Editing Cassette tape (section)

===Home dubbing===
[[File:Dualdeck.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|A Magnavox dual deck recorder with high-speed dubbing. Doors are open showing capstans.]]

Most cassettes were sold blank, and used for recording ([[dubbing (music)|dubbing]]) the owner's records (as backup, to play in the car, or to make [[Mixtape|mixtape compilations]]), their friends' records, or music from the radio. This practice was condemned by the music industry with such alarmist slogans as "[[Home Taping Is Killing Music]]". However, many claimed that the medium was ideal for spreading new music and would increase sales, and strongly defended their right to copy at least their own records onto tape. For a limited time in the early 1980s [[Island Records]] sold [[Chromium(IV) oxide|chromium dioxide]] "[[Island One Plus One Cassettes|One Plus One]]"<ref name="island_one_plus_one">{{cite web|url=http://www.thisdayinrock.com/index.php/industry/1981-island-records-launched-one-plus-one-cassettes-one-side-had-one-of-their/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130629204914/http://www.thisdayinrock.com/index.php/industry/1981-island-records-launched-one-plus-one-cassettes-one-side-had-one-of-their/|archive-date=29 June 2013|title=Island Records launched 'One Plus One' cassettes|publisher=Rock History|date=13 February 2013|url-status=usurped|access-date=4 April 2013 }}</ref>

Various legal cases arose surrounding the dubbing of cassettes. In the UK, in the case of ''CBS Songs v. [[Amstrad]]'' (1988), the [[House of Lords]] found in favor of [[Amstrad]] that producing equipment that facilitated the dubbing of cassettes, in this case a high-speed twin cassette deck that allowed one cassette to be copied directly onto another, did not constitute copyright infringement by the manufacturer.<ref>{{cite web |title=CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] UKHL 15 (12 May 1988) |url=https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1988/15.html&query |website=[[British and Irish Legal Information Institute]] |access-date=6 May 2025}}</ref> In a similar case, a shop owner who rented cassettes and sold blank tapes was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was clear that his customers likely were dubbing them at home.<ref>''CBS v. Ames'' (1982)</ref> In both cases, the courts held that manufacturers and retailers could not be held accountable for the actions of consumers.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dubey|first=N. B.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3aiA1URwOXIC&q=%22+Various+legal+cases+arose+surrounding+the+dubbing+of+cassettes.%22&pg=PA149|title=Office Management: Developing Skills for Smooth Functioning|date=December 2009|publisher=Global India Publications|isbn=978-93-80228-16-7 }}</ref>

As an alternative to home dubbing, in the late 1980s, the [[Personics]] company installed booths in record stores across America that allowed customers to make personalized mixtapes from a digitally encoded back-catalogue with customised printed covers.<ref>{{cite web |last=Chiu |first=David |title=The Forgotten Precursor to iTunes |url=https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1340-the-forgotten-precursor-to-itunes/ |website=Pitchfork |date=26 October 2016 |access-date=21 June 2020 }}</ref>