The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Music pirates can be deluded no longer > Comments

Music pirates can be deluded no longer : Comments

By Stephen Peach, published 30/9/2005

Stephen Peach argues downloading music from the Internet is theft.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft, stealing, larceny all involve taking away something with the intent to deprive the owner of that property. You can't deprive someone of intellectual property unless you repeal copyright law or delete all copies.

The networks are not infringing copyright, the owners were authorising that infringement, but that can be avoided, just as selling VCRs etc. don't necessarily constitute authorisation (although a recent ad I saw by Panasonic would've). And almost every single person using an iPod is infringing--even if they don't know it, because it is illegal to copy from a CD that you've already bought.

"Key among them is the suggestion that all recording artists have the ability and financial resources to produce high-quality recordings and music videos without the support of a record company or other financial backer: many of them don't and many of them don't want to."
The cost of producing high quality recordings is going down, and while record companies do have people of greater skill to help improve music their main role is one of distribution and promotion. The main cost it would seem is that of taking the risk with a specific artist, something that the internet can make less necessary. People are less likely to copy whole CDs of local and less successful artists, compared to those that are already making lots of money. Perhaps if it weren't for the huge profit margins on those songs (DVDs too) then people would be more willing to buy them.

"The music industry is an enthusiastic supporter of new legal online distribution businesses. It is committed to doing all that it can to create an environment in which such businesses can establish and prosper to the benefit of both creators and consumers of music."
Prove it, why are we still waiting in anticipation for the Australian iTunes store? The industry is looking out for the owners of music copyright: themselves. Consumers do not benefit from DRM and other technological protection measures, and creators don't get any additional benefit from online stores; they have little control over the contracts.
Posted by Deuc, Friday, 30 September 2005 1:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The vast majority of people have a simple concept of stealing—somebody has something and after the theft they don’t have it any more. Downloading music is not regarded by the vast majority of people as theft because nobody has been deprived of anything tangible. When you steal an actual CD--the CD is gone.

The music industry should perhaps be grateful that most people are remarkably sensible in deciding what is a crime is and what is not. The music industry encourages the broadcasting of their products into the public space, a fact painfully apparent when taking a stroll in any shopping centre in the country. If we were talking about the dumping of chemical sludge in a public place rather than the playing of music it could be called an environmental crime. But we are not talking about chemical sludge and fortunately for music industry exectuives most people feel that real pollution has to be tangible and though loud music in public can be annoying it is not regarded as real pollution, no more than copying or downloading music is regarded by most people as real theft.

The music industry can continue to win court case after case, but people will still not see downloading music as a crime --this is a hard cold fact that the music industry had better come to terms with.
Posted by JB1, Friday, 30 September 2005 1:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For one, I couldn't care less about this "theft." Those behind the court actions are greedy, bloated corporations that terrorise children and extract money out of their parents to avoid court cases.

Civil disobedience everyone: it's time to disregard stupid laws and protest against draconian copyright and IP laws. If the fact that record companies' CD sales have actually gone up wasn't enough, they now want valuable police and other resources on their thought crime teams. Tell them loud and clear to get stuffed, and that you won't be bullied.

People reject stupid thought crime laws; we reject the copyright and DRM measures of Microsoft and the "entertainment" industry. Share everything you have on the P2P networks and do your part to stick your finger up at the corporate fascists.
Posted by ConspiracyTheory, Friday, 30 September 2005 4:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Music is art and art is for everyone. But not everyone can afford a CD.

Anyone else see a problem already?

As a musician myself, I would be most flattered if people paid money to see a show/buy an album, but if they download it instead, fine. At least my creation is being heard and appreciated. It’s just money. Art will always be more important than money. Try to think of downloading as a library for sound.

I buy as many albums as I can afford, but there’s more I want to hear and so I download music. Am I stealing? No. Because I didn’t download INSTEAD of buying, if the download didn’t happen, I still wouldn’t have made any purchase. Therefore my downloading has absolutely zero effect on the industry, money wise. The change that HAS been made, however, is that I now have heard some new art, and if I am impressed enough, will probably go buy a ticket if the artist came to town (an unexpected benefit of music sharing is that it has shifted the emphasis back on to live performances, which can only be a plus).

I’m not saying downloading is a great thing and everyone should do it. In fact I definitely agree it’s done too much. Buy a CD if you can afford it, but if you can’t, you still deserve to hear it. Borrow from a friend. Request a song on the radio. Record the video clip off the TV. Or download it. It’s your right, because art is for everyone.

Many artists are struggling, yes, and it’s because the labels treat them like dirt. Have you ever seen a contract for when an artist gets signed? It is unbelievable how unfair it is on the artist, but they have to sign because they may never the chance again. That sort of treatment has a far more detrimental effect on the industry than music downloading does.

How about this: download the music by huge artists that don’t need any more cash, and spend the money you’ve saved on a struggling artists work.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 30 September 2005 4:55:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Peach,

Firstly, out of curiosity, how many songs have you written? Don't try and tell me that the "livelihood" of artists such as Jet is affected by people downloading music. Oh no! They can buy only three houses this week instead of four.

I buy a lot of CDs, but your fantastic buddies in certain record companies have put Copy Protection on these now. Too bad if I want to listen to these songs on my iPod (for which I can't legally download music anywhere because your mates over at Sony won't sign a piece of paper because they want more money. I'm curious to see how much money from each "legal" download actually goes to the artist.

The only way for me to get music on my iPod is to "steal" it. Even if I've bought the bloody CD, I still have to "steal" the music from the internet. Why is there not some form of mp3/aac/wma on albums, so that people who have purchased the albm can listen to it on their portable music players without having to resort to such drastic measures as "stealing".

The last thing in the world that I would want to do is reduce the living standards of a record exec...
Posted by matt42, Friday, 30 September 2005 6:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The recorded music industry in Australia is reaping the rewards of its own behaviour, loyalty wise.
Why do they fight for so long and so hard against paralell imports? to protect a nice little earner.
APRA act like mafia standover men, eager to wring every penny out of well, anywhere you hear music.
The enormous beurocracy and fancy offices have to be paid for as does the cocaine.
The people who put in the hard work i.e. the artists are way down the pecking order, many artists can eke out a living but not many make the big bucks.
So support live music and download to your hearts content.
Sure, the admission price will rise, but the money has a better chance of getting to those that earn it. And by listening to heaps of music, people will make better choices. The quality of music will improve as the scene becomes more competetive.
At last something has broken the big sevens stronghold (oops, may only be five!)
all the best.
Posted by The all seeing omnipotent voice of reason, Friday, 30 September 2005 10:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I tape songs off the radio, thats not theft. A store will supply me with a DVD recorder with the specific purpose of recording shows, music videos etc. that I want to watch later.

So what is the big deal with internet downloads? We can come up with all the statistics we want (i.e. 20% less sales), but the reality is most of the songs that people download they aren't going to go and buy anyway. As with most of my friends as well, if they hear a song they really enjoy, they'll go out and buy the album.

Although I was a bit too young to remember, I've heard how in the 80's, they were saying that recordable videos and video hires were going to ruin cinema sales. Some time later, we see Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Jurassic Park all pulling in some of the highest grossing packets of all time.

If artists start going broke over it, I'll bite my tongue. But I can't see it happening. It means is there is new media for the record companies to distribute their products. All they need to do is invent some gimmick which makes their product desirable (like CD covers, lyrics inside, certificate of authencity did for CDs). If people can market tap water for $2, surely this can be achieved.
Posted by justin86, Saturday, 1 October 2005 12:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephen Peach is right and

Deuc “Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft, stealing, larceny all involve taking away something with the intent to deprive the owner of that property.”

is wrong

It is wrong because Deuc has rationalised the statement to suit his corruption of ownership to fit with his particular manipulation of morality.

What theft of copyright does is deprives the “copyright owner” of the “benefits of ownership”

In the case of copyright, the “benefit of ownership” is the income stream which is generated from the ownership.

An analogy – a taxi cab owner. can only work (say) 12 hours a day so when he is resting, someone else, without his knowledge, takes his taxi, uses it for their own benefit, returns the cab but makes no financial restitution to the driver. The driver is thus deprived of the benefits of ownership of his taxi cab and the person who used the cab is a thief.

It is a fact, the music industry makes a lot of money from successful releases. The reality of the industry is this – for every success, there are around 16 – 20 failures. These failures are also “paid for” by the recording industry but generate no sales for their costs to be recovered against.
“Economic viability” finds the balance between the successes and failures – it applies to the development of every innovation be it medical, (new drugs and procedures) musical (copyright fees) or mineral (oil exploration – not every well sunk produces oil!).

If the method of finding / revenue generation – including copyright and royalties, is tampered with (deprived by illegal copying) the ultimate consequence is less money for development that means fewer risks on new music and more emphasis on reliable income (already successes) . So if you want to see fewer or no new bands promoted in pre-recorded formats – keep on stealing – otherwise the alternative is stagnation of what is available and recycling of “Max Bygraves hits of the 1950s” (not a nice thought).
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 2 October 2005 8:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sometimes the law is an ass.

This whole thing is symptomatic of the music business multinational style of operations... LAZY.

The biz churns out such homogenised, quasi authentic dross, devoid of any credibility and smothered in the whole corporate treatment that the general music listening and buying public are staying away in droves.

The talent i nothing like it was only 20 yrs ago. You just dont get anyone coming thru these days with much of a chance of establishing a long term career. The record companies do not nurture talent. They test market their corporate make overs to middle aged housewives in the burbs for a minute over the telephone and on that basis change an intro, tweak a verse, alter a chorus. You get the drift. Then they wounder why people chuck that stuff out like the disposable product that it is.

The record companies will build an entire album around one or two hits. Much of wot you get is padding. Its got no heart. Then they wonder why people dont want to buy what is essentially a single with 8 or 9 B sides. The buying public will only do so much of that before they feel ripped off. And ripped off is how many of us feel. Then again, the record companies have been ripping off and robbing everyone blind for decades now. They rip off the public, the musicians, the writers. If it were up to them, they would own all of the creative output the minute you walk into one of their studios and the talent would just end up going on the payroll at $15hr.

The oh so big scarey reality of the internet is that it challenges the hegemoniacal monopoly control that the multinationals have over DISTRIBUTION. When you control the channels of delivery and distribution you basically own the landscape and all the bodies that want to traverse it. That is the essence of their power. It is the guts of their business model.
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 2 October 2005 10:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is another reality. What has driven record company profits since the 80s? Since the dawn of the 'corporate treatment' and the dawn of the death of popular music's heart? Answer... technological changes in delivery medium. If it wasn't for the compact disk, corporate profits would have prolly been in a lot of trouble since the eighties. There has been a bit of wind in their sales with the migration to DVDs. Thank god all the old timers are still happy to go out and replace their entire collection of most 70 and 80s pop/rock with first CDs and 20 yrs later DVDs.

But that is not enuff to float the fat bloated boats of the record companies. The new delivery medium of the internet is ephemeral. Its not physical. It cant be pineed down. Its open ended and very difficult to control.

Hence the incessant whinning of the fat cats whose cavier, cream and cognac breakfast, lunch and dinners are now under threat. They barrel out their 'sky is falling' shills who lay some stoipud guilt trip on the public because the public is doing a better rip off job than they themselves have done since the 50s.

Its about time the record company stopped trying to sell their horses, buggies and whips to people who dont want that anymore. Get with the program fools. The internet is just sitting their waiting for you to utilise it as a new delivery medium. Hire a few hundred MBAs and do your friggin job and stop whining about your apathetic desire to stick to the old ways.

Oh, and spare us the red hearings like 'internet downloading is theft.' We are not as dumb as you think we are.
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 2 October 2005 10:45:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, at what point did I say that I supported copyright infringement? Oh, that's right I didn't.

Removing the rhetoric, you're saying that I have read the statement (presumably "illegal copying is theft") to suit my supposedly incorrect understanding of ownership. Well no, what a person owns is the right to dictate how copies are made, you cannot (easily) steal that right you can only infringe or impede it. While there are some offences for certain types of copyright infringement it is generally a civil issue, unlike theft. Theft is about taking the property, not the benefits.

That's a pretty poor example of being deprived of the benefits of ownership. Here's another analogy: you buy a big screen TV, and I set up a transmitter to interfere with your reception or I impersonate you and have your cable switched off or perhaps I even cut the power to your house or take a sledgehammer to the screen. I have deprived you of the benefits of ownership, but it's not theft, there are distinctions in kind and liability between those things, copyright infringement and theft. The attempt to rebadge it as theft is simply part of a PR campaign to combat the wide community acceptance of illegal copying.

As I said in my orignal post, and others have said, the internet can reduce the costs & risks related to new artists; thus reducing the need for record companies. I'm more interested in the harmful consequences of the industries' efforts to protect their cash cows and the continued failure of Australian legislators to allow for the reasonable use & adaptation of copyrighted works, with the best model of music distribution being a secondary issue.
Posted by Deuc, Sunday, 2 October 2005 12:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Duec “Col, at what point did I say that I supported copyright infringement? Oh, that's right I didn't.”

At what point did I suggest you did?

Unless your statement

“Copyright infringement is not theft.”

Means you actually support enforcement of copyright – and in fact do consider copyright infringement “Theft” – in which case you would have the words wrong

So Duec does not support copyright infringement – he just says he does! – oh how HE IS A contrary Mary!

The rest of your post sounds like some lame attempt to justify your own bad attitude and behaviour and as such not worth responding to.

Trade215 – the record industry – according to your view – of access via internet does not have any monopoly over the free distribution of music and from my personal experience, I know turn down a lot of wannabe deals more than it takes on bands.

Your proposal is an example of envious and small minded spleen venting eg

“fat bloated boats of the record companies”
“the fat cats whose cavier, cream and cognac breakfast, lunch and dinners”
“Hire a few hundred MBAs and do your friggin job and stop whining about your apathetic desire to stick to the old ways.”

I would note record companies have always been at the front edge of media carrier innovation from wax cylinders to acetate, vinyl, tape, 8 track, music cassette, CD DVD etc. and did not "hanker" for the old carriers - such is the nature of a competitive multi-suppier industry.

Such invective says more about you than it does about music companies (that being more than a touch of the “no-class” Lathams I suspect)

As for

“Its about time the record company stopped trying to sell their horses, buggies and whips to people who dont want that anymore”

No one is forced to buy them

So by the time we read your words

“Oh, and spare us the red hearings like 'internet downloading is theft.' We are not as dumb as you think we are.”

No – you actually sound a whole lot dumber
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 3 October 2005 8:08:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was getting all geared up to challenge Col's post but then I realised that it makes very little sense and there aren't any 'points' to dispute, at least in the sense I'm used to.

It seems he's in the minority view here. Most people posting have the sense to see that downloading music, just like buying a second hand cd or taping the radio, is not stealing.

Col, your analogy of 'borrowing' a car is wrong. For it to be the same as downloading music, the perpetrator would have to magically make an instant clone of the car, and drive *that* around, with the original owner not losing anything. That's what happens when a song is downloaded.

It seems most people (in these big court cases) who do believe it is stealing seem to be the ones who have some sort of financial interest in believing so. I don't like to be reminded how music is treated as a commodity instead of as art, like it should. Why is it all money money money. It's so BORING. Music enriches your life. No one should be denied that privilege simply for not being able to afford a cd.

I'll say it again. If they weren't going to buy it ANYWAY, what has changed? How has the industry been affected?

...it hasn't, has it.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 3 October 2005 9:36:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spendocrat "I was getting all geared up to challenge Col's post but then I realised that it makes very little sense and there aren't any 'points' to dispute, at least in the sense I'm used to."

Admitted defeat - thanks

My car analogy was to observe the denial of rightful benefit owed to the car owner - in that context my analogy is correct - that such subtlety is beyond your scope of comprehension comes as no surprise.

"I'll say it again. If they weren't going to buy it ANYWAY, "

If they were not going to buy it they would not want to download it.... downloading implies intent. Downloading of copyright product is theft as sure as 'shop lifting' is theft.

Self righteous rationalisations of "big bad record companies" relies on your cheap reasoning of an illegal act and displays a complete absence of ethic -

I suggest that is why you have difficulty in challenging my post

It would be impossible for you, even if you were not hamperred by such limited vocabulary and reasoning skills, to justify what is blatently illegal and unethical.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 3 October 2005 12:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col

looks like l hit on a raw nerve. Sorry to push your buttons old boy.

The language l use is deliberately harsh, not as a reflection of my politics (nuetral to the point of indifference) but as a reflection of frustration at the very glib, cliched, well constructed, one sided PR dross that music biz shills constantly barrell out. lm more than happy for folks to live in their self made kingdoms of prosperity. Personally, l like 'fat cats' but when they howl about the fact that they might need to change to stay fat and instead harp on about the injustice of it all, targeting the little kittens, mice and rats, then they just sound like fools. In my book, someone who holds themselves out in a particular way deserves to be treated that way. (lets se you call me a fool now).

That said, l cant be bothered addressing your gross assumptions, misrepresentations and name calling invective. Not to mention the tone of our posts reflect on the writer, something which l have no problem accepting, even if you do. It seems to characterise your type of response to posts in this place and frankly, l dont know why l have even bothered replying. (yes l know, neither do you).

Methinks you might want to read your posts and maybe take your own advice.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 3 October 2005 4:30:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any laws, such as the copyright laws, which turns many otherwise well meaning and scrupulously honest people into criminals, are clearly bad laws.

It is time that we recognised that the whole business model, upon which the music recording industry is based, is completely flawed and an impediment to the realisation of the full benefits of computer and communications technologies.

If the music recording industry, as it stands, can't survive without relying on Governments to enforce draconian laws, which are open to abuse, then it deserves go under, and other means to fairly remunuerate those who create music need to be found.

My humble suggestion is :

Set up a publicly funded company (or statutory authority) that would distribute music freely based on something like an open source software license. A database would record the most popular downloads and the artists would be remunerated from a common pool of funds to which we would all contribute as taxpayers, based on a formula which would increase the payments depending on the popularity of the download.

I would suggest a formula which is not linear. The newer and less popular artists would be remunerated at a higher rate per download, whilst the more popular artists would receive substantially more, although the rate per download would decrease as the number of downloads increases. The formalus could be revised until a system which fairly rewards all musicians, yet still gives financial incentives to produce better music, is found.

There would be many technical problems to be solved, but they would be vasty less problematic than those entailed in maintaining the current copyright system.

In time such a system would prove itself to be vastly cheaper to consumers and would leave most recording artists better off than they ever could be even with these harsh and punitive the copyright laws.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 3 October 2005 6:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If i can get music on the net for free, i will. I dont really give a toss if you define it as stealing or that "in the process [i am] denying income to the recording artists and songwriters". I wasnt aware i owed them a living. And anyway, how much do they actually make when i buy a cd? $2-$3?. This article is nothing more than a record company exec trying to justify maintaining the status quo in the distribuition of music (i.e., on his terms, thanks very much). As for saying "Silverchair, Jet, George, Alex Lloyd and John Butler" support his stance. Well thanks for stating the obvious. They dont benefit from this cushy arrangement by any chance do they?

As far as im concerned the internet has provided a distribution network that breaks the record company monopoly. Good. The music industry is worth $20 billion in Aus according to the article. So what, how much of that is monopoly rent? Is it the right price, is it worth $20 billion? When i download music from the net the artists who wrote the music dont benefit in a financial sense (but why should they anyway), but if i do get enjoyment from listening to their music i'll pay to see them live and if they setup a website hosting their music, i'll donate some money.
Posted by weapon, Monday, 3 October 2005 9:31:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From my reading the reason that copyright law was first enacted was to motivate artists to produce works. If they could profit from their creativity they were more likely to exercise it. There didn't exist the concept of ownership of reproducable works as the record companies want you to believe there is today, that is a modern invention.

On reflection the matter is obviously not as clear cut as they would like you to think. We all know what theft is, it's when you deprive someone of their property. They will miss that particular posession next time they look for it. If they park their car and it is stolen they will get back to where it should be and curse and call the police and have to get a taxi home. Consider what the record company experiences when you download a song on the internet. Do they even know? What if, as is often the case, that you never would have ever bought the song anyway? What have they lost?

The bottom line is with music we are talking about a recorded sound, which is just information. If you duplicate their information you have "stolen" from them. Yeah right.

The first post has it right, copyright violation is copyright violation, nothing more.
Posted by HarryC, Monday, 3 October 2005 10:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col
‘If they were not going to buy it they would not want to download it....’
Funny, I could have sworn that’s what I used to do all the time. I couldn’t afford to buy it, so I downloaded it. In that instance, what effect do you think I’ve had on the industry?

‘…denial of rightful benefit owed to the car owner - in that context my analogy is correct - that such subtlety is beyond your scope of comprehension comes as no surprise.’
Yes because when I download music it disappears of someone else’s CD which they rightfully owned. My mistake!

‘It would be impossible for you, even if you were not hamperred (sic) by such limited vocabulary and reasoning skills, to justify what is blatently (sic) illegal and unethical.’
Sorry, did I actually claim it should be legal, or that it was ethical? I must have been asleep when I wrote that. All I said was that it wasn’t stealing. I also said that as a musician myself, I believe that music is art and art is for everyone, even those who can’t afford it. Do you think that not everyone should be able to experience art, Col?

‘I suggest that is why you have difficulty in challenging my post’
Ok, well I suggest it was because your post was so fragmented and poorly written that it was difficult to distinguish what you were trying to say.

‘Self righteous rationalisations of "big bad record companies" relies on your cheap reasoning of an illegal act and displays a complete absence of ethic…’
Yes because record companies are fine outstanding ethical members of society who are only trying to make a buck in an ‘eat or be eaten’ world. Poor little dudes. Sure, with your average contract, the artist only gets about 10c per CD, and out of that they usually need to repay studio and video clip costs, but everyone knows I'm the unethical one because I can't afford to buy a song I want to hear.

Poor record companies, always getting bullied around...
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:05:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question I'd like the record companies to answer is "what, exactly, are you selling me?"

It cannot be the rights to listen to a piece of music, otherwise I would be allowed to buy it once, then copy it onto all my devices... which over the years, have constituted quite a number. I am old enough to recall LPs and reel-to-reel tapes, which morphed over time into cassettes, CDs and mp3 players. As the law stands, the record companies oblige me to pay multiple times for the same artistic output. Who here is the thief?

In trying to maintain their control over the media as well as the copyright content, record companies have resorted to the courts, resulting in triumphalist articles such as Mr Peach's. It is very noticeable that the tone is more "Yah boo sucks the court agrees with the industry" than analysing the issues, and discussing exactly why they cause people concern. Simply saying that downloading is a criminal act is a cop-out.

There will eventually have to be some form of compromise. The industry will ultimately disappear up its own iPod unless it comes to terms with the legitimate grievances of people who are asked to pay through the nose, over and over again, for the same old package that has made the industry its billions in the past.

And the public will fight back. Here's an item from news.com

"An Oregon woman accused of illegal peer-to-peer downloading has countersued the Recording Industry Association of America, contending that the music trade group illegally invaded her privacy, searched her computer without her permission, and conspired with other companies to engage in "extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct."
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
just one thing to keep in mind about downloading. it is all very well to talk about the big bad music execs and how rich they all are and that you might be depriving them out of a tiny share of their money, but think also about the tiny little music people - the people in tiny independent bands who struggle to make any money at all from their music - who can only do it from cds sales and things like that. in australia, there are probably a very very few bands who can actually live off their earnings from cds sales, and by illegally downloading their music, you are basically saying that you do not honour their craft. you would not steal an artwork off the wall of a gallery - it is the same with downloading. it is theft. someone worked really hard to create that work of art, and while they would probably love you to listen to it, it is a different thing if you steal it without ever giving them the money they deserve for having made it.

most people in the industry struggle. you all seem to expect people to work hard to make good music, or art, but refuse to reward them for doing so. maybe none of you should be paid for your jobs either, and see how easy it is for you to survive.
Posted by Suse, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 3:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Suse. It's depriving the artists of royalties money they would otherwise receive.

Whoever said "copyright infringement is not theft" can be interpreted as "it's ok for me to steal because it's so easy to do and everyone else does it".
Posted by lisamaree, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 3:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, lisamaree, I have been one of those 'struggling musicians' for many years now, and as I have suggested in a previous post, a good idea would probably be to download the huge artists and use the money you've saved on the smaller ones. Record companies create massive artists by systematically destroying competition.

One example of how this is done is as follows:

Say you have two unsigned bands, both about the same talent, genre and marketability, except one has an attractive singer. A record company may sign both, even though it is only interested in one. Once a band is signed they are no longer aloud to release music under any other label but what they're signed to. So the company will promote the hell out of the one with the attractive singer, make the video's, bribe the radio stations (don't think it doesn't happen), all the rest. The other band will simply be 'held', for the purpose of eliminating competition, until the contract expires, by which time they are unable to compete with the massive band with the head start.

That is just one example of the many ways record companies maintain a strangle-hold on the industry.

If you download only the big artists and pay for the smaller ones, you are essentially helping level the playing field a little. It seems most people are only interested in swapping the big artists anyway. Do a search on a file-sharing program, it'll look something like:

Sigur Ros: 14 hits
Eminem: 3985934 hits

Poor Eminem, however will he feed Hailey tonight? Give me a break.

Trust me, downloading does not screw the artist, the record companies do an excellent job of that by themselves.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 4:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendo, you say that downloading does not screw the artist, but the artists themselves are against it. I've yet to hear one that condones it, whether they're famous or not.

Granted the record companies screw over some artists - but it's not up to me to "level the playing field". If you can afford a PC to download the music and a stereo to play it on, you can afford the CD. A sense of fairness should not only apply to struggling artists. It should also apply to the ones that are talented and successful. If downloading music and not having a user-pays sytem is condoned, where does it stop? With what commodities and at what point is it ok?

As a musician yourself, and perhaps aspiring to be successful, and with your sense of fairness, I'd assume you'd hope that your fans would remain faithful to you, even after you become rich and famous.
Posted by lisamaree, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 4:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘I've yet to hear one that condones it, whether they're famous or not.’
There are plenty of artists that condone it (or at least are indifferent to it). They just don’t get the media attention.

‘If you can afford a PC to download the music and a stereo to play it on, you can afford the CD.’
This seems like a gross generalisation. Don’t people receive gifts anymore? What about on your families stuff? Work? Stereo's last a while, finances change. There are many, many situations where you can not afford a CD but have the means to play an mp3.

‘A sense of fairness should not only apply to struggling artists. It should also apply to the ones that are talented and successful.’
I was expecting this to come up. Most people should realise by now that talent doesn’t necessarily equal success in the music industry. There are many undeserving successful artists and vice versa. Success is a result of marketing, hype and promotion. Talent isn’t nearly as important as the looks you were born with, the contacts you have, so on. I do not say this out of bitterness as I have very little interest in being one of the ‘rich and famous’. I’m just stating what I assumed was the obvious – becoming rich and famous doesn’t necessarily mean you deserve it.

‘I'd assume you'd hope that your fans would remain faithful to you, even after you become rich and famous.’
Of course I would, but I would also not mind if other means were used to hear my music (as I have already stated in an earlier post). Am I going to notice the difference in my bank account? No. If I did notice, would I care? No. It’s just money. If it means my music reaches a broader audience, there’s not much more you can ask for than that. To demand even more money if I was already ‘rich and famous’, would be greedy, arrogant and selfish of me.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 10:11:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posters here might be interested to know that the band "Harvey Danger" has just released their 3rd and latest album as a completely free high-quality digital download (mp3 or ogg format).

http://www.harveydanger.com/downloads/

Harvey Danger you say? Well they had that song in the late 90s Flagpole Sitta ("paranoia paranoia, everybody's' comin to get me... I'm not sick, but I'm not well...").

This is no struggling garage band, though a bit of a one hit wonder in the alternative scene so far. They state their reasons for doing this quite frankly on the site (http://www.harveydanger.com/press/why.php). Essentially they do hope to maximise profit and are trying this as an experiment. As well as the album being available in stores you can also simply donate an amount of your discretion via the site. Good luck to them.
Posted by HarryC, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HarryC – your comments re copyright being levied to provide artists with income and reward for their effort is correct and hence applies not only to music but works of authorship and any “creative” pursuit.

The rabble who defend illegal downloading and duplication of "copyright material" seem to justify it with assertions that the “big bad record companies” are rich enough. This is irrelevant when the monies collected by record companies for copyright are distributed over to "legal the copyright holders", be those “copyright holders” the original artists, the heirs to the original artists estate or someone who has purchased from the original artict or his/her heirs the rights to copyright income for the period of time until the copyright lapses and the work enters the “public domain”.

I have an interest in copyright – partly because I used to work in the pre-recorded music industry for some years but more directly because I own copyrighted products of my own origination. However, when some scruffy flea bag tries to steal my software products, they usually find the outcome is more than they bargain for.

As for your suggestion “copyright violation is copyright violation, nothing more” what remedy or retribution would you pursue if you or one of your children had been “violated”

Spendocrat – your rambling attempts to justify your immoral and illegal actions do not merit comment. I hope, one day you will own property (doubtless inherited, you lack the originality to “create”) which someone else decides they have right of benefit from and deprive you of your inherited income. You will then have experience to appreciate both sides of the debate.

Lisamaree – your post 4 Oct – I agree
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you are making a lot of harrumphing noises about scruffy flea bags, but are avoiding the question.

When I "buy" a CD, what exactly am I "buying"?

Am I buying the right to listen to the copyrighted material? If so, what relevance does the medium have in this context? I have only one pair of ears.

I have now bought Miles Davis' Kind of Blue" in four different formats, three of which are today practically inoperable. What happened to my license for the first three - why is it illegal for me to transfer one of those? I can do it with software, after all.

I absolutely resent the fact that the Sony Corporation can take me to court for ripping my CD copy - the fourth license I have bought for the same product - to mp3.

Miles, by the way, can no longer be categorised as a struggling artist.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You damage your own credibility by resorting to personal attacks, Col.

…and it hurts my feelings! *sniff*

But seriously, if you think my opinion doesn’t merit comment, then here’s a hint: Don’t Comment.

A band I used to play in released an EP in Perth (I live in Melbourne now), and sold about 200 copies, mostly to people who happened upon us in the small venues we played and remembered our name (hardly platinum status, you’ll agree). It was indeed copied and traded on the net. I downloaded a copy myself, to make sure they had encoded it at a decent quality. So I already have experienced what you said you ‘hope’ may happen to me someday. I believe it was around that time my opinions on the subject were formed.

I didn’t feel my income was deprived. We didn’t then, nor would I now, record and release music for the purpose of making money. We did it because we love music. Obviously the people who downloaded our music also loved it, which is the biggest flattery you can receive and more than I would ever ask for. Any amount of cash, large or small, would never be any more than a bonus.

Obviously it would be a dream to make a living out of it. But even if that were the life I lived, I would never take legal action on those who wanted to hear music for free. If they were copying for the purpose of profit, well, that’s a very different story – I have major moral objections to those who profit out of someone else’s creation. But if it’s just to listen to, rock on.

I’ll say it again: the music is what the music industry is about. Everything else, including money, is secondary.

PS: I do not justify the act of downloading on the basis that record companies are big evil corporations. I merely pointed out that they have a lot of nerve pursuing those who share music considering some of the illegal and immoral (to use Col’s words) practices they engage in.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 4:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is harder, somehow, to think of downloading as some sort of crime, when most of us have taped things off the radio, or burned a CD for someone, or whatever. It seems from my reading of the various comments (from those better versed in these laws than myself), that even copying the CDs I have purchased onto a 'mix' CD for my own personal use is violating the copywrite. How can that be? And when I already own the CD of my favourite song, how is it really so terrible if I also downloaded it to play on an ipod or similar?

I guess 'intellectually' I can see it as taking revenue from those who have legitimate right to sell the item, but when I have already paid for the item once, it is hard to justify paying again and again for the same thing
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 4:25:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't quite get my point Col Rouge. Copyright exists so that artists are encouraged to create works that might not otherwise have existed, which isn't the same as "to allow people to make money". In essence the profiteering is an off-shoot of copyright, not a core goal. If the works weren't otherwise going to exist and copyright allows them to, and their availability (read price) is within reasonable reach to the average person, then we've achieved something worthwhile for society.

At the moment we are seeing teenagers and others being sued for large sums, sums they never would have spent on music, by mega-corporations representing the interests of people who have had very little input into the creative process of music creation. Something is out of kilter there with the original goals of copyright. And keep in mind that even with all this downloading Britney et al still end up rich and their crappola keeps spewing forth.

Another thing we are seeing is the thresholds for copyright length gradually being increased to suit bodies who again had no input into the original creation of the works they hold copyright over.

Now ask yourself a question. Would Walt Disney not have dedicated his working life as he did, a life that brought smiles to kids the world over for the past 70 or so years, if he wasn't assured that Disney Corporation was going to profit from his creativity long after his death? Of course he bloody would have (in fact he did).

With or without 95 year copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) the world was always going to be gifted by the existence of Mickey and his friends. The only benefit of copyright of Disney's creations today is to the shareholders of the corporation (anyone can may make t-shirts and mugs with Mickey's head on them).

The Disney example drifted off the subject a bit but it's still relevant (substitute for deceased musician). We can see what motives are currently driving copyright law and it's enforcement, motives which are not the least concerned about enriching society with creativity.
Posted by HarryC, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 5:45:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles “Col, you are making a lot of harrumphing noises about scruffy flea bags, but are avoiding the question.

When I "buy" a CD, what exactly am I "buying"?

You are buying

A plastic media carrier
Retailer margin
Costs to cover the recording / distribution entity operating costs and margin including promotion and origination costs and the costs of administering a royalty and copyright payments system.
Performing artist’s royalty income (conventionally a % of the ultimate retail price)
Originating artists “copyright” income (conventionally a % of the ultimate retail price)

“Originating:” may differ from the “Recording” artist or they may be the same. Hence the distinction between royalty and copyright.

Further note often a “royalty advance” will be paid in advance of sales
Copyright is only paid retrospectively on sales.

What you choose to buy includes payment to the original artist for use of their intellectual property and payment to the performing artist for their performance rights. I am not sure what the prevailing rates of royalty and copyright payment are but back a few years, royalty varied from 5% to 21% of the recommended retail price (according to artist performance history) and copyright was (about) 6.75% of recommended retail price (excluding works which had lapsed into “public domain”).

Similar (but not identical) arrangements apply to books and, of course, patent rights reflect a protection of the intellectual property to allow the inventor / patent holder to benefit from the creation of the invention.

Spendocrat “You damage your own credibility by resorting to personal attacks, Col.”

At least I have “credibility” – sufficient to sustain any “damage” and to keep on cruising.

HarryC “profiteering is an off-shoot of copyright,”

Copyright % remains constant to retail price thus “profiteering” does not figure.
However, if you meant “royalty”, artists with commercial muscle gets to write their own deal. That is not “profiteering” just “reflecting market place demand”. No one is “forced” to buy thus “profiteering” as a supply monopoly exploiting a captive demand does not apply.

As for length of copyright - secondary issue versus right of copyright.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 7 October 2005 9:41:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘At least I have “credibility” – sufficient to sustain any “damage” and to keep on cruising.’

Oh ok, so I have no credibility, fair enough. Never mind I am a struggling artist, supposedly the victim of this whole music downloading situation – that doesn’t mean my opinion counts for anything. Never mind I have experienced first hand what everyone else speaks of only from observation. Apparently my differing views = no credibility.

People are allowed to disagree with you, Col.

This is getting a little strange. What part of my last few posts do you have a problem with? The part where I said that money isn’t as important as music? The part where I said I had no problem with people downloading my music (provided it isn’t used for profit purposes)? Or are you just not bothering to read my posts at all? Maybe you got through the first sentence, got really angry, and skipped the rest?
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 7 October 2005 10:14:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you are still avoiding the question. I asked "what am I buying" and you tell me:

>>You are buying A plastic media carrier Retailer margin Costs to cover the recording / distribution entity operating costs and margin including promotion and origination costs and the costs of administering a royalty and copyright payments system. Performing artist’s royalty income (conventionally a % of the ultimate retail price) Originating artists “copyright” income (conventionally a % of the ultimate retail price)<<

That's all true.

But there is absolutely no law - if all I want to do is to rip a CD onto mp3 - that says I should be forced to buy a new plastic media carrier, or contribute to the "retailer margin, costs to cover the recording / distribution entity operating costs and margin including promotion and origination costs and the costs of administering a royalty and copyright payments system".

Once again: I have paid my dues to the artist(s). Why should I then be forced by law to keep feeding the system each time the industry decrees a media change?

Your book analogy fails too.

I have just bought over the internet a second-hand book. Presumably, the first owner had read it, but decided he doesn't want to keep it cluttering up his bookshelf.

The law, as it stands, does not allow me the same freedom with downloads or other digital copies. If I have an mp3 that I have tired of, that's too bad - I can't onsell it.

If it were a CD, I could. Which supports your argument; like the book, it is a physically separate entity that carries with it evidence that at some point in the past, the relevant dues were paid.

But Col, these rules don't work fairly any more. And that is what the discussion is about, way more than wild allegations of widespread theft and copyright ripoffs.

The system doesn't work, and needs to be changed. Surely you can see that much?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 October 2005 11:06:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "But Col, these rules don't work fairly any more. And that is what the discussion is about, way more than wild allegations of widespread theft and copyright ripoffs.

The system doesn't work, and needs to be changed. Surely you can see that much? "

The system does work, it is just you disagree with the system.

If you want to change the system to one which better suits your circumstances, I would suggest you convene discussions with all stake holders and get some "consensus" or at least majority support for your change proposals, instead of simply expecting every one to fall into line with your demands.

The choice of media is irrelevant, you could transfer between your own legal purchased and legal copy to an alternative carrier for your own personal use and the “law”, in such cases, has not enforced copyright petitions. The whole point is, where a commercial relationship exists, the copyright holder has a reasonable claim to be represented in the value of the exchange, such commercial relationship cannot exist between one person and themselves.

I guess, the above defines dispute resolution for a whole range of circumstances.

Spendocrat

“What part of my last few posts do you have a problem with”

I guess someone who proclaims

“I was getting all geared up to challenge Col's post but then I realised that it makes very little sense”

Suggesting my posts make “little sense” is offensive.

I have a problem with people who make such suggestions and do not support same suggestions with reason. They are, of course, the first to whine and complain when I treat their words with similar disdain.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 8 October 2005 11:40:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge refuses to respond to Spendocrat's arguments because he says he takes offence that Spendocrat wrote that an earlier post of his "makes very little sense"?

Is this the same Col Rouge who wrote earlier of Duec's post : "The rest of your post sounds like some lame attempt to justify your own bad attitude and behaviour and as such not worth responding to."

... and who went on to accuse Spendocrat of having : " limited vocabulary and reasoning skills"

... and who referred to those who disagree with him on the issue of copyright as a 'rabble', and who has routinely resorted, on other forums, to even worse forms of personal abuse?

--

Col Rouge, any system which makes criminals of most people who have used the internet is clearly not working.

Furthermore, we are clearly paying a lot lot more that we should for the right to listen to music. Even you have implicitly acknowledged this. By your figures, after copyright and royalty are taken out, 88.25% to 72.75% of the cost of a CD is taken up by recording, distribution,"entity operating costs, margin including promotion and origination costs and the costs of administering a royalty and copyright payments system".

If, for a moment, we could put aside the need to remunerate the artists and those engaged in the NECESSARY tasks required to record and distribute the music, and allowed music to be downloaded freely, then hundreds of millions of people connected to the internet could have an almost unlimited variety of music for almost free.

If we could find a means, other than the current cumbersome copyright system to fairly remunerate those who wrote, performed and recorded the music and engaged in the necessary tasks associated with distributing the music across the internet, would you still be opposed to the free downloading of music on principle?

I have suggested one such system in my earlier post. It would cut out the costs of so many clearly unnecessary functions entailed in the current copyright system, and, in my view would, serve the public interest much better.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 8 October 2005 10:51:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, I probably used the wrong terminology re profiteering, perhaps profiting, or simply "money making" was more apt. No need to get hung up on definitions.

In relation to copyright expiry, you have to ask why they do actually have such a thing if it's such a clear cut matter that a creative work belongs to it's creator or other copyright holder.

When does ownership of a private good expire? Never. Your personal property is yours until you die and will then be passed on as per your will. But with copyrighted works we have expiry. This isn't a trivial point, obviously the law does not classify ownership of a creative work in the same light as ownership of private goods. It is a far less absolute concept of ownership.

If you get back to my original point you see why this is - copyright was not enacted simply in lew of an obvious fundamental right of ownership of the content or "image" of your creation, it was more about rewarding creators for their efforts where they have produced works that society values and to allow such works to exist which would otherwise not have were the financial reward not available.

Now if a new technology model allows creation and reward to occur with a more liberal concept of ownership, or if that ingrained model makes the current concept an ass to police, then we should be looking at redefining the law with regard to copyright, rather than pursuing the current madness which sees otherwise law-abiding citizens incur ridiculous financial penalites for "crimes" that the majority of us think are frivolous.
Posted by HarryC, Sunday, 9 October 2005 3:28:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett “Col Rouge, any system which makes criminals of most people who have used the internet is clearly not working.”

That is a neat Abrogation of personal responsibility.

If you know something is “illegal” should you not avoid participating in it – especially when you know there is a readily available “legal” alternative to your criminal (your word) activity?

The costs of a “successful” recording, by definition need to cover the costs of the “unsuccessful”.

My personal knowledge of the music industry is 1 in 16 actual releases get into the top 40. Your suggestion regarding the proportion of total revenue attributable to non-royalty or copyright costs (88.25% to 72.75%) includes recovering the cost of the “failures” (15 out of 16). The alternative would be an “economically non-viable” and, thus, non-existent industry likewise illegal copying seriously threatens the same basis for commercial viability.

HarryC all “industry”, under the western democratic market model of economic activity, relies on “profitability” to exist.
Simply put (and equally applicable to daggetts claim of recording company cost) – “profit” is the reward for risk”. Zero return is the reward of zero risk. If you want to chase a better return, you will have to a accept higher commercial risk.

“In relation to copyright expiry, you have to ask why they do actually have such a thing if it's such a clear cut matter that a creative work belongs to it's creator or other copyright holder.”

That was what was, historically, decided, I know some are suggesting extending the life of copyright.

As for
“Now if a new technology model allows creation and reward to occur with a more liberal concept of ownership, ….. sees otherwise law-abiding citizens incur ridiculous financial penalites for "crimes" that the majority of us think are frivolous.”

I refer you to my previous post

“I would suggest you convene discussions with all stake holders and get some "consensus" or at least majority support for your change proposals, instead of simply expecting every one to fall into line with your demands.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 9 October 2005 12:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, if a law is clearly a bad law, we have a right (and some would say a duty) to change that law.

Whether or not I encourage people to break this law, a large number of otherwise well-meaning and law-abiding citizens are going to continue to do so, and open themselve to the risk of prosecution and harsh penalties. The efforts of a significant proportion of law enforcers will be devoted to combatting these "crimes", or whatever you choose to call them, whilst crimes which truly harm all of us, such as burglary and car theft will remain unsolved.

Just as past laws against prostitution and homosexuality were ultimately unsuccessful in eradicating those patterns of behaviour, the current laws against copying music or other forms of intellectual property will not succeed, that is, just possibly, unless we are prepared to tolerate an unimaginable degree of intrusion against our privacy and abrogation of our civil liberties.

So why should we be prepared to allow our laws, our police and our courts to be used in this way to suit the narrow interests of the recording industry, when other alternatives which could enable the creation and distribution of music far more cheaply have not been considered?

I appreciate that if the copyright laws were altered or abolished it may well threaten the livelihoods of many who are currently employed in the industry who don't perform any functions which are necessary to create and distribute the music, but this can't be a reason to perpetute an inefficient system which costs consumers far more than it should, and which also unnecessarily consumes finite non-renewable resources such as the petroleum necessary to create CD cases.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 9 October 2005 2:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>The system does work, it is just you disagree with the system.<<

Glib.

Let me try once more. Can you not see the difference between a clearly separate physical manifestation of a published work, and one that exists only in encoded form in a transient medium.

The former is an easily identifiable, distinctly tradable item. I can see it, look at the cover, buy it, sell it, lend it to a friend and so on. Whatever happens, the license and the medium are inseparable. This has been the foundation of the "Recorded Arts" since Edison's cylinders.

The simplicity with which a license can be separated from the medium changes that relationship. It is sheer head-in-the-sandedness to pretend otherwise, and assume that the same legal covenants can be maintained as before.

Once upon a time, cars were slow. They were however dangerous if one ran over you, so the law stated that any motorised vehicle should be preceded by a guy with a flag.

In your world, the fact that cars can now travel at higher speeds is no justification for changing the law pertaining to the guy with the flag. I can hear you complaining, all those years ago....

"The system does work, it is just you disagree with the system."
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 October 2005 9:06:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles “Let me try once more. Can you not see the difference between a clearly separate physical manifestation of a published work, and one that exists only in encoded form in a transient medium.”

Oh I can see a difference in the “carrier” but there is absolutely no difference at all in the “content”.

Separation of “process” and “content” is fundamental. To understand any “product or service delivery system”, be it music, written word, a physical product or an invention (patent protection).

Your argument is fatally flawed because you presume that changing the “carrier” (the process) changes the nature and thus the "value" and duty to compensate the originator for the benefits you derive from their original work (the content).

That a copy of the original work exists either as a permanent article or as encoded form in a transient medium or as a momentary reproduction on the air waves (the performing rights society charge radio stations for broadcasting copyright protected material) is completely irrelevant.

I recall saying once before and obviously I need to repeat it again –

Royalties and Copyright compensate the originator or copyright holder with compensatory benefits for their creativity.
Where their creative work is used as the object of a commercial exchange and thus, is protected by copyright legislation – something which if you want to change, you can petition for change and negotiate with all the stake holders. Until you do you are simply a pirate or hijacker of other people originality and you are delibrately and illegally depriving them of their source of income.

Btw there is nothing “glib” in stating the obvious – regardless that the obtuse fail to find comfort in it.

And your analogy to cars and red flags is asinine and in no way justifies your desire to steal the product of other peoples originality.

Daggett “Col Rouge, if a law is clearly a bad law, we have a right (and some would say a duty) to change that law.”

Then get the law changed but, until you do, you are acting outside it and are thus a criminal.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 October 2005 10:32:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee, it's tough trying to introduce you to the excitement and volatility that is real life, Col.

Times change. Laws that were entirely sensible when thay were first mooted become stale and unworkable over time. If you don't see the parallel with the man and his red flag, that is not because the analogy is asinine, but because you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

>>Your argument is fatally flawed because you presume that changing the “carrier” (the process) changes the nature and thus the "value" and duty to compensate the originator for the benefits you derive from their original work (the content).<<

I presume no such thing, and it is impertinent of you to suggest that I do. When I buy my CD, I have fulfilled all my financial obligations to all parties. The owner of the copyright has been compensated for the content. The organization that put that work onto the medium has been paid for their trouble. The retailer has been paid full price for making it available to me.

The fact that subsequently I take it upon myself to move a fully-paid-for song onto a different medium, at my own expense, cannot be described as theft. Every part of it has been acquired legally, and fully paid for.

It is not analogous to broadcasting. There, the broadcaster is making licensed material available to an audience, and must of course pay for that privilege. However, you will note that the charge levied bears no relationship to the size of that audience - which is what you would expect, using your logic. Some time ago, a compromise was reached whereby a standard fee was levied, once per play. A similar compromise is now required that takes into account the new relationships between medium and content.

I have absolutely no desire or ambition to "steal the product of other peoples originality", and it is insulting of you to pretend that I have. What I do believe is that the present system of rewards does not reflect the reality of today's market, and that it will change.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 October 2005 12:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "The fact that subsequently I take it upon myself to move a fully-paid-for song onto a different medium, at my own expense, cannot be described as theft. Every part of it has been acquired legally, and fully paid for."

Your choice.

You could buy 10 identical CDs and pay for each of them too.

As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.

I said earlier - copying for "personal use" had been seen by the courts as to not infringe copyright but where commerce is involved - which means between you and a third party, copyright is due and payable.

It would be reasonable to suggest that many people who would take advantage of downloading, never purchase the work on a leghally copyrighted media carrier and are thus, illegally avoiding paying copyright completely.

So what is it with you - can you just not accept the rule of law because it costs you money? - I guess I would hate to see you if you got a parking fine or speeding ticket - or were asked to pay a fine for late return of a library book.

Get this - I don't care about the cost of copyright to the buyer, they have a choice, to buy or to resist purchase. No one forces them to purchase a particular copyrighted product. However, for the benefit of the originator/author, if they do acquire a copy, they are liable to pay in accordance with defined and agreed rules.

Try NEGOTIATING CHANGES FIRST - instead of simply trying to justify theft.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 October 2005 3:32:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I said earlier - copying for "personal use" had been seen by the courts as to not infringe copyright but where commerce is involved"

Col, are you sure you aren't getting mixed up with the situations under which criminal penalties apply? If not, then I'll have to ask you to give a citation for the case or a news article saying talking about it.

Section 10AA(1) of the Act states "A copy of a sound recording is a non-infringing copy only if it is made by or with the consent of:" and then refers to the owner and maker of the music, along with related requirements. There are exceptions mind you, but I'm not aware of any appropriate one and the fair dealing exceptions are very narrow.

The author of the similar article posted on the same day: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=146 also assumed format-shifting was infringement. And my understanding is that the lack of format-shifting in Australia has been criticised in a number IP related law journals.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 10 October 2005 4:34:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge wrote : "Then get the law changed but, until you do, you are acting outside it and are thus a criminal."

Congratulations, Col. Your resort to personal abuse has reached even lower depths.

Now, where in my posts did I ever confess to having broken any of these laws?

Are you presuming that because I argue that the laws are immoral and stupid, that I therefore must have broken these laws?
Posted by daggett, Monday, 10 October 2005 6:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I don't care about the cost of copyright to the buyer, they have a choice, to buy or to resist purchase. No one forces them to purchase a particular copyrighted product.'

What if someone was going to buy money CD, but couldn't afford it, thus never got to hear my band, never got the chance to be impressed, and hence didn't show up at my show that night? I'd much rather they'd have downloaded the mp3s, then we could kick on with a bigger crowd!

..no?

Well, how about a compromise. What if the artist gives permission for his/her fans to download their music if they wish? Whether the record company likes it or not? If the artist says no, then fine, illegal. But if the artist doesn't care, what right does the record company have to argue? It is, after all, the artists intellectual property.

Mmmm nah that's no good - the artists who are more likely to give permission to downloaders wouldn't get signed any more.

How about this then? Eliminate any and all power that the record company has over an artist, including but not limited to content, lyrics, choice for singles, cover art, album title, band name, album length, song length, style, image, and of course, what medium the music can be listened to on. The musical artist, ie the actual creator of the music in question, would get to make all these decisions, and the record company would work for the artist, not the other way round.

Just a better world :)
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 9:58:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett “Are you presuming that because I argue that the laws are immoral and stupid, that I therefore must have broken these laws”

No, simply that it is more likely that you have.

Spendocrat “What if the artist gives permission for his/her fans to download their music if they wish” simply list it as public domain and expect nothing from anyone for it - that is an available option.

As for “Eliminate any and all power that the record company has over an artist, including but not limited to content, lyrics, choice for singles, cover art, album title, band name, album length, song length, style, image, and of course, what medium the music can be listened to on.”

Sure – if an artist declines their contracted royalty advances and negotiates copyright free product, I am sure the recording company will be happy to oblige.

However, when an artist expects royalty payment before release and when the recording company finances the cover art, recording sessions and just about everything else involved in “getting the product to market”, then the artist has “sold” the "product" to the recording company, who then determines the commercial conditions in on-selling it to the public; and has every right to protect its investment (in advances, initial and promotional costs).
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 3:30:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, now you are getting silly.

>>"As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3."<<

No, Col, you cannot do this, as it is illegal. That is the whole point, the entire and complete nub of the argument.

It is illegal. Prohibited. Not allowed. Against the law. Unlawful. Illegitimate. Illicit. Actionable. A criminal act. You can be taken to court and fined. If you don't pay your fine, they'll send you to jail.

If you actually believe what you wrote, then I can see why you haven't understood a word that I have written on the subject. But please, do yourself a favour and get with the programme.

It is, as the law stands in Australia, illegal for me to re-record from my CD onto another medium, e.g. an mp3 player.

You can huff and puff all you like about what the courts may or may not do about this, but as of this moment, it is an unlawful act.

Trying just one last time: how, in all conscience, and refraining from babbling on about artists starving in garrets, do you justify this particular, specific law.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

The copyright laws are a restriction against people being able to make full use of the Internet to enrich their own lives. For those who can afford to connect to the Internet, the cost of downloading a song is virtually nothing. So, the economy of scale is enormous. Once someone has gone to the enormous trouble to create a musical work it will cost virtually nothing more to cheat two, three ten, a thousand or a hundred million copies. If we place a value of, arbitrarily, say $1 for each copy of this work, then it costs practically nothing extra to change the worth of that work to humankind from $1 to $100,000.

Anything which constrains the public from being to 'create' all this additional wealth with virtually no additional material inputs in a world with limited and diminishing stocks of natural resources, particularly energy, is clearly insane from the point of view of the public as a whole.

The only possible justification could be that to remove restrictions the urge for people to create these works would vanish and, we as a global community, would be worse off.

What evidence is there that allowing intellectual property to be copied freely will cause the potential creators of this IP, whether music or whatever from continuing to do so?

The evidence to the contrary is too massive to brush aside. As just one example, the whole Internet is built upon freely available open source software, either written by people on Government payrolls, payrolls of benevolent private companies or in their own time.

Spendocrat, the only musician, so far, to have contributed to this forum has expressed his willingness to allow his works to be copied freely copied by anyone who wishes to do so.

If we could find an alternative means for all of us to fairly remunerate people for their work, an example of which I have suggested above, what possible objection could anyone have to the free copying of music and other IP, except those with vested interests in maintaining the current inefficient system?

(toBeContinued)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 13 October 2005 4:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedFromAbove)

Do you truly believe that, if an alternative means to pay for their works, other than the restrictive copyright system had been used, that all of those who have created works of music, art, literature and other IP throughout the past centuries, would have ceased to do so? I think it highly unlikely.

And even if a minority had chosen not to devote their lives to creativity as a result, it is more than likely that the void would have been easily filled by many others.

The real criminals and thieves are those who wish to steal from humankind the full potential of the revolution in technology and communications in order to preserve their own vested interests which run counter to the interests of the rests of us.

They would have many ordinary, otherwise well meaning and law abiding people into criminals for nothing more using this wonderful technology available to us at almost no extra cost to the environment for their own benefit and for the benefit of others.

In order to do this they have manipulated our democratic and legal institutions behind our backs to impose these outrageous laws upon all of us without our input and without our consent.

They have created laws which can only be enforced by unacceptable encroachments upon our privacy and attacks on our civil liberties.

They would have our society turned into a police state and you, by your attempts to police expression of ideas on this forum through personal abuse, and by libelling me as a "criminal", have demonstrated that you are more than willing to be a servant of this police state.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 13 October 2005 4:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is illegal. Prohibited. Not allowed. Against the law. Unlawful. Illegitimate. Illicit. Actionable. A criminal act. You can be taken to court and fined. If you don't pay your fine, they'll send you to jail."

Only if you exclude "Fair Use exception"
“Fair use exceptions” are well defined but limited.

Private Copying, if there is no generation of a commercial gain or benefit from the copy, whilst not exempt under the legislation, claims for damages by copyright holders have not, generally, been found or supported and thus have not imposed penalty on the private copier who copies from their own purchased original for their own personal use.

Further their is a discussion document at

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdhome.nsf/AllDocs/E63BC2D5203F2D29CA256FF8001584D7?OpenDocument

you might be interested in a read and maybe make a suggestion - all this stuff is presently up for debate.

Daggett “Anything which constrains the public from being to 'create' all this additional wealth with virtually no additional material inputs in a world with limited and diminishing stocks of natural resources, particularly energy, is clearly insane from the point of view of the public as a whole.”

I think you have confused “natural resources” (tangible) with intellectual property (intangible). I would further suggest the “well of resources” for production of intellectual property is “limitless”. So, using the above as a barometer of “quality” I deemed the rest of your post too long to bother reading
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 13 October 2005 9:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the government paper you referred me to, Col, it clearly states:

"The Government is aware some common personal uses of copyright material infringe copyright. Examples include transferring music from a CD onto an MP3 or iPod player or copying a television broadcast to view later."

So it would appear that when you wrote:

>>As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.<<

...you were in fact aware that it was untrue.

Arguing your corner is one thing. Outright lying to support your case is another.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 13 October 2005 5:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

Of course I understand that the "'well of the resources' for production of intellectual property is 'limitless'" . That was precisely my point.

I have tried to show that it should be possible for our society to derive the benefits of creativity of artists without the almost crippling limitations that the likes of the recording industry would impose on the rest of us, but you are clearly cannot be bothered in taking any time to consider arguments or facts which challenge your own world view.

So, suit yourself, Col.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 14 October 2005 5:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

“"The Government is aware some common personal uses of copyright material infringe copyright. Examples include transferring music from a CD onto an MP3 or iPod player or copying a television broadcast to view later."

So it would appear that when you wrote:

>>As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.<<

...you were in fact aware that it was untrue.

Arguing your corner is one thing. Outright lying to support your case is another.”

I refer you to what I wrote before
‘claims for damages by copyright holders have not, generally, been found or supported (maybe I should have added “by the courts”) and thus have not imposed penalty on the private copier who copies from their own purchased original for their own personal use.”

So, no lies, I suggest you get over it and grow up!

Daggett “So, suit yourself, Col.”

I do and I will continue to… and I suggest when you get the law changed you will be happy – until them – you and I are obliged to deal with the reality of it and the fact which seems to evade Pericle’s comprehension that “copyright” whilst applying to all copying, breaches of which have NOT been enforced, by the courts, against personal copying where a legally obtained version has been acquired and their has been no commercial benefit derived from the copy.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 4:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say that...

>>...claims for damages by copyright holders have not, generally, been found or supported (maybe I should have added “by the courts”) and thus have not imposed penalty on the private copier who copies from their own purchased original for their own personal use.”<<

and also that...

>>...[t]he system does work, it is just you disagree with the system<<

I fail to see any merit in a position that can i) accept that an action is illegal, ii) claim that it doesn't matter that it is illegal, the courts aren't going to do anything about it and iii) that this is an acceptable state of affairs.

And you tell me to grow up!
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 6:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Copy-of-previous-post-with-correction--Previous-post-to-be-deleted)

BOAZ_David wrote : "A lady I know has even financed a second house just by doing door to door health food sales. So, for the get up and go type, there is plenty of opportunity."

Just how many more door-to-door salespersons does either Malaysia or Australia need? Of course there will always be a few individuals who will do well in an occupation which does not create any tangible wealth, but the rest of us would prefer to have occupations which allow us to make a useful contribution to society.

There is plenty of useful work out there which needs to be urgently done, in the area of repair to our damaged environment for a start, but somehow the 'free market' prefers to waste peoples' energies on the delivery of junk mail, telemarketing, door-to-door sales and other totally demeaning and useless occupations.

t.u.s., the $13-something on offer to Elisabeth Wynhausen on page 177 was NOT for a 38 hour week. It was for a PART-TIME non-casual role. Her co-worker who wanted a full time job, instead had to work five half day shifts.

"That made him typical of the growing number of people faced with the prospect of growing poverty because they couldn't get full time work - as if it were a commodity too valuable to throw away on the young. His bills were mounting up because he had to make regular payments, like the $70 dollar a month he owed Optus for his mobile phone, and he was $800 in debt he said."

Contrary to your pronouncement on "Dirt Cheap". I think that it is very inspiring and well written.

Elisabeth Wynhausen had put herself out for over 12 months in order to find out what life is reallly like at the "wrong end of the job market". I would like to see those in this forum who advocate cutting welfare and wages for the already miserably paid, claiming that they are doing so with their best interests at heart, do as Elisabeth Wynhausen did.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 21 October 2005 2:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

We may have no choice but to abide by these rotten laws, but there is no way that that we can be made to respect these laws, nor can we be made to respect those who have enacted them or who will be employed to enforce them, especially given the double standards, that, as Pericles has shown, you and the recording industry apparently condone.

A great site about copyright can be found here:

http://www.copyrightmyths.org
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 1:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The blog post, entitled "Jimi Hendrix and other Musical and Financial Meanderings", at http://jeffrichards.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_jeffrichards_archive.html entitled would also be of interest readers of this forum thread.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 4 June 2006 7:24:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, the new laws are somewhat stricter than those anywhere else in the world (even the US) - do you agree with this decision?

I.e. for the first time ever we are going to experience 'strict criminal liability' provisions. This means that neither intent nor knowledge of a Copyright breach is relevant when considering judgement.

Now 'strict criminal liability' is all well and good for tangible breaches of the law - say when you break into private property or you steal something 'obviously' belonging to someone else.

However Copyright is neither tangible nor black and white - and with this new legislation the borders are now even more blurred than before (if that is possible). Even lawyers are having trouble determining what is and what is not legal - so how can the common man?

I hate to be a Cassandra all the time, but the new laws seem to have gone WAY overboard in tipping the balance in favour of Copyright holders.
Posted by Bourkie, Saturday, 28 October 2006 1:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy