isleseeya Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 it is stealing ...gotta admit did not want to look at it that way but hard not to Time to put on a puffy shirt because I have done some pirating in past using limewire and other free sites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 .....and another miss. It's now a bunt!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 In general, I have always agreed with your stance on illegal downloading. Personally, I never have done this. It is theft, however it is dressed up as rebellion or whatever. Nevertheless, the whole DRM thing is becoming ridiculous. If digital downloads really are the future, then fragmenting the download capability so that music will only play on certain devices and, in general, lessening the portability of the music from where it has always been is totally counter-productive. The music industry deserves everything it is getting. It has always been legal to copy music you have purchased for your own use e.g. taping an LP, copying an LP to CD (something I am still wading my way through). All music used to play on all devices intended to play it - there was no restriction on who made your cassette player - the tape would play in any player. Forcing the use of certain players and making people double up in many cases will hasten the death of this dinosaur. This is spot on. The music industry thrived by controlling things in a mini-monopoly. From the creation of the songs to the pressing of the media to the distribution of the discs, they controlled everything. People are coming to the realization that they don't need the music industry to distribute their music anymore, the Innernets will do it for them. So the more the existing monolithic music companies try to control this things, the more of it leaks through their fingers. Power to the People! Music for the People! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 this is the heart of the discussion. the music industry is becoming obsolete as we speak and they are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to all the profits they can before they become irrelevant. the ability to distribute your music now no longer depends on an industry to produce and distribute discs. they are trying to use a radically different medium to enforce an archaic model and it will not last. better business models, such as itunes, will continue to emerge to take the old power players out of the game. Exactly. I agree with you completely. Traditional recording companies don't support easy, reasonably-priced downloading because they know that it will lead to their end. That's why they are fighting what appears to be an unwinnable battle; they simply have no choice if they wish to exist. What I wrote on the topic from an earlier discussion on the crapola that is DRM and DMCA: What was/is in danger is the business model of the recording studios. Once upon a time, they were a value-adding link in the artist-to-consumer chain. They facilitated the recording of the music, they pressed it onto media, and distributed it - all functions that required a lot of capital investment and were beyond the means of artists. Because they controlled this vital link in the value chain, they extracted most of the profits in the value chain. Now, that vital link isn't necessarily so vital. I know several hobbyists that have sufficient recording equipment to lay down professional-quality recordings, and distribution and media are nothing to anyone hooked up to the internet with a CD burner. Yet the record companies still think that they're entitled to a huge profit for being the middle man. I'm not saying that this justifies copyright infringement. What I'm saying is that propping up an outdated business model is not sufficient reason to move the society/IP owner balance more towards the IP owner than it already is for copyrights. Does anybody think that the existence of musicians themselves is really so threatened by downloading that there would be a shortage of music? I don't. In fact, if the current paradigm collapsed, I would think that most artists would come out neutral or ahead, as they see so little from the sales of recorded music anyways and make most of their money from concerts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you bring down the music industry, who will push Justin Timberlake down your throat? Soak on THAT for a minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you bring down the music industry, who will push Justin Timberlake down your throat? Soak on THAT for a minute. I'd miss the Grammys every year. Okay, not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 In general, I have always agreed with your stance on illegal downloading. Personally, I never have done this. It is theft, however it is dressed up as rebellion or whatever. Nevertheless, the whole DRM thing is becoming ridiculous. If digital downloads really are the future, then fragmenting the download capability so that music will only play on certain devices and, in general, lessening the portability of the music from where it has always been is totally counter-productive. The music industry deserves everything it is getting. It has always been legal to copy music you have purchased for your own use e.g. taping an LP, copying an LP to CD (something I am still wading my way through). All music used to play on all devices intended to play it - there was no restriction on who made your cassette player - the tape would play in any player. Forcing the use of certain players and making people double up in many cases will hasten the death of this dinosaur. I agree. So let the dummies die. But bad business decisions and overous attempts to control their content are no justification for theft. That is my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) It has always been legal to copy music you have purchased for your own use e.g. taping an LP, copying an LP to CD (something I am still wading my way through). All music used to play on all devices intended to play it - there was no restriction on who made your cassette player - the tape would play in any player. Of course, dubbing tapes back in the '80s always produced a highly-inferior copy. Many people would rather fork over the money for the CD than listen to an inferior-but-free cassette copy. However, that isn't the case today. The untrained ear can't tell much of a difference between an original, store-purchased CD and a 192 kbps copy of the CD. But bad business decisions and overous attempts to control their content are no justification for theft. I don't have much love for the music industry, but I have to agree. Edited March 21, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Skins is 100% correct on this one. That brings his ratio of hits to misses now to 1 for 7,659,983. Edited March 22, 2007 by spain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 While we are on the subject, I have a question for you skins. If I buy a CD and rip it to itunes, that is legal acoording to the fair use act, correct? And does this also apply to the CDs that come eith the anti-piracy logo as well or is there something different about them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 only buy form those that let u download/ record there stuff free.... i then buy some of there cd's in stores or over the interweb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Skins is 100% correct on this one. That brings his ratio of hits to misses now to 1 for 7,659,983. I was also right that you and yer Megan Foxy Republican buddies shouldnt kill online poker for the rest of us Americans. While we are on the subject, I have a question for you skins. If I buy a CD and rip it to itunes, that is legal acoording to the fair use act, correct? And does this also apply to the CDs that come eith the anti-piracy logo as well or is there something different about them? No such thing as a fair use act, but the Audio Home Recording Act, which amends the 1976 Copyright Act, allows for copying of legally purchased music for personal uses. Which is why copying records to cassettes back in the day was legal--that and VHS/Beta recordings was what the amendment was created to address. If you buy any cd, you can make copies of it for personal use with any technology under the copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 If you buy any cd, you can make copies of it for personal use with any technology under the copyright law. Does this imply that some copyright protection schemes may in themselves be illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Does this imply that some copyright protection schemes may in themselves be illegal? That could make for an interesting challenge in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I was also right that you and yer Megan Foxy Republican buddies shouldnt kill online poker for the rest of us Americans. No such thing as a fair use act, but the Audio Home Recording Act, which amends the 1976 Copyright Act, allows for copying of legally purchased music for personal uses. Which is why copying records to cassettes back in the day was legal--that and VHS/Beta recordings was what the amendment was created to address. If you buy any cd, you can make copies of it for personal use with any technology under the copyright law. This is the fair use I was talking about. And I know you can make copies of it for personal use, but can you use it on other medias such as computers and mp3 players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Does this imply that some copyright protection schemes may in themselves be illegal? sounds like it to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is the fair use I was talking about. And I know you can make copies of it for personal use, but can you use it on other medias such as computers and mp3 players? I know what fair use is and it has nothing to do with you being able to rip cds into itunes. I told you about the specific statute that makes that legal and it covers whatever form you put the copies in and whatever machine you store them on. As long as the copies are for personal use. You could take a recording from a cd and record it on 8 track if it was for personal use. Or mp3 players, or yer computer, or another cd, or 1 million other cds, or itunes, or whatever. As for legal challenges to the technology restrictions that are coming out now, I dont know. I think probably not, because you only have the right to copy things for personal use according to the terms of the agreement/license you agree to when you buy them. So, if content is sold in a new form of technology and only sold with terms that say it can be used with certain other technology, and those terms are clear and known to you before you purchase the item, you are bound by the terms. Even if without them you could make as many copies of the item for personal use as you wanted under the current law. So, all of the dummies in the content industries who are putting those restrictions in place will lose in the end, because the marketplace will move in another direction if people dont agree to the terms they put in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I know what fair use is and it has nothing to do with you being able to rip cds into itunes. I told you about the specific statute that makes that legal and it covers whatever form you put the copies in and whatever machine you store them on. As long as the copies are for personal use. You could take a recording from a cd and record it on 8 track if it was for personal use. Or mp3 players, or yer computer, or another cd, or 1 million other cds, or itunes, or whatever. As for legal challenges to the technology restrictions that are coming out now, I dont know. I think probably not, because you only have the right to copy things for personal use according to the terms of the agreement/license you agree to when you buy them. So, if content is sold in a new form of technology and only sold with terms that say it can be used with certain other technology, and those terms are clear and known to you before you purchase the item, you are bound by the terms. Even if without them you could make as many copies of the item for personal use as you wanted under the current law. So, all of the dummies in the content industries who are putting those restrictions in place will lose in the end, because the marketplace will move in another direction if people dont agree to the terms they put in place. Thanks, most useful. There is a direct comparison with software licensing here - most people don't read it and are unaware of the restrictions when they buy. Caveat emptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I know what fair use is and it has nothing to do with you being able to rip cds into itunes. I told you about the specific statute that makes that legal and it covers whatever form you put the copies in and whatever machine you store them on. As long as the copies are for personal use. You could take a recording from a cd and record it on 8 track if it was for personal use. Or mp3 players, or yer computer, or another cd, or 1 million other cds, or itunes, or whatever. Perhaps a dumb question, but in a legal sense how is "personal use" defined? Is it literally personal as in specific to the purchaser, or personal as opposed to commercial? If I purchase a cd & burn a copy for a friend, or put a copy on my wifes computer, does that fall under personal use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Perhaps a dumb question, but in a legal sense how is "personal use" defined? Is it literally personal as in specific to the purchaser, or personal as opposed to commercial? If I purchase a cd & burn a copy for a friend, or put a copy on my wifes computer, does that fall under personal use? If you burn a copy for a friend, that's illegal. Putting a copy on your wife's computer is more problematic but I would imagine a court would say that since all property in a marriage is effectively shared, it would be fair use. Skins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) If you burn a copy for a friend, that's illegal. Putting a copy on your wife's computer is more problematic but I would imagine a court would say that since all property in a marriage is effectively shared, it would be fair use. Skins? This conversation is interesting to me, because although I don’t download music, it seems that to some extent music fans are being made into outlaws through what was previously considered reasonable everyday use of their own purchased music. For instance in my case, since I moved away from my best friend to attend college, whenever we would discover a cool new band that the other was unaware of, we would tape it for each other & send it off. If we liked what was presented, we would buy it for ourselves. Otherwise, shoebox in the back of the closet or whatever. I have been turned on to a lot of cool music this way. Now we still do this occasionally, but obviously with burned cd’s replacing the tapes, which is now illegal according to above. It's a catch 22, because if I never get a chance to hear something, I obviously won't buy it. And this is coming from a guy who owns like 1500 cd's, I'm not averse to buying music in the least. Edited March 22, 2007 by Bonehand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This conversation is interesting to me, because although I don’t download music, it seems that to some extent music fans are being made into outlaws through what was previously considered reasonable everyday use of their own purchased music. For instance in my case, since I moved away from my best friend to attend college, whenever we would discover a cool new band that the other was unaware of, we would tape it for each other & send it off. If we liked what was presented, we would buy it for ourselves. Otherwise, shoebox in the back of the closet or whatever. I have been turned on to a lot of cool music this way. Now we still do this occasionally, but obviously with burned cd’s replacing the tapes, which is now illegal according to above. It's a catch 22, because if I never get a chance to hear something, I obviously won't buy it. And this is coming from a guy who owns like 1500 cd's, I'm not averse to buying music in the least. It's always been illegal to copy music and give it to someone else, whatever the medium. No-one really cared that much before because all such operations were small-scale. Certainly the RIAA didn't care about you and your friend swapping music - who hasn't done that? The Innernets have changed all that - a single source can now spawn a million copies all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 It's always been illegal to copy music and give it to someone else, whatever the medium. No-one really cared that much before because all such operations were small-scale. Certainly the RIAA didn't care about you and your friend swapping music - who hasn't done that? The Innernets have changed all that - a single source can now spawn a million copies all over the world. Bingo. It didnt matter if you made a cassette for yer manfriend, Bonehand, because it was only one tangible copy. But an mp3 can be dupicated quickly 10 million times. And putting a copy on yer spouses computer falls under personal use. Personal use is personal in the sense that the copies are used in yer household or vehicles or office, etc. But it is not the same as non-commercial. Non-commercial use could include making and giving a copy of a cd to every living human being. That would be illegal. Of course, you can literally burn thousands of copies of a cd you purchase and stick em in yer basement. You just cant give em away or sell them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 My new rule is, if I can't legally from your website, download at least 2 free songs, I'll never purchase your music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 My new rule is, if I can't legally from your website, download at least 2 free songs, I'll never purchase your music. Good rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.