Multiple duplication of CDs I own Like all other guys, I have my own collections of CDs, all legal, from official distributors, paid by money, and all belong to me. I keep them in my room together with my computer. I have ripped some of them, stored them in the laptop my company gave me. I have burned some copies of them and put them in my car. I have burned some other copies and put them in my parents house, just for myself. Today I suddenly start to think -- which copies are legal and which copies are not? Especially for those copies that in my parents house. I live in California.
You may be allowed to make a single backup copy, pursuant to 17 USC 117 it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:... (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful Congress defined "computer program" as a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. At most, you could make one copy of a given CD, as long as you don't use it except to restore the original if it is damaged. Although data is not typically thought of as a "computer program", the definition of "computer program" given by congress is compatible with the nature of music CDs. It's a somewhat open question whether the courts would decide that the insides of a CD player is a "computer" (it is, with extremely limited abilities), and Congress did not define "computer" for purposes of copyright. There does not appear to be any clear case law testing whether it is legal to make a single backup copy of a music CD, so it is possible that a music CD does not meet the conditions of a "computer program". The RIAA position on the matter about 10 years ago, based on the statement of the RIAA president, was It’s OK to copy music onto an analog cassette (not for commercial purposes), it’s OK to copy music onto special audio CD-Rs, minidisks and digital tapes (but again not for commercial purposes). Beyond that there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R, but burning a copy onto a CD-R or transferring a copy onto a computer hard drive or portable music player won’t usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own and the copy is just for your personal use. However, this does not constitute giving permission by the copyright holder, even if the company distributing the work in question is a member of RIAA. Along these lines, in a document filed with the copyright office on behalf of the industry, pertaining to DMCA rule-making, it is maintained (p. 39) that "The making of back up copies for personal use has never been held to be a per se noninfringing use", and "As the Register made clear in her 2003 Recommendation, “it is not permissible to classify a work by reference to the type of user or use.”" (you can't just say "backup" and gain a fair-use defense). In other words, it's not clearly legal, and it's not clearly illegal. Clarity would come if a person was sued for making a backup copy of music CDs (with no muddying of the issue, such as "and then selling it"). For non-legal reasons, it is unlikely that a case law test will emerge.
There is also the part that says &quot;except as expressly permitted by law&quot;. In the USA, you are allowed to run the software. This means the operating system making the copy that transfers the software from your hard drive to the RAM of the computer, and all necessary changes there. And this includes modifications to relocate the software, or to protect it against certain attacks by hackers, and I'm confident that Apple checked that it includes translating x86 machine code to ARM machine code and store the translated copy together with the original. Similar things have been done already around 2000 or so, and no software manufacturer has ever complained.
Yes Playing recorded music in public is unlawful without permission (licence) from the copyright holder. Many jurisdictions allow automatic licensing by signing up with and paying for it through the authorised music organisation.
Whenever there is a license to share things, the license creator wants the license to be widely used, but absolutely does not want slightly different licenses that could be used to trick people, or that just cause legal problems when used. Normal copyright law applies. And for the reasons above, the GPL license as an example allows you to copy the license verbatim but absolutely doesn’t allow you to make any modifications other than changing who is the person licensing a work. I would be curious what happens legally if someone licenses something with a sneakily modified copy of the GPL and then makes claims against a licensee who assumed it was the original GPL.
The section you quote as clearly saying a thing is not clearly saying the thing. However: you cannot pass on or resell any license keys seems to say a thing clearly. However, one could argue that it's the sharer of the account who is in the wrong, and not the person receiving and passing on the account. I'd say that that piece of the agreement, combined with this: must not... let other people get access to anything we've made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable says that, yes, they are out of bounds.
Copyright is automatic - it starts to exist when you create a work of a type protected by law. Lyrics are such a work, and thus your lyrics are protected. Even the fact that the lyrics go with an existing (public domain) melody is protected. In addition, your recording is protected. However, the melody is probably not copyrighted, and does not become copyrighted merely because you re-used it. (Probably, because you didn't indicate how old, so I assumed old enough that nobody remembers the origin)
Let’s work it through Is the work copyright? Yes. Are you making a copy or a derivative work? Yes. Do you have permission? No. At this point, it is prima facie copyright violation. However, various copyright laws have defences for breach. You don’t say where you are but as the USA is the most permissive in this regard we’ll use the USA. If it’s not legal there, it’s not legal anywhere. If it is legal there, it’s still likely to be not legal everywhere else. is it fair use? Almost certainly not. Wizards of the Coast (the copyright owner) already do this. While this service is free for creatures from the Monster Manual, it does drive traffic to their web site where they sell stuff. They also licence (presumably for money) others to do the same. Your usage would negatively affect the copyright owners market. This counts against fair use. Because it’s already being done, your work has virtually nil transformative value. This counts against fair use. You are copying a substantial part of the work. This counts against fair use. You are not using it commercially but neither is it for educational use. This is unlikely to matter. On balance: not fair use. TL;DR This is copyright violation.
It's still under copyright, so you'd need to contact the publisher for permission, although if the artist (or in this case the executor of the estate Lynn Caponera) still retains the rights to the work sometimes going straight to the them can be a better option, especially in this case as it's for a non-profit and for a library in particular. The library also might have certain rights for reproduction, they generally pay a bulk fee to publishers but outside lending I'm not sure what that covers, so I'd check with the library manager (either branch or regional depending on who handles legal and licensing) as well.