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.

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.

‘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?

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?

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.

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.