Re: Clinton signs draconian antipiracy law, from the Netly News

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Tim May wrote:
> >Try this scenario:  I have 150+ audio cd's, many of which are rare, import,
> >out of print, or even all of the above.  Since a fire could leave me
> >missing many pieces of irreplaceable music, I had come up with a plan.  Get
> >a cd-r burner, make backup copies of my audio discs, and store them in a
> >safe deposit box.
> 
> All of this about jail time for copying CDs is nonsense, even under the new
> law.

As a practical matter, you are correct. Just like it's unlikely a federal
prosecutor is going to try to imprison you for saying "fuck" online, it's
unlikely one will prosecute you for copying CDs at home.

However, it does not mean that the NET bill is good law.

> One of the key provisions was that home taping, or archival taping, or
> taping for any _noncommercial_ use was now fully legal, with not even the
> hint of illegality.

Instead of relying on your (admittedly) hazy recollections of the act, you
might want to look at it again. If you have a cite, I'll plug it into
Lexis.

It's clear from the plain text of the statute that the NET Act applies to
nonprofit infringing ("reproduction or distribution") of copyrighted
material. Archival purposes are perhaps not infringing. But dubbing 4,500
CDs from copies borrowed from libraries, as your friend did, probably is.

-Declan