Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Storing music on pcs
- Thread starter pagy
- Start date
It will depend on the following things:
1. Your geographical location, as different areas have different copyright laws. eg the USA seems to permit copying for personal use, provided it is just that, but UK copyright law does not allow this at all.
2. The rights on copying that are permitted by use of the music purchase. Generally this will also depend on geographical location.
Of course, if the company has rules in place stating that work computers must be used only for work related purposes (most do), then while not illegal, such music files on work PCs is almost certainly a violation of the employment contract. Whether any action is taken depends on the employer.
John
1. Your geographical location, as different areas have different copyright laws. eg the USA seems to permit copying for personal use, provided it is just that, but UK copyright law does not allow this at all.
2. The rights on copying that are permitted by use of the music purchase. Generally this will also depend on geographical location.
Of course, if the company has rules in place stating that work computers must be used only for work related purposes (most do), then while not illegal, such music files on work PCs is almost certainly a violation of the employment contract. Whether any action is taken depends on the employer.
John
- Thread starter
- #3
porkchopexpress
IS-IT--Management
John what does the U.K law allow then i take it this means I-Pods are not really legal then.
Its legal to load music onto your iPod (or other music player) provided that either:
a) the music publisher has given consent to allow you to do that or
b) that you are the copyright holder of the music concerned.
See sections 7 and 8 of Porkchopexpress' link above; nothing in there specifically permits personal use of copyrighted works.
John
a) the music publisher has given consent to allow you to do that or
b) that you are the copyright holder of the music concerned.
See sections 7 and 8 of Porkchopexpress' link above; nothing in there specifically permits personal use of copyrighted works.
John
The legal stance is that the employer is the owner of the computer and the employee is the licensee of the music. Fair use allows leeway here but legal issues are the least of worries.
Legal issues aside, this is silly. I would not want employees to load music files because they take up space and processing power. Lost time occurs when employees want to arrange libraries and playlists. Allowing streaming audio is goofy too. Let your employees work they way they feel most productive (with a personal player) but don't let them drag your own systems down with their entertainment.
Employees can use personal players or load a CD in the drive. Any other use on company equipment is silly.
Legal issues aside, this is silly. I would not want employees to load music files because they take up space and processing power. Lost time occurs when employees want to arrange libraries and playlists. Allowing streaming audio is goofy too. Let your employees work they way they feel most productive (with a personal player) but don't let them drag your own systems down with their entertainment.
Employees can use personal players or load a CD in the drive. Any other use on company equipment is silly.
- Thread starter
- #7
Yeah fair point jimoblak. The company here from what I can tell has always been quite slack on this kind of thing, thats something I'm trying to change without upsetting too many people, thats why I was querying the legal angle. If I have to upset people I will, I just find its better not to if you can avoid it and a nice "this is legally questionable argument" may do the trick.
You don't need legal precedent for this. What you can say is:
"This company must avoid any possible civil and criminal litigation for unauthorized content on its computers. Employees are not authorized to store media on the computer for which the company does not hold a copyright or license. This includes but is not limited to: images, music, video, and software applications."
This is a standard concept in any employee-computer usage policy.
"This company must avoid any possible civil and criminal litigation for unauthorized content on its computers. Employees are not authorized to store media on the computer for which the company does not hold a copyright or license. This includes but is not limited to: images, music, video, and software applications."
This is a standard concept in any employee-computer usage policy.
What I've done in the past is use an external USB drive to hold my music. That way it's not on the company's computer, and if I have to make a hasty departure it's easy to take with me.
Now I use an iPod, giving up capacity (120gb vs 4gb) for the ability to put it in my pocket and not even take up the company's CPU time.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Now I use an iPod, giving up capacity (120gb vs 4gb) for the ability to put it in my pocket and not even take up the company's CPU time.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Why is this even a question? Employees should be using company equipment ONLY for company business.
Employees shouldn't be allowed to put any of their own CDs, USB drives, disks, or any other media in a work computer - do you really want to redo a machine because an employee installed Sony's spyware/hackware/virus or something similar? Who pays to replace hardware when constant use wears it out. Employers should also be concerned about data theft, not to mention viruses, spyware or having the network bogged down by employees using it for "entertainment" instead of work.
Another angle - let's say the employee puts a home-made CD in the PC that has music downloaded illegally from the web. Is the company liable if an employee uses company equipment to play it? I'm sure the RIAA's lawyers could make a case, especially if there are big buck$ to be had.
Too many employers refuse to make employees stop treating company computers as 'theirs' and they try to make the computer techs responsible for stopping employee time-wasting. Lay the rules out plainly and punish offenders regardless of whether their feelings get hurt - if an employee has a problem with that, they can go "work" somewhere else.
- Thread starter
- #11
I guess it depends on your employees. At my company (fortune 100) i have music on my machine that i brought in and ripped from my cds. I only have music that i brought in and ripped. If my management cared about it, i could drive home and bring back each of the cds to show them.
if your just putting on music, then you still wont have spyware. If you have your machines locked down properly, nothing can easily be installed. Media is just files after all. If your running anitvirus systems, then you shouldnt be worried about virus. If your running off a system then the hardware shouldnt be really worn out. And as a business you should have maintance contracts to avoid these issues. These are all things that a responsible businss should have.
You have to trust your employees. If you dont, why do you have them working for you? I suggest getting some new ones who you can trust. If you are that worried about it, have a system set up to scan each computer ever evening that cheks for the various media files. Do random audits of people saying that they may be required to bring in the Cd. just put it as a policy to that affect
Also i still have yet to see any real studies that say people are less productive that listen to music while they work. IF you can show me that i might be willing to beleive it depending on how the study was done.
all to often i see mgmt saying x is this. But they have no basis for thier statement. Does that make any sense to you?
The amount of time it took to read this thread is more time than i spend doing anything with my music for an entire day, other than listening of course. ill give you an idea, it was well less than one min.
if your just putting on music, then you still wont have spyware. If you have your machines locked down properly, nothing can easily be installed. Media is just files after all. If your running anitvirus systems, then you shouldnt be worried about virus. If your running off a system then the hardware shouldnt be really worn out. And as a business you should have maintance contracts to avoid these issues. These are all things that a responsible businss should have.
You have to trust your employees. If you dont, why do you have them working for you? I suggest getting some new ones who you can trust. If you are that worried about it, have a system set up to scan each computer ever evening that cheks for the various media files. Do random audits of people saying that they may be required to bring in the Cd. just put it as a policy to that affect
Also i still have yet to see any real studies that say people are less productive that listen to music while they work. IF you can show me that i might be willing to beleive it depending on how the study was done.
all to often i see mgmt saying x is this. But they have no basis for thier statement. Does that make any sense to you?
The amount of time it took to read this thread is more time than i spend doing anything with my music for an entire day, other than listening of course. ill give you an idea, it was well less than one min.
Corran007,
I understand your perspective. I don't necessarily disagree with all the points you made. But it should be known that personal use applies in a "personal domain". Once you move the relationship with copyright into the work environment, other factors come into play.
For example with music, in many countries it's your right to convert the file to an MP3 (or other format) in order to play on another device, granted that you own the CD. That has been settled here in the U.S. for Apple's Ipods and also applies to many forms of "personal use". So many think that the same should be true for any PC that they use. This is true as long as the files are only accessable by the person who owns the CD.
That's important to note. If the files are in a location that can become compromised, you can be found at fault for sharing them even if it's unwilling.
So back to the work scenario, I would say that most companies want to be on the safe side here. No party (employee or company) wants to be the subject of copyright litigation. As a result, it would only seem practical not to allow anyone to convert MP3's onto their hard drives, or even use the CD-ROM drive to play music. Both can result in the illegal sharing of music willing or unwilling because the PC is networked (no matter how unlikely). It's a risk no one with a lot at stake wants to take. Instead, an employee has the option of bringing in their own personal device such as a CD Player or Ipod if they really want that option.
But again, Corran007, I understand your argument. My take is that the size of the company and what's at stake plays an important role.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I understand your perspective. I don't necessarily disagree with all the points you made. But it should be known that personal use applies in a "personal domain". Once you move the relationship with copyright into the work environment, other factors come into play.
For example with music, in many countries it's your right to convert the file to an MP3 (or other format) in order to play on another device, granted that you own the CD. That has been settled here in the U.S. for Apple's Ipods and also applies to many forms of "personal use". So many think that the same should be true for any PC that they use. This is true as long as the files are only accessable by the person who owns the CD.
That's important to note. If the files are in a location that can become compromised, you can be found at fault for sharing them even if it's unwilling.
So back to the work scenario, I would say that most companies want to be on the safe side here. No party (employee or company) wants to be the subject of copyright litigation. As a result, it would only seem practical not to allow anyone to convert MP3's onto their hard drives, or even use the CD-ROM drive to play music. Both can result in the illegal sharing of music willing or unwilling because the PC is networked (no matter how unlikely). It's a risk no one with a lot at stake wants to take. Instead, an employee has the option of bringing in their own personal device such as a CD Player or Ipod if they really want that option.
But again, Corran007, I understand your argument. My take is that the size of the company and what's at stake plays an important role.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I still don't see why this is even debatable. I'm not saying people should be banned from playing music, I'm saying they should use their own players for their personal entertainment. If they "can't afford" to buy their own player, how can they afford to buy music, and if they're not buying the music, they're stealing it - again a very good reason not to use company equipment.
Whether someone can prove they already own a CD or other media is beside the point - the employer shouldn't have to waste even more time monitoring whether employees are legal or not, and shouldn't be saddled with legal liability, network slowdowns, hardware damage, spyware, viruses, or anything else that might be caused by non-work-related use of their resources. If personal use doesn't happen in the first place, these other problems won't happen either.
I don't need a survey to tell me a PC can get screwed up playing a Sony CD and I don't need one to tell me equipment wears out because of constant use - I've seen both happen in companies I contract for. Even though a company has warranties and/or service contracts to repair broken equipment, there's still a price in downtime.
The entire problem is 100% avoidable and there's nothing unfair about a "for work-related use only" policy.
Whether someone can prove they already own a CD or other media is beside the point - the employer shouldn't have to waste even more time monitoring whether employees are legal or not, and shouldn't be saddled with legal liability, network slowdowns, hardware damage, spyware, viruses, or anything else that might be caused by non-work-related use of their resources. If personal use doesn't happen in the first place, these other problems won't happen either.
I don't need a survey to tell me a PC can get screwed up playing a Sony CD and I don't need one to tell me equipment wears out because of constant use - I've seen both happen in companies I contract for. Even though a company has warranties and/or service contracts to repair broken equipment, there's still a price in downtime.
The entire problem is 100% avoidable and there's nothing unfair about a "for work-related use only" policy.
Actually the biggest problem is the liabity of the music from a companies perspective. I own all my music that i bring to work. I have them all ripped to a server at my house. I load them on a cd or usb drive to bring in. I then load them on my machine. I can afford to buy one music player. i could afford to buy 1000 if i wanted to. Its not a matter of buying a player.
"shouldn't be saddled with legal liability, network slowdowns, hardware damage, spyware, viruses, or anything else that might be caused by non-work-related use of their resources."
Lets see my way of doing it has no liability, no slowdown, no hardware damage, no spyware, no viruses. Yea, pretty much no problem at all. Im not saying it couldnt get screwed up by a sony cd. please show me where i said that. I take the risk at my house.
By the way, id never work for a company that had such restritive use of company items. Such an excessive policy says you do not trust your employees. I say get new employees who you can trust. Companies expect you to work late and come in after hours when problems occur but not to do anything that in not 100% company related. I say you have a company that is not doing to well since they only people you will have left there after a long time will be the bottem of the employees. The most employable will have found jobs elsewhere.
Companies that treat thier employees like profesionals get treated by their empolyees better. This may seem like a naive view, but its held true so far.
By the way, your posting here is not 100% company related so i hope you did it at home. If you were doing research on this it might be but your arguing isnt since you already know it, or think you do.
"shouldn't be saddled with legal liability, network slowdowns, hardware damage, spyware, viruses, or anything else that might be caused by non-work-related use of their resources."
Lets see my way of doing it has no liability, no slowdown, no hardware damage, no spyware, no viruses. Yea, pretty much no problem at all. Im not saying it couldnt get screwed up by a sony cd. please show me where i said that. I take the risk at my house.
By the way, id never work for a company that had such restritive use of company items. Such an excessive policy says you do not trust your employees. I say get new employees who you can trust. Companies expect you to work late and come in after hours when problems occur but not to do anything that in not 100% company related. I say you have a company that is not doing to well since they only people you will have left there after a long time will be the bottem of the employees. The most employable will have found jobs elsewhere.
Companies that treat thier employees like profesionals get treated by their empolyees better. This may seem like a naive view, but its held true so far.
By the way, your posting here is not 100% company related so i hope you did it at home. If you were doing research on this it might be but your arguing isnt since you already know it, or think you do.
Some companies believe that treating their employees as 'professional' means providing them with computers that are well-managed. I would question the professionalism of any company that did not have a usage policy in place that prevented graphics, music or application licensing abuse.
Corran007, would you be good enough to post your company's written policy on this matter?
Corran007, would you be good enough to post your company's written policy on this matter?
Corran007,
I've worked for 3 major corporations (Fortune 500) in the past 10 years here in the states. Every single one of them had a "restrictive" usage policy. Having such policies does not mean your employer doesn't "trust" you. You can be a professional and not know the first thing about keeping your PC secure or running in tip-top shape. Would you agree?
That's the main goal of usage policies. If every employee knew as much as their IT support in regards to security, networking and performance, then the need for such policies wouldn't be as great (or the need for IT in the first place for that matter!). You could also argue that certainly not every employee is a saint in terms of owning all the music in their collection. In a perfect world, we'd like to believe any "professional" would. That's just not the case.
The liability factor is going to be there, no matter how many employees are trustworthy. When napster hit its peak, one can just imagine how important it was to have some policy in place. It's an unnecessary risk for any company to take, especially when employees are allowed to use other devices to play their music.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I've worked for 3 major corporations (Fortune 500) in the past 10 years here in the states. Every single one of them had a "restrictive" usage policy. Having such policies does not mean your employer doesn't "trust" you. You can be a professional and not know the first thing about keeping your PC secure or running in tip-top shape. Would you agree?
That's the main goal of usage policies. If every employee knew as much as their IT support in regards to security, networking and performance, then the need for such policies wouldn't be as great (or the need for IT in the first place for that matter!). You could also argue that certainly not every employee is a saint in terms of owning all the music in their collection. In a perfect world, we'd like to believe any "professional" would. That's just not the case.
The liability factor is going to be there, no matter how many employees are trustworthy. When napster hit its peak, one can just imagine how important it was to have some policy in place. It's an unnecessary risk for any company to take, especially when employees are allowed to use other devices to play their music.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Corran007, I'm not questioning whether you own your music, I'm questioning why you think your employer should accept liability for its presence on their equipment in the first place. Why should a company have to deal with it at all when prohibiting personal use altogether is entirely fair and eliminates the problem before it can even occur.
A company is responsible/liable for every file on their system, so "your way of doing it" definitely does put a liability on the company. Usage policies are to prevent potential legal liability, and damage to their equipment, reputation, budget, etc.
You appear to be arguing that whatever you do with company property (the computer, the network, storage space, whatever), work-related or not, is owed to you because you happen to be employed there. If you're allowed to bring in your own player and use it, what exactly are you objecting to?
If you blatantly violate the usage policy you signed before you even got access to a company computer, you're not someone an employer should trust, no matter how well you do the job - what other rules are you willing to break because you feel they're unfair, or for some other reason, or maybe just on a whim?
The company policy prohibiting personal use is treating you as a professional. It tells you what's prohibited and the consequences of violating it, then it lets you decide whether you're professional enough to follow it - if you are, you're eligible to work there and if you're not... It's not a matter of the company mistrusting its employees, it's just good business. If there's no personal use allowed, the problems don't happen in the first place.
And note the date and time of my post you referred to - 5 Mar 06 12:56 (Sunday). Prior to that 26 Feb 06 22:23 (10:23 PM). Your last post was at 8:30 AM on Tuesday. Were you posting from work then?
I suggest neither of us will change our minds about this issue, and before it has a chance to degrade into flames, I will now no longer comment about this topic.
A company is responsible/liable for every file on their system, so "your way of doing it" definitely does put a liability on the company. Usage policies are to prevent potential legal liability, and damage to their equipment, reputation, budget, etc.
You appear to be arguing that whatever you do with company property (the computer, the network, storage space, whatever), work-related or not, is owed to you because you happen to be employed there. If you're allowed to bring in your own player and use it, what exactly are you objecting to?
If you blatantly violate the usage policy you signed before you even got access to a company computer, you're not someone an employer should trust, no matter how well you do the job - what other rules are you willing to break because you feel they're unfair, or for some other reason, or maybe just on a whim?
The company policy prohibiting personal use is treating you as a professional. It tells you what's prohibited and the consequences of violating it, then it lets you decide whether you're professional enough to follow it - if you are, you're eligible to work there and if you're not... It's not a matter of the company mistrusting its employees, it's just good business. If there's no personal use allowed, the problems don't happen in the first place.
And note the date and time of my post you referred to - 5 Mar 06 12:56 (Sunday). Prior to that 26 Feb 06 22:23 (10:23 PM). Your last post was at 8:30 AM on Tuesday. Were you posting from work then?
I suggest neither of us will change our minds about this issue, and before it has a chance to degrade into flames, I will now no longer comment about this topic.
Ill give one final response.
Ive read the usage policys since it is in about 8 different documents. Nothing is at all mentioned about personal data on a company issued personal machine. It does have mention on sharded storage though so it is something they have considered. So as near as i can tell im not violating it. I even asked our local IT support, as far as he heard, its fine. It has mention of using company email for personal use to be limited, not prohibited but limited.
So again with the making assumptions as i have not violated anything. Im actually a very staunt supporter of company policy. I do my best to support it in any way possible
And yes i was posting at work. But we have different views on that matter. Plus i am currently on overhead awaiting assignment and am permiteed to do prety much anything when im not currntly tasked to do something. Mgmt said if im bored, play solatire. But i havnt actually done that, i spend my time learning bout new things.
Ive read the usage policys since it is in about 8 different documents. Nothing is at all mentioned about personal data on a company issued personal machine. It does have mention on sharded storage though so it is something they have considered. So as near as i can tell im not violating it. I even asked our local IT support, as far as he heard, its fine. It has mention of using company email for personal use to be limited, not prohibited but limited.
So again with the making assumptions as i have not violated anything. Im actually a very staunt supporter of company policy. I do my best to support it in any way possible
And yes i was posting at work. But we have different views on that matter. Plus i am currently on overhead awaiting assignment and am permiteed to do prety much anything when im not currntly tasked to do something. Mgmt said if im bored, play solatire. But i havnt actually done that, i spend my time learning bout new things.
Corran007,
you definitely sound like a "user" that has never admined a network before. Does your Fortune 500 company have a policy on blogging? One the most potentially damaging practices today are employees inadvertantly posting company secrets or bashing superiors. I don't think your company is up to date on it's policy is all. Or there is more to the story.
The main concern is this: if you allow someone to stick a music CD in their machine or d/l anything then the misconception could be there that it's okay to put any CD or DVD into the machine. And as an admin you definitely don't want this.
After a vetrenarian has operated on a dog they put that lapshade looking device on their necks to keep them from hurting themselves. Same concept.
you definitely sound like a "user" that has never admined a network before. Does your Fortune 500 company have a policy on blogging? One the most potentially damaging practices today are employees inadvertantly posting company secrets or bashing superiors. I don't think your company is up to date on it's policy is all. Or there is more to the story.
The main concern is this: if you allow someone to stick a music CD in their machine or d/l anything then the misconception could be there that it's okay to put any CD or DVD into the machine. And as an admin you definitely don't want this.
After a vetrenarian has operated on a dog they put that lapshade looking device on their necks to keep them from hurting themselves. Same concept.
- Status
