Filesharing (theft) Some facts about music and copyright:

[Yorick]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Don't make the mistake of thinking because some artist/musicians don't mind you taking their work it's ok for you to take the work of others.

Exactly. Well said. CHOICE is the issue.

I choose to give away songs of mine at the moment.

But how dare anyone remove my right to make that choice. I am not signed to a record company. If someone steals my songs they take 100% away from me.

I choose generosity at the moment. Don't take away my ability to be generous by overriding my choices about my property.

[Faceman]

referring to my examples above I'd like to know some things.

Yorick, you stated that copying a song for personal enjoyment is okay as long as no technical copy-equipment is used, i.e. if I listen to the song and play it on my own piano/guitar/...
even recording it after that would be okay

But there's only a thin line from here to there

Projected on copyright for literature this would mean
a. It's okay to copy the thing manually (handwrite, typewriter, word processor)
b. It's not okay to xerox it or copy a computer-file with the information

This is indeed a very thin line [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Faceman: referring to my examples above I'd like to know some things. Yorick, you stated that copying a song for personal enjoyment is okay as long as no technical copy-equipment is used, i.e. if I listen to the song and play it on my own piano/guitar/... even recording it after that would be okay But there's only a thin line from here to there Projected on copyright for literature this would mean a. It's okay to copy the thing manually (handwrite, typewriter, word processor) b. It's not okay to xerox it or copy a computer-file with the information This is indeed a very thin line [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

In recording a song yourself you are not infringing the song owners copyright. You would if you release it, sell it, use it for advertising or to increase revenue etc.

As I've mentioned, the music on a CD is the property of the owner of the sound recording - which has licensed the song and performances involved.

In playing the song yourself, you aren't using the sound recording, nor the performances on it, nor the licensed version of the song. You are making your own version, which until you release it, is for your own use.


It's not hard once you grasp the difference between SONG, RECORDING and PERFORMANCE.


Regarding literature, the words are the property of the originator. As with music, it is the ASSEMBLY of those words. A certain amount of changes makes the work "original" and not plagiarism.

Therefore, if you handwrote a guys book out, and sold it, it would be infringing HIS copyright.

As I said, it's technically illegal to listen to a tune and make a chart of it, and then put the name of the song up top.

HOWEVER, it is precisely because of these technicalitys and thin lines that the music industry doesn't sue the little guy for minor infringements. Copyright infringements happen ALL the time. The laws exist so that there is a line drawn, that if serious exploitation does occur, we are protected and can act. We have a CHOICE as to whether pursue copyright infringement or let it go. Most of the time, it's let go.

However, as I stated, mp3 theft has become the most serious crisis to hit the recording industry. It IS a huge deal. The problem as I see it, is that people were not made aware early on, that they were breaking the law.

Thereafter all the justifications followed and the "everyone else is doing it".

It's like looting. Everyone else is running out of the store with TVs why shouldn't I? Domino effect.

[ 02-06-2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Either something is illegal or it isn't.

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. [/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US...

[ 02-06-2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Either something is illegal or it isn't.

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. [/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US... [/QUOTE]LOL! As you know, I did move to the US, but not because of the copyright laws!!

As I said, there is a difference between something being illegal, and it being pursued and punished.

Many a blind eye has been turned. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop it happening, but does create a hard line that can be referenced when a serious breech of copyright occurs.

Like saying stealing is illegal, but turning a blind eye to people taking a small cake of soap from a hotel. If you take the TV though, we have a clear policy of not taking property to reference. No confusion.

I AM a Christian and have a very merciful and gracious attitude to things like this, which extends from my thankfulness at Christs grace. I have let slide countless copyright infringements, and ripoffs. It's simply not worth the heartache and causes more damage than gain to get hung up about stuff. I've had ideas stolen, money stolen, credits not given, (most notably on the Savage Garden record) royalties unpaid, session payments unpaid. To be a musician is to be ripped off. But lets face it. I view every cent I make from my craft as a privilege, not a right. I am thankful for every dollar made from music.

If I went around making everyone play hardball.... sheesh.

So don't confuse my attempts at clarity as being a hardarse. I'm simply explaining how it is. Why do you not have the right to make even one copy of your CD? Because you do not own the sound recording, the song or the performances on that CD, you simply own the one copy.

Frankly I don't care if people copy their CD. Just know what you're doing. Understand you're breaking the law. It's not a big deal. It's not depriving anyone of money. I have no MORAL problem with it. The knowledge of the illegality may TEMPER what you do in bigger cases.

There was a time when I was younger that I used cracked music software programs. It nagged at me. Grated at me. Everytime the "crack" screen came up in the presence of some person hiring me to make a track for them I felt ashamed. I KNEW I was doing the wrong thing by the owners of the product.

Since then, I have remained loyal to that company and purchased modern copies of their software. I also, used their software exclusively in colleges to teach people sequencing and computer recording. Meaning increased sales, as people tend to stick to the music program they initially learnt on.

I now.. do not have any cracked music software. It's all legit thank goodness.

What would anger me in discussions about mp3 theft were the justifications. People saying "the music sux so it's cool to steal it" and other such rot. It's extremely insulting.

If you a copy a CD do it. Just know you are not supposed to. Be mindful then, in handing out copies of someones CD. Say you love a CD. LEND it to your friend. Don't copy it and give it to them.

Anyhow, back to the Aussie laws. They certainly are not Draconian. I find US laws more draconian. Personal marijuana possession, nudity laws, harsher requirements for divorce... these are "draconian."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral.

Just one question. If you want to sell a house, you invite people to have a look. A sample. You don't give them the house. How is giving people the product they are being asked to buy, any sort of exposure?

Here, try this food.... aha! Did you like it? Could you please pay now!?

Hardly.

mp3s ARE the product. Radio play and TV play were the sample, but online, people own the product. The whole thing is pointless, as it leads to DECREASED sales, rather than increased sales.

Live shows for sucessful bands, are to promote the CD.

Do you know how much it costs me to put on a show in NYC?

$1000 at least. Costs me even after entry dollars added in. I do it to generate exposure to sell records later. I don't make records to generate exposure for live shows.

THAT is draconian. The "record is exposure for your live show" principle was in effect when records first started. Artists got NO royalites whatsoever for their work. We have PROGRESSED since then. You are wanting to turn the clock BACK???

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Just one question. If you want to sell a house, you invite people to have a look. A sample. You don't give them the house. How is giving people the product they are being asked to buy, any sort of exposure?

The point I am making Yorick is that in this scenario, you are not allowed to advertise the house in the paper, nor stick a 'for-sale', nor employ an estate agent to sell the property. Furthermore, potential buyers are not allowed to take photographs of the property, nor take a tape-recorder with them or make any notes of any form whilst there.

Under those circumstances, with little exposure and the inability of the potential buyer to take meausures to help them to decide on whether to buy, your house is unlikely to achieve the sale price that it might have done in a more liberal world.

Originally posted by Yorick: Here, try this food.... aha! Did you like it? Could you please pay now!? Hardly.

Actually, that's quite common. Have you never had a free sample product and never bought the product as a result? I have (as many others have done) and the sampling system works or producers would have given it up years ago.

Originally posted by Yorick: mp3s ARE the product. Radio play and TV play were the sample, but online, people own the product. The whole thing is pointless, as it leads to DECREASED sales, rather than increased sales. Live shows for sucessful bands, are to promote the CD. Do you know how much it costs me to put on a show in NYC? $1000 at least. Costs me even after entry dollars added in. I do it to generate exposure to sell records later. I don't make records to generate exposure for live shows.

While it is true that there is a hardcore of music lovers who willing to pay to hear unknown band, or to spend an evening listening to a band of unknown quality (where the venue has a reputation of billing decent artists), the vast majority of people will not. Most people hear of good bands by word of mouth and by hearing their music, either by the radio or when their friends play it to them.

Originally posted by Yorick: THAT is draconian. The "record is exposure for your live show" principle was in effect when records first started. Artists got NO royalites whatsoever for their work. We have PROGRESSED since then. You are wanting to turn the clock BACK???

Your missing my point. No-one says that the artist shouldn't be paid for CD sales - only that the laws should be relaxed enough so that exposure and innovation is not unduly hindered.
I am sure that you would agree with me that Austriaila is BRIMMING OVER with musical talent. Yet if you compare the number of successful artists (especially those independant of the big labels), the number of them is MUCH lower than that of Britain or the US (taking into account the population levels of course). The reason for that is because they are stifled - they are not getting the exposure that they might otherwise have had under a 'fair use' doctrine.

In my car I have a few compiled CD's made from music that I have PURCHASED. If I were to take the originals out with me, that would mean that not only would I have on average around $1000 worth in my car. That's rather a lot of cash to leave lying around - so frankly, I wouldn't have them in the car. That also means that my passengers would never again say:
"Hey, that's cool, who is that band?,"
That has happened quite a few times as I'm more interested in indie music which rarely gets airplay or exposure on MTV etc - but if would never happen again if Ausrailian law ruled the day (because I AM a law-abiding citizen and I would obey the law even if I didn't agree with it).

THAT would be a step backwards - and we would end up living in a world where only artists like 'the spice girls', 'Back Street Boys', ' Take that' etc. (created and funded by the big labels who would be the only ones to have the finanical muscle to market them). ***shudder***


[ 02-07-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Either something is illegal or it isn't.

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. [/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US... [/QUOTE]Wow, I'm speechless. I don't think the point-of-view to worry about is that of the artist but rather the buyer. If I were a purchaser of music in Australia, I'd just skip it altogether and turn on the frikkin radio. (If the law were enforced, which Yorick says it isn't).

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Yorick: With mp3 stealing, it's NEW music that gets swiped before anyone can make money. Anastasias career was ruined because her SINGLE was so downloaded, she was unable to sell albums.

Seeing as there's a new Anastacia single out now with a new album following in March, I wonder how you're defining "ruined". As her annoying songs have been tormenting Dutch radio stations for ages, plus her albums have all sold very decently over here - don't care enough about Anastacia to look up the exact number of records sold, but she's picked up quite a few gold and platinum records all over the world, as far as I know.
So are you referring to a certain news item or incident that led you to the conclusion that her career was somehow "ruined"?
Just curious. [img]smile.gif[/img] And yes, I'll omit the childish "Ah, so those evil downloaders did something right!" kind of remarks; to each his/her own.

[ 02-07-2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[WOLFGIR]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

Just a small side note here:
In several countries the copywright laws differ. In Sweden it is still legal to make copies of a CD for personal use or to give away to your closest circle of friends, IE family to be sure. That rule is about to change into something horrible misguided and stupid thanks to EU politicians that have no clue about anything. Do not read, filesharing should be oki.

This is the same concerning written material. You are not allowed to copy complete works from a book though, but you can copy the cpmplete book for your own use in a none professional way. Also, a customar who bought a record, a book a videogame etc are entitled to make safety backup's of that material if the media it came with should break.

I guess that that will change as well with the new laws.

As I said, a small side note [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cheers.