If someone gave you a copy of a CD...

[snoglobe]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTexan

It was illegal then too. The difference with CDs and digital transfer is that music and music data bases can be copied without any perceiveable degredation in quality (to the vast majority of people).



It's illegal.

I have always found it funny though (going back to the days of cassettes) that a company like Sony Music can complain about piracy out of one side of their mouth, but then offer to sell you cassette recorders, two-cassette decks, CD recorders and all the cassettes and blank CDs you could use.

Can they have it both ways?

As for getting a CD copy, I would probably listen to it. If it was crap, I would pitch it. If it was good, I would probably purchase something else by the artist. I doubt I would rebuy the same CD, unless it was an absolutely stellar, stand on its head, desert island CD - and those are few and far between.

[boneshaker335]

Originally Posted by Bones

It would be the same as someone giving you $15.00 they stole from a cash register, sure you could use the money and the store has plenty more where that came from, but if a friend said "here's $15.00 I just swiped when no one was looking, would you take it?

No it's not "the same".

It's annoying when people try to argument against piracy by using plain wrong analogies.

If you steal 15$ out of the cash register, they are acutally missing from the cash register after the fact. Something that WAS THERE before IS MISSING later.

If you copy a CD, the copyright holder STILL HAS ALL the money he had before. He didn't make any additional money, that's true, but that's different than stealing something he already had.

In Germany they now threaten me to put me in jail for up to 3 years for copying a copy-protected CD I own legally for use in my own car.

Well, I won't break this bull**** law, but as a thank you I haven't bought any copy protected CDs for 4 years. Reading a book is fun, too. If they think they have to bully their paying customers, they can keep their stuff.

Originally Posted by TeleTurkey

You could do it the right way and buy the album for your friend.

LOL, I am not the PR guy for the record labels. If they don't want samplers distributed among friends, then I simply won't do it. Let's see how unkown artists are able to develop good word of mouth PR without this. Not my problem. I own every record I have legally, but I won't buy them twice. Period.

If they don't allow me (by using copy protection) to make a copy for my car or for my PC based HIFI jukeboy, I simply won't buy the CD.

[snoglobe]

Originally Posted by Heather Anne Peel

Buying and reproducing are two different things. You can certainly give the purchased CD away as a gift. Copying the CD and giving it away is illegal, because the CD was reproduced illegally for distribution, in that instance. The CD copy's existence in anyone's possession, other than your own, is illegal.

Yet every new computer boasts faster copying burn speed and millions of blank CDs are sold every year and for what reason? Sure you can make a pretty mobile out of blank CDs for the baby's room, they make dandy coasters to rest your beer on. But primarily they are marketed to people for the express purpose of copying music, video and other copyrighted material.

[Fatmanstratman]

Heather - this thread has been VERY interesting. Many thanks to Chet for starting it!

There are obviously many varied and interesting views - it would appear that there are two camps... you are either for a stonewall "No!" or a "What's the harm in it?"

I hope more members will continue to post here - I don't believe we are going in circles just yet!

[popthree]

Originally Posted by 0le FUZZY

"
What's the future of musicians if thier work can be pirated by anyone and everyone?"

the future for musicians is brighter than ever before

[Heather Anne Peel]

Originally Posted by snoglobe

I have always found it funny though (going back to the days of cassettes) that a company like Sony Music can complain about piracy out of one side of their mouth, but then offer to sell you cassette recorders, two-cassette decks, CD recorders and all the cassettes and blank CDs you could use.

Can they have it both ways?

Again, copying for personal use is legal.

[snoglobe]

Originally Posted by Heather Anne Peel

Copying music for personal use is not illegal. Copying music and distributing it is illegal.

If you already own it, why would you need to copy it?

[popthree]

Originally Posted by Bones

What do you do for a living, if you do not mind me asking?

i'm in IT, currently, information security ....seriously

[Bones]

Originally Posted by snoglobe

If you already own it, why would you need to copy it?

Because in spit eof the hype, CDs do not actually last forever, I have some older CDs that you can see right through in parts because contaminents have leached through the plastic and broken down the actual media, they are worthless now, if I had made copies that were store properly, I would still have that music.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by popthree

i'm in IT, currently, information security ....seriously

That's funny.

[Fatmanstratman]

Just on a slight tangent to the original thread...

What about TABS that used to be freely available on the net? I used to download hundreds, simply to learn how the pros play the songs, so that I could improve my own playing a little.

Downloading TAB has now been shut down, and as a consequence there are many people (my son being one example) who don't learn as much, and certainly don't PLAY as much.

So now you have to go out and buy the 'original' books with the words, music and TAB shown therein. They are pretty expensive. What happens? One guy buys the book, then photocopies the relevant pages and passes them amongst his friends. Isn't this just about the same thing?

[chickenpicker]

What, is it illegal to copy CDs and share them around? Well I never! Whatever next?

[jonzer]

Those things make great coasters.

[stevieboy]

Popthree, you may be right in saying that unauthorized distribution can be good overall for the artists in terms of exposure, etc. Some new bands have offered their music free and it's helped them. But that should be their call, not yours. The argument basically is saying "I know what's good for you." But for those who make that argument and also regularly steal music, it also just happens to be conveniently what's good for them.

[TheGoodTexan]

With all due respect Mister Terry....

Originally Posted by Joel Terry

Are artists really that naive?

In most cases? Yes.

In my experience, most artists have no idea what really goes on in the distribution chain. In other words, what happends after the recording leaves the mastering suite...but before it gets to Wal-Mart or iTunes. That inbetween time....and all of the costs associated with them....most artists don't really know....and maybe even one step further.....don't even care.

I would even say that probably, if artists did take the time to learn about how music distribution really works, most of them would try to find a way to do it themselves, a la Prince.

I'll be the first to say that most artists would probably be better served financially by taking out a loan at a bank and funding their projects themselves.

Originally Posted by Joel Terry

"Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." See the connection to music piracy and the late, great Mr. Clemens' words?

Joel

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." According to the late, great Albert King, there are some things that you just can't do anything about!

[firefrets]

The only time i'm ever passed a copy is for a new song to rehearse for a band.Let's face it, i could gain my own copies if i really wanted to.
The artist, then hopefully benefits from our free advertising of the record, during the show, from people who wouldn't otherwise hear it, because of the state of the media, and the modern pop problem. That hopefully exteds to concert sales, word of mouth, etc.
It might be better for them to get royalties from the sales of all the cd drives, mp3 player sales etc. There is an argument for both sides, but the only people who can truly state their cases, are recording artists themselves.
I personally think the whole thing is exactly the same as a video recorder, or tape recorder.
Personally, i would rather someone hear my music for free, than never hear it at all. If i make money on top, great, but even recording artists copy files, as they are human the same.
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet.
It's the guy's who sell them for profit who are the disgrace..not the enthusiastic listener .

[Bones]

Originally Posted by firefrets

The only time i'm ever passed a copy is for a new song to rehearse for a band.Let's face it, i could gain my own copies if i really wanted to.
The artist, then hopefully benefits from our free advertising of the record, during the show, from people who wouldn't otherwise hear it, because of the state of the media, and the modern pop problem. That hopefully exteds to concert sales, word of mouth, etc.
It might be better for them to get royalties from the sales of all the cd drives, mp3 player sales etc. There is an argument for both sides, but the only people who can truly state their cases, are recording artists themselves.
I personally think the whole thing is exactly the same as a video recorder, or tape recorder.
Personally, i would rather someone hear my music for free, than never hear it at all. If i make money on top, great, but even recording artists copy files, as they are human the same.
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet.

When you earn money as a cover band, aren't you supposed to pay royalties on th songs you perform? I know if a high school wants to put on a "broadway" show, they have to pay for the rights.

[Skully]

If the recording industry and artists are so concerned about pirating and theft of intellectual property, then why hasn't the industry and the artists done more to champion or develop viable theft/copy deterrents?... Or are is the industry simply afraid to boost CD prices beyond a lot of consumers' purchasing threshold with the R&D costs involved in keeping up encryption methods from being "cracked"?

You have to remember that CDs are an aged technology. They are not capable of supporting an effective and viable encryption scheme. Neither are DVDs. The new HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVD formats were designed with copyright protection in mind, and they supposedly have a workable and effective encryption option built in.

[firefrets]

BONES...I guess music would die a huge death if we got into that subject too deep.
There are various licenses etc throughout the music business which protect to a degree, but i'm not the best person to give an opinion on royalties, as i've never had a hit in the charts. Most of my guitar work was payed as a wage.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by Heather Anne Peel

Reproduction of copyrighted music, video, software, printed works, etc. for anything other than personal use is illegal.

If the industry hadn't lost in court, reproduction for personal use would also be illegal. I suspect that anyone who studies the industry's behaviour on intellectual property issues is bound to come away with a certain ambivalence. No surprise there, really - the media conglomerates that control the music industry are acting in the only way they are legally permitted to act: in the interest of their shareholders. For the industry to act in any other parties' interests (such as musicians, for example) against the interest of its shareholders is - yes, you guessed it - ILLEGAL.

And we wouldn't want anyone breaking the law, would we?

[Tim Armstrong]

Like most things, it isn't strictly a matter of right/wrong, black/white.

Burning a copy of a CD is ok (IMHO) when it's for your own use (in the car, office, backup, etc), or it's for a bandmate to learn the songs. Burning a compilation CD is ok (IMHO) practically anytime, as hearing a song on a compilation would tend to promote buying the original CD.

Burning a copy of a CD album to give to a friend is a gray area, seems to me. I have no problem with copying something that's out of print or otherwise unavailable, but a copying something that's readily available commercially (to avoid buying it) is not only theft, but morally repugnant to me.

Yeah, my regard for the major record companies is fairly low, and I think their business model is pretty rotten to both the artists and the listeners, but when you get right down to it, if they weren't in business, and hadn't fronted the money to get those recordings made and released, I wouldn't have the opportunity to hear them at all. And while I'm not crying big tears for their shareholders, I do realize that the money I pay for a CD also supports songwriters, recording engineers, booking agents, session musicians, roadies, bus drivers, warehouse workers and record store clerks.

Did you know that the Tower Records chain just went bankrupt? Back when I was in college, I used to spend hours in Tower Records in Washington DC, flipping through albums, spending my hard-earned cash on stuff I couldn't find anywhere else. Heck, I earned some of that money working at Record World in Kensington, Maryland. They went bye-bye a few years back.

Maybe there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but I know what feels right and what feels wrong, and ripping off music feels wrong to me.

Cheers, Tim

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by firefrets

It might be better for them to get royalties from the sales of all the cd drives, mp3 player sales etc. There is an argument for both sides, but the only people who can truly state their cases, are recording artists themselves.
I personally think the whole thing is exactly the same as a video recorder, or tape recorder.

I'm not a fan of the industry getting royalties (and remember, it would be the INDUSTRY, not necessarily musicians) from the sales of CD drives, MP3 players, etc. With that approach, you would be double taxing the law abiding who already pay royalties at the time of purchase of CDs, DVDs, etc.

Actually, I'm surprised the industry hasn't done the obvious (at least it seems obvious to me) and gone after the ISPs for payment. I mean, you can't put protected content on your cable TV station or radio station without paying a royalty, so why not ding the ISPs? After all, it can be argued that the growth of ISPs has been driven to a large extent by trading in protected material. Why not make them pay for their "content"? This would make Internet service similar to cable TV in that subscribers would pay a monthly fee to access protected content, with the content provider working out the payment details with the content owners.