[hurley_108]

On iTunes: I don't own an iPod, but I've bought a few songs on iTunes. I can listen to them on my computer, but not my non-iPod MP3 player, thanks to DRM. So I burned an audio CD, and ripped them back to MP3. Inelegant, but it worked with no noticeable loss of quality. This would be defeating the DRM, right? Thus illegal, right? Why?

Consumers need broad, explicit protection of such reasonable actions.

[Zipperfish]

The fact is everyone likes to think of the "victims" of copyright infringment to be the big, bad record companies and thier lobbyists and the mega-acts like Metallica and Madonna--people who generate little sympathy (perhaps rightfully so).

But there's also a lot of smaller acts who are suffering becasue now they have to tour twice as much to make half as much money. They only have a couple of hits uner thier belt, maybe, maybe, but everyone is downloading them for free. Or their are bands that never really hit the big times and are retired now and relaly need that royalty check from teh record company that rolls in now and then.

I met a guy from a band like that. Lived a simple, comfortable life--probably not as well off as me. I knew that I had downloaded a couple of his songs for free, and after that I was done with stealing music.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The fact is everyone likes to think of the "victims" of copyright infringment to be the big, bad record companies and thier lobbyists and the mega-acts like Metallica and Madonna--people who generate little sympathy (perhaps rightfully so).

But there's also a lot of smaller acts who are suffering becasue now they have to tour twice as much to make half as much money. They only have a couple of hits uner thier belt, maybe, maybe, but everyone is downloading them for free. Or their are bands that never really hit the big times and are retired now and relaly need that royalty check from teh record company that roll sin now and then.

And they get that check when I download my song from iTunes, or buy their CD and rip it for myself, or buy their DVD and rip it to MP3s.

They also get a royalty check when I buy a blank DVD and put pictures on it to give to my parents. Or when I put a linux install disk on it, whose image was downloaded legally via P2P. I have burned so many data discs I could put my MP3s on them ten times over. As a result, they've even received royalties that aren't due to them.

This law is geared purely towards placating vocal industry lobbyists, and will criminalize reasonable actions.

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But there's also a lot of smaller acts who are suffering becasue now they have to tour twice as much to make half as much money. They only have a couple of hits uner thier belt, maybe, maybe, but everyone is downloading them for free. Or their are bands that never really hit the big times and are retired now and relaly need that royalty check from teh record company that roll sin now and then.

So I should feel sorry for someone that sang a song ten years ago and can produce a billion digital copies of it with a mouse click if he doesn't get paid for every single copy? If he sang the exact same song in front of an auditorium, he doesn't get royalty checks coming in for the next ten years, yet did the exact same amount of work - how is that justifiable?

Producers have taken advantage of the ease of using digital media without any translation to the buyers - they're working with a virtually infinite supply of their "product" and expect to reap benefits as if they were finite.

[hurley_108]

A couple of other notes on media levy: My 18 month old and one of her cousins got to a spindle of blank CDs once. Scratched about 20 to the point they weren't usable. Artists got a check off of those. I didn't get to use them at all. And then there are all the coasters I've made over the years. Levied, royalties paid. Are the levys set with some assumption of failure rates? Doubt it.

[Zipperfish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The fact is everyone likes to think of the "victims" of copyright infringment to be the big, bad record companies and thier lobbyists and the mega-acts like Metallica and Madonna--people who generate little sympathy (perhaps rightfully so).

But there's also a lot of smaller acts who are suffering becasue now they have to tour twice as much to make half as much money. They only have a couple of hits uner thier belt, maybe, maybe, but everyone is downloading them for free. Or their are bands that never really hit the big times and are retired now and relaly need that royalty check from teh record company that roll sin now and then.

And they get that check when I download my song from iTunes, or buy their CD and rip it for myself, or buy their DVD and rip it to MP3s.

They also get a royalty check when I buy a blank DVD and put pictures on it to give to my parents. Or when I put a linux install disk on it, whose image was downloaded legally via P2P. I have burned so many data discs I could put my MP3s on them ten times over. As a result, they've even received royalties that aren't due to them.

This law is geared purely towards placating vocal industry lobbyists, and will criminalize reasonable actions.

I don't like the blank DVD/CD tax--that's completely bogus in my opinion. However, I don't think that iss teh issue in this thread.

A lot of people don't download from iTunes--they just go to a P2P site and get it free. That is illegal but very widespread.

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

So I should feel sorry for someone that sang a song ten years ago and can produce a billion digital copies of it with a mouse click if he doesn't get paid for every single copy? If he sang the exact same song in front of an auditorium, he doesn't get royalty checks coming in for the next ten years, yet did the exact same amount of work - how is that justifiable?

Producers have taken advantage of the ease of using digital media without any translation to the buyers - they're working with a virtually infinite supply of their "product" and expect to reap benefits as if they were finite.

I don't care who you "feel sorry for." That person has a copyright on his music because he created it, and they are legally entitled to benefit from that copyright. If a person downloads his songs for free--or if a person resells the performer's material without permission--they are ripping that person off.

As for the perfomrance of the song live--it's called "copyright." It assumes some kind of copy.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

So I should feel sorry for someone that sang a song ten years ago and can produce a billion digital copies of it with a mouse click if he doesn't get paid for every single copy? If he sang the exact same song in front of an auditorium, he doesn't get royalty checks coming in for the next ten years, yet did the exact same amount of work - how is that justifiable?

So someone who wrote a book ten years ago and sold a few copies at a book signing shouldn't be bothered if you produce a billion digital copies of it with a mouse click and then give them to your friends or sell them for a profit?

Why should you be allowed to profit or enjoy the fruits of someone eles's labours for free?

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't care who you "feel sorry for." That person has a copyright on his music because he created it, and they are legally entitled to benefit from that copyright. If a person downloads his songs for free--or if a person resells the performer's material without permission--they are ripping that person off.

As for the perfomrance of the song live--it's called "copyright." It assumes some kind of copy.

You're the one who brought up sympathy for the starving musicians. My point still stands - the digital age allows producers an inifinite supply of their product with a finite input on their part, and that's not reflected in our laws.

I'm not arguing whether or not copyright infringement is illegal, I'm just pointing out that the context in which it's used today isn't justifiable - what the lobbyists are opposed to isn't people selling their products on the black market, it's consumers sharing media they purchased without compensation other than the benefit of accessing the media others are willing to share in return.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why should you be allowed to profit or enjoy the fruits of someone eles's labours for free?

I didn't say you should be allowed to profit from it, but as far as "enjoying" it, I've already gone over this - because, thanks to digital media, they can copy it for free.

The act of copying their work isn't proportional to the actual work they did in the first place, but copyright law treats it as if it were.

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

You're the one who brought up sympathy for the starving musicians. My point still stands - the digital age allows producers an inifinite supply of their product with a finite input on their part, and that's not reflected in our laws.

No I brought up my sympathy for a fellow musician. I woudn't presume to tell others how to feel. And I don't think I said he was starving. For the record, I don't think that artists should be "infinitely" compensated.

$1:

I'm not arguing whether or not copyright infringement is illegal, I'm just pointing out that the context in which it's used today isn't justifiable - what the lobbyists are opposed to isn't people selling their products on the black market, it's consumers sharing media they purchased without compensation other than the benefit of accessing the media others are willing to share in return.

But it's not yours to share. You own a copy of the music, not the music itself. Clearly there should be allowances for copying for your own personal use, but when you copy it in return for a material benefit, I'd say that goes beyond fair use.

It's a buck. Buy the song.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The fact is everyone likes to think of the "victims" of copyright infringment to be the big, bad record companies and thier lobbyists and the mega-acts like Metallica and Madonna--people who generate little sympathy (perhaps rightfully so).

But there's also a lot of smaller acts who are suffering becasue now they have to tour twice as much to make half as much money. They only have a couple of hits uner thier belt, maybe, maybe, but everyone is downloading them for free. Or their are bands that never really hit the big times and are retired now and relaly need that royalty check from teh record company that roll sin now and then.

And they get that check when I download my song from iTunes, or buy their CD and rip it for myself, or buy their DVD and rip it to MP3s.

They also get a royalty check when I buy a blank DVD and put pictures on it to give to my parents. Or when I put a linux install disk on it, whose image was downloaded legally via P2P. I have burned so many data discs I could put my MP3s on them ten times over. As a result, they've even received royalties that aren't due to them.

This law is geared purely towards placating vocal industry lobbyists, and will criminalize reasonable actions.

I don't like the blank DVD/CD tax--that's completely bogus in my opinion. However, I don't think that iss teh issue in this thread.

A lot of people don't download from iTunes--they just go to a P2P site and get it free. That is illegal but very widespread.

No, see, you download a CD, burn it on a CD, and the levy goes to compensate the artists for your download. It very much is the issue.

Also, at present, because of the levy, downloading is NOT illegal. Uploading is, in an odd inconsistency, but nevertheless, it's not illegal to download, provided you put it on levied media.

[sandorski]

The Music Industry needs a Steam like app. You buy a CD/DVD, you Register an Account and the CD/DVD, then you are able to Download an MP3(or other format) Digital File for use in a Player of that type. Otherwise they have to let you change Formats without penalty.

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But it's not yours to share. You own a copy of the music, not the music itself. Clearly there should be allowances for copying for your own personal use, but when you copy it in return for a material benefit, I'd say that goes beyond fair use.

That's the problem - the copies and the actual material are all the same these days. If I'm allowed to take the CD I bought over to my neighbour and give it to him, and I'm allowed to make personal copies of it as well, how do you handle that legally? If it's just as easy for me to email him the copy I made instead of the physical CD, is it any different? What if I smash up the CD before I send the copy, now is legitimate?

There's no doubt that musicians will make more money if they retain "intellectual rights" to their material, but they'd make even more if we banned sharing CDs as well, or even banned their resale of albums - no more used music store, why not go the extra step? How far are we willing to impose restrictions on what people can do so others can make money?

The whole issue is a mess with the combination of digital media and the internet, which is why I suggested the only reasonable solution is to set up legitimate subscription-based file-sharing. People are simply not going go back to the old ways of doing things.

[hurley_108]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

That's the problem - the copies and the actual material are all the same these days. If I'm allowed to take the CD I bought over to my neighbour and give it to him, and I'm allowed to make personal copies of it as well, how do you handle that legally? If it's just as easy for me to email him the copy I made instead of the physical CD, is it any different? What if I smash up the CD before I send the copy, now is legitimate?

Actually, as far as I know, the law does state how you're allowed to do such things. If You borrow a friend's CD, and make a duplicate, then give him back his original and keep your copy, that's legal. You aren't allowed, though, to name a copy for him and give it to him, even for free. It's subtle, but there. That's why uploading is illegal but downloading is legal.