What are your views on music sharing?

[Dijos]

nobody has yet addressed the out-of print, or otherwise unavailable issue...

 

[Gollnick]

Out of print is nothing new and it's not unique to music either.

Out of print is legally considered a temporary situation. The owner retains his rights. The fact that your stomach wants a certain thing does not trump the owner's rights.

 

[JD Mandrell]

The Patent and Trademarks Office IS constitutionally-established.

Article 1 Secton 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Not a single protection in there anywhere for an audio recording.

 

[Gollnick]

Article 1 Secton 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Not a single protection in there anywhere for an audio recording.

Copyrights are for limited time.

The Constitutional protection against search and seizure doesn't specifically mention wiretapping either, and yet we apply it to that. The Constitutional protection of freedoms of speech, assembly, an "the press" don't specifically mention the internet either. and yet I suspect that you would get quite upset if they weren't applied to it.

 

[JD Mandrell]

Copyrights are for limited time.

The Constitutional protection against search and seizure doesn't specifically mention wiretapping either, and yet we apply it to that. The Constitutional protection of freedoms of speech, assembly, an "the press" don't specifically mention the internet either. and yet I suspect that you would get quite upset if they weren't applied to it.

Yes, because that deals with a method of infringment on a protected right. Those rights are protected against government infringement, there is no need to specifically list the method such infringment might take. Creating a right beyond what the Constitution allows, i.e. expanding the protection of "writings" to include audio recordings, effectively amended the Constitution without going through the proper process, and therefore can be ignored.

 

[stjames]

It has been determined that purchasing a CD, DVD, Book, etc., only allows you to access the intellectual property therein directly from that source or from a copy you make for your own personal use. If you have the wherewithal and foresight to make a “back-up” copy that is allowed by law, as is copying to another medium, but all for your own personal use.

If you decide to produce a Motion Picture you can’t just go to your CD collection and pick any song you like for the soundtrack, even though you have paid for the intellectual property on those disks. You can’t go and print an anthology of your favorite stories that you copied from books and magazines that you purchased. And you can’t distribute copies of music you have purchased in a similar manner, for profit or not.

Every time someone comes out with an unlicensed copy of Emerson’s “wave” feature people line up to call them thief on this forum. If the maker were to say he had bought one of Emerson’s knives and thus owned the right to do whatever he wanted with it, including using it as a template for his own knives, he would be laughed off the boards.

I’m surprised people can defend their actions with “it is easy”. Since when has that been an acceptable excuse for anything?

 

[Thomason]

I will admit that I know little about the details of the music business, but does not the artist get a monetary cut for units sold? To enjoy a musician's work and want to possess their music and yet not contribute to their livelihood seems wrong to me.

 

[JD Mandrell]

I will admit that I know little about the details of the music business, but does not the artist get a monetary cut for units sold? To enjoy a musician's work and want to possess their music and yet not contribute to their livelihood seems wrong to me.

Actually, most recording artist get very little from CD sales, most of their money comes from touring, ticket sales and souveniers.

 

[Gollnick]

To enjoy a musician's work and want to possess their music and yet not contribute to their livelihood seems wrong to me.

That is very well put.

Artist's contracts vary. Some -- especially studio musicians -- get paid straight salary for an album. But their ability to command higher salaries and better contracts depends on the sales of the albums they've done. If the albums you work on sell well, then you can command a better deal on the next one. But illegal copies aren't counted in those sales stats. And it's not just the musicians either. There are technicians, recording engineers, mastering engineers, photographers, graphic artists, etc. etc., whose income is set by the sales success of the product they produce and who are all hurt by illegal copying.... and most of these people aren't rich fat-cats.

 

[maximus otter]

1. I think Mr. Collucci should be locked up, but that's just because he's a fireman.

2. Remember this slogan from the 80s: "Home taping is killing music!" ?

Music still seems to be alive.

I respect Mr. Gollnick's point of view, but I fail to see why I shouldn't burn a copy of a CD I've bought in order for me to be able to listen to it at home while my wife plays it in the car.

When I see Madonna selling pencils out of a tin cup on a street corner, or the members of the Rolling Stones squeegeeing windscreens, my attitude may change

maximus otter

PS: I don't download music. Not on a 28.8kbps connection... :grumpy:

 

[Guyon]

When I see Madonna selling pencils out of a tin cup on a street corner, or the members of the Rolling Stones squeegeeing windscreens, my attitude may change

maximus otter

Maximus, for those of you who don't know him, has a top-notch Madonna collection--even some unreleased stuff from the mid-90s!!! If he starts copying his CDs, Madonna very well might be selling pencils soon.

 

[flava]

In France a very recent law states the folowing:

If you DOWNLOAD media that is protected by copyright, you are liable to a fine of about $50
If you OFFER FOR DOWNLOAD media that is protected by copyright you are liable for a fine of up to $400,000 and up to 3 years of inprisonment.
Works fine for my side.

I SELDOM go to the teather to see a movie until seing it on my computer first (from Kazza, Emule, BitTorrent, whatever). Why? Because they won't give my money back if the movie sucks. If I like the movie I'll either go to the teather or buy the DVD. I refuse to pay for bad movies.
For the music it's about the same, if I like the mp3's I'll most likely buy the CD. If not, too bad for the artist.
This is just my take on it, everybody should make their own decisions.

 

[Gollnick]

When I see Madonna selling pencils out of a tin cup on a street corner, or the members of the Rolling Stones squeegeeing windscreens, my attitude may change

As I have said, stealing five bucks from Bill Gates is still stealing. And I can't be responsible for what the Rolling Stones or Madonna do. But, I can be responsible for what I do.

 

[yuzuha]

Hm, while you were sleeping, they pushed through new copyright laws extending them to life + 70 years or if a corporate work 120 years (apparently even the great great grandkids want to mooch on the success of their ancestors). Kind of a fart in the face to the idea of things going into public domain for the good of society. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

 

[toomanyknives]

I don't see any reason why you should not be able to make a duplicate copy of a song or entire CD if you had purchased it in the past and there was an issue with it. CDs scratch and you may loose songs, why not copy that song from a friend. I also do not see the issue taking records and creating digital files from them. Just my opinion.


Jack

 

[Gollnick]

I don't see any reason why you should not be able to make a duplicate copy of a song or entire CD if you had purchased it in the past and there was an issue with it. CDs scratch and you may loose songs, why not copy that song from a friend.

Well, because it's illegal. That's a reason. Maybe you can now see a reason.


Mr. Stjames explained it quite clearly.

It has been determined that purchasing a CD, DVD, Book, etc., only allows you to access the intellectual property therein directly from that source or from a copy you make for your own personal use. If you have the wherewithal and foresight to make a “back-up” copy that is allowed by law, as is copying to another medium, but all for your own personal use.

What if it was KV's CD player, not his CD, that was damaged and wouldn't play? Would it be ok for him to go out and steal an identical make/model unit to replace his? After all, he bought and paid for it, right? Of course not.

What a consumer buys and pays for is not a general right to all CD players nor is it a general right to all Sony model XYZ123 CD players, nor is it a guarantee that you will always henceforth have a working Sony model XYZ123 CD player. What you buy and pay for is Acme model XYZ123 CD player Serial Number 123456 with a 90-day warranty. If that unit breaks within 90 days, Acme will repair or replace it within the terms of the warranty. If it breaks after that, the buyer has to pay to repair or replace it himself.

When a consumer buys and pays for a CD, he do not buy the general rights to a song or to all copies of that song. He does not buy a guarantee that he will always have a working copy of that song. He buys a limited license to one specific CD of it. If he looses that specific CD or if that specific CD breaks, then he either has to see if the manufacturer will repair or replace it under warranty -- if there is a warranty -- or he will have to pay to either repair or replace it himself (CDs usually break because of user misuse, abuse, or neglect which generally aren't covered under warranties anyway). CDs are a little different than CD players in that you may make copies of a CD that you own as backups. But if you choose not to exercise that option, then you take the risk that if your original disk breaks, you will have to either repair or replace it at your expense. You can't steal a replacement of a CD anymore than you can steal a replacement of a CD player.

I also do not see the issue taking records and creating digital files from them. Just my opinion.

There is no problem with taking analog records or tapes that you legally own and making digital copies of them as long as the copies are for your own personal use and as long as it is reasonable to expect that only one will be in use at any time.

 

[Ken C.]

Geez. You don't need to rehash your views on the subject. Others who may have an opinion on the matter are allowed to have it without having you say the same thing, over, and over, and over again. Quite honestly Chuck, you're getting a bit more boring than normal.

Oh, and I got my copy. Legally. So...........PHHHHHHHHHTTTT!

And that's the final word because I'm closing this thread for my own sanity.