I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. In other words it's not illegal for someone to take a camera and videotape their own wedding, edit it to copywrited music, and watch it in their own home. It IS illegal for anyone they hire to do the same thing, though, right? Well, what if they hired someone to stand next to them and tell them exactly what to do during the filming and editing process?

I know it an unrealistic example, but it gets at the heart of the matter, that the law here is just ridiculous and unrealistic.

I like the idea that the contract should make the client the producer, and thus transfer all responsibility for securing rights to them - not that it would stand up in court, but it could help the situation.

I don't think that is going to work. There's more to being the "producer" than signing a piece of paper accepting legal responsibility. The producer also makes the final creative decisions. HE creates the camera shots - the camera operator is an employee who works the machine under his direction. HE creates the edit - the editor works the machine. True, both the camera op and the editor may have creative input but in point of fact they don't decide, they suggest. The producer may let the suggestion stand but he's the one who decides if it's in or out. The decision remains with the producer and it's the producer who creates the final product. Since the videographer is the one who has creative control over the final product, he's not just a hired hand working for a client/producer. (The second shooter if the primary hires one, on the other hand, would be.) How many of the sample clips posted through this forum have been had the subject line "look at this video my client created when he got married and tell me what you think of it?"

How does it not work if someone signs a contract and accepts that they are acting as the producer and will take care of any necessary licensing? If that is the wording in the contract, how does the responsibility still fall to the guy shooting and editing?

Because the law can modify or void a contract if it deems a provision in it to be against other prevailing law. If case law defines the videographer to be the producer, you can't sign a contact that transfers that role to your client unless the real functions are transferred as well. You can't wait in the car while your buddy robs a bank and then beat a charge of driving the getaway car by producing a letter he signed that absolves you of responsibilty for what he is about to do. If the law says you are responsible, a contract that transfers that responsibility to another party would be found to be void on its face. Hand over the raw footage and walk away, he's responsible for what happens next. You create the final program, you are. But you can't do it and then say he's responsible when in actual fact he's not, even if he's agreed to the subterfuge.

Essentially it boils down to the fact that you can't use a contract to re-write or get around a law you disagree with.

Interesting. I see your point.

The key is "against other prevailing law" - true, you cannot have a contract provision contrary to law, but the point here is that if the CLIENT can in theory produce their own video legally, then they should be able to hire someone to do it for them. SO, it doesn't violate the law. RICO/Mob type prosecutions are where you hire someone to do something that's illegal for you to do... you are BOTH liable.

You CAN fix your own electrical/plumbing, etc, but most would rather pay an "expert". You CAN make your own personal video project, but what you're paying for is someone with more expertise... not a perfect analogy, but...

What we are all examining carefully is if and how the small event videographer can avoid stumbling into being a criminal for doing something that's otherwise legal...

Do you have ANY case law where a contract provision that I see as perfectly legal, specifying that the client is the one assuming any liability for copyright clearances, has been voided on legal grounds?? Contract provisions, including those assigning or transferring liability (like insurance) in writing are typically upheld, it's the ones where "interpretation" is up in the air that the court can "imply" or assume. Thus, my suggestion to put it in writing rather than leave it open...

Case law sadly is usually where there's more grey than black and white, resulting in "contract disputes" or damages, so putting it in black and white can help you avoid becoming "case law" should something "go bad". Unless you have specific case law, you've got no precedent for your argument. Honestly I don't think there's any "case law" specific enough to make my suggestion invalid, but if you've got one, I'll gladly look it up! That or a case in which an individual was held liable for use of copyrighted music that they purchased and used for private use in their personal video?? Format shifting has been strongly upheld for quite some time as a right of a consumer/purchaser, though perhaps not in this specific context - the law is still playing catch up.


The "small event" client is simply hiring someone to do something they COULD do themselves, but just as a producer does, they pick the best talent they can afford to make all the technical decisions and give their best skills to the task - sure a big time producer is going to be more "hands on", but I'll bet that they choose talent they trust to give them the results with as little "direction" as possible. Not unlike the small client, the producer wants to bring the production in on time and on budget, not sweat f-stops or transitions - true there's more planning and creative interchange, but the budgets/audiences/products are in different leagues. The small event client also wants to bring in a personal production on time and on a set budget, and pays you to do it.

Your point about videographers "taking ownership" is a good one, and thus my suggestions that might help reduce liability. Take care which hats you put on, and you could at least have a pretty good defense rather than making yourself an "easy target". The best defense is a well written contract... and care in your words/representations.

Sure it's "glamourous" to be a "production house", but if it keeps me from potential liability, I'm content to be a videographer/editor <wink>!


It wouldn't hurt to learn enough about getting clearances from publishers for kid's plays and stuff either, and I think I'll have to look into that and see how it goes, as I expect to be video'ing a LOT of plays in the next decade or two with three small children entering school age! I wouldn't mind recouping my editing time somehow! It may be more trouble than it's worth though!


You also used the term "for retail sale" in an earlier post - I believe that's a HUGE stretch for most event vidoegraphy - you're not selling to just any Joe or Jane, you're delivering a limited, usually small number of copies of the final edited version of the event, only to people who otherwise COULD have videotaped the event themselves... BIG difference, and I think that's the gigantic 900 pound gorilla of a "loophole" we're noticing!

One other idea that just occurred is to explicitly transfer the copyright (and thus the ownership) of the final edit of the event to the client, except for retaining specific rights for demo/showreel/promo purposes.

If you are operating a business producing wedding and/or event videos for customers from the general public, it's a retail business selling goods and services just like Sears or Walmart or your neighborhood plumber or auto shop or LovelyBride Portrait Studios. I get the feeling you envision it to be the same thing as a parent taping their kids school play and one of the other parents offering to reimburse them at token amount for their trouble if they'll give them a copy of the tape. I don't think anyone would debate that a professional photography studio offering wedding and event coverage among its photographic services is a business operation selling their products and services in the retail marketplace - why do you think an event videographer is any different? We're not talking about Uncle Charlie taking vids of the family - whether it's a full time operation or just a weekend activity, we talking about someone who is ostensibly a media professional operating a business and servicing customers that are drawn from the general public. You don't need a brick-and-mortar storefront for it to be a retail business, just ask Amazon.

Maybe this perception you offer is why the wedding still photographers sometimes look down on videographers with disdain as not being the "real professionals." You're either just another guest with a really nice camera or you're a professional media production specialist and content producer - you can't have it both ways.

You guys both offer excellent points, and I think the funny thing is that neither of you are "correct". I think at the end of the day this is still a huge grey area.

I have to say once again that it doesn't make sense that an individual can do something and it's legal, but if he pays someone else to do it better then it's illegal. It just doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you make points about "retail" and "law" and "producing" and whatever else. In the end, that simple comparison is what all of this hangs on, and it just doesn't make sense.

Honestly I don't think this issue has ANYTHING to do with photographers' disdain of videographers. I think it has to do with the medium and the history of videography. Photography was perceived as art long before video was, and it wasn't until fairly recently that videography started reaching a level that most of us would consider art. I think THIS is why some photographers look down on videographers. I think some photographers view videographers as competition too. They think they should be the only one's capturing the day, and that video is just inept for that. I also think this trend is changing fairly rapidly.

It's not illegal for you to pay someone to shoot it for you but it may be illegal on his part to accept your offer. You keep jumping back and forth between the situation of the videographer and that of the client. What is legal for the client to request and accept and pay for if delivered is not necessarily legal for the videographer to provide. It's not illegal for the B&G to request their favourite pop song be used in the video and but it is illegal for the videographer to provide it without securing the proper license. There are a lot of things like that. You can replace your own leaky sink if you like perfectly legally. You can pay someone else to do it as well, without regard for whether or not they are a licensed plumbing contractor. But in most jurisdictions you can't hire yourself out to replace sinks unless you are licensed. You have no legal liability for hiring an unlicensed contractor but he has one if he accepts the job. Back to video - the client wouldn't be expected to know the law but as the professional who is in the business, you are. You would be reasonably expected to know all the rules and regulations governing your profession and would be the one who bears the ultimate responsibility to insure your business practices and the products you deliver are in compliance with them.

Steve -
There is a DIFFERENCE between a product and a SERVICE... it's a nuance to be sure, but it's there. A "product" you produce and put out there and hope it will sell to John Q. Public, a "service" you typically contract to offer your expertise and skill for a price. It may involve physical delivery of some sort, but it's the EXPERTISE you are really selling.

If I was a plumber and installed a copyrighted design high end foo-foo plumbing fixture, I pay for the fixture, I add a markup for my install, and the customer doesnt' pay a royalty every time he flushes...

I say this because at least some copyright arguments run just about that way - the customer must pay for every use, but the law doesn't swing that way...

If the client says "here's the song I want on my video", and signs off in the contract that he's responsible for any copyright ownership/clearance issues, I don't think you run a whole lot of risk, and I think if you make clear that the copyright for the finished work goes to the client, it is their "problem". You gave them a SERVICE, the "product" is theirs for their personal use/misuse and you have no control over that.

When talking photographers, they too are sometimes reading the digital writing on the wall, and offering the files to the client on disk, knowing that the client can just as easily make copies other ways...

Digital media changes everything (anyone see the "last typesetter"? Digital killed them off), and you (and the law) either adapt or become extinct.

Steve,

I don't think the plumber analogy works. In that case the plumber HIMSELF has to be licensed just to perform plumbing services. There is no similar license required for a videographer just to perform his services - which are shooting and editing.

You are attempting to extrapolate that the videographer is responsible for licensing music used in the video, but in reality, he is only being paid to shoot the material and edit the footage. The client is requesting that certain music be used, and if the contract that is signed specifies that the client will obtain all necessary rights, then the client is in full knowledge that he is responsible for obtaining those rights, not the videographer .. whose only responsibilities now are to shoot material and edit the video. I don't see how that doesn't legally transfer the responsibility to the client.

If you explain in the contract that any music provided by the client for use in the video will need specific licensing, and that the client is responsible for obtaining that licensing, then I'm sorry, but at that point the client IS responsible.

For me the bottom line still rests with the fact that it's not considered illegal for the client to edit his wedding to a song, but it's illegal for whoever he pays to do it. No matter how you justify this logic by the current law, in terms of common sense, it DOES NOT make sense.

Travis, you are arguing what you feel the law OUGHT to be while I am trying to explain what I understand what the law actually is. You might feel that getting a letter of responsibility from your client should absolve you of blame in the event of a copyright dispute. I might even agree with you that would be a good way for it to work. But to the best of my understanding, it simply doesn't work that way and if you going to be in the business, you have to operate within the framework of what the law IS and not what you would like it to be. Your only get to vote about what the law should be when you vote for your elected representatives - otherwise, your and my personal opinions about how it ought to work simply don't matter. Tens of thousands of people have lost legal cases of all sorts while being totally convinced that they were in the right and that the law as it was applied to them didn't make any sense. Here the law clearly states that making an unlicensed copy for any purpose other than your own personal use is illegal, except under clearly stated and very limited circumstances. From my readings about copyright law I am led to believe that the reason you can make your own copy but not do it for someone else, whether you are paid or not, is that the courts have explicitly said you can't - if someone wants a copy they have to physicaly make it themselve for it to be legal. It says what it says, whether it makes sense or not, and as far as I know anyone who has tried to come up with a "creative" workaround has lost when it's been tested.

I guess I still disagree that your interpretation of the law is spot on. I think it's a pretty grey area and I think the decision on how to apply the law could go either way depending on the judge involved, especially with the aforementioned contract involved.

To this date, on this forum, I have yet to see someone actually quote (word-for-word) the actual law that applies here. What I've seen over and over again is people like you and me arguing about what we "think" the law is. The exact wording has never been presented, so it's actually pretty hard to have a real discussion about it. That's like arguing about what frame rates a particular camera can record in when no one actually has the camera specs or a camera in hand.

Even then, the actual wording of a law can often be interpreted and applied differently depending on who is actually performing the interpretation and application.

Case in point, a while back I was trying to figure out a section of my state's sales tax law, and after realizing I couldn't figure it out, I contacted my state auditor's office. I spoke with two different auditors on two different days and they gave me completely opposite answers ... and both were reading the exact same law. The funny thing is that if I had to go to court regarding this law, a judge might rule somewhere in between these two auditors. Some laws are pretty straight forward, like speeding, but many of our laws are flexible to interpretation.

In general it's best to just "play it safe" in my opinion, but at other times it's worth the risk that you might be wrong. In the world of wedding videographers there isn't much of a choice. You either take the risk or you go out of business.

Regarding the last paragraph, it all really comes down on how much risk you're willing to take. I agree that it puts wedding videographers between a rock and a hard place. Take the risk or starve...!

I don't see much ambiguity here, though. You can legally produce and sell anything you for which you own the rights. All your video footage falls into that category, as well as anything you create in, say, Garage Band. If you use music recorded & copyrighted by someone else, you don't own it. Period.

It seems black & white, IMHO.

Well, I did't think anyone was going to take this thread seriously, I was just really mad, and using this forum to blow off some steam.

Just for the record, I am not really confused about the law.
I know it is illegal to

1. tape a play, or recital or anything else that uses music (unless you wrote it)
2. use copywriten music in wedding videos
3. Breathe (ha ha ha)

I was simply griping about the lack of common sense in our legal system.
There has been several posts refering to taping a play as stealing (which is legally correct, I know) but I feel my constitutional right to the "persuit of happiness" has been completely trampled on by not being able to watch a video of my kids or thier friends sing a solo. Or offer my kids friends a tape to reward them for their hard work.

I am impressed at the level of discussion on this thread. The amount of thought put into these responses has been great and has been more civil than some discussions on this issue.

I feel better, having a little more insight on the topic, and am hopeful that eventually things may get better. Maybe someone on this network may by instrumental in changes in the system!

On the bright side, my business just got audited by the IRS (for 2006 which was my best year ever) and they ended up owing me $24. See! I really am NOT a crook!

Now, I just have to deal with the town I live in. They have requested a list of every peice of gear I own so they can have me pay property taxes on it every year (silly me to think that paying sales tax was good enough)

Mark G

Bingo!

Frank Simpson's entire post is an excellent summation of the whole issue. His words there are golden.

Never a good idea. You need to understand that I didn't set this forum up for you to use that way. If you want to blow off some steam, go start a blog and do so (that's what blogs are for, after all). Our members took this thread seriously because this site has a very strong "no bullshit" reputation. My goal for this site is to have serious discussions, and come away from it with information you can actually carry into your day and put to use. And you can see from the level of of discussion so far that we've succeeded in doing that. You received a serious response because that's the type of people we draw into this site (and they are the *only* kind of people I'm interested in attracting to DV Info Net).

So yes, when you post here, you need to expect a serious answer (otherwise -- don't post).

It's all very much par for the course around here, standard operating procedure, and it's what makes this forum the single best one of its kind anywhere on the internet. Thanks for understanding,

Property tax or "use" tax? I've never heard of paying property tax on equipment.

No, thank YOU for creating a place just like this. Much appreciated.

I guess the ambiguity lies in the idea that it's legal for someone to tape their own wedding and set it to music for use in their home, but it is illegal for someone else to do it for them. The process used and the end product and the usage for that product are exactly the same in both cases, so it doesn't seem to make sense that one is considered legal and the other is not. That's why it's not black and white.

Heh.. I'm not very smart, so I try to keep things simple. <g> That's why I used the word "sell" in my stem. Whether I sell it, or buy it from someone, if it contains copyrighted music, then I'm making a choice to skirt the law. Seems pretty clear to me. (I try to not over-think this stuff...)

cheers

I think you still missed my point. The argument here is that it IS legal for an individual to do this, but not for a paid professional. You have two situations. One that is legal and one that is not - despite both using the exact same process with the exact same result. Thus, the ambiguity.

Chris,
I did not realize that this type of thread was not appropriate. I had seen other threads with a "what do you think of this or that?" kind of tone to them, and not really looking for a specific answer, just wondering what people thought.

I was curious if I was the only one experiencing this kind of frustration. I certainly was not trying to abuse the boards, so I will be more careful in the future.

I was clear in my first post that I was not asking a question, but I was really pleased to see so much good information presented.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

MarkG

The list they sent me said "Personal Property" at the top. The town office told me that since I was in the phone book, then I was a business and had to pay property tax of all of my equipment.

Mark G

Mark, consult a tax attorney that is familiar with your town and it's tax laws. According to my attorney he said that it was a way that a city tries to accumulate a 'voluntary tax' basis. Since equipment changes all the time it is very difficult for the city to track. He explained to me that it's not enforceable, but consult an attorney, the laws in your state may be different.

Thanks Doug, I think you may be on to something with the "voluntary tax" theory. I talked to the state government, and they said that there was no state law concerning this and that local towns basically are allowed to do whatever they want. I have heard that this procedure is popping up in small towns all around me. Without a state law to back it up I think it would be hard to enforce.
The letter they sent was quite intimidating, and stated "If you choose not to furnish a list, then you will lose your right to appeal the decision of the tax assessor" Which sounds to me like, we will tax you whatever we want and theres nothing you can do about it.
Fortunately, the tax is minimal and may not be worth fighting. It's just the principle of the thing.

Mark G

And other than the Business and Professions code, those R&R's would be??? I don't think videography is established enough to have any codes or regulation, there's certainly no licensing involved, and with the substantial grey area in copyright with the ongoing digital revolution, I'm not sure we have sufficient guidance in the copyright area...

I'm thinking about another business I'm familiar with. A guy brings me a part to install in the guitar I'm building him - it's protected by patents, and I'm installing it on one of MY custom instruments. I don't ask where he got it, whether the patent holder got compensated or anything else - it's not really any of my business whether he purchased it on eBay or off the back of a truck, or in some other retail channel. I incorporate it in the end work. Or let's say I bought the part for him from a legitimate source. Maybe my guitar sucks, and even makes the part I installed look bad. It could happen, I've seen it happen with hacks... My point being I'm taking something which the client has a right to, and incorporating it into a larger body of work, which the client has the right to pay me to do for him.

The IP holder gets compensated when the item is purchased, he can't keep charging over and over, or necessarily protect against misuse of his "great idea". I know that the RIAA and all the media lawyers would like this to not be true, and are desperately trying to make us believe that we have to "subscribe" and pay over and over, for each and every use, but practically speaking I can Play the 1's and 0's off the DVD of "Cars" I paid $15 bucks for...

With stuff that is easily copied digitally, like audio, video, stills, software, etc. it certainly is more difficult to "protect" the work from random, illegal and rampant mass copying (which is what really devalues the product), but in reality it CAN and perhaps should be connected back to the purchase of the physical product and the subsequent ownership thereof. IP is more ephemeral than physical product, but there are shared principles, including legal concepts. One of the ways Content owners protect against piracy is making it so reasonable to buy LEGITIMATE copies, only an idiot (or someone hoping to sell massive quantities) would bother with a bootleg... it works...

If the client brings the music and agrees he purchased and "owns" the rights to play it back, which I think he DOES under current legal precedent, I believe he has the right to pay someone to shift the format for him, attaching it to the derivative work documenting a "moment" of the client's life, which is also the "property" of the client for his personal use, it's tough to argue that either created a liability or an infringement. I'd like to see a case which states otherwise.

I think the problem is the outmoded concept of sync rights being a separate entity. It's important for big movie business, but for the end client, it creates the inadvertent criminal who just would like to enjoy their favorite song along with a video record of a special moment that has ABSOLUTELY NO COMMERCIAL VALUE outside of that person and perhaps their immediate relatives/friends/family. "Dave and Gina's Wedding" is never going to crack the top 100 bazillion sales spot on the charts, no matter how well it's done...

Plays, dance recitals and such present a slightly more complex question as the audience might be a tad larger, but still... miniscule and very limited "commercial" value.

THAT's the thing that's got the OP's goat as they say, as well as what Travis and I are saying, and unless you've got specific case law (and I will look it up, I've read my share of case law), it's speculation to say that my approach won't work. As others have noted, law and the application thereof, vary widely, perhaps depending on what the Judge ate for lunch...

My thoughts are oriented towards a reasonable approach that MIGHT offer the event videographer some protection from a frivolous lawsuit - no guarantees, but unless I see case law to the contrary, I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. Leave the copyright issues to the client, and give him the copyright on the final product along with the disks (which is probably worth nothing to you anyway - after youve edited a video and proofed it a couple times with revisions, how many of you want to see it again!??).

Mark --

Some states are more agressive about this than others. Here in Washington State, there are numerous stautes on the books mandating collection of this tax. Here is part of the RCW:

"In this state, personal property refers to assets used in conducting a business. The chief characteristic distinguishing personal property (RCW 84.04.080) from real property (RCW 84.04.090) is mobility. Washington State law requires that all non-exempt personal property be assessed for tax purposes (RCW 84.36.005).

Taxable personal property includes (but is not limited to): office machinery and equipment as well as supplies and materials which are not held for sale or do not become an ingredient or component of an article being produced for sale."

Here in Washington, the counties are responsible for the administration of this, but it's pretty hard for them to track it. Some jurisdictions are intent on tapping the revenue stream, others aren't. As Travis might say, "The application of the RCW is fairly ambiguous!"

Consider yourself fortunate if you're in a state that doesn't pursue it.

In a nutshell the difference is that in the first case you're making it for yourself and your own personal use while in the second, you're making it expresslly with the intent to transfer it to a third party in order to receive in exchange some benefit to yourself (money, praise, thanks, etc). You are thereby profiting (monitarily or otherwise) and deriving benefit from the fruits of someone else's labours without their permission. It's that transference to the other party that makes all the difference. You can legally copy your favourite CD in order to take it with you in the car with impunity. You may not give the copy to a friend for his birthday.

LOL there's nothing voluntary about a tax - Heinlein write "There has never been a tax that was for the benefit of the taxed." Still, your "voluntary" self-assesment of the value of your property will probably be well under the value the tax assessor would assign to it and save you money. As for whether your community has the right to tax you, I can't imagine why they wouldn't. If the duly elected local government passes a valid law requiring a tax on property used by all businesses operating in the jurisidiction and you're operating a business, you pay the tax like everyone else. What's to fight? You might want to try to run the scoundrels out of office come next election so you can repeal the law but that's a different issue - there's nothing unfair about having it applied to you as it is to others in the meantime (unless you're not operating a business after all).

No one is talking about taking music that THEY have purchased, and just giving it to the client. We're talking about music that the client has purchased. Totally different scenario.

If the client has purchased the CD and wants a backup of it (which is legal as you have pointed out), but has no equipment to make a backup, then why is it illegal for him to pay someone to make a backup for him?

Same goes for a wedding video. If the client has already purchased the music, and it is legal for him to edit his wedding footage to it, then why is it illegal for someone else to be paid to do it for him. The process and result are exactly the same. All they are doing is editing the piece. They aren't providing their own music to him that he hasn't purchased.

It is not for us to question why, it is for us to do ir die. The person who makes a personal backup is not profiting from the original work. If he can't make one, and wants one, presumably he would buy another copy of the CD. If instead he chooses to pay someone to make a copy, the person doing the copying is eroding those sales that would otherwise go to the copyright holder.

That's like saying a writer's sole contribution is pushing keys on a keyboard. Editing not just pushing buttons, it is decision making creative process. The editor is not paid an hourly wage for pushing buttons - he's paid a fee for the results of his creative talent. The music is an integral part of the work that is being created and sold. And that makes the final video as much a product of the music creator's work as it is the editor's. As such, the music creator deserves to be paid for his contribution, just as the editor does. I don't think you would debate that the creator of the theme of "Ironman" would deserve to be paid for the use of his music - how is that different from music used in the wedding video you create except for the matter of scale? No mater how you cut it, it's the use of someone else's work in the furtherance of your own career and when you do that, they deserve to be paid for their contribution.

I'm not so sure the law states that a person can't pay someone to make the backup for him. But regardless, I think you continue to miss my point on everything. I'm not necessarily arguing what the law IS, because as I pointed out earlier ... no one, including yourself, has actually posted any of the actual law in question. I am simply making the point that IF the law is set up a certain way it doesn't make sense, and should be revised. If you continue to assert what you think the law IS, then I think our debate is over because I have no interest in that kind of debate.


Once again you've missed my point. Obviously the choice in music is integral to the piece from a creative standpoint. The point is that it is legal for an individual to edit to that music, but not for someone else to do it for him. I don't know that I can state my point any more clearly. It's a paradox in the law.

Travis, with all due respect, you are the one who is repeatedly missing the point. Your presumptions as to at what point a law comes into effect are grossly inaccurate. It is not legal for anyone to edit to music that declares "all rights reserved". I can buy the CD for myself, and if I want to make a video for myself, I am NOT allowed to use it in my video, from a legal standpoint.

To try to couch use as "making a backup" does not work. Technically you are allowed to make ONE backup copy of a work to keep in a secure location pending an untimely failure of the original media. Really you are not supposed to use the backup (as mentioned above in one's car) but keep it as what it is called...a backup.

Using someone's copyrighted music in ANY context other than recreational listening in the purchased condition constitutes re-use. As background music for a dance, or any other activity the music has been recontextualized, and it is the artists' perogative to disallow such use of their material.

Realize that when you purchase a CD you are NOT buying the music, but rather a limited-use license of said music. Whether you feel entitled to the music is of, literally, NO consequence.

So rather than continuing to toss out half-baked scenarios, I suggest we all take it to the lawmakers if we really feel like change is necessary. Because the air in here is getting awfully hot.

Frank,

I'm not really sure where to start with your post, but here goes:

A) I'm not missing the point, you are. My point is that you have two potential real-life situations with the same process and result, and some people on here are stating that one is legal and the other is not. MY POINT is that IF THIS IS TRUE then I THINK it does NOT make sense. That is my point.

B) I never suggested "use" could be qualified as "making a backup". Please read my posts more carefully. Instead, I was wondering out loud if it was legal for someone to make a backup for you if you didn't have the capability to make your own backup.

C) I realize that purchasing a CD for "personal use" is not the same as purchasing "rights". I never claimed they were the same thing so I don't know why you're pointing that out. I think everyone on this forum probably already knows this and understands this.

D) I agree that if we want change we need to head to our lawmakers. I'm not having a discussion in here with the hopes that it will magically cause change. I'm having a discussion because there are interesting ideas and concepts on the law and how it applies. The different perspectives can be very enlightening.

Thank you.

It's illegal because the point at which somebody is paid to do it is the point at which it falls clearly and specifically within the realm of unauthorized duplication. If somebody buys a CD and wants a "backup copy" but doesn't have the means to make one, their obvious remedy is to simply purchase another CD (or better yet, just buy the tracks from iTunes or similar service).

Title 17 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 11, Section 1101: Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos. Google it.

You certainly have the right to try the law by attempting to use that excuse as a defense to infringement; after all that's what courts are for, but in my opinion it would not be worth the considerable expense and effort to find out.

Well, you're right about one thing: the "debate" is certainly over.

Remember the goal of this site is to produce useful information that you can carry into your day and apply in real life. I have no use for circular arguments or idealistic crusades here. Start your own web site if you want to effect a change to the U.S. Code -- this site isn't the right place. Please go lobby Congress.

Closed. Many thanks and much respect to Frank Simpson and other cooler heads here -- much appreciated,