What is Proof of Music Ownership?

scottsk asks: "What is proof of music ownership? I can't find a good answer anywhere. Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought. What must that person produce to prove the music was purchased legitimately? Is producing an original commercially sold CD with the music acceptable, or is some further proof of purchase needed (cash register receipt, cancelled check, etc.)? What if a person has digitized a commercial cassette, like digitizing a photo? Must the person carry the cassette around forever, or is just the cassette insert sufficient? (What about an LP record that has been digitized?)" Now, what happens if you've lost all of your property in a fire, but still had an off-site digital backup of your legally purchased music somewhere? Does the loss of the original property invalidate the legality of the backups?

The truth of the matter...

[Fyre2012]

...is that we really don't own anything.

Slashdot != legal advice

[stinerman]

IANAL (but cpt kangarooski is), but it would seem to me that once you purchase a work it is yours. You have made backups for just the reason that happened ... the originals were lost.

If you're talking about the RIAA busting down your door and asking you to prove that you have a legally purchased copy of any of those CD-Rs with "their IP" on them, then I think you can be safe knowing they have to prove that it is more likely than not that those are the result of infringement.

Movable Criteria

[Ray Radlein]

"Proof" for whom? For the RIAA, I strongly suspect that there is no possible evidence which you could produce which they would deem sufficient.

For a court of law? I don't think that it's ever gotten that far in court yet.

Winning

[Walzmyn]

The way the RIAA and the courts have been going, probably the only way to *PROVE* you own some music is to win a court case and have the courts say that you do.

Re:Better Question: Does it Matter?

[Bender0x7D1]

Anyways, to answer the rest of your question: I'd guess you'd need the reciept; how else are they to know that you're the one who bought the cassette or that you didn't buy it after you were charged?

Unfortunately, this would fail in the case of gifts. I could always give you my copy of the music/movie/whatever and could claim that I purchased it as a gift for you (possibly true). This is a valid scenario where someone else is shown as the purchaser of the music. It gets even harder if you pay cash, or go to a store where they give a receipt with the amount on it, but not the item description (used music store, eBay, buy from a friend, etc.).

Depends on your goal - and the RIAAs

[NixLuver]

Let's face it, folks. The RIAA has an agenda, and it's fairly transparent. They want, eventually, for you to pay some amount every time you access media. That's the only way they can assure their revenue stream into the digital age. Well, that and producing new talent, but they'r enot exactly great at taht, are they?

Thievery, title, and use right...

[isaac]

Now, what happens if you've lost all of your property in a fire, but still had an off-site digital backup of your legally purchased music somewhere? Does the loss of the original property invalidate the legality of the backups?

(I am not a lawyer, etc.) There's no express right to make a backup of an audio recording, but leaving that aside, what's the point of a backup except to prolong access to the recording beyond the life of the original media? From the legal perspective, it's silly to even make a backup if one loses the right to use it in the event the original media is destroyed.

Now, the question of theft of the original media is slightly more interesting. A thief obtains no legal title to stolen goods, so if ones original media were stolen, one might retain constructive possession of the originals. That constructive possession would, if we assume the backups were themselves legal, permit the continued use of the backup media.

I wonder whether there's any precedent as to what would happen if the originals were later destroyed by the thief - would the use right terminate? If we assume that destruction of the originals in a house fire would terminate the right to use the backups, then I imagine no use right would be retained if the would-be thief hadn't stolen them but destroyed them and left the pieces in the possession of the owner. Wacky.

-Isaac

Ummm...

[okmnji]

I believe the proper response for this is "mu".

Your question presupposes that there is a need for individuals to prove that they purchaced some music. I say that there is not. Should a group of the RIAA ilk take consumers to court for owning supposedly pirated music, then the RIAA or the group like them will need to prove to the court that the music is indeed illegitimate; "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and they must have sufficient evidence for strong suspicion for civil damages (IANAL, so I don't know all the legalese speak for the necessary evidence in a civil case).

Where they get you, however, is when you distribute said music. Getting everyone at work to upload all the music they own to the jukebox server, is what RIAA et. al. defines as "stealing". Most people here think this is a good idea, but it does violate copyright laws (since you're basically making a local copy each time you listen to a song on the server), and is not covered by Fair Use.

If you have digitized music, copyright laws and DMCA have little chance of harming you in court, because the onus is on the litigant to prove that you violated these laws. If there is any way that you could have happened upon DRM-free copies of the music, any lawyer worth the $100 you pay for an hour in court will get the case promptly thrown out, and most likely will get the prosecuting party to pay the bill for wasting everyone's time.

What happened with implied innocence?

[Vo0k]

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Why do -I- have to prove the mp3 in my mp3 player is legal? Why can't my word suffice? Shouldn't RIAA have to prove I obtained it illegally?
They say I got it from p2p. I say I ripped it off a legal CD I misplaced later. Until they -prove- I actually downloaded it from p2p I should be innocent, shouldn't I?

Re:The truth of the matter... (owned)

[darkonc]

You own the music like you own a book. It's only since companies like Microsoft have started asserting that you paid $XXX for nothing other than the right to click on a 'Yeah, I sell you my soul' button and it's only the clicking of the button (and subsequent agreement) that gives you any right to the software on the CD that you ostensibly paid for ... (god what a run-on sentence) that people have been able to swallow the idea that they don't really own the music that they 'buy' at the store.

An unlikely scenario

[caenorhabditas]

You'd never be brought to court for illegally possessing music, you'd be brought to court for illegally distributing music. And it's quite easy for them to show that you don't have a copyright, as typically only a limited number of these exist for any given song.

When jackbooted thugs start yanking the iPods of folks walking down the street and demanding to know where the listener obtained the song, then we'll have this problem. Until then, you're only sued for unlawful distribution.

straw man question

[larry bagina]

Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought.

The only scenario where that might happen is if you're caught shoplifting.

The RIAA has never brought suit against someone in the terms that you describe. They've brought suit against people for distributing music, not posession. In which case, your proof would be a contract/license of some sort that gives you the right to distribute the music.

Re:The question should never come up.

[DrSkwid]

Where I come from (UK) data going into RAM and back is defined as copying, so in the case of downloading the file is copied from memory to the hard disk. To listen to it, it is copied from the hard disk to memory, etc.

Re:The truth of the matter... (owned)

[darkonc]

You own the book, you own the text. What you don't own is the right to distribute copies of the text you own.

Re:The truth of the matter... (owned)

[kfg]

What you don't own is the right to distribute copies of the text you own.

Because you do not own the text. That is why you have to pay royalties to stage a play.

KFG

Re:License?

[sepluv]

If they are selling a license, what are its terms, when did you agree to it and when was it explicitly stated that they were not selling you the CD when you handed over the cash?

The RIAA and its agents claim that they are selling you the CD (not a license to the music). The shop gives you the CD in exchange for money; they are, therefore, by definition selling you the CD. Even if they aren't, you have physical control over the CD so the assumption is that you own it.

If the claim you need a license to use your own property (which is bullshit), then every single person who uses a CD they have bought is in violation (as you agree to no license when buying a CD).

Re:What happened with implied innocence?

[dirk]

Because there would never be a crime that was successfully prosecuted. Transfer this theory to RL theft. You come home and your house is empty. They find me in possession of everything missing from your house. I say " I stopped by his house and he gave it to me, I didn't steal it". Why isn't my word good enough? Prove that he didn't tell me I could take it all. Because there is another person with a different opinion whose opinion is just as valid (until one of you is proven correct).

While you are assumed innocent until proven guilty, there is already evidence against you if you make it to court. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative such as "prove I didn't buy a cd and rip this track off of it".

Re:What happened with implied innocence?

[Vo0k]

In case of theft there's usually much more evidence than the stolen wares. The wares only prove you're either of 4: thief, fence, uncautious buyer (from the thief), framed. 2 guilty, 2 innocent. It's up to the invastigators to find out which one and that's where the rest of the evidence kicks in. If you outright say "he gave it to me" it limits the options to thief, framed. Now given enough proof of burglary - fingerprints in places where they should not be, witnesses and alibis of both sides, criminal records, consistency of interrogation results.

In extreme case you can walk into someone's house, pick something moderately expensive up and walk out and with enough cheek simply get out of court innocent. But this takes lots of time and skill and quite a bit of money and works only once, maybe twice. OTOH treating this rule lightly especially with connection to "campaigns" like "war on drugs" leads to extremely easy framing anyone. Just drop a few bags of pot into their property them anonymously tip the police, and voila, instant guilty.

Same here.

Re:Not Something to Worry About

[scottsk]

The question was speculative - it has nothing to do with current suits. I've wondered about this since I got rid of my cassettes.