| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2008 08:26:14 PM · #26 |
Regardless of what the RIAA (and some fear mongers on the opposite side) would have you believe, the courts have consistently ruled that "time shifting" (Tivo, VCR tapes, etc) and "format shifting" (ripping CDs, copying records to tape, etc) are both legal under the "fair use" section of the copyright law, as long as the copies are only for personal use. As someone else mentioned, sharing the mp3 or selling the CD after you've ripped it are *not* fair use. The guy in the Fox article is being sued primarily because he was sharing the music, not because he ripped it in the first place.
I always find it interesting that we all get so bent out of shape when somebody uses one of our photos, but then we copy someone else's music and give it away without even thinking about it.
Many of my friends are musicians, and most of them have self-published CDs. They pay the recording and production costs up front, then distribute and sell the CD themselves on Amazon or at their shows. It's a daily experience for them to have a fan tell them, "I made a copy of your CD and gave it to all of my friends. They all love it!" If the 10 friends had paid for the CD instead of getting it for free, the musician could make a second CD. As it is, they're each driving from show to show with a trunk full of unsold CDs.
edit: clarity
Message edited by author 2008-01-02 20:26:50. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 08:28:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by annpatt:
Regardless of what the RIAA (and some fear mongers on the opposite side) would have you believe, the courts have consistently ruled that "time shifting" (Tivo, VCR tapes, etc) and "format shifting" (ripping CDs, copying records to tape, etc) are both legal under the "fair use" section of the copyright law, as long as the copies are only for personal use. As someone else mentioned, sharing the mp3 or selling the CD after you've ripped it are *not* fair use. The guy in the Fox article is being sued primarily because he was sharing the music, not because he ripped it in the first place.
I always find it interesting that we all get so bent out of shape when somebody uses one of our photos, but then we copy someone else's music and give it away without even thinking about it.
Many of my friends are musicians, and most of them have self-published CDs. They pay the recording and production costs up front, then distribute and sell the CD themselves on Amazon or at their shows. It's a daily experience for them to have a fan tell them, "I made a copy of your CD and gave it to all of my friends. They all love it!" If the 10 friends had paid for the CD instead of getting it for free, the musician could make a second CD. As it is, they're each driving from show to show with a trunk full of unsold CDs. |
Well said -- especially the middle paragraph. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 08:48:48 PM · #28 |
so me plucking a song from a working readily available file sharing network is wrong or illegal? edited to say nevermind ...im not big on drawn out no-where discussions where two people see the same thing differently.and to add ,when it becomes illegal ill stop,im sure you yourself recorded something from t.v. or the radio at some point so dont shake your fist at me,was merely stating that i do what i do,judge me if you wish...
Message edited by author 2008-01-02 20:56:10.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:51:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jonnienye:
so me plucking a song from a working readily available file sharing network is wrong or illegal? |
Are you under the impression that just because something exists, it's legal? |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 02:40:10 PM · #30 |
Well said,  geoffb and  annpatt.
I am sick and tired of people trying to justify downloading music that they do not own. Just because it's easy does not make it right.
I'm a musician. I hate the RIAA and the major labels; I think they have a severely outdated business model and have commoditized music to the point of almost destroying it.
I try and avoid major label music as much as possible for this reason. HOWEVER, I do not steal it and try and justify my actions as being 'right'.
If you want to send a message to the major labels, stealing their music is not the way to do it. Simply stop consuming their music in any form.. Vote with your wallet. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 10:25:30 PM · #31 |
have you heard the new radiohead?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:00:54 PM · #32 |
the other day Nikon sued me for putting pictures off of my camera onto my computer, its a crazy world out there.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:48:07 AM · #33 |
Not much I can say that has not already been said, but I still need to get my 2 cents in on this rant.
Ripping a CD I own to listen to on my own device is perfectly reasonable fair use. I can appreciate why the RIAA would LOVE for us to have to buy the songs again for every device we own. The RIAA shoots itself in the foot at every opportunity. They are already trying to kill internet radio, might as well take the entire music industry down while they are at it. My belief is that it is not really about stopping music piracy, it is about getting people to buy the music again after they have already paid for it. 'Course, the Spanish Inquisition RIAA will never admit that.
One of the podcasts I listen to did a comedy skit about performance royalties having to be paid for humming a song or getting the tune stuck in you head. There was a special helmet implemented (in this sketch) so your mind would be wiped of the song if the royalties were not paid.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 08:50:57. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:56:37 AM · #34 |
Today's "Joy of Tech" comic is quite timely for this subject:
//joyoftech.com/joyoftech/index.html |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 12:15:13 PM · #35 |
Although it is illegal, downloading music is not killing the industry or the artists. Someone said they are a musician and they get sick of hearing about someone who gave their 10 friends a copy of the CD. That is how you get your name out there. If it wasn't for that one person who gave the cd to 10, it would be 10 less people who know you exist, 10 less who may buy a ticket or tshirt or your next CD. I do a lot with young bands trying to make it happen. They all embrace the downloading because it gets you known. I download a ton, but I also buy a ton. The downloading turns me on to new music I would never of bought and a lot of times I eventually buy something.
Musicians who complain and try to protect themselves from downloads are missing the big picture. Publicity sells tickets and albums and having your music available is publicity. Dark Side of the Moon has been a top seller since it was released. It has been a top seller during the vinyl years, tapes, cds and now digital media. Young bands expect instant stardom and expect to sell their CDs at top dollar. They are dillusional. I have traveled in a cargo van w/ 4 other guys packed to the brim w/ equipment. They pay their own way, give away CDs and stickers and tshirts. They are putting in their time and when/if their day comes, someone downloading tunes isn't going to be the breaking point.
Its my opinion that those with the talent, drive, creativity and vision will make it regardless if someone steals their songs off the internet. Those that complain use it as a scapegoat for lackluster success. Music is tough and only a few survive regardless. Downloads are people listening which lead to more people listening which leads to sales.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 01:14:32 PM · #36 |
The Canadian recording industry is trying to remove Fair Use rights under the guise of stopping piracy. Obviously, what they are trying to do is to stop format shifting, so consumers would have to buy the same music over and over again.
This is after we already pay a levy on all blank media which gets paid to the recording industry, because it is assumed that all blank media will be used to pirate.
Crazy times. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 01:27:23 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Its my opinion that those with the talent, drive, creativity and vision will make it regardless if someone steals their songs off the internet. Those that complain use it as a scapegoat for lackluster success. Music is tough and only a few survive regardless. Downloads are people listening which lead to more people listening which leads to sales. |
The defining factor is this: The band, and their record company, have set a price for their album... An album they own.
Why do you get to decide that you want that album, but that you don't want to pay for it?
A copyright holder can decide to sell their album it for $1,000 a copy if they want. You, as the consumer, either decide that it is a fair price and buy the album, or you decide that it's not a fair price and you do not buy the album.
I can't walk into a BMW dealership and throw the salesman $1,000 as I peel out of the parking lot in a new car. I also can't decide that I want the BMW for free, because it will help overall sales of BMWs if people see me driving it around. If I did that, it would be considered stealing.
Somehow for music, the masses have decided that they can set their own prices and try and justify that they are not 'really' stealing. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 01:55:46 PM · #38 |
heres an idea,ill BUY ALL the medium (all formats and the blanks and the recorders and the players) when the concerts are FREE....METALLICA/VAN HALEN here i come!
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 03:43:00 PM · #39 |
i guess it really comes down to the fact that this is the world we live in now. Music is easily pirated along with movies, tv shows, etc... There is no way to stop it completely. Metallica tried to take on Napster and they looked like complete assholes and alienated many fans. There are bands that embrace the internet music scene. Im sure they don't like people not buying the album, but they know they can't fight it so they use it to their advantage. These bands become fan favorites and in the end they do make lots of money. Music industry is evolving and this is part of that. Maybe this will put bands back on tour instead of putting out an album doing a few gigs to promote it and going back into the studio to repeat the process. Whatever happened to bands that play 5 nights a week all year?
The BMW example holds a bit of water, but bands don't make music only to promote sales such as an auto manufacturer. The bands that make it do it because they love to play and they love persuing their instrument. Eric Clapton said he would quit the day he figured out all there is to know on the guitar.
I guess some can embrace it and make it work and others will complain and bitch about people stealing their tunes. I never once bought a Phish album, I copied my friends and downloaded all of them. I also have been to over 50 shows and 5 festivals. 50 shows x $30=$1500 + 5 festivals x $150= $2250 total... not to mention merchandise I bought at shows and festivals. Because I got turned on to the band from downloads and sharing I spent $2250 on tickets. I am pretty sure the band would rather that than the $15 x 10albums = $150. Phish made themselves famous by sharing music. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 04:57:09 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Downloads are people listening which lead to more people listening which leads to sales. |
So, you think people are going to steal an album and buy the next one?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 04:59:38 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Downloads are people listening which lead to more people listening which leads to sales. |
So, you think people are going to steal an album and buy the next one? |
Sometimes people do. I don't pretend to know any sort of statistics on it but I know people personally where this has been the case.
It doesn't mean that it's okay of course. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 05:06:59 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
i guess it really comes down to the fact that this is the world we live in now. Music is easily pirated along with movies, tv shows, etc... There is no way to stop it completely. Metallica tried to take on Napster and they looked like complete assholes and alienated many fans. There are bands that embrace the internet music scene. Im sure they don't like people not buying the album, but they know they can't fight it so they use it to their advantage. These bands become fan favorites and in the end they do make lots of money. Music industry is evolving and this is part of that. Maybe this will put bands back on tour instead of putting out an album doing a few gigs to promote it and going back into the studio to repeat the process. Whatever happened to bands that play 5 nights a week all year?
The BMW example holds a bit of water, but bands don't make music only to promote sales such as an auto manufacturer. The bands that make it do it because they love to play and they love persuing their instrument. Eric Clapton said he would quit the day he figured out all there is to know on the guitar.
I guess some can embrace it and make it work and others will complain and bitch about people stealing their tunes. I never once bought a Phish album, I copied my friends and downloaded all of them. I also have been to over 50 shows and 5 festivals. 50 shows x $30=$1500 + 5 festivals x $150= $2250 total... not to mention merchandise I bought at shows and festivals. Because I got turned on to the band from downloads and sharing I spent $2250 on tickets. I am pretty sure the band would rather that than the $15 x 10albums = $150. Phish made themselves famous by sharing music. |
I bet Eric Clapton didn't offer to return all the money he got through album sales did he? If no one ever bought any of his albums when he was starting out, but instead simply stole them, he'd have quit long ago and been an insurance salesman or the like.
Simply because someone is driven to create, they don't deserve to get paid for their work because they'll do it anyway? I'm sorry, but that's just F'ed up in a huge way.
You admit that you stole from one of your favorite bands, but it's OK because you spent money on other stuff that they made money by selling. That's like going to the grocery store and stealing a bag of chips, and justifying that by paying for the dip.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 17:07:43.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 05:15:58 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
There are discussions in some pro forums about photogs using © music on their websites, w/o permission.
I know several DJs that will rip or copy the bride's 'wedding songs' to a disk and give it to her.
I know many videographers that add © music to the wedding videos.
These folks that are creating works they don't want copied, so why would they then copy other artists work? And they're doing it for profit, do doubly bad IMO. |
And it pretty much just flies under the radar too.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 05:16:20 PM · #44 |
Carbon Leaf - still maybe a smallish band but I knew them when they were even smaller. What they did was specifically allow taping of their live shows (sometimes with restrictions on what could happen, to ensure quality recordings) and those were free to copy and distribute. A website was set up where CD swaps and so forth could be arranged. That definitely helped their publicity. And I know it made me way more respectful of the fact that their studio CDs *shouldn't* be copied and distributed the same way. It didn't hurt their success at all and may have even helped in a big way.
Some of this was the type of thing that Jmnuggy seemed to be referring to. But, unlike my interpretation of what he's saying, I feel if bands choose not to go that route, that should be respected and music should be bought like the band wants, not stolen, regardless of other money coming to the band from other means. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 05:19:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
i guess it really comes down to the fact that this is the world we live in now. Music is easily pirated along with movies, tv shows, etc... There is no way to stop it completely. Metallica tried to take on Napster and they looked like complete assholes and alienated many fans. There are bands that embrace the internet music scene. Im sure they don't like people not buying the album, but they know they can't fight it so they use it to their advantage. These bands become fan favorites and in the end they do make lots of money. Music industry is evolving and this is part of that. Maybe this will put bands back on tour instead of putting out an album doing a few gigs to promote it and going back into the studio to repeat the process. Whatever happened to bands that play 5 nights a week all year?
The BMW example holds a bit of water, but bands don't make music only to promote sales such as an auto manufacturer. The bands that make it do it because they love to play and they love persuing their instrument. Eric Clapton said he would quit the day he figured out all there is to know on the guitar.
I guess some can embrace it and make it work and others will complain and bitch about people stealing their tunes. I never once bought a Phish album, I copied my friends and downloaded all of them. I also have been to over 50 shows and 5 festivals. 50 shows x $30=$1500 + 5 festivals x $150= $2250 total... not to mention merchandise I bought at shows and festivals. Because I got turned on to the band from downloads and sharing I spent $2250 on tickets. I am pretty sure the band would rather that than the $15 x 10albums = $150. Phish made themselves famous by sharing music. |
I bet Eric Clapton didn't offer to return all the money he got through album sales did he? If no one ever bought any of his albums when he was starting out, but instead simply stole them, he'd have quit long ago and been an insurance salesman or the like.
Simply because someone is driven to create, they don't deserve to get paid for their work because they'll do it anyway? I'm sorry, but that's just F'ed up in a huge way.
You admit that you stole from one of your favorite bands, but it's OK because you spent money on other stuff that they made money by selling. That's like going to the grocery store and stealing a bag of chips, and justifying that by paying for the dip. |
Just to play devil's advocate did you ever tape songs on cassette from the radio growing up? If so is that any different than downloading songs off the internet today?
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 17:20:55.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 05:22:32 PM · #46 |
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 17:25:30. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 06:58:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
i guess it really comes down to the fact that this is the world we live in now. Music is easily pirated along with movies, tv shows, etc... There is no way to stop it completely. Metallica tried to take on Napster and they looked like complete assholes and alienated many fans. There are bands that embrace the internet music scene. Im sure they don't like people not buying the album, but they know they can't fight it so they use it to their advantage. These bands become fan favorites and in the end they do make lots of money. Music industry is evolving and this is part of that. Maybe this will put bands back on tour instead of putting out an album doing a few gigs to promote it and going back into the studio to repeat the process. Whatever happened to bands that play 5 nights a week all year?
The BMW example holds a bit of water, but bands don't make music only to promote sales such as an auto manufacturer. The bands that make it do it because they love to play and they love persuing their instrument. Eric Clapton said he would quit the day he figured out all there is to know on the guitar.
I guess some can embrace it and make it work and others will complain and bitch about people stealing their tunes. I never once bought a Phish album, I copied my friends and downloaded all of them. I also have been to over 50 shows and 5 festivals. 50 shows x $30=$1500 + 5 festivals x $150= $2250 total... not to mention merchandise I bought at shows and festivals. Because I got turned on to the band from downloads and sharing I spent $2250 on tickets. I am pretty sure the band would rather that than the $15 x 10albums = $150. Phish made themselves famous by sharing music. |
I bet Eric Clapton didn't offer to return all the money he got through album sales did he? If no one ever bought any of his albums when he was starting out, but instead simply stole them, he'd have quit long ago and been an insurance salesman or the like.
Simply because someone is driven to create, they don't deserve to get paid for their work because they'll do it anyway? I'm sorry, but that's just F'ed up in a huge way.
You admit that you stole from one of your favorite bands, but it's OK because you spent money on other stuff that they made money by selling. That's like going to the grocery store and stealing a bag of chips, and justifying that by paying for the dip. |
Just to play devil's advocate did you ever tape songs on cassette from the radio growing up? If so is that any different than downloading songs off the internet today? |
is excactly what i did...where i grew up,the fm radio here played crappy top 40 music only,so i would tape my selected rarely played cuts from local radio,my friend in new york would tape me hours of radio on casstte KROC NYC i believe and send them to me via post office,wow,if i only knew of the "maverick wanted outlaw" of a man that i would become thanks to my love of bad heavy-metal and the internet,lol ,im not even sure this is still on-topic,lol sorry  rex ,going to dye my hair and shave my mustache...edited to add mabe eric clapton should have been an insurance salesman,even a hardened internet thief like me wouldnt touch that crap!
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 19:00:44.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:04:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Carbon Leaf - still maybe a smallish band but I knew them when they were even smaller. ... |
OMG! I LOVE Carbon Leaf. I only know one other person that likes them, and that's the guy that introduced them to me. :) |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:07:07 PM · #49 |
I think the original point of this thread got a bit lost on the way. The question was if it is wrong to rip mucic from Cd's that you own and have paid for
I think very few would argue that it is illegal to copy the song for free. (even though many do it). It is also very likely, though arguable, that this exchange of music benefits the artists. However, what the RIAA is pushing for is for the benefit of the labels, not the artists.
I have a number of MP3 players, none of them IPods. It has been a minor irritant to have to burn my ITunes purchases to a disk and then re-rip them as MP3's. I am now making Amazon my first choice for online music purchases since they began selling DRM-free MP3's. I also listen to Pandora a fair amount and hearing a new-to-me song will often send me to the used Cd shop down the street. Again, not in the RIAA's interests. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:12:24 PM · #50 |
I was reading an interesting article today that suggested the price of DRM-free downloads may drop now that Sony has plans to lift their DRM. The article referred to how Apple really was made a power player with the popularity of the iPod and the iTunes store that goes with it, since DRM was never standardized.
In any event, if I ever did buy a CD, I'd have no ethical dilemma ripping music from it. I bought it, it's mine. They give listens away for free over the radio, why can't I use my product in whatever way I see fit? |
|
