell case), then the answer is definitely no. It all depends on each particular situation.
But if the “Do I have a right to copy my music?” is meant to be asked without any context, as if the right existed regardless of the wishes of the artist, copyright law, or the conditions on the sale of the music, then the answer is absolutely no. There is no such right to copy music.
Why aren’t others saying this?
Well, some have. Or at least, there have been a lot of people who have backed off of the RIAA on this issue when it was shown that the Washington Post’s story was wrong. Still, I’ve read a lot of the criticism expressed against the RIAA on other sites on this question, especially on Wired, p2pnet, and the Recording Industry vs The People, and I don’t think it is warranted. The RIAA is in a lose-lose situation when asked to answer the question without establishing some context. If the RIAA won’t say copying music is a right, critics will supply a situation in which copying music is ok (like copying a CD to your iPod) and say that the RIAA is against that. And if the RIAA says that copying music is a right, critics will supply a situation in which copying music is wrong (like P2P file “sharers”) and try to use the RIAA’s words against them.
In general, most of the criticism I’ve seen directed at the RIAA has been like this. It looks really bad, but once you look deeper you’ll find a fact or two missing. And if you consider concepts like individual rights and intellectual property, you might not think the RIAA was wrong at all. It’s a shame, too, because there are valid reasons to disagree with the RIAA. But not this time.
Update 1/31/2008: Corrected typo.
Quick thought on the RIAA site hack
A hacker took down the RIAA’s site yesterday, removing all content from their site. I have one quick thought:
The fact that the RIAA’s site was open for attack does not excuse the hacker from exploiting the site’s weakness. I’ve seen the RIAA criticised for leaving themselves to be open to such an attack, which seems to have been completed using simple SQL injection. Most web developers have known about this technique and ways to prevent it for years, especially considering the fact that it could allow any site visitor to destroy your site’s database (like what just happened to the RIAA). This doesn’t change the fact that someone used that flaw to knowingly damage the RIAA’s property (their website and the data stored in their database), and that person should be held liable for that damage.
Here’s a quick analogy: Let’s say that as I leave for work in the morning, I accidentally leave the front door to my house wide-open. Does that mean that a robber who walks through that open door and walks off with all of my possessions should not be arrested for theft? Of course not!
No matter how bad the RIAA may be, their website is their property. As innocuous as it may seem, the attack to the RIAA’s site was a violation of their right to decide what they display on their own property. I doubt they will be able to catch the hacker(s) and I don’t know what the punishment should be, but it doesn’t change the fact that the attack was wrong.
Tags: [riaa]Highlight of last week
I’m still very busy. The past two or three months have been full of work, but I really think the storm is about to end. I feel like I’ve written that lately, but I really believe it this time. Last week I only worked 54 hours, I spent a full day (Saturday) without touching a computer, and I got a full eight hours of sleep for two nights in a row. And next week I’m taking a full day off, during which I’ll learn the gender of my child (due in May).
I have a full dozen half-finished posts I’ve attempted to write lately, but before I go back to finish them (or delete them, more likely… no need to comment on old news) I want to comment on the highlight of last week: Ezra Levant. A year or two ago, this man published the Muhammad cartoons in a Canadian publisher. A Muslim man complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which apparently is a government body which was set up to investigate and rule on “offensive” acts or words. I had no idea such an organization existed, especially in a country like Canada, but perhaps things are worse there than I knew. Levant was invited to speak to an “investigator” for the commission, and he nailed it. He didn’t just stand up for his right to say and write whatever he wished. He blasted the entire existence of a government-backed commission that would use the power of the state to force an individual to apologize for something he had a right to say. He was great, and I even had to listen to his videos two or three times. They were great, and if you haven’t heard them yet go here now:
His Youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/EzraILevant
(check out “I don’t answer to the state” here)
His blog: http://www.ezralevant.com
Thanks to Myrhaf and Not PC for posting on this subject. I saw the Levant videos mentioned on LGF but I passed on watching them because I didn’t have time. When I saw it mentioned by Objectivists I found the time, and I’m glad I did.
And to give a small taste of the kinds of things he said, I used my typing powers to transcribe part of what he said. If you think his words are good, you really should see him deliver them!
Tags: [ezra levant]Only a fool would think that by passing a law you could change someone’s heart or mind. Only a fool would go to a human rights commission because he couldn’t convince his debate partner. [Guy who raised complaint] could not convince me on the radio so he went to the police to have them convince me. He went to you to have you convince me. Only a fool would do that because even if this runs its course and [guy who raised complaint] gets his desired punishment, which is for me to say the false words that I apologize. doesn’t that fool know that in my heart I don’t apologize and I don’t mean it? Only a fool would think that censoring and gagging someone is the equivalent of changing their mind.
[…]
For them to want the state to compel me to utter words I don’t believe is Orwell at its apex.
[…]
What’s the use of an apology if they wouldn’t mean it? A convicted murder cannot be ordered to apologize but a convicted publisher can be ordered by the state to apologize. I’ll rot in hell before I use my mouth to say that fascist’s words with you as his instrument to compel me to do so.
How addicted am I?
I’ve seen the survey up on other OBlogger blogs, so I thought I’d try. It’s a pretty low score…
Now back to work!
Tags: [No Tags]