I don't illegally download music, and I only put music in iTunes that I have purchased legitimately. However, what is everyone's take on checking out a CD from my public library, one that I would ordinarily buy, then copy it to iTunes and return it to the library? I imagine it would depend on your takes on who owns the CDs, the fact that they are purchased by the library with tax dollars, and probably many other factors.
2007-12-13 03:18:27 · 5 answers · asked by Me again 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Other - Entertainment
Remember that these CDs are purchased by the library with public funds that I have paid in to in the form of taxes, and these CDs are not privately-owned. In some cases, libraries charge a fee to check out these CDs. Photocopying content from a library book would fall in to the same conundrum.
2007-12-13 03:38:04 · update #1
Just so everyone knows, I don't have an opinion that pulls me either way, I have my own very conflicting opinions both ways, and I am truly torn on this subject.
2007-12-13 05:22:26 · update #2
Your comparison doesn't hold. You can not copy more than 10% of a book and that 10% cannot impact the market for the book.
If you copy 10% of the music from a CD you do effect the market for those songs.
2007-12-16 12:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is really a copyright question, not an ownership question. It doesn't really matter what the library's policy is, the real issue is if you are violating the artist's (or producer's) copyright. Photocopying from a book isn't really a good comparison - when you photocopy a small section of the book you are not violating copyright because of 'fair use' exemptions - but if you photocopy the entire book you are violating copyright. Since copyright is being applied at the song level for music, you are violating copyright by copying any portion of the CD into your iTunes collection.
2007-12-14 05:49:35 · answer #2 · answered by Stellabella 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
thrilling question.... and that's somewhat a gray section for me, morally, because of the fact I disapprove of downloading illegally from the internet, yet for some reason, do no longer ideas it plenty whilst *somebody* related to me ~ pals or the library ~ has bought a CD and is sharing it that way.... Libraries existed long until eventually now CDs and song sharing, so it became in no way relatively a controversy, and that i do no longer see Lars Ulrich going after the CD collections at libraries, so i think of i'm happy with it. heavily, tho, I supported the lawsuit against Napster because of the fact no person is *entitled* to all people else's imaginitive product without procuring it. yet i'm additionally a huge fan of libraries, so consistent with possibility getting to make a call from despite the fact that CDs they have of their collections is the payoff / earnings that gets youngsters to apply their close by libraries extra ~ which I see as a superb undertaking. colours of gray, it relatively is me :-/
2016-12-11 03:33:25 · answer #3 · answered by acebedo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me it is stealing, but that is just my opinion and other people may not feel that way. It's no different than borrowing a friends CD and making a copy. In either case you're not paying for the music. Just my opinion though!
To your added comment, thats true, hadn't really thought about it like that. Might have to rethink this!
2007-12-13 03:29:33 · answer #4 · answered by beach bum 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would call the library and ask them what their policy is about downloading from their CD's
2007-12-13 05:04:21 · answer #5 · answered by Linda S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋