Music Stealing?????

[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.

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?

 

[jinjuku]

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

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.

...

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.