In most places. Certainly in the US where I live. That’s one reason why I still have my 1000s of CDs, although they are stored away and not used. They also provide an ultimate backup.
p.s. I live in Florida. Lightning Capitol! So I do feel the OP’s pain. I suppose if I lost my collection and all backups, I’d likely just give up and move to Tidal or whatever the streaming option of the future happens to be. Maybe purchase a handful of favorite albums that are not available for streaming.
That doesn’t really change anything from a legal perspective. To keep the copies you had on your NAS, you should have kept the CDs. As soon as you donated them, the tracks from those CDs should have been deleted from your NAS.
I would expect that is the law although the chances of prosecution seem very low. I buy CD’s from charity shops often. I own the CD, they are on my hard drive as well as in my shed, boxed. So who has the rights to this music? The physical owner or the original owner who has disposed of it?
Who is going to bother to test this out and where will it lead if they do? Resources…
And is correctly ignored or we may as well bring back stoning. The law is there and if the agrieved parties are concerned they should bring about prosecutions and test that in law. The problem is that if they lost it would be a major blow to the industry. So of course it is left to concerned citizens to do what they are unable or unwilling to do. At the end of the day one of our number has suffered misfortune and it is natural to offer assistance where possible.
Yes! How much would you like?
As a rule I try very hard to live by my morals, and equally as hard not to impose them on others. As I have tried to suggest, there is a legal system. That is what ultimately determines right from wrong with regards to copyright. Not you or me.
As I said, it can be a societal thing. To offer your files suggest societal acceptance (you), to protest suggests non acceptance (me). If files are offered, it may be thought “OK”. We are our own police.
The legal system decides what’s illegal, not what’s right and wrong. Parents, schools, churches, peers and public figures educate on rights and wrongs (or used to, currently there appears to be a bit of a vacuum).
So Henry, it is you or me at the end of the day. But also in this case Roon, who by their acquiescence seem to be suggesting it’s OK.
This community site should not become a place for piracy.
We do not agree with him, nor do we disagree with him. It is not our place to do either. If you’d like to talk about the effects of doing heroin while listening to Led Zeppelin on your USB DAC connected to a Nucleus, we do not care as long you keep the subject relevant to the music, the gear, or the software.
Also, while copyright violation is a legal offense, the laws in the US (where Roon Labs exists) only extend to profiting from the copyright violation. The rest is usually a civil matter, not criminal. It irks me to no length when people confuse criminal legality with civil agreement violation. One is far more serious than the other, and mixing the two sets a dangerous precedent.
Not sure how you got to “dangerous precedents”, were talking about copying files. From my reading, the area is pretty grey. I don’t think you, I or the file copier will be setting any precedents. Principles are there however, for all to see.
Breaking the law can lead to civil liberties being taken away (crime).
I do not think breaking a civil license agreement between two parties should ever result in the same. You may think it should, but I’m glad that in the US it does not.
Judging “pirating music for personal use” like a crime is that dangerous precedent. You said it yourself, about social discourse… I am also just trying to set the baseline in the other direction. While I do not promote piracy, I strongly believe it is not a crime. For now, the law in the US agrees with me.
The home copy levy or private copying fee is a legally established levy on data carriers (such as CDs / DVDs, hard disks and electronics such as mobile phones) that benefits copyright owners to compensate for home copies.
He was selling premium access to RockDizMusic for $90/year and he was hosting advertising. See page 3 of the document above for details.
This profiteering on the back of copyrighted works is the crime, not the actual piracy. The license holders (the RIAA and those they represent) would love for you to all believe that this is criminal, but until you cross that line, it just isn’t.