|
Some facts about music and copyright:
When you purchase a CD you own one physical copy of the material. You do not own the contents of the CD. The contents remain the property of the copyright owner - who licensed the intellectual property (the songs) to the owner of the recording. This is an important concept to understand. The concept of copyrighting intellectual property is what allowed books to be published, symphonies written and movies made. Understand the difference between the CONCRETE - which is the actual CD, and the ABSTRACT - which is the content. As such it is not and has never been legal to tape a record, tape songs off the radio, photocopy sheet music, copy CDs, share mp3s or make your own compilation CDs out of CDs you have bought. If you had the right to make a compilation CD, you would also have the right to sell it, as you would own it. Can you see this? If you could do that, anyone could take anyone elses work and make money, while the creator of it saw nothing. Taping songs, copying CDs, photocopying sheet music, and sharing mp3s all deprive artists of income. Imagine if a whole school handed out 500 photocopies of a song you wrote. That's 500 sheet music sales you missed out on, while those with the music may even make money off you - by say playing your song a a gig. If you own a business you do not have the right to play a CD you bought to generate business. Clothing stores that play music, pay a license to do so. They fill out forms detailing what songs they've played, and a the money from the licenses get's distributed back to the songwriters. Radio stations, TV stations pay this fee as well. APRA in Australia is nonprofit, and distributes all it receives (after costs). Thus the amount of money you see for your song playing on radio varies from year to year. You do not have the right to use a song or recording as an advertisement for your business without obtaining a license for the song, or buying the song. Buying a song is very different to buying a CD that that song is on. Very different. If you owned the song you could advertise with it, copy it, sell it, share it. Whatever you like. So please, in forming an opinion about how "right and wrong" filesharing is, keep in mind the difference between CONCRETE property and INTELLECTUAL property, and understand you only ever owned the single physical copy, nothing else. The laws protecting copyright have been in existence for 200 years at least. What is new is the magnitude of the current piracy, and that this new generation of thieves seem to somehow think it is their right to own music that they didn't create. Many thanks for reading. Hugh |
What about when a band performs a cover song?
|
Quote:
4 year old arrested (yes, arrested) by the RIAA for singing "Rubber ducky, you're the one" in the bathtub. The way I see it, laws are temporary, and based on the times. We see a world today that is realizing that in order to give gay groups total equal rights, they must be allowed to marry legally...so the laws are about to change to accomodate this new train of thought. This is February, and so it is Black History Month. Years ago...whites made the blacks sit in the back of the bus until one day a young woman refused to give up her front seat,,,was taken to jail, and that spurred a huge change for the lives of everybody when we realized we were wrong. I predict that the RIAA will eventually lose tihs battle, and not be able to force this rule of copywrite infringement. There are just too many people to arrest to bring justice to their rules, and a new approach will have to be determined. </font> |
Quote:
If the song has never been commercially released they need a negotiated license. You can get in hot water without these. If you wanted to put the recording in a film, you'd need permission from the recording owner AND the song copyright owner |
Quote:
That is the way the laws will change. You can't attempt to erase progress. Copyright is fundamental to commercialised and saleable art. Landmark idea. Removing it would be like deinventing the wheel because people steal cars. The internets days of self regulation are numbered. Just as human societies needed laws in the face of choas and exploitation, so will there be internet laws and internet police. Mp3 thiefs will be largely to blame for the loss of privacy. [ 02-05-2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
Quote:
If the song has never been commercially released they need a negotiated license. You can get in hot water without these. If you wanted to put the recording in a film, you'd need permission from the recording owner AND the song copyright owner </font>[/QUOTE]When they play the cover song in a bar? |
Quote:
4 year old arrested (yes, arrested) by the RIAA for singing "Rubber ducky, you're the one" in the bathtub. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]You're missing the point. You can sing anything you like. Were the kids parents to record the kid and sell the CD they would be infringing copyright. Apparently U2 were sued for Bono singing a few lines of "Where are the clowns, send in the clowns" on a CD release of a live concert. If true, him singing it wasn't the issue, it was that they sold it on a CD without going through the proper channels. When I was performing regularly in Australia, my band would fill out song lists of the songs we performed that went to APRA. We received tiny percentages of the clubs APRA fees. If we did originals we saw a bit of money. However, if we were doing someone elses songs, the writer would get some money. Not much, but enough that if a guy wrote a killer hit song, and every band played it for ten years in every club, he's see a justifiable return on creating something with that much demand. The system relies on honesty, and as you are all aware, people being sued for minor copyright infringement doesn;t happen. But it offers protection and assurances that if someone makes a million of your work, you will be compensated. It means you can't be ripped off. These kids stealing songs are ripping us off. Collectively ruining the entire industry by draining record companies of the cash they need to record new music. Say a company records 50 albums in a year. Only one of those may sell. That one will fund the 50 for the next year. The sellers subsidise those that don't sell. I've had records made, subsidised by big selling records. Had the mp3 theft occured 10 years earlier than it did, I would not have a career. |
Quote:
A festival I used to play at - Black Stump - would ALWAYS get our set lists, for they paid a fee and handed in a list of songs performed, so the fee was distributed accordingly. [ 02-05-2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
No amount of prosecution, lawsuits, and rule quoting will help a flawed and wasteful business model that is also out of line with consumer demand and behind in technology.
I think it would serve artist's more if they would tackle the main cause of the problem and demand that their representatives and producers change the way they do things, rather than make futile and disenchanting attacks on the symptoms. Of course not every artist attacks and discredits filesharing so dont be fooled into thinking so people. |
The cover song - bar license fee , is a fair requirement.
People go to a bar that has a band to be entertained. The band may have a name as a "covers band" playing songs written by all one artist. The bar and in turn the band are making money from anothers intellectual property. It's only fair a percentage goes back to the owner of those songs. Especially when you have the phenomena of the Aussie band "Cold Chisel" that broke up years ago. I recall more than once, a covers band playing all their songs was selling out night after night, while down the road, the writer/guitarist of much of that music was performing to empty bars. Under the APRA system, he was still being paid a little for the bands use of his material. However, does it compensate for the fact that without the covers band playing, he may have had a bigger crowd? People are wierd. That was a very bizzare series of events. A prime example of zero respect for the artist and creator of the work loved. |
Two articles, the first is about the boom of independant music labels whilst the majors fall,
The second is about artists that are critical of the legal tactics used against filesharers and the business model of the major labels in general. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p13s02-almp.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...11/MN12066.DTL These are two news articles I pulled from this website: The Stop RIAA Lawsuits coalition |
Quote:
"Don't be fooled" into thinking artists support you stealing their work. does an old woman appreciate you mugging her after she's been robbed? As for the "outdated business model" what is outdated is internet law - which you can bet the movie world will be pushing to change if DVD rippers make movie theft as common as mp3 theft. Mark my words, that will be changed. As for "representatives and producers" I'm not sure what you mean. In the music industry a producer is part of the creative process in making the music. I have produced records. Producers are usually musicians/writers themselves. An artist may produce themself. The record producer is simply the person responsible for how the record sounds. Like the director on a film. What is flawed about that process pray tell? |
I know what a Producer is in the terms of the creative process, but that is not how I used the term.
I am bowing out this discussion now. |
Quote:
Secondly, these independents are not of the same mould as the real independents like Motown and Island used to be. Real companies with a roster of acts. More and more frequenlty artists - unable to get signed, form their own "independent label" and put out their music. I know a number of "labels" that fit this category. A couple want to release my work for example. Additionally recording costs are unbelievably cheaper, so an independent doesn't need to pay anywhere near the recording costs they used to. I've made records by myself with a laptop in a loungeroom that sound better than ones I've made in expensive studios with a session band. It all makes the ILLUSION of a boom, but in reality there is less money, less industry players, and less ability to release and promote music. It extends all the way down to the street, where in New York, professional musicians had an abundance of studio and live work, and now they don't. Again, appearances are deceptive, for what happens is the big cats start taking little gigs that newcomers and less talented players got. It's the newer and younger guys that feel the pinch. It extends to the independent companies in Nashville closing, merging and dieing out. I personally know people from companies that don;t exist anymore because of this. Independent companies too. Two albums I co-produced will never be released because of confusion over who owns the rights now. The whole bottom has fallen out of the industry, and mp3 theft is solely to blame. I'm living this Chewbacca. THIS IS MY LIFE. Don't attempt to post a few links to sites as some sort of pathetic argument. Come down here to New York City and live my life for six months. I live this. I've had to first hand feel the brunt of mp3 thieves actions. [ 02-05-2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
Quote:
For 90% of users, what else is a blank cassette for, other than stealing music? Each major record company also made tape players, and CD players. Sony developed the minidisk and Phillips/Polygram (now by Vivendi/Universal) developed the digital cassette. Both of which conceivably would have encouraged piracy. Some artists I knew were trying to get companies in a conflict of interest situation to get out of their contracts. ;) |
I want to supplement statements Yorick has made to clarify some things. If you own a copy of copyrighted works (such as CDs) you MAY make compilation CDs. For your own use, of course. Your ownership of ONE copy includes your right to make OTHER copies for your own enjoyment, including compilation discs that you enjoy. You should not share/give/sell these copies, but I just wanted you to know you ARE NOT breaking copyright laws by making compiltion CDs and other copies for your own enjoyment. Quite simply, once you own a copy of the song, you can make as many copies as you please. Just don't share/sell/give those copies to others.
Oh, and making those nice romantic "mix tapes/CDs" is a fine gesture, but if you give the other person copies of music they don't own, you technically have infringed on the artists' copyright. Of course, my personal music collection does contain 4 or 5 "mix tapes" in amongst the 350 or so CD's, so I guess I'm guilty too (but I never shared them myself!). [ 02-05-2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
I also note my objection to multiple threads discussing the same topic. For the record. [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]
|
The other reality is that artists need record companies. Or at least the types of people in record companies. Accountants, promoters and publicists. People who focus on "details" like bills and schedules, leaving the creative focussed (and absent minded) artist to do what they do best.
However, traditionally, financially clueless artists have been signed for life for no royalties (as in Australian guitarist Tommy Emmanuels case) or don't posess the mental resources to keep tabs on managers stealing their money. When I was 19 my third manager took $10,000. I've lost points (which mean money) from various projects. Had I been clued up and so inclined, I could well have gotten performance royalties for the singing I did on the first Savage Garden record for example. I've had another manager funnel over $30,000, while I was barely scraping by. I lost work - photos and songs because I left material in the hands of yet another manager. Rip off rip off rip off. Artists are prime targets because they... we... are usually mentally geared towards creative endeavour. Lateral thought. Exceptions like Madonna exist (she is a great businesswoman - but then she's never been regarded as a great vocalist by any means). I'll never forget this one guy that came into my studio years ago. He had 5 songs to record. Out of the countless people I've recorded this guy was far and away the most organised. Had everything worked out. Money, lists, time schedules, lyrics and charts impeccably organised. He was so "together". I couldn;t believe it. Then I recorded him. It was quite possibly the worst music I had at that point worked on. The point being, that you may bemoan record companies. Artists certainly do. Without those personality types involved in the whole process, much of the music you've loved would not exist. The artist would be off on their next project. Forgetting the brilliance that lies finished, but gathering dust. For a creative, their best work is usually what they are working on RIGHT NOW. Such is the way it works. ;) I have never had a problem with the concept of giving a percentage of my CD to people that want to: 1.Pay for it 2.Promote it 3.Sell it for me I simply cannot do either. I like many other artists NEED the people in record companies you guys like to mouth off about. Remember that record companies are simply a collection of people. |
I'll take the bait:
From the one of the links I provided earlier: "They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." "This is not rocket science," said David Draiman of Disturbed, a hard-rock band with a platinum debut album on the charts. "Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet." "File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford." Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales. "Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis. "They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount." "The focus of the industry needs to shift from Soundscan numbers to downloads," said Draiman. "It's the way of the future. You can smell it coming. Stop fighting it, because you can't." |
Quote:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf What are the rights of the copyright owner? The owner of copyright has a number of exclusive rights. These exclusive rights allow the copyright owner to control certain uses of their material. The copyright owner is the only person allowed to use, or give permission to others to use, their work in these ways. The exclusive rights of the copyright owner, depending on the type of material may include the right to: reproduce the work in material form (including taping, digitising, videoing, and CD burning); perform the work in public (including screening, reciting or performing the work outside a private and domestic setting); communicate the work to the public (including broadcasting, emailing and putting the work on the Internet); and adapt the work (including translating a work into a different language). Using a CD burner to make a copy of material will “reproduce the work” for the purposes of copyright, as will making a tape from a CD, or copying a tape or copying vinyl records onto tape or CD. =================================== Private use <font color=white>There is no exception in the Copyright Act that allows copyright material to be reproduced for private purposes without permission from the copyright owner.</font> There was at one stage an attempt to bring in a “blank tape levy” scheme in Australia, under which private taping of recorded music would have been made legal, with copyright owners receiving compensation through a small additional charge on blank tapes. The way the government at the time attempted to implement the scheme was, however, found to be unconstitutional by the High Court, and Australian governments have not made any further attempts to introduce a scheme which avoids the problems of the earlier attempt. Blank tape levy schemes operate successfully in a number of other countries, particularly in Europe. |
From the other link:
"We don't do too much crying over here," Cameron Strang, founder of New West Records, admits proudly. The home of artists like Delbert McClinton, the Flatlanders, and John Hiatt has doubled its business for the past three years and is projecting a $10 million income in 2003. Paul Foley, general manager of the biggest independent label, Rounder Records of Cambridge, Mass., happily brags, "2002 was actually Rounder's best year in history. We were up 50 percent over 2001." You won't hear many of these labels' artists on pop radio - and ironically, that's one of the secrets to their success. By avoiding the major expenses associated with getting a tune on the air - which can cost upwards of $400,000 or $500,000 per song - independent labels are able to turn a profit far more quickly, and share more of those profits with their artists. Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free. Other artists, such as Aimee Mann and Michelle Shocked, are going even further - forming their own labels so they don't have to answer to anybody (see "Artists Sing Their Own Notes," at right). At a major label, most artists are unlikely to earn anything unless they sell at least 1 million albums, and even then, they could wind up in debt. Everything from studio time to limo rides are charged against their royalties, which might be only $1 per disc sold. That compares with an indie artist, who can sell a disc for $15 at a concert. If they make $5 profit a disc on 5,000 discs, they pocket $25,000. "That's the difference between us and them," Mr. Strang says. "Artists on our label who sell 200,000 copies make a very good living." Independents also pay profits only after recouping expenses, but they keep those down by curbing marketing and overhead costs. They also have more equitable arrangements with artists, often sharing profits 50-50. But perhaps the biggest difference is that they let artists keep the rights to their work. Michael Hausman, who manages Mann, says once the large labels get those rights, they may choose not to release a note of music but won't let the artist work for anyone else - essentially bringing career momentum to a halt. *SNIP* When rock critic and author Dave Marsh spoke on a panel at last month's South By Southwest music conference in Austin, Texas, he pronounced bigger-label contracts a bad deal for artists from Day 1, "because of unequal leverage." John Doe, who gained fame with then-wife Exene Cervenka in the '80s punk band X, says majors pump artists' expectations to unrealistic levels. "With majors, your visibility is much higher, but it's for a much shorter period of time," he explains. "I feel bad for today's bands because they're loved and then they're discarded." Doe, now on ArtistDirect imusic imprint, also says there's no word to appropriately describe the meddling of major-label A&R people, whose job is to "hear a hit" on each album. "I personally wouldn't like to be told what kind of album to make," Doe comments. Most indie labels pick up already-recorded albums, or give artists creative freedom to make the music they want. Adds Doe: "You can't replace the feeling [of] making a record that you're proud of." |
*Now* I will bow out of this... "discussion"
|
Quote:
but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales. Which is plainly incorrect. I was friends with Gary Beers from INXS for a time. Gary was in the position of being a bassplayer, but not a writer in a hugely sucessful band. The Tours were to promote the record. The tours could lose money Consider that management takes 20% gross (before expenses) and someone like Gary is going to see comparitively little from that. However, it's all to "promote the record". For the WRITERS of INXS, that would be a true statement. The writers would see enormous amounts from radio play, TV play, licensing and the rest. For a writer that's a true statement. For a musician it's untrue. Just a further example of needing to LIVE in the problem before posting biassed accounts from musical dinosaurs like Grateful Dead, Journey and Van Halen. |
Quote:
Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 albums I have produced for artists that have been released on artist created labels. Plus numerous 5 song E.Ps. I DO know what I'm talking about. All of us would have preferred a record company to front the bill and promote the records. Please read my posts if you're going to repeat a line of arguing that has already been addressed. Thanks [ 02-05-2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
Actually I wont, I have become quite angry.
I spent many years working in the retail side of the music business, supporting artists by playing their albums, even if it a particular album wasn't sanction by my corporate masters. I Worked hard to shut down the many bootleggers who operated on my block selling counterfiets and illegal copies and to catch cd shoplifters who stole music further driving up the prices in way that filesharers could never do. I literally worshiped my customers and was very passionate about hooking them up with music they may like but never heard of based on their purchases and listening about their tastes. I loved my job as a store manager of a music store and it broke my heart and sent me spiraling into depression to close store after store til finally last spring I had no store left. Many of of my colleage and friends, ranging from my hand-selected employees and peers to the label reps who came into my store to promote artists are unemployed now as well because of the decline of the music business. I follow the industry still. Thanks to my connections, I still get invites to the parties, good deals, sometimes free concert tickets and other perks including friendships with many musicians and people who support musicians. I may return to music retail soon now that I have found a company that doesnt toe the line of the big labels and their pricing schemes once a positon becomes available. To imply I am out of touch and my perspective is pathetic, that dont have a stake in this topic is degrading and insulting. Now I am done. |
Quote:
In any case, this is a different aspect of the same issue. |
Quote:
I am sorry to hear about your experience. I am bewildered as to why you have levelled rage at labels. Many of the majors consisted of autonomous former independents. I was signed to one such a label that distributed through a major. Had the majors clout and an independents care. The fault is not with the majors. The industry - with all it's corruption and bullcrap - is what gave you the job in the first place. It may have been broken, but it perpetuated lifestyles, music and culture. Filesharing is what cost it. Removed ANY money from the picture. I do stand by the out of touch line Chewbacca. You're not an artist out there competing for gigs, for slots, for airplay, for TV play, for signings, for any of that. I had many experiences with record stores. Went into them all the time. Had friends in them. Checked how product moved, kept up with new music. However I have no idea what it's like to be in your shoes. I only know from a distance not firsthand. I am truly sorry you suffered as a result of all this mess. I have gone from anger towards majors , to anger at filesharers, to my current position of "giving up". I give my music away on my site. For all I know people hand copies around to their friends. I see nothing from my original recordings. I've had to adjust my philosophy accordingly. I seek to make my living doing advertising music, make original music to be enjoyed. I'm extremely upset about it though. [ 02-05-2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
Hey Chewbacca. You are aware I suppose, that were my CDs for sale in your store, your store would have made more money per CD than I would have?
I don't see a problem with this, yet an mp3 thief would use it as justification for not buying from your store because you are "ripping me off", by taking more than me. At least that seems to be the logic behind kids who attack a record company for recouping on the money it outlays and using it to justify stealing intellectual property. [ 02-05-2004, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
Yeah, we paid 12-14 bucks for a cd and sold it for 18-20. Of course that 6 bucks is not pure profit becasue you still have to account for expenses like payroll and rent as well as shrink. When it was all said and done, our real profits on cd sales were not enough to to stay in business at a either a store or company level having cds as our core product. With big box competitors underselling CDs and out of control expenses with no break from the labels in a tough economy, we were doomed. Out of 800 stores only 20 made a profit in 2002 in my previous organization and the company posted a staggering loss in the hundreds of million.
Believe me, I do not condone illegal filesharing at all, I don't condone big label/retail business practices either. In the last five years I have been in the offices of all five major labels at least four times a year. They provided meeting space for district store manager meetings in exchange they would give us a lunch time presentation of the artists they were foucusing on at the moment. I not sure if agree, but in my short, but frequent visits I saw and heard about alot of waste. Whether it was the $10,0000 conference table, or the literally dozens of artists they poor money into hoping one of them was the next big thing, but 98 out of 100 fizzle and get nothing for their effort and are locked into contracts that make it difficult to grown beyond being a pile of demos in the closet with zero radio play. A bunch of money tossed down the tubes and a bunch of dreams not only smashed, but restricted by prohibitive contracts. I think it is nuts. Many of my friends who are in that part of the biz are in it for the love of music, but are also disgusted by the money practices they see firsthand. I wont even go into the waste I saw at the retail level. It was just as bad, maybe worst in some cases. The CD party was over a few years ago, but they all kept on like it was 1999. My disdain for the majors I think is rooted in sound principles and expirience from both a personal and business perspective of the industry. Sure, I am and have been disgusted by the big biz side of the industry, but I love music and I love(d) getting music to people who want it. Thats why I stuck with it for so long and am open to returning. To reiiterate- I don't support illegal filesharing or big music business practices at all. I do support proven and successful artist as-well-as fan-friendly business practices that are fair and equitable and not excessivley wasteful. |
Well I'm glad we've found something we can agree on at last mate. ;)
I'm well aware of the "tossing money" element of companies, but the only negative I see in it, is building up the hopes of the artists instead of giving them realism. At the end of the day though, they walk away with their record. Many of us would be quite happy with that. (It's not about the money) ;) :D Having someone pay for your record is HUUUGE. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm aware of the bribery that would go on too. Companies bribing guys like you. But that was supposedly justified as a "marketing expense". As too the profit margin, a band I was in were getting $3AUD per CD. For America it was half that. There were four of us, plus a manager taking a slice. Had we a producer they would have taken a point or two as well. So, $1.5 divided by 5 = 30c per CD for me? Less taxation of course, and only presuming the record budget was paid off. ;) But rock and roll. 30c is better than the NOTHING mp3 thieves leave us with. Anyhow mate, on a different tack, check out this song http://www.hughwilson.org/images/Her...o_2004mix_.mp3 I wrote it a while back, but recently added live drums, and rerecorded guitars last week. Let me know what you think. |
Indeed! [img]smile.gif[/img] I am glad now that I threw caution to the wind and stuck with this discussion. I hope everyone finds humor in the fact that I stated I was bowing out at least four times and yet here I am. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D
Thanks for sharing the song, I had to listen to it twice in a row, due to the high enjoyment factor. Very nice! I know you do vocals, is that you on guitar as well? Cheers Edit-Holy shizzle! .30 a CD!!! Whew! That is rough financially, but I can see the joy and fullfilment side of actaully making and then having a CD. [ 02-05-2004, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ] |
I'm glad you did too. [img]smile.gif[/img] I did find the humour in it. :D
Thanks for your comments re. the song. Yeah I played the guitar. I did everything on it except played the drums. Mixed it. Recorded it. Sang it. A man, a laptop, some guitars and a mic. ;) I had a loop overlaid with programming before (I do play drums as well) and was never happy with the result. Having Ken play on it gave it such a lift I just had to rerecord the guitars... they WERE fun to play in. :D As per the $$ yeah. Rips all around, but I knew what I was looking at. I also reasoned that if it sold a million copies, that would be about $300 000 which was a heck of a lot more than I had at the time. ;) But it never did. That particular record got caught in a political mess. "Megalomaniac manager destroys band." Long ago I decided to make records to please myself. Then I would have a full musical life with lots of songs I like, regardless of whether they sell, make money or whatever. Simply being able to become your own audience is an incredible reality only the technology of this age allows. I also learned from each one. I made sure I took notes (mentally) when doing the first two records I did. They were a free education from some serious "gurus" in many ways. I was able to ask questions, hear and see changes, understand concepts and causes and demystify the whole process. I wouldn't change anything. [img]smile.gif[/img] Anyhow, very glad you hung in there. [img]smile.gif[/img] I do actually like you you know. :D |
I'd just like to add a few thoughts and a question. I do not agree with filesharing, or copying CD's. Just as a note in Hungary the amount of original software used is below 20%, and music is even worse. This even though there is a specialzed branch of police, who if they find stolen software or music or films they can charge 40 times the original price. I myself have friends who own dozens of CD's none of which are original, but simply because of the size of the problem in Hungary nothing can be done until more effective control.
And now for the question: If I own CD's is it legal to convert them to WMA's with Windows Media Player onto a laptop and listen to them with it? edit: Even though that song is a bit "softer" than what I usually listen to it was great. [ 02-05-2004, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: dplax ] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The only condition is that if you re-sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the original media, you are bound to destroy any copies that you might have made, including the WMA's. |
dplax, I have no idea what the law is in Hungary regarding that. At worst it would be a technical infringement.
Even if so, I certainly wouldn't worry about converting your CDs into wavs or mp3s for your player. Just don't share those files with anyone else. Copyright is a tricky business, and technical infringements happen all the time. I've infringed and been infringed. ;) If I listen to a song on a CD and write a score of it for myself and put the name of the song up top, I've infringed. The laws exist to protect us, not to be an inconvenience. This is why it's so alien to people that the record companies would actually (shock horror) do their job and protect our copyright, as though THEY are infringing listeners rights. Very odd philosophy reversal. If it was illegal in Hungary, and you really wanted to do the right thing, you could always send a quick email to the copyright owner (listed on the CD) and ask for permission. I can't imagine it would be a problem. Thanks for your encouragment dplax. An honest music lover is a great thing. I understand the confusion and the financial difficulty in trying to obtain the CDs you love. I understand how tempting it can be to take the stoen music. But there's a big difference bewtween guiltily taking a album with a mind to buying it someday, to self rightously proclaiming justifications and heralding a revolution, as though undermining copyright itself is a thing artists are going to be overjoyed with. The real problem in Hungary, if there is such rampant piracy, is that Hungarian artists would find it extraordinarily hard to make music - especially to get out of the country. Wherever there is rampant music piracy in the world, so there is a void of recorded music reaching the culture. Without the funds, a local area can't compete against the imports from area with less piracy. Asia being the prime example. Anyhow good talking with you. Be safe. You sound like a top bloke. [img]smile.gif[/img] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is also a rather large music festival in Hungary each year called Pepsi Sziget (translated as Pepsi Island) which lasts a week, attracts musicians from all over the world and gets a few hundred thousand spectators during the week. People come mostly from Hungary, Germany and the Netherlands and the majority of the artists are foreign. Past artists include: Offspring, Run DMC, Bomfunk MC's and other known artist, although that is all I remember from the time I had been there. Quote:
|
I have no problem with copyright but I do not agree with the statement "you do not own the contents of the CD", and I know it's not yours Yorick. [img]smile.gif[/img] If I buy a CD I should be able to do whatever I want with them short of supplying others with the music, that is I should be able to do whatever I want with them for private use. Otherwise I should be able to buy the CD for $1 and pay a small loan fee. Surprisingly no store agrees with that. ;) LOL
And Yorick, file sharing does not equal theft, that's nothing but RIAA propaganda. It has several other uses than that. |
Yorick, thanks for the Aussie law articles. For the US, what you would want to research is what's known as the "fair use doctrine."
Oh, and in the US, IIRC, performing the work in public DOES create a copyright issue. While it's a printing/publishing concern more than a RIAA concern, the biggest copyright infringers are university professors. Just think about all those photocopies you were distributed in school. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved