Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Music, Computers and Copyright
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 29 (144405)
09-24-2004 9:23 AM


Unsurprisingly, I disagree that copying music is theft; "intellectual property" is a nonsense concept.
When you pay for a CD, you are not paying for the song, you are paying for the medium on which it is written and the cost of delivery, retails space ground rent et al.
The artists is in the business of providing content to a publisher. They are not paid for their content directly, they are paid royalties for being in part responsible for a physical product that can be sold. If they were being paid for the actual music creation, they'd be on an hourly wage like anyone else.
The reason that copyright is restricted is to prevent a publisher selling their products using someone's music without paying the royalty; but unless you are seeling the music download on, that does not apply to you. You as a consumer do not constitute an abusive publisher. Copyright is not intended to protect the artist from you, but from such publishers. Eventually any given work passes into the public domain and any citizen or publisher has the freedom to print copies withgout paying a royalty.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 10:44 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2004 2:16 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 29 (144413)
09-24-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
09-24-2004 9:23 AM


But when I rip songs off library CDs, doesn't that make the library an abusive publisher?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 9:23 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:28 AM Percy has replied
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2004 2:17 AM Percy has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 29 (144421)
09-24-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
09-24-2004 10:44 AM


quote:
But when I rip songs off library CDs, doesn't that make the library an abusive publisher?
Tehcnically no, becuase the library did not sell the product to you as yours to own.
But the library could be legitmately accused of another misdemeanor, which is the pre-emption of a sale. That is, you might have bought the product yourself if the library had not loaned it to you (regardless of whther you copied it though, as it happens).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 10:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2004 11:49 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 11:54 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 29 (144427)
09-24-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by contracycle
09-24-2004 11:28 AM


Except that libraries must have a specifc defence against such claims otherwise they couldn't even lend out books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:28 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 12:09 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 29 (144428)
09-24-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by contracycle
09-24-2004 11:28 AM


Hmmm. I sort of see the logic, but government regulation has a responsibility to maintain an environment where private enterprise can flourish, which can't happen if people can't make money.
Trying to think this through concerning libraries, if I check out a library book, scan it into my computer, then read it at my leasure and never pass the copy to others, this is okay? Of course, I'll probably only read the book once if it's fiction. But what if it's a reference book and I use the information over and over again? That definitely doesn't feel okay.
But how is that any different than going to the library, finding a recipe in a cookbook, making a copy of that recipe using one of the copiers in the library provided for the express purpose of making copies of pages from library materials, then enjoying that recipe for the rest of your life.
Now let me think about this in the context of CDs. If I check a CD out of the library, rip it onto my computer, then listen to it every so often for the rest of my life, this is okay? It doesn't *feel* okay to me.
As I was thinking about this I recalled that commercial radio pays for the music they play, and I pay by listening to the commercials, but as far as TV goes I've already been a scofflaw for several years because I have TiVo and almost never watch commercials. And I hear that some radio manufacturers are considering putting TiVo style functionality into their automobile decks, which is where I usually listen to the radio. This will be a great boon for me, as I usually only realize they've given weather forecast just after they've said, "And that's the weather for today, back to you."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:28 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-24-2004 1:56 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2004 2:44 AM Percy has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 29 (144430)
09-24-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Wounded King
09-24-2004 11:49 AM


quote:
Except that libraries must have a specifc defence against such claims otherwise they couldn't even lend out books.
Yes, it is a special exemption based on the maximum social benefit. There is a coherent argument against it, on much the same basis as that against collective health care. It's interesting that one is a political football, and one is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2004 11:49 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 29 (144453)
09-24-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
09-24-2004 11:54 AM


quote:
As I was thinking about this I recalled that commercial radio pays for the music they play...
Not only that, but I think non-commercial public radio stations also make some sort of payments.
There has also been "pay to play" methodology used, in which someone pays the radio station to play a song. This is legal, as long as the station is up front with the information that it is being done. In effect, the song is presented as a paid advertisement.
Personally, I'm inclined to think that stations should not have to pay royalities on music they play. They are actually doing the producer of the song a service, by giving the song advertisement. The producer of the music wants airplay, not (so much) to earn airplay royalties, but to give the music exposure to sell recordings.
All in all, radio (at least in the U.S.) is badly screwed up. Clear Channel is the most prominent example. A radio station should be licienced because they provide a quality service, not because some mega-corporation has the money to buy up the licences. A commercial radio licence should not be worth millions of dollars, for sale to the wealthy.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 11:54 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 29 (152796)
10-25-2004 12:41 PM


I'm still wrestling with my conscience about ripping songs off library CDs. I went to Copyright Law of the United States and found the page titled Sound Recordings and Music Videos, but I don't think this is relevant - it seems to apply only to live performances.
More relevant is the Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media chapter. It's over 20 pages, but I don't think it applies, either. It seems to deal primarily with payment of royalties to artists, and not with unauthorized recordings.
I'm looking for som clear statement in US statutes relevant to copying library CDs for personal use. Here's a clear statement from the RIAA taken from Page not found – Digital Producer Magazine:
    [text=black]According to Cary Sherman, the senior executive vice president and general counsel, the RIAA takes the position that any copying of music to CD that you perform on your computer is copyright infringement. Whether the source is digital or analog, whether the disc is a complete copy of a CD, tape, or LP that you own, or whether it is a compilation of songs from various sources that you own, the RIAA considers making such a copy to be a violation of the right of reproduction granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act of 1976.[/text]
Well, that's sure pretty clear. In the eyes of the RIAA, I was already breaking the law when I copied the CD's from my personal collection onto my computer. If the RIAA's interpretation of the law is correct then I'm just going to ignore it regarding my own CDs.
But it's not that simple. Apparently, while I am guilty of copyright infringement when I copy my own CDs, I'm immune from legal action, because the paragraph continues:
    [text=black]They also recognize, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA The RIAA's ultimate goal is to require CD-R and CD-RW hardware manufacturers to look at the copy-protection bit on an audio disc and refuse to copy if that bit is set to "on."[/text]
So I'm immune from prosecution for my misdeeds, and the RIAA is okay with this because they're working toward getting hardware manufacturers to enforce copyright law by implementing the copy-protection bit. Once that happens they won't have to worry about this immunity anymore, since I won't be able to copy CD's anymore. Not my own or anyone's. At least not new CD's on new hardware.
But this doesn't say anything about borrowed library CD's. It doesn't appear to me that the RIAA makes any attempt to distinguish between CD's I own and CD's I borrow. If copyright law also doesn't discriminate between the two, then copying library CD's is no greater crime than copying my own CD's.
Still, now that I've had the opportunity to think and reflect, copying library CD's feels sleazy, and like most people, how I feel about something is often more important than what the law says about something.
Naturally, it's not as simple as this. Not all record companies or artists have agreements to put their library on-line. For example, nothing by Jim Croce is on line. None of the original albums by Tommy James and the Shondells are on line. And all on-line music is limited to less than CD quality. This last isn't important, as I don't have the golden ear to tell the difference, but it might be important to serious audiophiles (do audiophiles listen to Jim Croce?). So I think I'll limit my library CD ripping to songs I can't find on-line and for which the CD's are no longer available. That's a pretty tiny subset.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2004 12:46 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 25 by lfen, posted 10-25-2004 1:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 24 of 29 (152798)
10-25-2004 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-25-2004 12:41 PM


In Britain at least making copies of things you own for your own use is a legally enshrined right (which makes sense) wheras copying library CDs is evil theft (which it is).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-25-2004 12:41 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by contracycle, posted 10-29-2004 11:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 25 of 29 (152805)
10-25-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-25-2004 12:41 PM


slashdot.org for more discussion on music copyright
For those of you who haven't stumbled across
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
They have ongoing stories and discussions on all these issues of music and video copying, sharing, laws, DRM etc.
Their latest story is about a new Common License that is along the ideas of open source software. The RIAA seems to me to be a structure businessmen and lawyers use to rip artists off. Someday hopefully direct purchase of artists songs will give them a much bigger slice of the money and put the greedy parasitic music companies who abuse so many artists out of business.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-25-2004 12:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 29 (154128)
10-29-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
10-25-2004 12:46 PM


I'm very confident that Microsoft at least used to operate a structure in which you could have multiple installations of software.
This was necessary due to the perishable nature of electronic media - you had a right to make a backup. The criteria for illegality then was not multiple copies, but multiple uses. You could install the same version of windows on one machine used at work and another used at home, perfectly legally, becuase only one was in use at a time. Technically, if someone at home used the computer wat home while you were at work, that would be illegal.
But again, what all this confusion indicates is that copyright law is based on a pre-infor economy model, an economics of scarcity that simply does not apply any longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2004 12:46 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 29 (154347)
10-30-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
09-24-2004 9:23 AM


contracycle writes:
quote:
The reason that copyright is restricted is to prevent a publisher selling their products using someone's music without paying the royalty; but unless you are seeling the music download on, that does not apply to you.
Yes, it does. If you didn't pay for it and it wasn't free, you don't have any rights to it.
quote:
You as a consumer do not constitute an abusive publisher.
Yes, you are. You stole someone else's work. Unlike your claim, purchasing a CD is not merely paying for the medium. You are also buying the message.
quote:
Copyright is not intended to protect the artist from you, but from such publishers.
I think you need to brush up on your copyright law because it is intended to protect the artist from you. The whole point is that the person who creates a work is entitled to recompense for the fruits of their labor. If you take it without paying, you are stealing.
quote:
Eventually any given work passes into the public domain
Yep, 50 years from when it was published. That is what the government considers to be an appropriate amount of time for the creator to derive recompense for his efforts.
quote:
and any citizen or publisher has the freedom to print copies withgout paying a royalty.
That simply isn't true.
You may be arguing about the philosophical points of copyright law, but there is a difference between philosophy and reality. You may want the world to be that way, but it isn't.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 9:23 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 29 (154348)
10-30-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
09-24-2004 10:44 AM


Percy writes:
quote:
But when I rip songs off library CDs, doesn't that make the library an abusive publisher?
No, because the library is not in control of your actions. They weren't the ones that made an illegal copy. You were.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 10:44 AM Percy has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 29 (154355)
10-30-2004 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
09-24-2004 11:54 AM


Percy writes:
quote:
But how is that any different than going to the library, finding a recipe in a cookbook, making a copy of that recipe using one of the copiers in the library provided for the express purpose of making copies of pages from library materials, then enjoying that recipe for the rest of your life.
Because it goes to the question of "fair use." Copying a small part of something for personal use is one thing. Copying everything is another. From the US Copyright office:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Note item 3. You can't glom the whole thing. I think we can all agree that when a reviewer reviews a book, there is no problem with providing quotes from that book. They serve to justify that claims made in the review about the text.
However, it would be an obvious violation of copyright to include the entire manuscript at the end. No, you cannot claim that you were trying to give complete context. Copying the whole thing is very different from copying only the relevant sections needed.
quote:
If I check a CD out of the library, rip it onto my computer, then listen to it every so often for the rest of my life, this is okay? It doesn't *feel* okay to me.
The only way to be sure is to talk to a lawyer, but I don't think it is.
quote:
As I was thinking about this I recalled that commercial radio pays for the music they play, and I pay by listening to the commercials, but as far as TV goes I've already been a scofflaw for several years because I have TiVo and almost never watch commercials.
My understanding is that this isn't illegal because the TiVo requires you to actually go through the commercials, even though they are at a high speed. This makes TiVo nothing more than a solid-state VCR and it has already been established that private users are allowed to record television shows and are not required to watch the commercials. After all, even without a recording device, there is nothing preventing you from physically getting up and leaving during the commercials.
Compare this to the previous version of ReplayTV where it actually skipped the commercials and did so automatically. You may notice that there is often a gap between where the show ends and the commercials begin. The software inside the ReplayTV could detect these gaps and jump forward to the next one. At most, you might see half a second of the first commercial and half a second of the last one.
Of course, Sonic Blue was sued instantly. Unlike TiVo where even if you were fast-forwarding through the commercials, you at least were forced to have some of the images in them presented to you, ReplayTV cut them out completely...and all without you lifting a finger. Other than the little hiccups, you'd never know there was a commercial in the program.
ReplayTV settled and in the latest version, that feature has been removed. Now, you have to manually press a button on the remote to skip the commercial. Plus, they don't call it "Commercial Skip" anymore but rather "Show|Nav." Instead, it's a feature to help you get through to a specific segment in the show. If you're a regular Leno viewer, then you know that the band is usually in the last segment. If you want to skip to the band, rather than having to press Fast Forward and waiting until you get there, all you have to do is press the navigation buttons and you'll skip ahead to the next segment. Never mind that the segment markers seem to happen at the commercial breaks. You're not skipping the commercials...no! You're skipping through the whole show to get to the segement where the band is!
quote:
And I hear that some radio manufacturers are considering putting TiVo style functionality into their automobile decks
I have been so spoiled by DVR that I want the Instant Replay feature everywhere...in radios; at the movies...you know you're a DVR junkie when you automatically press the remote to back up during a conversation with a live person.
quote:
This will be a great boon for me, as I usually only realize they've given weather forecast just after they've said, "And that's the weather for today, back to you."
What I'm waiting for is the centralization of all this so that consumers don't need a DVR except for stuff they really want to keep. That is, cable systems have the ability to do VOD these days...why not keep all the programs of the entire channel listing from the past two weeks? Missed the latest episode of Frontline? Forgot to program the recorder? Just go to your cable system's page and play it from there.
It'll probably never happen due to the storage and bandwidth issues since it would mean that a huge number of customers would not be watching anything live. But, I can dream, can't I?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 09-24-2004 11:54 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024