| Author |
Topic: File-Swapping and Copyrights |
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2003 12:11 pm |
|
Counterclaim Filed in File-Swapping Case
I’m not sure how they rationalize this. Taking someone’s copyrighted property and distributing it without authorization seems blatantly illegal. I don’t think claiming that you have a better way of distributing their product, i.e. giving it away free, gives you the right to do so. Does it?
What do our resident legal minds say?
------------------
HagFan
[This message was edited by Ron Page on 28 January 2003 at 12:12 PM.] |
|
|
 |
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2003 3:32 pm
|
|
Whether you hate or despise the corporate suits in the entertainment industry, it's still wrong to take a person's work and give it away without compensating them for their efforts. The fact that more blank cd's were sold last year than recorded cd's says something.
My label and I were talking about our dismal sales, besides the fact that people don't buy this kind of music anyway, and the best we can come up with is one guy buys one and makes a bunch of copies for his friends. Cold Blue is a vanity label which means that I pay for everything it takes to deliver the master and the art work and the label is responsable for advertising and distribution. Whatever is going on is killing us. |
|
|
|
Del Rangel
From:
Clayton, NC
|
Posted 28 Jan 2003 3:58 pm
|
|
| This issue is interesting from a number of viewpoints, but the bottom line is that illegal copying is just that. I think the corporations have made copying even more prevelant by the aggressiveness they have exhibited in their moves against Napster and others. A sort of a cultural backlash against an order that many young people (and those of us who are older and don't dig NCS) see as mandating a way of doing things that does not take the consumer into the equation. So thereby copying becomes a way to fight back against unrealistic corporate profit expectations as well as an unwillingness to change methods as the market changes--unless they are always on top. This is how it is on campus anyway to a great extent. Its too bad, as Chas has pointed out that some people who are really committed to their music in a niche-market such as ours, are also impacted by this phenomenon in a negative fashion. So much so that JB and Jeffran Music feel compelled to send out flyers with tab exhorting that customers do not reproduce and distribute copyrighted material. Lastly, it makes me ambivalent, as until very recently, many academics refused to recognize copyright rulings, as I guess it is assumed we are all socialists who hate money--that is we do not want to be compensated for our material that others use. Funny that the corporations should have to drive this home when the artists and academics could not--but then again business does make the world go around. |
|
|
|
Dave Birkett
From:
Oxnard, CA, USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2003 10:41 pm
|
|
| So what's going to happen? What will 5 years from now be like? |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 28 Jan 2003 11:09 pm
|
|
| It will be twice as ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 29 Jan 2003 7:56 am
|
|
I'm not really a set-breaking, out-of-the-box thinker, but I think 5 years from now the music subscription services will be big. They may be based on Napster type services or whatever these retailers come up with, but it will be more like your cable subscription. Here's what's available, take all you can stand for a price.
Someone will go first and competition will follow. It will be more competitive than cable because you'll have more choices -- more competition.
In short, the business will catch up a bit with the technology.
I've bought 125 blank CD's since November and I've yet to make an unauthorized copy that wouldn't be covered under the personal use clause or whatever it is in the copyright laws. So that might be a misleading stat until all us old farts get our LP's and tapes copied.
------------------
HagFan
|
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 29 Jan 2003 2:08 pm
|
|
The mechanical license is clear, for selling or distribution. It simply states "Distribution" when making a mechanical copy such as a video, CD, record, tape, whatever. Basically you are illegal if you make a copy of something and distribute it, hence sell, give, share etc..
Now files downloaded from the NET..Uhmmmm.....Are files mechanical copies ? Well I know you can't actually see them..
Sounds like they need to re-write the licensing verbage to cover this sort of stuff..but what do I know..I listen to Jeff Foxworthy and Bill Engvall !
tp |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 9:38 am
|
|
Here's an interesting and related thought -- what with the advent of digital radio, what's to stop someone from downloading digital copies of music directly off the digital radio transmissions? I predict that this is perhaps going to raise some interesting issues in the near future. Not only is a clear digital signal provided, but you can record almost all the music you want for only the price of the monthly service fee. Of course, there may be some technical issues that I'm not aware of.
Tony, I agree, you might have a point there. I'm not sure about this, but I think the term mechanical copy means that there is actually a copy of the sound recording stored on a mechanical medium (e.g., your hard drive). Of course, the copyright owners would argue that the digital copy stored on a hard drive is a mechanical copy.[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 31 January 2003 at 09:41 AM.] |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 9:54 am
|
|
| Unless I'm mistaken, digital radio is MP3 quality, which is a lower quality then CD. Even though they pay a lower royalty than terrestrial radio, at least they pay something. |
|
|
|
Bob Shilling
From:
Berkeley, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 11:21 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| The fact that more blank cd's were sold last year than recorded cd's says something. |
I'm not sure what it says though. I certainly bought more blank CD's than recorded last year. I use them for backing up data, especially my digital photography. I have yet to copy ANY music to a CD. However, I HAVE copied a lot of music into my MP3 player. It's all music for which I have bought the CD. If I didn't have the MP3 player, I probably would be putting music on my blank CD's. I believe that's legal if it's for my own personal use, and legal or not, I believe it's morally correct. No different than taping stuff off of vinyl so we could hear it in the car like we ALL used to do.
I think what Del says makes a lot of sense. Corporate greed has pi$$ed so many people off, that they are willing to do something like copy and distribute music illegaly, without considering that it is also hurting the artists and writers.
It seems some sort of changes are long overdue. Some way of paying the artists without being ripped off by the suits. I realize that the production, manufacturing and distribution of recorded music involves engineers, workers, business people, truck drivers, etc. in addition to the musicians, and that they all need to be paid, but....the problem is that it's the suits who are CONTROLLING the music industry, and who are getting the lion's share of the profits, and that's what's killing it.
I guess we're all following the Doonesbury story with Jimmy Thudpucker. It's pretty extreme, but he DOES make a point. 
------------------
Bob Shilling, Berkeley, CA--MSA S10, "Classic"
|
|
|
|
Bill Crook
From:
Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 11:36 am
|
|
Just a thought.....
Most of the people who D/L the music,can't tell the difference beween mp3 or CD quality. And really don't care !!!
Lets not start a war here because I've tested the results on more than several people. 1 out of 23 folks got it right.
Now,with that said,the "Napster" type sites arn't going to go away,they are only going to get more and more entrenched into the music enviroment. The music labels have duped everybody,includeing the artist,for millions and millions of dollars for decades. It's payback time...... Let em' die a horrible death !!! The equipment is in the hands of the consumer,the music is avalable to the consumer,the music WILL be gotten by what-ever means.
Say what you may,but in the end,large record company's will go the way of the do-do bird. Even honest people(like me) will every now and then,D/L a song from a radio,web-site,CD,T.V as oppose to paying $17.99 for a CD with 9 crappy numbers and 1 song that you wanted to begin with.
I realize that it's a sorry plight, but thats just the human nature of things. It's NOT going to change,for whatever the big labels attempt to do. So,the record companys and the music folks(read this as IRAA,BMI,ASCAP,and others) may as well realize that the days of screweing over the general public,artist,and side musicians are over.
There is just too many computers,too much hatered for Label Co's, and way too many internet sites available to the consumer for the music labels to re-gain the upper hand and strangle-hold it once possesed.
Just my 2cents..... 
|
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 7:47 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| So,the record companys and the music folks(read this as IRAA,BMI,ASCAP,and others) may as well realize that the days of screweing over the general public,artist,and side musicians are over. |
But when, then, are musicians, songwriters, etc. going to actually start marketing themselves? At least to a greater extent than they are, already. When will you be able to hear a local group from Texas on the radio in Maine, without "the big bad record labels" out there doing their thing to promote music to the masses? What will happen to radio? |
|
|
|
Fred Shannon
From:
Rocking "S" Ranch, Comancheria, Texas, R.I.P.
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 8:07 pm
|
|
[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 06 December 2004 at 12:56 AM.] |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jan 2003 9:37 pm
|
|
| Essentially what the label has to offer is access to their distribution network, promotion and loans to make your album and video. Of course, they want a substantial return on their loan, they aren't in the business to be your friend. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 1 Feb 2003 2:25 am
|
|
The new era is firmly implanted. The Chicks did a very smart thing , grabbed their own destiny and took full control. There are mnay out there that have done the but after all is said and done, at the end of the day you still need a song and a performance on record. The Chicks were already established when they did this so the most difficult part was already accomplished.
Now distribution is another thing. And thats where the majors have full control of the rat race. I imagine that the Chicks distribution deal was established before the sessions were even started.
tp
|
|
|
|
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 3 Feb 2003 7:33 am
|
|
Here’s a recent commentary by Janis Ian in the L.A. Times on the subject.
------------------
HagFan
[This message was edited by Ron Page on 03 February 2003 at 07:33 AM.] |
|
|
|
Del Rangel
From:
Clayton, NC
|
Posted 3 Feb 2003 8:21 am
|
|
| Great. Guilty until your proven innocent. Have these people lost their minds? Another thing I wanted to add is that in markets like LA or Boston or New York many indie artists in different genre's have been able to take over the production and distribution of their music on a small scale, but they don't seem to mind,and in fact appear to enjoy the control they have. Apparently, for instance in hip-hop most of the "pop" stuff is being progressively seen on the street as teenie-bopper music for the burbs, whereas the local acts who don't get air-play are still getting their music out there via recordings from $5.00 to $8.00 a CD. (And these are the people on the cutting edge, not Eminem) I think the fact that an increasing number of acts are doing this goes a long way to de-bunking the myth that recording companies are not able to ,make money and it seems at these prices young people will opt to buy a CD instead of bootleg--particularly to support local bands. Recording technology--or its relatively reasonable-cost availability now may be the answer to these voracious corporate clods and their efforts to nazify the industry. [This message was edited by Del Rangel on 03 February 2003 at 08:22 AM.] |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 3 Feb 2003 11:29 am
|
|
My next album gets released in April. The art work is an 8 page foldout in 4 color and the CD is, I believe 3 color, not including the siver. In the past I've hired a professional photographer to shoot the instruments and I hire a professional designer to do the artwork. My girlfriend/"wife" is the producer of the package. The previous two were mastered at Ocean View Digital Mastering, this one was done at AcousTech. These are a couple of the best guys you can get. (I also have Sonic Solutions in my studio, but by the time I'm ready to master, I've lost all perspective on what I'm doing and I need a professional "second ear" with 'killer' equipment who knows how to use it.)
Cold Blue uses the best pressing plant we can get so my "pressing"/printing costs per packaged cd come in around $2/unit for 1500 units. If we were pressing millions, it would be more like $1/unit.
The mastering costs are typically $300/hr + $100 for a reference copy, so if you are really prepared you can be out of there for around $1300-$1600.
A designer, working for the "majors" is going to charge them a one time fee of around $5K for the package design. I do know what my photography cost, I don't know what she would have charged a "major".
So not including recording studio fees, my studio, and not including the fortune I have tied up in equipment, my cd costs come in around $4-$6/ unit (depending on the size of the artwork). I could save a lot with a less expensive "look", but then, I don't write love letters on paper towels either. |
|
|
|
Mike Neer
From:
NJ
|
Posted 3 Feb 2003 7:42 pm
|
|
I'm with you on alot of your points, Herb. In my opinion, the business of music has stripped away alot of its beauty and innocence. After buying thousands of CDs, cassettes, LPs, etc., I now only buy the output of artists whose music conveys the enthusiasm and child-like qualities that I don't hear often enough (no names mentioned). When an artist or record company is committed to taking chances, then I'm a strong supporter. I still believe music is a gift, and when its sole purpose is profitability, well, the music rings hollow for me.
|
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 3 Feb 2003 8:09 pm
|
|
From another thread, Caps mine.
My machine had a 40 gig HD and I added another 120 gig HD for a total of 160 gigs. I then took every CD that I own (PLUS BORROWED CD's FROM MY FAMILY) and saved all the songs as MP3s to my HD.
That is infringement of the copyright law, yet in a gray area. That area being a right to have a reasonable number of copies for study and teaching.
The big trouble would come if those copys were offered for sale.
We all make copies for ourselves for study. Right? |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 5 Feb 2003 9:12 pm
|
|
I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but there seems to be some confusion about what is allowed under the copyright laws and what isn't. Granted, any time you deal with Law (at least Anglo-American Law) you are dealing with a grey area.
But, for all intents and purposes, under US copyright laws you can make all the copies you want of anything you want as long as it's for your personal use, AND as long as you have a license to do so.
When you buy (or otherwise legally acquire) a copy of a work, you usually get an implied license for personal use, which includes making personal copies.
However, distributing copies (eg, making copies and giving them to somebody else, or when somebody else makes a copy of your copy for themselves), is not considered personal use and is a violation of the implied license agreement -- it is copyright infringement.
If you want to spend all day making copies of your favorite CD's or what ever, then go for it -- as long as it's only for your own personal use, there's no infringement.
By the way, the counterclaim by the Australian company involved in the suit in the link in the first post is totally laughable -- it'll be thrown out faster than a bag of flour full of weevils.
Also, to those who think the big record companies are being greedy by charging royalties (and maybe they are), think about this: howabout reversing the situation. That is, imagine yourself as a fledgeling artist who's just spend an entire year and all your money (plus a bunch of other people's money) making a CD that you're awfully proud of. Now, you've bought yourself a duplicator and your busily making CD copies to distribute to your fans -- and they're snapping them up as fast as you can make them. Everything's going great until -- you find out some big company has gotten ahold of one of your CD's and is making copies of it by the millions and selling them cheaper then you can make them -- and you're not even getting a red cent out of the deal.
I guarantee that you'd hire yourself a lawyer and file a copyright infringement claim against that company before anybody even knew what was happening.
Now, why is it evil if a company tries to protect their property rights in the same manner that you would seek to protect yours?[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 05 February 2003 at 09:39 PM.] |
|
|
|
John Macy
From:
Rockport TX/Denver CO
|
Posted 5 Feb 2003 10:22 pm
|
|
| Wisely said, Tom. |
|
|
|
Larry Beck
From:
Pierre, SD
|
Posted 6 Feb 2003 10:04 am
|
|
Here's a quick ethics test. Which (if any) of these options is ethical?
1. You buy a CD, and lean a song from it to play on gigs.
2. You tape a song from the radio, learn it, and play it on gigs
3. You download a song from Kazaa, learn it, and play it on gigs.
Assume that the venue pays royalties, and that the question is about ethics, not legalities.
Any opinions? |
|
|
|
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 6 Feb 2003 10:20 am
|
|
Larry,
1 is ethical. I believe the copyright laws have special provisions for educational use. If that's true then 2 and 3 are ethical.
This issue is broader, though, than the relatively few copies musicians would create for educational puprposes.
Besides, no one expects musicians to be ethical. 
------------------
HagFan
|
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 6 Feb 2003 11:10 am
|
|
chas wrote:
| Quote: |
| Unless I'm mistaken, digital radio is MP3 quality, which is a lower quality then CD. Even though they pay a lower royalty than terrestrial radio, at least they pay something. |
Lower than zero? Radio doesn't pay royalties to the record companies or performers, just to the songwriters.
Why would the songwriting royalty be different depending on the sound quality? That makes no sense to me. The songwriting royalty should depend on the size of the listening audience, not the quality of the performance.
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9), Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6), Roland Handsonic[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 06 February 2003 at 11:22 AM.] |
|
|
|
