Music Stealing?????

[jamie2112]

I must ask how many folks out there have burned a cd or dvd in their homes? Is it considered stealing if MOST artists want their music heard ,and a select few who have plenty of money but have grown the record executive greed. I think its great that bands are now posting FREE downloads of albums. NIN RADIOHEAD, PEARL JAM,SMASHING PUMKINS ect. Their are many huge bands who are tired of the greed and selectiveness of record companies. That is why the record industry is failing. Because of the fans the touring bands are thriving this year, even with the bad economy. I am not a thief and I have been accused of STEALING music and not rewarding the artist. This has prompted me to ask the question, does anyone feel the same as myself? Am I a crook now because I copied a cd from a friend after I already paid for it once and lost it. I don't think so but that is my Strong opinion.. Thanks just venting....

[jamie2112]

I guess that anyone who downloads a music video off youtube and posts it here is a thief. That is stealing according to some on this forum. I have seen to many posts with youtube videos on them, with music on them:eek: Wow their sure are alot of people who are not rewarding artists.:(

[jinjuku]

I must ask how many folks out there have burned a cd or dvd in their homes? Is it considered stealing if MOST artists want their music heard ,and a select few who have plenty of money but have grown the record executive greed. I think its great that bands are now posting FREE downloads of albums. NIN RADIOHEAD, PEARL JAM,SMASHING PUMKINS ect. Their are many huge bands who are tired of the greed and selectiveness of record companies. That is why the record industry is failing. Because of the fans the touring bands are thriving this year, even with the bad economy. I am not a thief and I have been accused of STEALING music and not rewarding the artist. This has prompted me to ask the question, does anyone feel the same as myself? Am I a crook now because I copied a cd from a friend after I already paid for it once and lost it. I don't think so but that is my Strong opinion.. Thanks just venting....

Jamie, you need to be transparent. Your posting in the AAAAAARGHH! Thread said nothing about having 'purchased' music and then lost it. I have NO issue of replacing a library that you legally acquired. I just want to set the record (pun not intended) straight on that.

When I say legally acquired, I don't even mean purchased. If you have music that was given away by the artist, CD's that you swapped, CD's that you were given etc...

[caupina]

I have made VHS copies out of Laserdics, but that was a long time ago and it was because I didn't have a LD player, but as soon as I got one, I bought the originals. I have only kept the tapes of those concerts that I have not been able to find (buy). I only buy originals CDs, DVD, VHS, etc , sometimes used ones, but always stick to the originals, I like having the cover and the inserts that come along with the CD, it's all part of a historical collection for me that's going to last many years. I had bought some bootlegs though, but out of ignorance 'cause when I bought them I thought they were new releases by Pat Metheny Group, but now I know better. Do I agree with downloading music without the artist consent??? No. I don't, but if you do it for your own personal enjoyment, I have no problem with that, but if you want to make a profit out of it, that's stealing!!!!!

[Halon451]

I believe the issue is "Copying with Intent to resell or distribute". Since when is copying an album for personal enjoyment a crime? Have I been living under a rock? Hell, if this is the case, throw me in jail today - I've been doing that since the days when everyone had dual cassette decks on their stereo systems.

Then there's things like iTunes of course - which will limit your purchased download to a maximum of five computers, of course anyone who is technical-minded at all knows there are ways to get around this, but the point is, it's not the record companies they're trying to protect, it's their own profit margins. They could care less for the record companies.

What exactly is the problem here? Maybe I missed something... :confused:

[jinjuku]

I believe the issue is "Copying with Intent to resell or distribute". Since when is copying an album for personal enjoyment a crime? Have I been living under a rock? Hell, if this is the case, throw me in jail today - I've been doing that since the days when everyone had dual cassette decks on their stereo systems.

Then there's things like iTunes of course - which will limit your purchased download to a maximum of five computers, of course anyone who is technical-minded at all knows there are ways to get around this, but the point is, it's not the record companies they're trying to protect, it's their own profit margins. They could care less for the record companies.

What exactly is the problem here? Maybe I missed something... :confused:

Making a copy of works were you haven't provided compensation in the exchange (assuming the artists are not giving it away) is copy right infringement.

The thing that worries me is that people think it's ok simply because it is easy to do. I have no idea of how that notion ever came about. I understand it is human nature to get product X for absolutely minimum effort or virtually no output of energy.

Again I have no problem with artists giving stuff away, that is THEIR prerogative, not yours. There are ALOT of artists that I buy from direct nowadays. There are also labels that are not some big shameless marketing machine and I would have never heard of an artist if if wasn't for them.

Speaking of iTunes, I have never purchased a digital download just because of DRM and lossy formats. There have been more than a few here that have found out exactly what hook they swallowed on that one.

There is one thing I worry about more than some nascent copying: The loss of first sale doctrine when everything is a digital download with DRM and licensing. That is the truly scary apparition of the future of media.

[Halon451]

Making a copy of works were you haven't provided compensation in the exchange (assuming the artists are not giving it away) is copy right infringement.

The thing that worries me is that people think it's ok simply because it is easy to do. I have no idea of how that notion ever came about. I understand it is human nature to get product X for absolutely minimum effort or virtually no output of energy.

Again I have no problem with artists giving stuff away, that is THEIR prerogative, not yours. There are ALOT of artists that I buy from direct nowadays. There are also labels that are not some big shameless marketing machine and I would have never heard of an artist if if wasn't for them.

Speaking of iTunes, I have never purchased a digital download just because of DRM and lossy formats. There have been more than a few here that have found out exactly what hook they swallowed on that one.

There is one thing I worry about more than some nascent copying: The loss of first sale doctrine when everything is a digital download with DRM and licensing. That is the truly scary apparition of the future of media.

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. Record companies and artists alike anticipate a net gain from x number of units produced, and despite whatever happens when it gets into the consumers grimy little hands, the original had to have been purchased at some point or another, and there is no significant loss incurred by simply recording an album onto a CD or what have you for personal enjoyment.

I find it hard to feel sympathetic or even altruistic when it comes to taking money away from most of the mainstream "artists", when all I have to do is turn on the TV and watch an episode of 'Cribs'. Trust me, they're not hurting.

Copyright infringement is a different animal - this implies you have taken property and/or works and intend to redistribute and resell it as your own, and for your own gain. Just because I like a certain band, and want to transfer their album to a CD and listen to it elsewhere, or give it to a friend who happens to like the same band, doesn't IMO imply any sort of copyright infringement - we're gaining nothing but enjoyment out of the artist's music.

Now, many smaller and independent record labels - that's a different story. This is the realm where you find the struggling musicians - the ones who are traveling from show to show in a busted up van, hoping to earn enough money from one show to pay for gas to make it to the next and somehow eat along the way. They produce a CD - this, as it happens to be, constitutes the majority of the music I listen to, and I will do everything I can to support them, and pay for everything I get from them. I was in such a band back in the day, so I have first hand knowledge of how it is.

Incidentally - it's been years since I have copied music for my own enjoyment anyway. I do download from the internet, from iTunes - yes, I agree DRM and lossy formats leave a lot to be desired, but I listen to most of my music while driving (where 128kbps M4A meets road noise meets an adequate aftermarket car stereo system) I have no problems with it, it's fine. I pay for everything I listen to, if it makes you feel any better. :) But at the same time, in these modern times - how can you regulate the practice of copying the 1's and 0's once the original has been digitized and paid for, with all due royalties going to the artists involved? The fact is, you simply can't.

Then you have bands like Radiohead, NIN, and a few others mentioned - who have offered their latest recordings for free via download. I can respect that - when Radiohead came out with theirs, the deal was you could pay as much as you saw fit, or nothing at all, but you would still get the music. Revolutionary idea huh? Guess what - I STILL paid full price for the album - which via their download page equated to roughly 7.5 british pounds, as that was the currency used. :D

[jinjuku]

Then you have bands like Radiohead, NIN, and a few others mentioned - who have offered their latest recordings for free via download. I can respect that - when Radiohead came out with theirs, the deal was you could pay as much as you saw fit, or nothing at all, but you would still get the music. Revolutionary idea huh? Guess what - I STILL paid full price for the album - which via their download page equated to roughly 7.5 british pounds, as that was the currency used. :D

I am loving it that bands are going this route. About time. These are the ones that will get my full support, unfortunately, humans being humans, you and I will be in the minority. It's a shame and a short coming.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with getting filthy stinking rich off of my creative efforts. I am trying to get there. Not saying I will live an audacious life style, but I would like to retire and enjoy the simple things by the time I am 45.

[Halon451]

BTW, I see nothing wrong with getting filthy stinking rich off of my creative efforts. I am trying to get there. Not saying I will live an audacious life style, but I would like to retire and enjoy the simple things by the time I am 45.

I certainly wouldn't fault you for that. :) First round is from whichever of us makes it first! :D

[Pyrrho]

...

Copyright infringement is a different animal - this implies you have taken property and/or works and intend to redistribute and resell it as your own, and for your own gain. Just because I like a certain band, and want to transfer their album to a CD and listen to it elsewhere, or give it to a friend who happens to like the same band, doesn't IMO imply any sort of copyright infringement - we're gaining nothing but enjoyment out of the artist's music.
...

I am no lawyer, so you might want to consult one for getting things correct in your jurisdiction, but I believe that there is a big difference between copying something you bought for your own use (like sticking in your car or on your MP3 player), and giving away copies to your friends. In the case of copying it for your own use, I believe (in the U.S.) laws regarding "backup" copies would come into play. But distributing copies to other people of copyrighted material without permission to do so, even for free, is copyright infringement.

Reselling something as your own is not simply copyright infringement, but also plagiarism, which is a different and additional matter.


For more on these matters, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagerism

Again, as I am not a lawyer, none of the above is to be construed as legal advice, and laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, so for legal advice, one should consult an appropriate lawyer.

[Tarub]

Again, as I am not a lawyer, none of the above is to be construed as legal advice, and laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, so for legal advice, one should consult an appropriate lawyer.


With consultation fee, filing & paperwork fee, keeping your privacy fee, gas consumption going to the lawyer's office, etc. I will just buy dozens of original cd or dvd and it's probably a lot cheaper.:p

[Halon451]

I am no lawyer, so you might want to consult one for getting things correct in your jurisdiction, but I believe that there is a big difference between copying something you bought for your own use (like sticking in your car or on your MP3 player), and giving away copies to your friends. In the case of copying it for your own use, I believe (in the U.S.) laws regarding "backup" copies would come into play. But distributing copies to other people of copyrighted material without permission to do so, even for free, is copyright infringement.

Reselling something as your own is not simply copyright infringement, but also plagiarism, which is a different and additional matter.


For more on these matters, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagerism

Again, as I am not a lawyer, none of the above is to be construed as legal advice, and laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, so for legal advice, one should consult an appropriate lawyer.

Whatever - I'm not going to debate the semantics of this nor am I going to get wrapped around the axle on it, and I'm certainly not going to consult a lawyer for merely expressing my own personal point of view. I specifically said nothing about distributing copies of anything. Distributing implies more than just the casual recording of an original unit for personal use, and yes would enter into copyright infringment territory, which - had I said that, might appreciate the helpful links you posted along with your statement; and - had I been living under a rock for the last 30 years, and might not know the difference, which, sir, I believe that I do. So thanks anyway, and have a great day.:cool:

[Pyrrho]

Whatever - I'm not going to debate the semantics of this nor am I going to get wrapped around the axle on it, and I'm certainly not going to consult a lawyer for merely expressing my own personal point of view. I specifically said nothing about distributing copies of anything.[emphasis added] Distributing implies more than just the casual recording of an original unit for personal use, and yes would enter into copyright infringment territory, which - had I said that, might appreciate the helpful links you posted along with your statement; and - had I been living under a rock for the last 30 years, and might not know the difference, which, sir, I believe that I do. So thanks anyway, and have a great day.:cool:

On the contrary, you specifically mentioned distributing copyrighted material:

...
Copyright infringement is a different animal - this implies you have taken property and/or works and intend to redistribute and resell it as your own, and for your own gain. Just because I like a certain band, and want to transfer their album to a CD and listen to it elsewhere, or give it to a friend who happens to like the same band[emphasis added], doesn't IMO imply any sort of copyright infringement - we're gaining nothing but enjoyment out of the artist's music.

...

That is where the copyright violation takes place. Making a CD copy and giving it to a friend is a copyright violation. If you gave away the original, and did not keep a copy for yourself, then there is no copyright violation.*

_______________
*Again, I am not a lawyer, so this should not be construed as legal advice. If one wants legal advice, one should consult an appropriate attorney.

[Halon451]

Pyrrho, maybe it's you who needs a link to further explanation, please allow me to provide one:

Definition - "Distribute" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distribute)

I mentioned a scenario of giving one copy to one friend (hypothetically). That is not distribution. If I were to make one hundred copies and give them to one hundred friends I might take you up on your case.

Check. :)

[jinjuku]

Pyrrho, maybe it's you who needs a link to further explanation, please allow me to provide one:

Definition - "Distribute" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distribute)

I mentioned a scenario of giving one copy to one friend (hypothetically). That is not distribution. If I were to make one hundred copies and give them to one hundred friends I might take you up on your case.

Check. :)

Most prudent people understand in context what distribute means. Bottom line is, when you make a choice to give someone a copy of a CD, you have stepped over the line. Morally speaking, it isn't your's to make a copy of and give. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this.

FYI, I am arguing the semantics of it. In reality I am sure there are a ton of under represented artists that are happy if some bootlegging is going on, and also very un-happy if a lot of it is going on and they aren't moving merchandise.

As far as arguing the definition of distribution: There is no such thing as slightly pregnant.

[Halon451]

Okay, so let me ask both of you this: I don't know either of you personally, nor do I know your ages, but in all of the however many years you have been living, have you ever made a copy of an album or dubbed a movie and "lent" it to a buddy? Have you ever done this with even a song or two? Have you ever made a mix-tape or CD for a sweetie? Is my point getting across now? Knock-knock

I just don't understand why you're both taking such a high-brow lofty, look-down-your-nose approach to this issue, because if I was a betting man, I'd say both of you are just as guilty as the rest of us at some point in your lives. :cool:

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho, maybe it's you who needs a link to further explanation, please allow me to provide one:

Definition - "Distribute" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distribute)

I mentioned a scenario of giving one copy to one friend (hypothetically). That is not distribution. If I were to make one hundred copies and give them to one hundred friends I might take you up on your case.

Check. :)


You need to look again at the page at your own link. It says under definition 2:

b: to give out or deliver especially to members of a group
(see definition 2 b at your link)

Note, "especially" does not mean "only".

Giving it out to one person is distribution, according to your source. Additionally, you will find it even more clearly expressed at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distribute

To give out one copy is distribution. Of course, you are unlikely to prosecuted for this, but you could be.

[Halon451]

You need to look again at the page at your own link. It says under definition 2:


(see definition 2 b at your link)

Note, "especially" does not mean "only".

Giving it out to one person is distribution, according to your source. Additionally, you will find it even more clearly expressed at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distribute

To give out one copy is distribution. Of course, you are unlikely to prosecuted for this, but you could be.

Uh-huh... now answer my question. :)

[jinjuku]

Okay, so let me ask both of you this: I don't know either of you personally, nor do I know your ages, but in all of the however many years you have been living, have you ever made a copy of an album or dubbed a movie and "lent" it to a buddy? Have you ever done this with even a song or two? Have you ever made a mix-tape or CD for a sweetie? Is my point getting across now? Knock-knock

I just don't understand why you're both taking such a high-brow lofty, look-down-your-nose approach to this issue, because if I was a betting man, I'd say both of you are just as guilty as the rest of us at some point in your lives. :cool:

I can honestly say as an adult that I have never exceeded my fair use rights to media that I already own.

Example:

Go to video.google.com and type in guitars suck. You will see a compilation of guitarists. These segments are typically 30-45 minutes long. These are submitted by the guitarists.

There I found a cat by the name of Andy Timmons. Went to his website and he has some freebie stuff and some streaming audio. So does his label "Favored Nations". I now own 4 of his albums. I lent two of his CD's out to my brother to check out and he went and purchased some stuff from Andy (and got an autographed poster as a surprise). I sure didn't get one...

I don't have to violate Andy's works because he and his label are smart enough to do the obvious. I am not in violation to loan out a CD, this is covered by first sale doctrine.

Now if you want to be an artist and not do this, that is the artists prerogative. NOT YOURS.

The issue is the ATTITUDE of doing something that is not yours to do with because it is EASY.

[Pyrrho]

Okay, so let me ask both of you this: I don't know either of you personally, nor do I know your ages, but in all of the however many years you have been living, have you ever made a copy of an album or dubbed a movie and "lent" it to a buddy? Have you ever done this with even a song or two? Have you ever made a mix-tape or CD for a sweetie? Is my point getting across now? Knock-knock

I just don't understand why you're both taking such a high-brow lofty, look-down-your-nose approach to this issue, because if I was a betting man, I'd say both of you are just as guilty as the rest of us at some point in your lives. :cool:

We are talking about what is legal and what is not legal. I am not presently interested in saying whether or not the law should be as it it, nor am I presently interested in saying whether or not I abide by the law.

The reason for discussing what the law is, in this context, is in order to prevent accidental violations of the law. Since, by law, ignorance of the law is no excuse, it is good to know the law well enough to avoid problems. That is why I gave a link to a Wikipedia article about copyright violations, instead of a link to some abstruse on line legal document. I wanted to provide enough information for the practical use of most people, not a precise lesson in the law. Still, almost any discussion of the law, even in general terms, tends to start sounding pedantic very quickly.

I am not presently interested in saying that one should abide by the law. I am simply interested in the accurate depiction of what the law is. Whether you or anyone else chooses to violate the law is a matter for the authorities, and is not presently my concern.

Copyright violation is considered to be a form of theft, as one is stealing the intellectual property of someone else. It is not the physical object to which one retains rights when one owns a copyright; rather, it is the information contained in the object to which the copyright owner retains rights. Thus, when you buy a CD, you own the physical object, and can give it away, sell it, destroy it, or add it to a collage that you are making as an art project, and the copyright owner cannot stop this. But, the copyright owner retains the rights to the information contained on the CD, which is why copying and distributing the information on a copyrighted CD (and most CDs are copyrighted) without permission is illegal.

The rights to the information that are retained by a copyright owner are not absolute; in the U.S., typically one may make a backup copy and there are "fair use" exceptions to allow for use of some of the material under certain circumstances; see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Such things can get complicated and messy, and under certain circumstances, whether a copyright law has been broken or not may be the subject of debate even among legal scholars. I am not interested in pursuing this subject to such a point as that.


To take us back to how I started in this thread, it was simply a reaction to a misstatement you made regarding copyright law. All I was interested in doing was correcting that matter. I am not interested in discussing whether or not the law should be as it is, nor am I presently interested in discussing the morality of breaking copyright laws.

[Halon451]

I can honestly say as an adult that I have never exceeded my fair use rights to media that I already own.

Nor as an adult, have I - we have covered this already. I'll take this as an admission of such activities in younger years then? Thank you.

We are talking about what is legal and what is not legal. I am not presently interested in saying whether or not the law should be as it it, nor am I presently interested in saying whether or not I abide by the law.

The reason for discussing what the law is, in this context, is in order to prevent accidental violations of the law. Since, by law, ignorance of the law is no excuse, it is good to know the law well enough to avoid problems. That is why I gave a link to a Wikipedia article about copyright violations, instead of a link to some abstruse on line legal document. I wanted to provide enough information for the practical use of most people, not a precise lesson in the law. Still, almost any discussion of the law, even in general terms, tends to start sounding pedantic very quickly.

I am not presently interested in saying that one should abide by the law. I am simply interested in the accurate depiction of what the law is. Whether you or anyone else chooses to violate the law is a matter for the authorities, and is not presently my concern.

Copyright violation is considered to be a form of theft, as one is stealing the intellectual property of someone else. It is not the physical object to which one retains rights when one owns a copyright; rather, it is the information contained in the object to which the copyright owner retains rights. Thus, when you buy a CD, you own the physical object, and can give it away, sell it, destroy it, or add it to a collage that you are making as an art project, and the copyright owner cannot stop this. But, the copyright owner retains the rights to the information contained on the CD, which is why copying and distributing the information on a copyrighted CD (and most CDs are copyrighted) without permission is illegal.

The rights to the information that are retained by a copyright owner are not absolute; in the U.S., typically one may make a backup copy and there are "fair use" exceptions to allow for use of some of the material under certain circumstances; see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Such things can get complicated and messy, and under certain circumstances, whether a copyright law has been broken or not may be the subject of debate even among legal scholars. I am not interested in pursuing this subject to such a point as that.


To take us back to how I started in this thread, it was simply a reaction to a misstatement you made regarding copyright law. All I was interested in doing was correcting that matter. I am not interested in discussing whether or not the law should be as it is, nor am I presently interested in discussing the morality of breaking copyright laws.

(Applause...)

Wow. You both should run for office. I have not seen such a roundabout complicated way of avoiding a simple question in a while.

I had to assume jinjuku's answer based on his partial answer, Pyrrho - I don't even know what to say - outstanding work. But you still didn't answer my question, my friend. ;)

Fact of the matter gentlemen, and the reason for my simple question is this: I am completely unconcerned with all this fluff you keep posting unless you can point blank and honestly answer that you have never in your life copied the work of an artist or movie for personal use other than your own. Refer to my previous examples of what I mean by this. Otherwise you're simply spitting in the wind as far as I'm concerned. :cool:

So let's make a deal - no more two hundred word posts, just a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

[jinjuku]

Nor as an adult, have I - we have covered this already. I'll take this as an admission of such activities in younger years then? Thank you.

Name me a youth that hasn't transgressed SOMETHING. One of the defining characteristics of an ADULT is knowing better. It's also one of the characteristics of becoming an adult. Looks like some here have had a better time of it than others. Any thing that I have done as a youth has passed the statutes of limitations:)

BTW, one of the defining characteristics of a morally corrupt person is knowing better and doing it anyway.

Plus, you really are trying to change the original topic. That ain't going to fly...

[Halon451]

I must ask how many folks out there have burned a cd or dvd in their homes? Is it considered stealing if MOST artists want their music heard ,and a select few who have plenty of money but have grown the record executive greed. I think its great that bands are now posting FREE downloads of albums. NIN RADIOHEAD, PEARL JAM,SMASHING PUMKINS ect. Their are many huge bands who are tired of the greed and selectiveness of record companies. That is why the record industry is failing. Because of the fans the touring bands are thriving this year, even with the bad economy. I am not a thief and I have been accused of STEALING music and not rewarding the artist. This has prompted me to ask the question, does anyone feel the same as myself? Am I a crook now because I copied a cd from a friend after I already paid for it once and lost it. I don't think so but that is my Strong opinion.. Thanks just venting....

On the contraire, I believe I am dead on topic. :)

[jinjuku]

On the contraire, I believe I am dead on topic. :)

Then we would be in disagreement.

[Halon451]

Then we would be in disagreement.

Are you reading a thread different than what I'm getting on my computer? :confused:

[jinjuku]

Are you reading a thread different than what I'm getting on my computer? :confused:

Nope, same thread. Just off on a tangent that you don't seem to realize.

[MinusTheBear]

If someone wants to download a movie or a song on their computer who is going stop them. Who really cares then?

[Sheep]

Halon, just so you know, there is a lot of people that support your side of the arguement, they just don't want to have to talk to these losers.

Music and movies or not like normal products. There is no guarantee, there is no specifications, it's just someone's art(or lack there of, usually the latter[Disturbed, Slipknot]). When I buy a CD, I throw down money on something I usually am not fully familiar with. I don't know every song, just the singles that play on the radio, or even none at all. I'm want to be confident in my purchase. That's why I will download an album, and see if I like it. If i don't, I will delete it, I don't have enough room to store every single one. If I like it, I will buy it, then rip it on to my computer.

And as MinusTheBear said, what the hell are you going to do about it? You have this messed view where the artist actually makes heeps and heeps of money. Rich artists are rich because they endorse everything in sight, not because they sell a lot of albums.

SheepStar

[Sheep]

Hey Jinjuku, did you pay for that image that you're using as an avatar? That looks like a comic/anime character.

Better break out the whip and give yourself 15 lashes.

SheepStar

[Halon451]

Halon, just so you know, there is a lot of people that support your side of the arguement, they just don't want to have to talk to these losers.

No worries Sheep, it was a fun time for me. Thanks though. I do find it amusing that suddenly both of them seemed to lose their steam when I pressed for an answer on my simple question. Hmmmm...

I guess some people simply have a bone to pick with the world around them, I don't know.

[jinjuku]

Hey Jinjuku, did you pay for that image that you're using as an avatar? That looks like a comic/anime character.

Better break out the whip and give yourself 15 lashes.

SheepStar

It's from Battle Pope, and yes, I am allowed to use it...

[jinjuku]

No worries Sheep, it was a fun time for me. Thanks though. I do find it amusing that suddenly both of them seemed to lose their steam when I pressed for an answer on my simple question. Hmmmm...

I guess some people simply have a bone to pick with the world around them, I don't know.

Halon, you asked your question. I gave you an answer... Again, I wish more artists put stuff out there for free or some other alternative.

What is being debated here is whether you have the right to make a choice about freeing someone else's efforts w/o their permission. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Again, just because you can doesn't give you the right.

How about this: Why don't you do something creative, that you have to make a living on and then see it out there distributed for free. It will change your tune. It has happened to our software company.

[Halon451]

Halon, you asked your question. I gave you an answer... Again, I wish more artists put stuff out there for free or some other alternative.

What is being debated here is whether you have the right to make a choice about freeing someone else's efforts w/o their permission. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Again, just because you can doesn't give you the right.

How about this: Why don't you do something creative, that you have to make a living on and then see it out there distributed for free. It will change your tune. It has happened to our software company.

Maybe you missed this in one of my earlier posts, I didn't really go into much detail, but I was in a band that toured much of the US back when I was in my early 20's. We put our own blood, sweat and money earned from whatever jobs we had at the time into self-producing our one and only CD, and as far as the music is concerned - every bit of passion and creativity we could muster went into the mix. As it turns out, we ended up giving away more CD's than we sold, simply because we chose to do it that way. We could have probably made a good bit off the sales of both the disc the T-shirts we had, the shows we played, etc. If the internet had been as easily accessible back then as it is these days the only difference is we would be watching our songs get downloaded for free everywhere, and wouldn't have thought twice about it.

There's music and art, and then there's business. The two have never mixed, and never will, despite how inextricably entertwined they may become at the higher levels.

And again for the last time - if there is one thing we have agreed on thus far is that neither of us has (as quoted before - in our adult lives) committed the acts for which we are so debating presently. This is a hypothetical debate - I'm not using or copying art/music illegally, neither are you, we're debating where the line is drawn, which is again directly related to the original post of this thread.

[jinjuku]

As it turns out, we ended up giving away more CD's than we sold, simply because we chose to do it that way.

And again for the last time - if there is one thing we have agreed on thus far is that neither of us has (as quoted before - in our adult lives) committed the acts for which we are so debating presently. This is a hypothetical debate - I'm not using or copying art/music illegal, neither are you, we're debating where the line is drawn, which is again directly related to the original post of this thread.

I understand, I also don't agree with a good amount of copyright. Especially how long creative works are protected. Disney is almost single handedly responsible for this. I don't consume any of their product.

Again, I also wish artists would break out of the traditional big label system. More and more are, and it is a good thing.

DRM is just asinine, which is why I have never in my life purchased a piece of music that either comes with DRM or an explicit use license. I think it is just crap that I am not allowed to break the content protection on a DVD to exercise fair use (fair use isn't a right, it is an affirmative defense to being sued for copyright infringement).

I highlighted CHOSE in you response. That is key. You as an artist have the right to do whatever you want with your efforts. No one else outside of provisions made under copyright, or the first sale doctrine do. That I wouldn't go out and d/l your music for free is a show of respect for your efforts. Now if you were a band that wouldn't even let me sample your works, then I wouldn't want to do business with you. But it doesn't give me the right to help my self.

There are other ways of not supporting a big label. I purchase 90% of my and DVD's used. There are some artists that I buy from directly as a show of support.

Far as the OP, I already stated that ripping music you have paid for is fine. Provided you aren't giving it out in form of copy.

[Halon451]

I understand, I also don't agree with a good amount of copyright. Especially how long creative works are protected. Disney is almost single handedly responsible for this. I don't consume any of their product.

Again, I also wish artists would break out of the traditional big label system. More and more are, and it is a good thing.

DRM is just asinine, which is why I have never in my life purchased a piece of music that either comes with DRM or an explicit use license. I think it is just crap that I am not allowed to break the content protection on a DVD to exercise fair use (fair use isn't a right, it is an affirmative defense to being sued for copyright infringement).

I highlighted CHOSE in you response. That is key. You as an artist have the right to do whatever you want with your efforts. No one else outside of provisions made under copyright, or the first sale doctrine do. That I wouldn't go out and d/l your music for free is a show of respect for your efforts. Now if you were a band that wouldn't even let me sample your works, then I wouldn't want to do business with you. But it doesn't give me the right to help my self.

There are other ways of not supporting a big label. I purchase 90% of my and DVD's used. There are some artists that I buy from directly as a show of support.

Far as the OP, I already stated that ripping music you have paid for is fine. Provided you aren't giving it out in form of copy.

Fair enough. I totally agree with most of this - in my own case, the reason we chose to hand out our material was because we felt that it was more important to get our stuff out to as many people as possible, rather than the $$ we could have made otherwise. To us, even though perhaps our wallets would have been a little thicker, it would have lessened the value of what it was we were doing in the first place and the entire reason we were choosing to make music. I also understand that this is a minority mentality and a lot of people get into music for the sole purpose of making money - a lot of mainstream rappers comes immediately to mind, but that's besides the point.

Movies and film - different animal. Hollywood is a huge enterprise in general, and in order to make an A-list film requires the resources and funding that only the major studios can provide - otherwise there is independent film, which may or may not fall into the category of my description of my band as an equivalent. Therefore their interest is in protecting that investment - same with major label recording companies. They speculate a certain number of tickets sold at the theaters, then subsequently a certain number of sales from the DVD version when released. Everything has to be paid for. I understand this, and do not object.

Where I draw the line is once an album/movie has been paid for at the original price, as long as the buyer doesn't make a thousand copies and hand them out for free, there should be no problem. We're getting down to the gnat's a$$ at the level we're debating, and it's plain ridiculous. Nobody is losing anything because a buddy copies one disc for another buddy, except for maybe the price of one CD-R, or DVD-R. This is all at the end-user level, and I believe there should be some level of tolerance granted, a.) because unless you send the police to every door in the world you're never going to stop it, and b.) what's the point?

[Pyrrho]

...
Fact of the matter gentlemen, and the reason for my simple question is this: I am completely unconcerned with all this fluff you keep posting unless you can point blank and honestly answer that you have never in your life copied the work of an artist or movie for personal use other than your own. Refer to my previous examples of what I mean by this. Otherwise you're simply spitting in the wind as far as I'm concerned. :cool:

...

Your question is totally irrelevant to what I was saying. The simple fact is, you said something that was incorrect regarding copyright law, and I pointed that out. I expressed no value judgment regarding whether the law was as it should be or not. My contribution to this thread was simply to point out the error of fact, but you seem to take it as some sort of attack on you rather than the simple matter of fact that it is. It is you who have introduced irrelevant fluff, not me.

The copyright laws are what they are regardless of what I have or have not done. If I never broke the law, the law would be as it is, or if I spend every waking moment of my life breaking the law, the law would still be what it is. If you imagine that my statement that you were mistaken about copyright law is somehow an attack on your character or manhood or whatever, then you have much more serious problems than just being mistaken about copyright law.

[Halon451]

Blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah-blah, blah, blah, blah....

And you still didn't answer the question.

[Halon451]

And settle down there Pyrrho, I'm not taking anything on this thread too seriously, I'm actually having a bit of fun with all this - largely in part to watching the peanut gallery whip themselves into a frenzy regarding intricacies of the law over something so asinine as this. Thanks for the great time. :)

[jinjuku]

And you still didn't answer the question.

In the context of this topic he doesn't have to answer your question. You made a statement that was mis-informed about copyright. You were corrected. That doesn't get invalidated because you ask if someone has ever done something against the law.

You are using a broad, extremely undefined question to bolster your own view, or to simply call someone hypocritical.

This thread has run it's course. Humans are creatures of ultimate utility as in getting something for nothing. I understand that. I don't worked up or lose sleep over it.

But I will leave you with this: The last business owner who infringed our copyright by pirating our $4K software product cost him self $36K in damages and $22k in attorney fees. I am not sure what he had to pay the firm representing him, but figure $22K-$44K since he used a big 'white shoe' firm.

[MinusTheBear]

I guarantee everyone that has posted in this thread has infringed copyrights or plagarized something at one time in their life. I bet I can look at everyones history of what they have posted here on this website and could find some copyright they have infringed or plagarism. Alot of times we do not even know we are doing it. We are all guilty of this, I do think this is even worthy of an argument.

[Halon451]

In the context of this topic he doesn't have to answer your question. You made a statement that was mis-informed about copyright. You were corrected. That doesn't get invalidated because you ask if someone has ever done something against the law.

You are using a broad, extremely undefined question to bolster your own view, or to simply call someone hypocritical.

This thread has run it's course. Humans are creatures of ultimate utility as in getting something for nothing. I understand that. I don't worked up or lose sleep over it.

But I will leave you with this: The last business owner who infringed our copyright by pirating our $4K software product cost him self $36K in damages and $22k in attorney fees. I am not sure what he had to pay the firm representing him, but figure $22K-$44K since he used a big 'white shoe' firm.


Bulls**t jinjuku. It's you guys who got wrapped around the issue of what is constituted as distribution under copyright laws - I personally believe the law is not descript enough when it comes to single person to person sharing - despite your wikipedia links, I just didn't see it.

I targeted you guys specifically and yes - my question was entirely relevant because both of you found a need to stand up and start preaching, like usual, so I called you out, plain and simple. Go lick your wounds like men and stop trying to salvage whatever point you were trying to make in this circus of a thread.

I agree - this thing has run its course - we left the OP in the dust even. Mods, please shut it down at your discretion. ;)

[jinjuku]

I guarantee everyone that has posted in this thread has infringed copyrights or plagarized something at one time in their life. I bet I can look at everyones history of what they have posted here on this website and could find some copyright they have infringed or plagarism. Alot of times we do not even know we are doing it. We are all guilty of this, I do think this is even worthy of an argument.

There was a famous saying about modern government and laws:

"Find me the most honest man and have him write six sentences in his own hand and I will find something there to hang him with"

That isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the pointed distribution of copyrighted works were people damned well know better but do it any ways. Big difference.

I don't mind having this conversation, but to mutate it beyond what any reasonable person knows what we are all discussing is disingenuous.

There was a study about the amount of monetary damages that if tallied up over a year due to inadvertent copyright violations would be in the 100's of millions. Truly startling, so in a way Minus, you have a VERY valid point.

I am a proponent of FAIR copyright laws and FAIR use laws. The balance is so messed up in the favor of big business:

1. Insane copyright extensions
2. DRM
3. Broadcast Flag
4. HDCP

I will honestly get to the point that if they don't want me using it, I won't. The library is full of books, I like the outdoors, I like building speakers etc...

What I won't countenance outside of all of this is copying someones efforts and not rewarding them for it. It is simple as the golden rule. It's also something that I wouldn't teach my children.

[jinjuku]

Bulls**t jinjuku. It's you guys who got wrapped around the issue of what is constituted as distribution under copyright laws - I personally believe the law is not descript enough when it comes to single person to person sharing - despite your wikipedia links, I just didn't see it.

I targeted you guys specifically and yes - my question was entirely relevant because both of you found a need to stand up and start preaching, like usual, so I called you out, plain and simple. Go lick your wounds like men and stop trying to salvage whatever point you were trying to make in this circus of a thread.

I agree - this thing has run its course - we left the OP in the dust even. Mods, please shut it down at your discretion. ;)

Licking wounds? The current law supports both Pyyro and my view point. You can either believe it or not...

Ask the people that got nailed by RIAA.

[Art_H]

What really gets me going is the industry's poor quality in music and movies. They expect that when they produce shody quality that the populace will just take it and happily shovel it into their mouths with a grin:D

What has hapenned here is that the industry has not kept pace with the technology and playing media. The government collects taxes on MP3 players, yet to get a quality mp3 to place upon it, you more often than not have to make it yourself. And if I want an MP3, why should I have to download it and pay for it when I already own the CD? Why can't I make a copy of a cd or DVD because they are fragile and the industry has not produced a quality plastic to package the aluminum substrate, that doesn't scratch.
There is not even an exchange program in the 25 years od cds being on the market. I just heard that there is a music retailer that will resurface scratched cds. Great. Been a long time coming.

I just bought a DVD player taht happens to play SACDs. The problem is that I now have the massive quest to try and find SACDs to play. SACDs can now be made with a dual layer, able to play in regular cd players. I would see this as a natural progression in tech, and for the love of the music and quality of sound. But the industry is more interested in making money any way it can. With their cut throat methods and tactics, who is really on the moral high ground here. A guy who makes a copy of a Disney DVD for his kid so they don't scratch it, or the record labels who have continualy screwed artists and the public.

I want high quality music. I want multi-channel music. I will buy your material, but dammit, make it fair priced, and a quality recording. MAybe with quality MP3 files as well. Let's embrace the beauty of the music and bring forth a revolution of quality that has been reduced to the old AM one speaker car sound systems with the MP3 phenomenon and head phones.

A great example is Neil Young, who is releasing his comilations on BluRay only. He was waiting for such a format to release his works. An artist who cares. There are currently just over 5000 SACDs in circ. Try and get some of them... Amazon has some but they are way overpriced. The local cd retailers hardly even know what they are... and good luck trying to find a good selection of music now in a retail store, over half the damn store is DVDs:eek:

I believe that artists should be able to make money from their talent and efforts. I'd like to see artist have more control with their work. Eliminating the record labels. The tech is there.

Just a quick example here. Who actually funded the movie "The Hottie and the Nottie"? with Paris Hilton. You gatta be kidding me. 'nuff said there.
Iron Man, on the other hand, was/is amazing. That is a movie to see in the theaters. That is what will/should stop people from downloading movies/cams.

Be fruitfull and create/listen to beautiful music...;)

[jinjuku]

What really gets me going is the industry's poor quality in music and movies. They expect that when they produce shody quality that the populace will just take it and happily shovel it into their mouths with a grin:D

What has hapenned here is that the industry has not kept pace with the technology and playing media. The government collects taxes on MP3 players, yet to get a quality mp3 to place upon it, you more often than not have to make it yourself. And if I want an MP3, why should I have to download it and pay for it when I already own the CD? Why can't I make a copy of a cd or DVD because they are fragile and the industry has not produced a quality plastic to package the aluminum substrate, that doesn't scratch.


Agreed. You can rip your CD's by the way. There is no one that will take you to court over it. All perfectly legal. DVD's should be the same way but remember: BIG business runs this country and sets the laws, not government. It is ridiculous that you aren't legally allowed to bypass CSS (technically it is doable) for DVD's that you own.

[Halon451]

What is today, the day for stirring up hornet's nests around here on topics that should have just been left to drift quietly off the radar? :confused:

[Art_H]

What is today, the day for stirring up hornet's nests around here on topics that should have just been left to drift quietly off the radar? :confused:


I don't think the gradual decay of quality music in the mainstream and the limited media quality for purists (or just informed people) a small thing.

Copyright issues aside, where's my 5.1 audio? It looks as if I'm going to have to buy online from Hong Kong to get my SACDs...

I'm looking around for the hornets flying around around, but don't see any here. I don't think that a mature discussion on the direction of media laws and formats to play in our quality equipment an issue, or stirring up a hornet's nest. Rather respectful concern as a quality oriented consumer, that the woould like to see the really simple changes come into play, de-escalating the tension around this industry.

Just as the heart of audioholics site/forum is quality and knowledge and sharing ideas of sound in all aspects, I think media is a big part of that.
The media is truly the heart and soul of the sound, and anythinng laccking there will result in poor sound no matter the speakers/system.:)

Hopefully with the BluRay scene, things will change. Toshiba has not given up either, and still has some sticks up their sleeve with which to smack Sony around. :D

Healthy competition benefits everyone.

[Halon451]

I don't think the gradual decay of quality music in the mainstream and the limited media quality for purists (or just informed people) a small thing.

That's not exactly what stirred the hornet's nest the first time around. I think we can all agree with you on the above statement. But it might be a good topic for a new thread. Feel free amigo, the floor's yours. :)

Oh and welcome to the forum. ;)