What are your views on music sharing?

[Ken C.]

I have edited my original posting to keep BFC and Spark out of any possible trouble. It would reflect poorly on BFC if it was allowed to stay. This decision was difficult to make because I basically edited myself. But the question remains....what is or what is not allowed when it comes to copying music? The following posts will not be edited in way, shape or form. This was not done to quell anyones views or opinions but rather the protection of BFC. A copy of the original has been saved.

 

[LaBella]

YES!


i have to make this message longer

 

[Dijos]

isn't that Illegal?

 

[Ken C.]

isn't that Illegal?

Not if the original recording had no copy protection. This one doesn't and would be grandfathered under the current law. At least that's how I read it.

 

[Daniel Moore]

Speaking of illegal downloads, how about me downloading widescreen editions of all three Rambo movies? BAZIIING! 6 hours of awesome.

I figure I've rented them enough times to get a download, and I've never seen them for sale anywhere. Except online.

 

[Gollnick]

Not if the original recording had no copy protection. This one doesn't and would be grandfathered under the current law. At least that's how I read it.

That's a bit like saying that it would be legal for me to go into your house and help myself to your stuff if you happened to leave the door unlocked. Locked or unlocked, that's stealing.

Intellectual property is property and stealing it is a crime. That was true way before the development of digital copy protection. The development of digital copy protection and all of the hassles it causes everyone would not have ever been necessary and the money to develop it would have been spent on something more productive if only people would have respect for intellectual propery in the first place.

That fact that something is technically possible and, indeed, easy to do does not make it morally or ethically, much less legally right.

 

[Ken C.]

I do not want this thread to turn into a debate but I will say that I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I fit does it will be moved to the appropriate forum for such debate. For starters I do have the original CD I asked for. By rights I am allowed to copy that media to my hard drive. I did not deprive anyone of any money by asking for a copy of my corrupted unreadable disc. Over time it degraded itself. It should have lasted forever. I should not have to go out and pay for another disc of what I already own. I have paid for it albeit years ago. By rights I should be able to do what I wish with the media I purchased. If I wish to share it I should be allowed. It has been bought and paid for. By your analogy just listening to someone else's CD or watching a DVD that someone else purchased would constitute theft. I may not own it but I am listening to or watching it without paying for it. Hell, that would make transferring music to an MP3 player illegal. It would make digital music players illegal. It would also make CD/DVD burners and my ears illegal. I heard the song and I can remember the tune and if I sing it out loud I'm breaking the law??? Now maybe this wasn't the best place to ask but until the law is adequately defined asking for a copy of music I do own should be no means be illegal. I have the physical product in my possesion although it doesn't work. If I spent the time to extract the music it would be a long and tedious task to retrieve and repair the data. This is a debate that will go on forever. You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine.

So, you still gonna' report me to the FBI?

 

[Gollnick]

I do have the original CD. By rights I am allowed to copy that media to my hard drive.

Exactly. Courts have held that it is legal for you to copy a CD that you own into a different media for your personal convenient use of it as long as it is reasonable to expect that both copies will not be used at the same time. You are but one person and can only listen to one thing at a time, so that is a reasonable expectation as long as you physically retain possession of both copies.

I did not deprive anyone of any money by asking for a copy of my corrupted unreadable disc.

Ah, but now the story chages. Your disk has been damaged.

Over time it degraded itself. It should have lasted forever. I should not have to go out and pay for another disc of what I already own. I have paid for it albeit years ago.

With proper care, CDs will last a very long time. If yours was defective, you should take that up with the manufacturer. But, since there probably was no warranty, you probably have no claim.

Does the fact that your car wore out give you an excuse to steal mine? Of course not. Again, the fact that stealing music is technically easier than stealing a car does not make it right... or legal.

By rights I should be able to do what I wish with the media I purchased. If I wish to share it I should be allowed. It has been bought and paid for.

That is true, but within certain bounds.

By your analogy just listening to someone else's CD or watching a DVD that someone else purchased would constitute theft. Hell, that would make transferring music to an MP3 player illegal. It would make them illegal. It would also make CD/DVD burners and my ears illegal. I heard the song and I can remember the tune and if I sing it out loud I'm breaking the law???

Last time we had this debate on this forum, I used a very simple analogy. Imagine going to the store to buy to buy some sugar so that you can make a cake that you want to make. Your cake needs two cups of sugar, but the smallest package sold is three cups, so you buy it. As you're standing in the checkout line, you notice that the store has the latest Deaftick Monotone CD. So, you buy that too and take the CD and the sugar home. As you're getting your cake together and listening to your new CD, the doorbell rings. It's a friend of yours. He's trying to bake some cookies and came up short a cup of sugar. Can you give him the extra cup you have on hand? Of course you can. You bought it. It's yours. And you can give it away. But let's also imagine that your friend hears the music and asks, "Is that the new Deaftick Monotone album? I love Deaftick Monotone and I've been waiting for that album for a long time! That's great!" Now, let's run some scenarios:

A) You say, "Yes, why don't you have a seat and listen." Of course this is legal.

B) You say, "Yes, and for five bucks, I'll let you sit here and listen to it." This is probably not legal because you are now charging admission for the performance which is not allowed under the limited license that most CDs are sold under.

C) You say, "Yes. Let me burn you a copy." This is not legal. Think about it: C&H sold you three cups of sugar. You paid for three cups of sugar. When this transaction is done, there will be your cake with two cups in it, and your friend's cookies with one cup in them. C&H was paid for three cups and three cups were used. C&H is whole. But what about Acme Records? They sold you one CD. You paid for one CD. When the transaction is done, there will now be two CDs. But Acme was only paid for one. Acme was robbed... and you are the robber.

D) You say, "Yes. Would you like to borrow it and take it home?" This is legal. Again, C&H is whole, paid for three cups and three cups were used. And Acme is whole too, paid for one CD and one CD exists. You made the decision that you wanted to loan that CD to your friend and that you would do without it while he had it.

E) You say, "Yeah, and it's playing off my iPod. Here, why don't you take the CD home with you and listen to it while you bake your cookies and then bring it back. And I'll keep listening to my iPod while I finish up my cake." This is also illegal. Two people will be listening at two separate locations even though Acme was only paid for one.

F) You say, "Yeah, and it's playing off my iPod. Here, why don't you take the CD home with you and listen to it while you bake your cookies and then bring it back. And while you have the CD, I won't play any of those songs on my iPod." This is very thin ice, but it might be legal, at least it's ethical. You paid for one copy is in use.

There are now 1 million illegal IPod's out there now! I may not own it but I am listening to or watching it without paying for it. Now maybe this wasn't the best place to ask but until the law is adequately defined asking for a copy of music I do own should be no means be illegal.

I'm sure I quite follow you there.

As my sainted mother taught me, two wrongs -- much less a million -- don't make a right. And the fact that everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right either.

iPods and MP3 players do not have to be used illegally. I own one and everything on it is absolutely legal. MP3 players don not have to be used illegally. I can also tell you that I have literally burned hundreds of CDs on my PC (I'm almost out of blank CDs... again) and not one of them has been illegal either. CD Burners and blank CDs do not have to be used illegally.

I have the physical product in my possesion although it doesn't work. If I spent the time to extract the music it would be a long and tedious task to retrieve and repair the data.

As I said earlier, the fact that your car is broken does not license you to steal mine.

It's a bit harder to see this with copying CDs because there's no obvious theft. But, go back to my borrowing the sugar analogy. The record company is paid for a certain number of disks. When you make copies, you are stealing.

So, you still gonna' report me to the FBI?

No... but this is just the sort of thread that record companies point to when they argue for the need for stronger, onerous laws, to illegalize technolgy that might be used for illegal purposes, and when they argue the need for them to spend money to develop copy protection technology that then creates hassles for all of us.

 

[Nordic Viking]

I agree with Gollnick; however good or honest KV's intentions were when requesting the music, it seemed illegal - until we found out he had a faulty copy at home.

 

[LaBella]

maybe this thread should disappear like Collucci's music did? then Capitol records wouldn't be able to prosecute Al Gore for inventing the internet!

 

[Ken C.]

I am of the opinion that End Users are more likely to make the "casual copy" as opposed to using the Peer2Peer or file sharing programs. To make a casual copy of a disc does no harm. I have a disc from a band that allows you authenticate your disc online and you then allows to make 10 copies of it. I think this is a good thing. By sharing the disc with friends I have opened them up to a new band and they have gone out and purchased it themselves due to the extras on the disc and the fact that they like to have the original. The file sharing programs are designed to allow thousands of downloads at one time reaching millions of people. This is what should not be allowed. It severely injures an artists ability to collect money. They are pure evil and are an avenue for virus writers. As the law stands now the casual copier is being targeted not the P2P file sharing programs. It should be the other way around. LimeWire, Kazaa, EMule, and others are what is hurting the industry not the casual user who makes a copy for a friend.

 

[Gollnick]

To make a casual copy of a disc does no harm.... I think this is a good thing. By sharing the disc with friends I have opened them up to a new band and they have gone out and purchased it themselves due to the extras on the disc and the fact that they like to have the original.

That is a common argument. But you are not a record company executive and so it's not up to you to decide how to promote the record company's products. Even if file sharing will ultimately help record companies, deciding that and deciding how to approach that and impliment it is still their perogative because it is still their property.

I have a disc from a band that allows you authenticate your disc online and you then allows to make 10 copies of it.

There you see a record company that is starting to experiment with this. That's great. If you like this, then make it work for them and others will see their success and copy -- pun intended -- it themelves. But the fact that one company has decied to make this experiment does not give you permission to copy other company's intellectual property.

The other day, I was at the grocery store and there was a lady there standing behind a table offering me a glass of wine... from the winery she was representing and, in fact, owns. This winery owner had made a decision to take this approach to sell her wine. But that didn't license me to go to the store's shelf and take down just any bottle and pull the cork and start pouring for everyone there. Each winery has the perogative to decide how they want to sell their product, give away samples, use fancy lables, lower prices, etc. But it is their product, so it is their perogative to decide how to sell it.

As the law stands now the casual copier is being targeted not the P2P file sharing programs. It should be the other way around.

Then work to change the law. But until the law changes, you have to respect it. If you don't respect the current law, they why should the recording industry think that you will respect a new law?

 

[Ken C.]

Chuck,

Ease up on the analogies! You made your point!

 

[Gollnick]

Yeah, but the fundamental problem with intellectual property theft is that many people don't understand that intellectual property is property. So, you have to point out to those people that intellectual property is property and compare it to other property.

Your argument is that you own this disk already and so you are not asking for anything you don't own. So, if you want to put it on your MP3 player, for example, why not rip your own disk? =ut your disk got damaged. So, here we have to back to an analogy. Whe my old Oldsmobile finally collapsed with a list of problems as long as my arm, that did not license me to go to the Olds dealer and steal one of their cars. I had to either convince Olds that the failure of my car was due to a defect that was their fault and that they should pay for it, or I could fix my old one at my expense, or I could throw it away and buy -- at my expense -- one of their new cars. But I couldn't just steal one of their cars. We all recognize that because we all recognize the car as property. Now we have to get people to understand that intellectual property is property to and that stealing it hurts the people you steal it from and that is wrong, morally, ethically, and legally.

 

[Death's Head]

It ain't illegal until you get caught!

 

[Jared P]

So how about the fact that I own a fairly large collection of vinyl records. Should I feel bad about making digital copies from another source for records that I OWN copies of?

Rest assured I do NOT listen to the records at the same time that I listen to the mp3's.

 

[Nordic Viking]

Yeah, but the fundamental problem with intellectual property theft is that many people don't understand that intellectual property is property. So, you have to point out to those people that intellectual property is property and compare it to other property.

Your argument is that you own this disk already and so you are not asking for anything you don't own. So, if you want to put it on your MP3 player, for example, why not rip your own disk? =ut your disk got damaged. So, here we have to back to an analogy. Whe my old Oldsmobile finally collapsed with a list of problems as long as my arm, that did not license me to go to the Olds dealer and steal one of their cars. I had to either convince Olds that the failure of my car was due to a defect that was their fault and that they should pay for it, or I could fix my old one at my expense, or I could throw it away and buy -- at my expense -- one of their new cars. But I couldn't just steal one of their cars. We all recognize that because we all recognize the car as property. Now we have to get people to understand that intellectual property is property to and that stealing it hurts the people you steal it from and that is wrong, morally, ethically, and legally.

Your oldsmobile analogy might be correct from a legal point of view - because the music industry is run by greedy people and they have the law on their side. But morally and ethically - if KV gets a copy of something he already owns, from somebody else - the record company does not have one less product, so it is not theft.

 

[48TH RONIN]

It ain't illegal until you get caught!

Not even then, if you live in Canada. For some twisted reason, it is Ok to download, but uploading is frowned upon. Go figure.

 

[rebeltf]

Gollnick , they (EMI , Sony , etc) will never win in the game of copy protection , there really isnt any such thing , as soon as a new one comes out there are twenty odd hacks around it.
Is it stealing ? Yea , but they still will not win.
For decades they have held the power , now it is out of thier wittle hands and it tweaks thier noses to no end and , that I find pretty darn funny.
If they want to stave the theft off some , they should decrease the cost of Cd's by about 2/3's, even then some folks will still do it.
Same goes for DVD's and games.
Music , lol if you think about it there are far and I stress the word far , more bands ( of all types of music) out now than there ever were , so obviously the money is still there to be made in spite of pirating.
I am not sticking up for pirates or the companies , to be honest I really dont care either way but , here is an ironic little story for y'all.

A good buddy of mine is a professional bike rider and he put together a pretty cool DVD of himself and some other riders , with cool music in the background , sort of CKY style anyways , besides being a pro rider he is also one of the biggest pirates I know , games - movies and music.
Anyway I told him (sort of jokingly) that I was going to put his DVD he made up for sharing via bit-torrent and he got pretty bent , he didnt see the irony when I said "but what about all the stuff you d/l ?"

 

[stjames]

Remember, sharing is only fun when it's not your stuff!