A discussion on the legal status of music media formats

[Saidera]

So my legal background makes me curious about what should be the law. When a person like Haruki Murakami bequeaths his entire record collection to Waseda University, or my grandfather gives me his entire classical CD collection, that is all lawful.

But when I contemplate leaving my entire FLAC and DSF library to someone, it is unlawful. Even if it’s CD rips or vinyl digitisations. Even if there’s only one copy made and stored digitally. Of course, it can simply be done in private, by physically passing it. However, writing it in a document as an order that it be given, will not be honoured. The reason is apparently that these digital downloads come with a single lifetime licence to use, which ends with the buyer and is not transferrable.

I suppose most people would opt to physically pass it on, rather than via the law of succession, but this does raise interesting issues – physical copies made from those digital downloads will also be under that lifetime licence? Is this an issue of physical vs digital or copyright or terms of use?

It would be a shame if, some 60 years on, the entire digital downloads library of a person has to be deleted to honour the lifetime licence limitation imposed on digital downloads.

This issue parallels with emails and social media account passwords being transferred to others.

Strangely enough, very few people would even contemplate having anyone else inheriting their digital files. Analog records are interesting in that sense.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've thought someone should mount a legal challenge. I've purchased 8 tracks, cassettes, RTR , LP and CD of a few recordings. If all I am really getting is a license, seems rather than pay full price to replace my license to music on an LP, when CD came out I should have been able to use my existing license and pay only a small fee for the hardware of the CD itself (which has always been less than a dollar). In the case of digital downloads, then owning a license in any format should require me to pay nothing or ok, maybe a penny to cover costs. Somehow this license doesn't seem to really be only a license.

 

[bigjacko]

It all comes down to law people don't think about consistency carefully. Other people think they are bad at logic, and law people think other people are bad at law so don't care about what they say. We will need someone good at logic and good at law to tackle this.

 

[restorer-john]

The reason is apparently that these digital downloads come with a single lifetime licence to use, which ends with the buyer and is not transferrable.

The clarification of "lifetime" here is the key. A reasonable person would expect a lifetime of enjoyment from the purchase of a musical album. After all, LPs can last a century, CDs at least 40 years etc. How does Grandma at 95 years of age obtain a fair or equitable "lifetime" from her purchase of Taylor Swift's latest digital download? She passes it on to her grand-daughter, that's how.

 

[Sombreuil]

Not sure if it's off topic or not, but just in case:

How Record Rentals Helped Save Japan's Music Industry: https://tedium.co/2019/08/06/japan-record-rental-stores/

 

[Wes]

To live outside the law you must be honest

 

[tmtomh]

It raises an interesting set of theoretical questions - but I tend to believe it's irrelevant as a practical matter, because bequeathing a digital music collection does not require one to explicitly or legally pass it along. Instead, one can simply bequeath the physical property the music is stored on. And if the music is stored solely in the cloud, then one can grant heirs or successors access to one's online accounts.

 

[Marc v E]

So my legal background makes me curious about what should be the law. When a person like Haruki Murakami bequeaths his entire record collection to Waseda University, or my grandfather gives me his entire classical CD collection, that is all lawful.

But when I contemplate leaving my entire FLAC and DSF library to someone, it is unlawful. Even if it’s CD rips or vinyl digitisations. Even if there’s only one copy made and stored digitally. Of course, it can simply be done in private, by physically passing it. However, writing it in a document as an order that it be given, will not be honoured. The reason is apparently that these digital downloads come with a single lifetime licence to use, which ends with the buyer and is not transferrable.

I suppose most people would opt to physically pass it on, rather than via the law of succession, but this does raise interesting issues – physical copies made from those digital downloads will also be under that lifetime licence? Is this an issue of physical vs digital or copyright or terms of use?

It would be a shame if, some 60 years on, the entire digital downloads library of a person has to be deleted to honour the lifetime licence limitation imposed on digital downloads.

This issue parallels with emails and social media account passwords being transferred to others.

Strangely enough, very few people would even contemplate having anyone else inheriting their digital files. Analog records are interesting in that sense.

In my opinion we should have a look at what the law protects.
1) If it's protecting musicians' income than that seems only fair.
2) If, on the other hand it's limiting use, reselling or inheritence then that seems nothing more than maximizing the music labels revenues.

Personally I don't care what the law says in this regard. I decided for myself that downloading without paying is a no no because of reason 1). Ripping cds for my own use and giving the nas away or letting someone inherit it is no problem as long as you let them inherit a Nas. No point in waking up sleeping dogs. I would do this without any guild or shame because I paid for the cds and because of reason 2.
By the way, I do stream music from tidal, but only for discovery of something new. I then buy the cd 2nd hand for next to nothing if its old and if available from the musicians website then from there. If its new I usually buy from amazon because of the huge (50%) price savings. I don't see the point in paying 20 euros for 1 cd when almost nothing of that goes to the artists.

 

[abdo123]

How does Grandma at 95 years of age obtain a fair or equitable "lifetime" from her purchase of Taylor Swift's latest digital download? She passes it on to her grand-daughter, that's how.

What the?

 

[Robin L]

As far as I can tell, the legal apparatus will function as it always has, possession being 9 points. So someone will claim rights to reproduction, attempting to grab profits from whatever is hot in that moment, be it new media, ad revenue, re-use in movies, TV etc., and the bulk of the remainder will be part of an underground, sub rosa system of free distribution. Same as it ever was.

 

[Wes]

so, if it is not a bit perfect copy does the copyright still apply??

 

[Blumlein 88]

so, if it is not a bit perfect copy does the copyright still apply??

No lawyer, but I'd confidently say yes.

 

[Jim Matthews]

Strangely enough, very few people would even contemplate having anyone else inheriting their digital files. Analog records are interesting in that sense.

I suppose that's because most of us already have cat videos.

 

[oozlum]

What about content that is out of print?

 

[Wes]

still copyrighted in the US

we obviously need to update copyright law - we need a concept of copyright abandonment for things that are out of print; it could be an addition to the fair use doctrine

 

[Ron Texas]

The transfer of physical music media in the US is legal under the first sale doctrine. This probably applies to the transfer of a hard drive and all its backups assuming the files were acquired legally.