Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime 704

An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Orlando Sentinel reports on a poll done by the LA Times and Bloomberg. The informal study looked at teenager attitudes towards copying media. Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it. Attitudes about ill-gotten media were less clear, and the article admits than even the legal system is slightly fuzzy on this issue." From the article: "Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased. Those figures are a big problem for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of which have spent millions of dollars to deter copying of any kind. The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime

Comments Filter:
  • by Fyre2012 ( 762907 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:30AM (#15939058) Homepage Journal
    ... hard at work!
    • by DJ Rubbie ( 621940 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:37AM (#15939074) Homepage Journal
      Education tax dollars, hard at work. Funny how you got modded off-topic with this statement. Those are the very cash RIAA will be seeking, and if their past behaviors are any indication, those are the funds they would like use to convince government and school board to use to counter 'school-yard piracy'. I won't be surprised if they strong arm their way into schools to make music copying via this method as severe as dealing drugs on school property. At the very least, we will likely be seeing more education campaigns against copyright infringement and equating that with theft in the near future.
      • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:13AM (#15939185) Homepage Journal
        What we need is anti-campaigns. Here's my idea. Show the victims of theft.. like a woman who has just had her handbag stolen. Crying, shocked, trying to tell a police officer what happened. Show someone freaking out when they discover that their car has been hot wired. Show people being laid off because the factory they worked in is being shutdown. For each one you have a caption that lists the crime. "Bag Snatch." "Grand Theft Auto." "Corporate Embezzlement." Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
        • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:41AM (#15939254)
          Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."

          You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte."
          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:44AM (#15939262)
            Wow, did copyright infringement run over your dog or something?
            • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @03:13AM (#15939343)
              Wow, did copyright infringement run over your dog or something?

              No, but since everyone in my family makes their livings in the production of one form or another of things that can (and do) get ripped off, it's a very familiar topic.

              But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song. I've seen my work ripped off (in ways that do not magically contribute to a larger audience for me that will eventually somehow contribute to my bottom line - that recurring notion is really BS in most circumstances), and have seen the same things happen to other writers, artists, etc. that are close to me. Of course you want more people to enjoy your creative work - but you also have to wake up to the fact that if you're a professional who spends your entire waking life producing that work, it has to pay the bills. No one owes creative people a living - that is, no one except the people who choose that artist to be their entertainer when that artist has set a price for that experience.
              • by Rudd-O ( 20139 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:21AM (#15939621) Homepage
                Go read the problem with music [negativland.com] and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.
              • by Andrew Aguecheek ( 767620 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:22AM (#15939624)
                Yeah, that's fair enough. Of course, if they can't actually afford to buy your work, does your answer change, or should they just be deprived of it? Personally, I'm a very broke student, I really can't afford to buy music. Either I get it free, or I do without. (Oh, and I can't help but notice Green Day seem not to have gone bankrupt due to kids sharing tracks... are they drug dealing on the side do you think?)
              • by Znork ( 31774 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:37AM (#15939662)
                "No, but since everyone in my family makes their livings in the production of one form or another of things that can (and do) get ripped off, it's a very familiar topic."

                Perhaps you should consider lobbying for alternate methods of compensation that lets you get paid anyway.

                There have been various suggestions ranging from direct payments to authors for every incarnation of a copy actually sold (ie, bypassing the entire publishing structure and levying a point-of-sale fee instead), to pure taxation and payment per copy schemes. All of which would get a far higher percentage of the money spent on creative content to the actual authors.

                Consider how much money the *AA's claim is being lost to illicit copying, compared to how much money is actually spent on, and intended for arts that _never reaches the artists_.
              • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19, 2006 @08:25AM (#15940003)
                How much money does a teen steal from you when he or she rips off your CD? 11, 12 cents, if you're lucky?
                Now how much does the music industry steal?
                Did you know, for example, that if you sell a thousand copied of an album through the music industry, you will make pennies, whereas if you sell that many yourself, you will make much much more?
                Here's a quick example. A friend of my uncle's got his song played on a national radio station here in Britain as a record of the week. He then sold ten thousand copies of his self-produced CD. If he had a record deal, he would have earned about two-hundred pounds for that. But he didn't have a record deal. He had the CDs pressed and printed by a local professional reproduction service for about two pounds each. He sold each album for ten pounds. Eight pounds profit per CD multiplied by Ten thousand CDs is? He bought a new house with that.

                I realise this is a rare event, but it needn't be. And it goes to prove just how unnecessary the music industry really is. I do believe in paying for music. But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by ScentCone ( 795499 )
                  But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.

                  Yes, artists now have all sorts of options about how to distribute what they produce. And even so, many new and very talented people survey the situation and make the choice to sign up with a recording company so that they (the label) can handle the countless business-related things that would otherwise just be a total distraction from being creative. It's an economic decision. The people who s
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by arevos ( 659374 )

                But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song.

                Then clearly that market rates having coffee with friends as a more desirable produce than a three minute song on their iPods. However, since music nowadays costs virtually nothing to distribute, you should be making a far greater profit per item sold than th

          • by enjahova ( 812395 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:59AM (#15939304) Homepage
            Then the RIAA exec walks up to the kid, empties his pockets and stuffs the valuables and cash into his own. He then tosses the major artist a couple coins. Finally he spits on the kid and says to him "let that be a lesson to ya" in a mafioso voice.

            This is fun, I think I'll start casting for my own PSA
          • by Blain ( 264390 ) <slashdot&blainn,com> on Saturday August 19, 2006 @03:40AM (#15939401) Homepage Journal
            Yeah, except for the part where they're already getting paid for their perceived losses due to the copying of CDs. Remember the Home Recording Act? The one that says that record companies get paid a "tax" on all recordable media that's sold as compensation for those perceived loses due to copying on that media? The one that, strangely enough, doesn't list computers as a recording device?

            If it did, then a kid copying his CD for his friend would be legal, so long as the one doing the copying wasn't getting paid for it. If the copying is done with a cd copier, then it's legal already, paid for by you and me and everybody else who backs up their data using cdr/dvdr.

            I'll grant, it might break the flow of your stream of stereotypes.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by LordSnooty ( 853791 )
                Re: the clip: Funny that they should mention Tetris as one game which might disappear if it were copied, since that was subject to its own copyright infringement by various software houses back in the late 80s. An infringement which ultimately led to its mainstream exposure, perhaps? It's OK for them but not for us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris#History [wikipedia.org]
            • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @07:29AM (#15939874) Homepage
              Yes, I remember tha AHRA. It's the one that says that consumer digital recording devices must implement a DRM scheme called SCMS in order for the AHRA exception on copying to apply, as well as pay royalties. It would be disasterous for computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players to fall under AHRA.

              In any event, you can use AHRA in conjunction with computers. You need only use Audio CDRs (which are labeled differently than regular data CDRs and cost more) and only make copies of works that fall under AHRA. This is because the exception applies to copies made with AHRA-compliant devices or media.
            • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @08:28AM (#15940011)
              You're wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.

              17 USC, Chapter 10 [house.gov], Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
              No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)

              Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
              any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

              In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.

              So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
              Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
              • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @03:51PM (#15941580) Homepage
                Holy shit! Someone actually bothered to read more of the AHRA than section 1008! And who is almost entirely right!

                The one problem is that the AHRA really does not apply to computers:

                As for computers themselves:

                (3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
                (A) professional model products, and
                (B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.

                Computers as a whole don't fall within subsection (3) because their digital recording function is not "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of ... making a digital audio copied recording for private use."

                There was a court case about all this some years back. The RIAA was arguing that computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players did fall within AHRA. They wanted this to be the case so that they could 1) get royalties, 2) require computer and peripheral manufacturers to implement the SCMS system of DRM that is mandated by the AHRA. In the case, RIAA v. Diamond, both the district and circuit courts found that computers were outside of the AHRA. The cases are worth reading. They even look at the legislative history in which Congress, in debating the law, also said that this law wouldn't apply to computers.

                What the AHRA does apply to are Audio CDRs, whether or not you use them in computers or in standalone Audio CDR burners.

                Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!

                Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed. The AHRA only protects you against infringement suits with regards to fixation in the AHRA-compliant media. Fixation in other media wouldn't qualify unless you had a sympathetic court that isn't fond of the MAI v. Peak line of cases. The 4th Cir. maybe?

                Oh, and jZnat is correct re: how to cite the USC.
          • by Mr. Freeman ( 933986 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @04:08AM (#15939456)
            More like "Yeah, I love your music, just not enough to buy the album of which over 80% of the revenue you don't even see because it all goes to the recording companies. But here, I'll give you $10 to make up for pirating it later. It's more than you'll make if I actually go out and BUY it".

            Now, we just need a way to let everyone see their favorite band in person so this conversation can actually happen.
            • I actually tried this, and got knocked back!

              I'm a huge fan of a Melbourne (Australia) 3-piece punk/rock/rockabilly band, and I copied their CDs several times to give them to friends overseas. When I met the lead singer/guitarist of this band at a pub, I told him about it and offered to give him $20 AUD, or at least buy him a drink. He politely declined, and told me he was happier that I was spreading good word-of-mouth for the band.

              I've bought enough merch and been to enough concerts that my conscience is f
          • by Morosoph ( 693565 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:31AM (#15939649) Homepage Journal
            Copyright infringement is one issue where personalising it is actually misleading. The biggest reson that copyright infringement is not theft isn't connected to bad analogies with car theft, but with the fact that infringements also act as advertising, and often the infringer wouldn't have bought it anyway.

            Strangely enough, the displacement of sales and the advertising effect appear to counter each other almost exactly. [slashdot.org] However, copyright infringement remains an abuse of trust, so it is still wrong; it is simply mistaken to believe that it leaves the artist out of pocket.

            I will say here, to make my position clear, selling pirated goods is theft. What is different? People appear to have a certain sum of money that they spend on music/videos etc; if pirated goods are bought, that money is redirected from the artist or his/her representative, since that cash is no longer in the hands of the purchaser. Accordingly, I would have profiting from piracy be a crime with a fine proportional to the money made, rather than the degree of infringement.
          • by ladoga ( 931420 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @06:27AM (#15939764)
            Isn't it alarming that probably over half of all teenagers are criminals according to your legistlation? What do you want to do, lock em up? Make them pay for RIAA? Laws are ought to be made to serve the public (not few select individuals) so situation where such share of citizens would be criminals is absurd.

            Im pretty sure that the percentage who copy CDs and DVDs from they friends is much higher than 58% who consider it legal. Here in finland it's prolly something like 99.9%. Back in my school days everyone copied cassettes and CDs. Most of kids bought music of bands they really liked and copied the rest. Have to wonder why the music industry didn't die in 80s or 90s. ;)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mapkinase ( 958129 )
          You know, for 30 years I lived in a country that did not consider it a crime to steal from the rich. In 1991 it collapsed because its economy could not compete. What started as "expropriate the expropriaters" ended with widespread corruption and theft of everything that does not have an immediate victim.

          I think every dumb American commie like yourself should spend the time I spent in a country like Russia. And then we will talk.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cliffski ( 65094 )
          yes, because everyone who suffers from copyright infringement is a highly paid executive. the employees who get laid off dont count right?
      • by Prof. Pi ( 199260 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:20AM (#15939204)
        At the very least, we will likely be seeing more education campaigns against copyright infringement and equating that with theft in the near future.

        Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!

        Last night I went to see a movie I've been looking forward to all summer. And the cool part was, it was free! You see, the guy who takes the tickets at the theater is kind of old and it's easy to sneak by him. Geez, they're not even going to try to protect their rights! Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. And besides, everything Hollywood produces is crap.

        Then I took the subway home. It didn't cost me anything because I jumped the turnstile. One of my friends said I was committing "theft" -- obviously he can't think for himself. I mean, the city was running the train anyway, and there were empty seats. Besides, the subway sucks, and they fill the route with lots of stops I'm not interested in (I only want to pay for the stop next to the theater and the one near my apartment).

        There used to be a bus line that was more convenient, but the city shut it down, with some lame excuae about not making enough money to justify the expense. That just shows that they suck and don't deserve my money anyway! Fight the Man! Transportation wants to be free!

        I probably won't go to that theater any more. I heard they're installing some new "security system" to prevent people from getting in without paying. That really pisses me off! How dare they! It just goes to show how evil they are. And besides, it serves them right if they lose money -- watching movies in a big theater with other people is an outdated business model!

        • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:45AM (#15939267)
          Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!

          Yes, you're right! I don't have time now to read the rest of your excellent comment, but it's good to see that some people at least understand the difference betwen "theft" and "infringement".

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rinkjustice ( 24156 )
          Please don't confuse copyright infringement with theft. It's annoying and you sound brainwashed.
          • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @10:13AM (#15940338) Homepage
            That is exactly his point, and you missed it. All the things this "character" does are not theft - you can't steal a seat in a movie theater, nor did he steal a spot on the train, nor did the subway or bus. Neither the movie company, nor the subway, nor the bus lost any material goods as a result of those actions. So they aren't theft.

            The point is that by not paying for something just because it isn't a material good, doesn't make it any less of a crime, and doesn't mean that there isn't financial impact. People seem to think that if it isn't a physical stolen piece of property that nobody is hurt, but it isn't true.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rts008 ( 812749 )
          I'm sure from the tone of your post that it was meant as sarcasm, but...it's all pretty true. Congrat's for sinking your own argument with shoddy sarcasm. As a side note: "Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. " ...this is not theft, as you watching the movie did not deprive anyone else the chance to watch the movie.

          Get a clue on what theft actually is. Pick up a dictionary before you start spouting your hyperbole.

        • by elgatozorbas ( 783538 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @06:47AM (#15939800)
          Is is sad to see that this insightful post is even considered troll by some.

          Indeed there is a difference between theft and infringement. But you don't need to be brainwashed to understand that this difference is of no real importance in case you are depriving someone of income by 'taking' their product. As it is, some products (e.g. a chair) are material whereas others (e.g. music) are content-related. A CD store is not selling plastic/alu discs, they are selling content and the plastic is only a bearer.

          Would you feel embarrassed to go to your favourite artist (assuming she/he is with a major label) and tell you copied their latest CD? If so, you know something is not ok, regardless of the difference between infringement and theft.

  • by AndresCP ( 979913 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:33AM (#15939063)
    in a related study, 95% of teenagers said they don't care if its legal, they want their goddamn Kanye West CD.
  • by abscissa ( 136568 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:34AM (#15939065)
    You want to know what is a crime? I'll tell you what is a crime. It's a crime that these large organisations reap the profits from pressed pieces of plastic onto which are recorded hideous noises that sound like gang-warfare in Harlem and Watts, and then use this money to harass families and children for every last red cent so they can line their pockets.

    So yeah, copying a CD is not a crime.
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:07AM (#15939172)
      You want to know what is a crime?

      It would certainly be a help, given the topic.

      A crime is what you can be prosecuted for by the state and do jail time for. Something found in the criminal code.

      What if copying a CD were a civil violation, between private interested parties? Something could be illegal and yet not be a crime. What a crazy world that would be, huh? If only.

  • Pitiful that is... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cronostitan ( 573676 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:36AM (#15939071)
    In Germany the copy from a legally bought CD given to a close friend is legal. So the law was made according to the natural feeling of the public.

    Although that copying has been limited recently by the addidion 'you may copy - but not if the media is protected by a _WORKING_ digital protection'. Well.. most CD anti-copy schemes today are easy to overcome and this very soft rule has not been tested in court yet. The musiv industry just plainly tries to keep their too high prices up by suing everyone around and lobbying for more limiting laws.
  • Greater Threat? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dyamkovoy ( 993805 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:36AM (#15939073)
    a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA

    Yes, because, at least for p2p, they have their sueing and scare-tactics. The RIAA didn't get their claws on CD-burning technology early enough to prevent its use for pirating music, so they see it as a greater threat.
  • by Ray Radlein ( 711289 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:43AM (#15939098) Homepage
    In further news, the RIAA and MPAA have recently decided that everything is, in fact, a greater threat than everything else. "We intend to launch our initial wave of lawsuits against everything very soon," said industry spokesman Blodug Fossergrim. "Everything else will have to wait."
  • by xiando ( 770382 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:43AM (#15939100) Homepage Journal

    Many artists - and DVD video creators - encurage you to copy and spread their work/information.

    Thus; just asking "is it legal to copy a CD" is misleading.

    For example, the documenaties you can download from http://torrentchannel.com/ [torrentchannel.com] are completely legal to copy and share with your friends.

    It is legal to copy a CD you made with a song you wrote yourself where you yourself are singing.

    It is not legal to copy a CD where the copyright belongs to some member of the very evil MPAA.

    Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...
    • by Prof. Pi ( 199260 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:57AM (#15939146)
      Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...

      IABAL, but I thought that under the default definition of copyright, you can't legally make a copy. That's why the GPL has to spell it out. So, your statement would be more properly stated as "No, it is not legal, unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD explicitly permits it."

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sepluv ( 641107 )
        Works are automatically copyrighted (see my neice post). The reason the answer to the question is "yes" is because there is no law (at least in most jurisdictions) about copying CDs. What happens to be on those CDs is irrelevant as copying to any other medium would be covered by the same laws. Also, the vast majority of works are ineligible for copyright or in the public domain. Much of the rest are licensed for copying to CD or such copying would be covered by fair use or dealing.

        Also, I fail to under

  • What's funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by misey ( 996068 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:46AM (#15939112)
    What's funny is that we suddenly have 10 year olds with a criminal record because they took advantage of a service available on pretty much every computer. I'm not putting a dent in studio sales by downloading a movie. They hardly make anything on the DVD sales compared to ticket sales. Didn't they teach us on Sesame Street to share?
  • by NexFlamma ( 919608 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:49AM (#15939123) Homepage
    The teenage demographic is their prime target. They want these kids to continue to consume the music they put out without questioning it, thusly creating a pattern for them to follow their entire lives.

    Thankfully, these kids have decided that it's more reasonable to think that sharing music with friends of yours isn't a crime. This creates panic in the RIAA because if enough people come to think that way, it suddenly won't be illegal. As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?

    These kids are just exhibiting common sense, and common sense is the enemy of the **AA's.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by budgenator ( 254554 )
      with music getting played on the radio for "free" it's hard for me to get excited about a bootlegged copy of a cd or a party cd of MP3's; even thoe I know it;'s technically wrong. If these guys at the 'AAs think the schoolyards are a nest of pirates, they should visit a few factories arround here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 )
      As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?

      Ask anyone who's been sent to prison for growing and selling plants.

  • by IlliniECE ( 970260 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:51AM (#15939129)
    The RIAA brought this on themselves with an aging business model where media sells for far more than its worth to many consumers.
  • Is it wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:52AM (#15939134) Homepage Journal
    Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner? It's pretty obvious to me which one is right. Unfortunately it's probably just as obvious to others that I'm wrong.
    • Re:Is it wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Surt ( 22457 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:33AM (#15939236) Homepage Journal
      I think on a moral level, it's fairly straightforward. Consider free speech. Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you can say, if what you say is not physically threatening anyone? Most rational people would say no. So start reading the ones and zeros off of your cd.

      Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you are allowed to write down, or remember? No again. So record the spoken ones and zeros to cd.

      Any restriction on such activity is clearly immoral, and the other side hasn't a leg to stand on.
  • Yep... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cbirkett ( 904502 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:55AM (#15939137) Homepage
    This is completely legal [neil.eton.ca] here in Canada.
    • Re:Bwahaha! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheSpoom ( 715771 )

      If you are a manufacturer or importer, you can avoid the levy entirely on your products as long as you record some sound on the media before you sell it. The sound recorded on the media can even be erased. Clearly this is not an option for CD-Rs, but for devices that include a hard drive, simply recording a sound on the drive and then erasing it exempts the drive from the levy. This is because (as the legislation now stands) "blank audio recording medium means a recording medium, regardless of its material

  • Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) <slashdot@nOSPaM.uberm00.net> on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:55AM (#15939140) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if on the grand scheme of things whether the RIAA et al's resistance to free copying will end up being an endnote in history books because later generations will simply ignore them, thinking (and rightly so) that they are living in the past?

    Why should they have to limit themselves simply because the recording companies refuse to adapt?
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:56AM (#15939145) Journal
    I personally don't go to any concerts because the price of a ticket is inflated. I'd pay 10$ for a show of musician I wanted to see, but not $50 and upwards per seat. At $10 a seat, the musicians and everyone involved would still get paid. I think the problem comes in that if they add in additional supply(extra days playing concert), the demand would be satisfied too much, and they'd be unable to charge the inflated price for the tickets. So instead of playing a $50 concert one day, and a $10 one the next, they'd be playing maybe two concerts for $20 a piece for a loss of $20 per ticket and extra work involved(theoretically). I know they're aiming for the profit mark on the supply/demand curve and not caring about the public's greater interest. I guess this is where fanboys come in. They buy the tickets for the inflated price, never knowing its inflated, while the people who have some demand, but less are left to skip the concert and listen to the CD. Even if mega musicians in today's age never sell an album because of piracy, they could technically just start playing more concerts and still make way more money than your average man.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I personally don't go to any concerts because the price of a ticket is inflated. I'd pay 10$ for a show of musician I wanted to see, but not $50 and upwards per seat.

      Oh for crying out loud, just admit you guys are cheap and be done with it. I've heard this over and over and over again. Even if songs were 10 cents each and released in a completely lossless open format with no DRM people would STILL pirate music. Concerts are one of the few places where the vast majority of the money goes to the artists s

  • by reub2000 ( 705806 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:01AM (#15939154)
    It's only natural for a kid to share their favorite music with their friends. The only part of this that should be criminal is the quality of the music being exchanged in these swaps.
  • by Aussie_Scribe ( 899692 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:10AM (#15939179)

    Let me stake out a position here:

    1. I think that most people who are happy to freely duplicate copyrighted works have never been in the position of selling anything of their own.

    2. I think that people who sell their own materials (be it books, music, software etc.) are more likely to be aware of the effort that creators put into their creations. Such people are more likely to identify with fellow creators. They are thus less willing to duplicate material without fair recompense because they know how wretched they feel when they see copies being made of their own materials.

    3. These beliefs lead me to make the following testable proposition: A person who starts selling their own original materials will be less willing to duplicate the copyrighted works of other people.

    I welcome informed discussion. Of course, this is Slashdot, so I expect the signal-to-noise ratio to be woeful!


    • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:44AM (#15939263) Homepage Journal
      I would guess that:
      1. Is just wrong. Surely a good fraction of people have tried to market their artistic work at some point. And in slashdot, I would expect that proportion to be nearly 100% given the nature of the audience.

      2. With or without any experience trying to sell an artistic work, surely an even larger proportion of the population has at least created an artistic work and can appreciate the effort involved. And surely many can appreciate the joy of seeing their materials being copied, rather than feeling wretched. Not everyone is a control freak, and real artists want their works to be appreciated by as wide an audience as possible, regardless of recompense.

      3. Would obviously need to be settled by experiment, but I think the experiment is doomed due to the definitional difficulties (just how much selling of their own materials is required?)

    • by patrixmyth ( 167599 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:52AM (#15939285)
      Let me stake out a consumer viewpoint...

      Perhaps you've got some talent that is vaguely interesting to me...

      I don't owe you anything, but I choose to SUPPORT your expression by listening/reading/watching and sharing the news with others...

      At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...

      Soon your art is broadcast over airwaves onto my property, into my car, on commercials between my kids cartoons, on my elevator and your excerpts are slipped into the pages between jumk mail that's dropped in my mailbox uninvited. You sell your services to advertisers/promoters who are trying to take my money. Your clothes line is produced by third world sweatshops and sells for 3X more than the generic brand. You are trying to sell me a perfume with your name on it (and some pimple cream too) and you have a commercial on the air urging me to imbibe addictive substances so I can get a "free" mp3. You sell pictures of your frigging baby to the news media.

      Do I protect your financial interests when my friend asks to copy a song? Probably not...

      Wait, you're not THAT artist? You're struggling, selling CDs at your show and living at home waiting for your big break? Ah, then, nevermind, because nobody is copying your damn CD!

      ART is not some magic invisible soul cream. If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts. Good luck to you on that, but don't cry about how people are stealing your thoughts. That's just crazy talk. Unless someone steals the plastic you bought and put your thoughts on, then they didn't steal anything from you. A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.
    • 1. Get everyone to produce their own content
      2. Find out the world of hell distribution is.
      3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work.
      4. The world is a better, more culture rich place
      5. Profit???
  • basic question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cally ( 10873 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:23AM (#15939210) Homepage
    sample size?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19, 2006 @02:52AM (#15939284)
    Unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material for personal use may be a civil violation, but it is NOT a crime, and never has been. If teens don't think copying CDs is a crime, good!

    You notice that all these RIAA filing sharing suits are SUITS, not indictments? What does that tell you?

    Copying is a crime if it's done commercially. I think it might also be a crime if the material is hosted on a computer for sharing, but prosecutions for that are very very rare.

    The entire idea of criminal copyright infringement is a fairly new concept. Copyright violation is a civil matter unless it is done on a commercial scale.

    Violations of civil laws are not crimes.

    I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp by slashdotters, because clearly teens have figured it out.
  • by MemoryDragon ( 544441 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @03:06AM (#15939328)
    Being a jew also was a crime, ad even punished by death penalty...
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @04:19AM (#15939473)
    It is human nature to share stuff, especially when sharing it does not reduce its value to the sharer and can actually increase its value by giving the sharer greater status or encouraging the sharing of other knowledge in return. Human society is built on sharing knowledge. If we were not naturally inclined to share knowledge, we would never have progressed beyond the level of small nomadic family groups - the human equivalent of a pack of apes.

    It's also no surprise that kids feel less comfortable sharing something that was not initially paid for - we all inherently understand that it takes work to create or discover new ideas. But we also inherently understand that the work (and thus the cost) is in the creating, not in copying. Under the current system of charging for each official copy, the simplest reconciliation of the two is to be sure that the lineage of the copy you receive includes at least one paid-for copy. It doesn't quite match up, but it is probably the closest that monst kids are going to get given all the other constraints on their lives.

    I'm sure there are more than a few people just itching to condemn me for supporting thieves with no respect for copyright owners. Save it. This is slashdot, we've all heard it before a million times. This post is not about morality, it is about human nature for better or for worse.
  • by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:27AM (#15939639)
    Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original.

    Man, I just love these kids. Wait a sec, I'll tel you while.

    As a quick intro, I'm not even 30 yet, but I still remember the good old days when we used to record dozens of casette tapes with songs from the radio, play it for ourselves, play them on parties, copy it to other friends. Then, if someone managed to get an original tape from somewhere (where I grew up these things were really not that easy to get) we just were just exstatic, everybody copied it and we listened to it till the tape rotted away. We never ever felt we were doing anything that could be labelled as s crime, crime is when you kill someone, not when you listen to music.

    These days I buy CDs. I have CDs from most of the bands that we were listening to when we were kids too. If I weren't listening to them on those tapes, I probably wouldn't have bought these disks. If one of my friends would ask me to borrow him a disk, I would do it with no second thought, they would do the same. I know some associations would label us as criminals, still, while I rarely would download music these days, I would still like to know what I'm buying before I'm buying it. I make oggs and mp3s of them to listen to on my portable and on my laptop. If somebody would label me a criminal, I'd smack'em. Still, if I couldn't make a copy or I couldn't lend it to a friend, I'd rather not even buy it.

    So, why I love these kids ? Because they are not that brainwashed yet to forget what fair use should mean. In time, they will be, they have no escape. Still, I hope someday someone will realise that drming everything and dog, constraining people up to their necks [well, ears in this case], closing down everything and trying to control and watch everything and everybody is not a solution to anything. Instead of trying to establish even more harder lockdowns, they should just sit down, use their brains and figure out a bussinness model that suits every side - artists, listeners, studios. Yes, I didn't include associations in that list.

  • by Makawity ( 684480 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:35AM (#15939660)
    And the funny part is: making low number of copies for close friends or relatives or personal use, as well as copying a borrowed CD for your personal use IS LEGAL. In most of Europe.

    Land of the free, indeed.

  • doesn't shock me (Score:4, Informative)

    by smash ( 1351 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @05:39AM (#15939666) Homepage Journal
    I mean, according to a recent survey, 30% of americans don't know what year september 11 happened...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060809/od_afp/usatta ckspolloffbeat_060809145351;_ylt=ArnrtaXH3JkyylylP [yahoo.com]

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @07:45AM (#15939907)
    It is nice to know that 69% knows that copying a CD s not theft. So how are we going to explain to the other 31% the same.

    Copying a CD is not illegal. I have plenty of Linux CD's I copy, give away or let people make a copy. I still need to figure out where I can get a refund of the extra tax I pay.
    It might be illegal to copy the content on it, but that will differ from case to case. Yet that is something different alltogether.

    Also this discussion as getting a bit stale. I remeber that I copied music on casette to give copies away, to play in the car or to just be able to listen to only those few numbers I wanted to hear in the order I wanted to hear them.

    So what do you do when you have say 100 CD's and only want to listen to only one number from each? I turn those into MP3's and listen to them in the car that way.

    These people want me to change the CD each and every time, making me a danger on the road where I might kill children. Please **AA, think of the children!
  • by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @07:54AM (#15939931) Journal
    They don't go the next step, so a lot think its legal - but do they think it should be legal? Ie, now that they have been told its illegal are they going to stop or decide "Well, that law is clearly wrong and i'm not going to follow it" ?
  • by The Mutant ( 167716 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @08:04AM (#15939945) Homepage
    For an MBA case study I came up with a business plan for a record company that actually gave away CDs and still had gross revenues approaching 70%! How? It's simple.

    You can get CDs pressed in China for as little as $0.25 in quantities of 10K. Even cheaper, approaching $0.10 in sufficient volume. Domestic record companies already own the means of production, so I'm sure their cost would approach $0.10 per CD if not actually be sharply lower.

    My business plan called for giving these CDs away, primarily at live shows but this could also be accomplished via other channels. CDs given away are intended to be nothing more than loss leaders, contain maybe six tracks, with advertisements and "hidden extras" such as Bios also included and, most importantly, prominently contained URLs leading people to iTunes.

    Now it gets profitable.

    iTunes pays 70% of the selling price to the distributor / band / whomver owns the music.

    Give away some tracks on CD, get people interested and then reap massive margins from electronic distribution rights. The average customer on iTunes purchases SIXTY tracks (Smith, 2005). The average customer will more than pay for that CD. Just the average; we're not talking about the higher volume, rabid fans either.

    I did a market analysis and we projected annual growth rates in excess of 60% from the iTunes distribution channel.

    So I think record companies have it half ass backwards. Give the fucking sound away, and they'll make more money in the long run.



    Smith, T., 'Apple Touts iTunes customer total', [online], Available from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/08/apple_reve als_itunes_stats/ [theregister.co.uk] [Accessed September 10th 2005]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MP3Chuck ( 652277 )
      That's kinda how my band does it. All our music is free to download and we give away "taster" CD's as promo, usually with 4 tracks on it. Even one or two new heads out at a show pretty much immediately covers the cost of the CD spindle ... and most people wind up coming to at least a couple shows a year (who tend to bring friends along). Profit! On top of that, we continue to sell CD's via CD Baby even though it's freely available online. And I'm sure if we pushed iTunes/CDBaby a little harder than we a
  • by DoktorTomoe ( 643004 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @09:06AM (#15940111)
    ... a crime would be what the majority of the people believes to be a crime.
  • by DrLlama ( 213075 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @10:28AM (#15940397) Homepage
    Thanks to the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act), making a copy of a friend's CD is indeed legal!

    The reason that "Music" CD-R is more expensive than "Data" CD-R? License fees paid to the RIAA to cover the copies made in this way. The artists are supposed to get compensated from those fees, but like so much where the RIAA is involved, the artists are being left out in the cold.

    Let's insist that the facts be reported rather than the RIAA and MPAA's propaganda, shall we?
  • Not a crime (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @11:07AM (#15940533) Homepage Journal

    You know why teens don't think CD copying is a crime?

    Because it isn't.

    Not inherently, anyway. The natural state of information is free. The pigopolists have made up (read: bought) laws that create an artificial crime out of duplicating otherwise freely available bits. It's all in their imagination, of course, but they've managed to make their farce a reality. Teens see right through that farce and are just ignoring it. Good for them.

  • by dan_bethe ( 134253 ) <slashdot@smuckol[ ]rg ['a.o' in gap]> on Saturday August 19, 2006 @01:41PM (#15941116)
    And in other news, 100% of all laws polled agree that copyright infringement is not a crime!
  • by FractalZone ( 950570 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @03:31PM (#15941514) Homepage
    It seems that most kids today are coming to the realization that copying data for personal use isn't theft, as a practical matter and shouldn't be as a legal matter. The source they copy the information (be it software, a movie, or music) from still retains exactly the same use of the information as it had before the copy was made -- NOTHING is missing or stolen.

    I'd really like to see FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) implemented so that these kids could just use their common sense to effectively nullify the efforts of despicable organizations such as RIAA and MPAA in court. These kids seem to understand the idea of "No harm, no foul."
  • Unlike /. (Score:3, Funny)

    by MeBot ( 943893 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @06:31PM (#15942058)
    ...where 93% of those polled believe it is a crime to actually purchase a CD and the remaining 7% just responded "Micro$oft suxors".
  • by rjforster ( 2130 ) on Saturday August 19, 2006 @08:17PM (#15942298) Journal
    I was at a concert in January. Afterwards there was a meet-n-greet with the band. When I handed the CD insert of one of his albums to the guy, while standing there with 3 t-shirts I'd just bought, I made a point to tell him that I wouldn't have bought the CD and wouldn't have been here tonight at the concert, if I hadn't downloaded his music first.

    His response?

  • Subject (Score:3, Informative)

    by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Sunday August 20, 2006 @01:47AM (#15943113) Homepage
    "Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime"

    That's good, because the type of CD copying discussed in TFA isn't a crime. It's a civil offense.

VMS must die!