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

[jwsamuel]

Originally Posted by Heather Anne Peel

Hearing a sample of someone's music and making a copy of it are two different things. There are ways to hear a sample of an artist's music that don't involve illegally copying and distributing their product.

Ever photocopy a magzine article for someone?

Jim

[david henman]

Originally Posted by jwsamuel

Ever photocopy a magzine article for someone?
Jim

...apples and door knobs. i've been in the publishing industry for almost twenty years and, to the best of my knowledge, journalists and writers don't earn royalties based on magazine sales/distribution. like the carpenter who builds houses, they get paid for their work once.

-dh

[snoglobe]

Originally Posted by david henman

...apples and door knobs. i've been in the publishing industry for almost twenty years and, to the best of my knowledge, journalists and writers don't earn royalties based on magazine sales/distribution. like the carpenter who builds houses, they get paid for their work once.

-dh

True, but the publisher is denied the opportunity to make that extra sale.

[popthree]

Originally Posted by david henman

...apples and door knobs. i've been in the publishing industry for almost twenty years and, to the best of my knowledge, journalists and writers don't earn royalties based on magazine sales/distribution. like the carpenter who builds houses, they get paid for their work once.

-dh

but the publishing house takes a hit

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by furrfurrfurr

Remember all those blank tapes (TDK, Maxell etc) that we all used to put music on. Those were illegal too, but we all did it.

Actually, that's not accurate. In the 1980's there was a settlement between the tape manufacturers and the music industry. A royalty was added to EVERY blank cassette sold. This royalty made it legal to copy music (but not for resale). The hundreds of millions of dollars collected were distributed to artists on a pro-rated basis based on their sales of their materials.

This was completely legal... yet, many cassettes were purchased to record a speech, or a church service or whatever and even though no copyrighted music was recorded with a healthy portion of those cassettes a royalty was paid to the music companies. Hey, it must be OK, nobody complained.

This exists to this day. If you buy a stand alone CD recorder that does not connect to a computer it is made with special circuitry that requires so called "music cdrs" to record on. These "music cdrs" cost 300% more than a data CD and the price difference is a royalty paid to musicians.

The delineator of this is the computer. Because computers burn data CDRs there is no royalty collected. Of course, if you want to support the music industry you could purchase Music CDRs and use them in your computer to burn copies of CDs. I guess then you'd be "legal".

Obviously, the music industry doesn't really ever talk about this option.

Why isn't a royalty fee figured into the pricing of all Ipods and MP3 players? Or, ponder this... add a royalty fee to the purchase of... wait for it... all Music CDs produced. This would compensate musicians for all downloaded and burned CDs.

No, the music industry isn't interested in raising the prices of CDs and hurting sales further OR making it OK to download and burn CDs.

The only solution will be the next version of the software. When SACDs started to be distributed many thought that this would be the format. It was higher quality and it couldn't be burned or downloaded. But this format has officially failed to catch on.

Paul Green

[popthree]

good info paul. one question i have is... so saying that music cd's become encrypted at some point in the future, would this cause all of our cd players to become useless? if so...bummer. if not...there is an analog conversion taking place, no? what would keep someone from recording that?

[Joel Terry]

Originally Posted by SuzyQ

If someone burns a CD for me, and I spend a good deal of time enjoying it, I buy a copy. If it sucks, I don't. This solves it for me, personally. I REALLY doubt most people would consider doing the same. (Burned CD's don't feel real to me, anyways.)

I'm the same way. I don't really like it when people give me burned CDs; I never ask for them. Well, not unless it's a copy of some tunes I need to learn for a show, that is.

I'd rather buy a CD or just pass on it. Listening to the samples on Amazon.com, I can usually tell rather quickly if it's my kind of music or not.

Joel

[Daddy Elmis]

My fervent wish is that folks that abide piracy would take a day and do some real research into the issue, starting with U.S. Copyright Act.

My favorite response is that making illegal copies "helps" the artist by giving them exposure. Seems to me the artist (and his/her label to whom he/she has granted the rights) should be the ones to make that decision, not the pirate. This would be like you stealing food from a restaurant and handing it out so the people could find out how good the restaurant is.

And, BTW, the facts (sales figures) contradict that oft-used rationale for piracy. Also, the vast majority of pirated music is from artists at the major labels, not small-time indy artists. If the artist wants you to have his/her music for free, they can publish it on their website for you to download.

The argument that you are "sticking it to The Man" when you pirate is likewise full of crap. The artist suffers in proportion to whatever their royalty deal is with The Man. So you're sticking it to both -- if the fact that somehow you're sticking it to the artist "less" makes you feel good, so be it. This rationale is also the same as the one made by folks that don't pay their taxes -- you see how well that works for them.

As for YouTube, they are structured to take advantage of the protections under the DMCA as an ISP (see YouTube). In essence, they are saying "we're just the ISP, and we remove material alleged to violate copyright as soon as we are made aware of it." Time will tell how well this works for them.

At the end of the day, it is illegal to copy protected works except in limited circumstances of "fair use" (as defined in the Copyright Act, not as defined by you or me) or the "time shifting" rationale adopted for videotaping. We can debate until the cows come home over it, but it is federal law. You can elect to break the law, but let's not try to paint that as some noble cause. You want to change the law? Write your legislature, vote, lobby, run for office.

[Skully]

good info paul. one question i have is... so saying that music cd's become encrypted at some point in the future, would this cause all of our cd players to become useless? if so...bummer. if not...there is an analog conversion taking place, no?

Record companies and movie studios are very eager to plug the analog hole.

what would keep someone from recording that?

A DRM (digital rights management) chip in the recorder that reads encrypted code from the media and prevents people from making copies.

[furrfurrfurr]

Originally Posted by furrfurrfurr
Remember all those blank tapes (TDK, Maxell etc) that we all used to put music on. Those were illegal too, but we all did it.

QUOTE
Actually, that's not accurate. In the 1980's there was a settlement between the tape manufacturers and the music industry. A royalty was added to EVERY blank cassette sold. This royalty made it legal to copy music (but not for resale). The hundreds of millions of dollars collected were distributed to artists on a pro-rated basis based on their sales of their materials.


Thanks Paul, I stand corrected on the blank-tape point.

[popthree]

http://www.meritline.com/samsung-da-cdr-ck.html

so would this make us illegals legit ?

[Big John]

I have been sitting on my hands watching this one unfold and dont want to annoy anyone but here goes ......
As is see it its simply a matter of change, changes are coming of that there is no doubt and the whole publishing/royalty collection thing is going to have to change to suit.
I work oft times at a college in Cambridge as the Mac tech and i have to tell you the younger students (17+) would not dream EVER of walking into a store and BUYING a CD !!, their music is all downloaded, from p2p sharing sites or between themselves, its hard for us 'old 'uns to understand but buying CD's is just not important to these kids, it just does NOT happen, what this means to the NEXT generation, who knows ?
Even the music students are aware of the changing industry, the web, wether we like it or not is becoming a powerful tool for music, you can write, record, produce, market and sell your product with no interference or wage bill for some guy in a suit you dont know the name of spouting sh*t about YOUR song !!
As long as you and your music are registered, (ASCAP in the states?) if some fool downloads and then claims it as his own then you are covered, you might even 'make' out of the law suit :-)
The web will only become a more important factor as time passes, we are so far beyond the 'genie being out of the bottle' now. Acts like 'Arctic monkeys' and Sandi Thom were both 'web first' acts and they are doing fine now thank you, to start with their music only 'existed' on the web so maybe Dylan was onto something in that other thread about you only buy the performance of a song as it was 'that day in the studio'
The intellectual copyright will always be that of the writer (you did register didnt you?) but maybe we should be the same as our younger students and just treat the 'mechanical' aspect of all this as a means to hear it and don't be so precious about it ?
Of course, how you manage this change i dont know, royalties on blank CD's is fine but now people dont use them, with a computer and iPod why would i want a CD ?, copy protection on CD's ?, give me a break !!, we have had the technology since the dawn of the CD, why we dont use it i dont know.
BUT ------ after all that, maybe its my age but i dont like doing it either !!
Trust me though, things will have to change or they will just get worse !!
(I am mostly happy, didn't want to sound like an old misery !)

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by popthree

http://www.meritline.com/samsung-da-cdr-ck.html

so would this make us illegals legit ?

I'm not sure where the industry stands on Audio CDs. These still include a "levy" paid to the RIAA but the industry is pretty quiet about the whole Audio CDR and if it's legitimate in their eyes to use it to copy copyrighted materials.

You'd have to assume that it is, because that's what it was created for.

One more thing, when you purchase a consumer level stand alone CD recorder (not connected to a computer) you also get SCMS (serial copy management software) that prohibits the copying of copied music in the digital domain. In other words, if you buy a commercial CD. Copy it, digitally, in a stand alone comsumer cd recorder onto audio CD media and then try to make a copy of that copy it will be recorded to the copy of the copy in an analog format not a digital format. Does that make sense to you? I don't know how it makes an analog copy and how that plays on a CD player.

I checked out the RIAA website to see what they say about the levy they receive from Audio CDRs... but there is not one word there about them.

Paul Green

[jwsamuel]

Originally Posted by david henman

...apples and door knobs. i've been in the publishing industry for almost twenty years and, to the best of my knowledge, journalists and writers don't earn royalties based on magazine sales/distribution. like the carpenter who builds houses, they get paid for their work once.

The fact is that a magazine is a copyrighted work and it is illegal to copy and distribute a copyrighted work. If you are going to take the position that copying a CD is illegal because of the copyright laws, you must also take the same position for all copyrighted works.

In addition, writers retain the rights for future sales of their work. When you buy a magazine, you have not purchased the right to distribute a writer's work to others. The writer retains control of further uses of the article unless his agreement with the magazine says otherwise.

Any writer who gets paid only once for his or her work is not doing a good job of marketing.

Jim

[jwsamuel]

Originally Posted by Daddy Elmis

And, BTW, the facts (sales figures) contradict that oft-used rationale for piracy.

That is a false and misleading use of statistics by the recording industry. They base their claim on the assumption that every copied disc represents a CD that would have been purchased had the consumer not obtained a copy. That is just not true. I am sure that a percentage of copies do represent lost sales, but I doubt that the majority of people would have purchased a specific CD had they not received a copy of it.

Jim

[furrfurrfurr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddy Elmis
And, BTW, the facts (sales figures) contradict that oft-used rationale for piracy.

That is a false and misleading use of statistics by the recording industry. They base their claim on the assumption that every copied disc represents a CD that would have been purchased had the consumer not obtained a copy. That is just not true. I am sure that a percentage of copies do represent lost sales, but I doubt that the majority of people would have purchased a specific CD had they not received a copy of it.

Jim


I agree. Nor does it take into account the sales that were actually generated by someone being given a burned disc and then purchasing the same album because they liked it, as well as that person consequently purchasing past/future albums by the same artsit. It's happened to me dozens and dozens of times.

[Daddy Elmis]

I agree statistics can be misleading and mis-used in the wrong hands.

I would commend to everyone the excellent articles on music piracy in the April 2006 "Journal of Law and Economics" published by the University of Chicago, and sponsored by the Business School and Law School at the University. These are academically rigorous, objective research pieces on the issue of the impact of illegal downloads, not solely on the record industry in terms of sales, but on the impact of buying decisions of people that illegally download.

I don't think the results of the research will surprise anyone who looks at the issue objectively, and will not change the minds of those who don't.

[popthree]

honestly, if i own a bunch of cd's and want to make a compilation for a friend i really don't have any problem with the ethics of doing this. i bought the cd, i own it, i paid for the rights to listen to it, and allow my friends to listen to it. i mean, really what's the difference if my good friend listens to my original, or the one i burned for him. i didn't know the information about cassette tapes and licensing fees added in to the cost. i grew up doing this same thing with records and cassettes. if there is any merit to buying "music" cd's, I will do it in the future. some may have issue... fine..don't do it. personally, i won't lose any sleep over it.

unlimited sharing of music via a napster like vehicle is a totally different animal, IMO.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Actually, that's not accurate. In the 1980's there was a settlement between the tape manufacturers and the music industry. A royalty was added to EVERY blank cassette sold. This royalty made it legal to copy music (but not for resale). The hundreds of millions of dollars collected were distributed to artists on a pro-rated basis based on their sales of their materials.

Actually, it was the courts that made it legal to copy music for personal use, not the royalties that are collected on blank cassettes. Paying the royalty does not entitle you to do anything you couldn't otherwise do.

Originally Posted by webmaster

Why isn't a royalty fee figured into the pricing of all Ipods and MP3 players? Or, ponder this... add a royalty fee to the purchase of... wait for it... all Music CDs produced. This would compensate musicians for all downloaded and burned CDs.

This goes to show just how far the industry has snowed us. Let's see, I buy some CDs on the Sony label and pay a royalty. I then buy a Sony MP3 player to play the music and pay a royalty. Oh wait, first I buy a Sony computer to upload the CDs - it plays music, so I guess I pay another royalty. Then I buy some Sony blank CDs to make mix CDs - more royalties paid. Who's the starving artist now?

And then there's my earlier suggestion that the ISPs should pay a fee for all the content traded on their service. I just remembered: the major media conglomerates own the ISPs! So if I subscribe to their high speed service in order to trade content, the industry is already benefiting - it's like buying an illegal satellite dish from a company owned by DirecTV!

What is going on here? This is the industry that's crying poor and complaining about theft?

[Skully]

This goes to show just how far the industry has snowed us. Let's see, I buy some CDs on the Sony label and pay a royalty. I then buy a Sony MP3 player to play the music and pay a royalty. Oh wait, first I buy a Sony computer to upload the CDs - it plays music, so I guess I pay another royalty. Then I buy some Sony blank CDs to make mix CDs - more royalties paid. Who's the starving artist now?

Well, Sony doesn't receive the royalties (if that's what you meant). ASCAP and BMI receive the royalties to distribute to the artists.

Sony is an interesting case, because they both distribute content and make computers. In general, content providers and computer makers and other hardware manufacturers are at opposite ends of the lobbying war over freedom to copy, etc., in Washington.

[Tremo]

If you go to a store that sells blank recordable CDs, you'll see that there are blank media that is labelled for Audio use, and other blank media that is for general computer data use, backing up data files, etc. You will notice that the "audio" CDs are more expensive than the "data" CDs. That difference in price is the royalty fees payed to RIAA. The CDs themselves are basically identical, other than the audio ones are so identified on their inner tracks that the CD burner reads in order to determine maximum burn speed.

Now, if you have a stand-alone audio CD recorder, it will generally refuse to burn audio onto a data CD, you are forced to use the more expensive audio CD blanks. However, a CD burner attached to your computer doesn't care, and it will gladly burn audio onto the cheaper data CDs. Again, the CDs are identical, no real differences.

I have a CD burner on my computer, and when I burn a copy of a purchased CD, I always burn onto a blank data CD, works like a champ. It's cheaper, and if one of the copies gets damaged, no biggie, just toss it and burn another.

If RIAA doesn't like it, I could care less.

[zombywoof]

Just curious as to how many of ya'll crying theft and foul own bootlegs or copies of them?
These are not illegal to own or from what I understand to distribute so long as no profit is made (meaning you can trade them). Still - they consist of copyrighted material. Live material, outtakes, complete recording sessions, even remastered commercial releases (which up to the release of the hybrid SACDs often surpassed the quality of the commercial relseases by leaps and bounds).
Is there a difference?