The ethics of burning cds
MIFrost
and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
1- illegal?
2- unethical?
If I tape a TV program with my VCR or a radio broadcast with a cassette
recorder for my own private enjoyment is that illegal or unethical? I have a
videotape of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate that was broadcast several years
ago and I thought I might like to show it to my children when they got
older. Was I wrong to do that? Should I erase it? How about the movies I've
taped? Is that different from people who download music from the web? (I'm
not talking about running off many copies for wide distribution.) If I read
an interesting article in a magazine can I copy it to show my friend if I
don't want to lend him the whole magazine?
Can I make a compilation disc of music from several discs I own? What if I
don't own all the discs? What if some are borrowed from a friend? I think
that brings us back to copying discs from the library.
Is there a lawyer in the group who can explain the legal principle that
controls these issues?
MIFrost
Bob Lombard
<sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>Is there a lawyer in the group who can explain the legal principle that
>controls these issues?
>
There are several. Don't know that they can help you with
the ethics though.
bl
Terrymelin
>and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
>1- illegal?
>2- unethical?
>
Actually it is both. If you purchased the CD and then made an additional copy
for yourself (that's what I do) then it is neither illegal or unethical. But
you are depriving the artist of the income from the purchase of the CD by
making a copy of someone else's CD whether it is a library or your mother.
Terry Ellsworth
Arthur La Porta
Records has been closed down, Teldec has been closed down, Philips
Classics has been closed down, Angel classics has been virtually
eliminated, BMG classics as all but ceased operations, etc.
D.G. Porter
Tough shit. Someone I know made me a cassette of a hard-to-find but
in-print CD fior my critical evaluation. But maybe this is like what
Andy Charlton told me when I egged him on about all my "xeroxing" and he
said, "But what you do isn't 'copying'." He meant, of course, that what
I did was for critical review, not performance.
But I still bristle when the "copy-police" come out from under the
woodpile.
horizon
> > Actually it is both. If you purchased the CD and then made an additional
copy
> > for yourself (that's what I do) then it is neither illegal or unethical.
But
> > you are depriving the artist of the income from the purchase of the CD
by
> > making a copy of someone else's CD whether it is a library or your
mother.
> >
> ...and is one of the contributing factors to the fact that that Erato
> Records has been closed down, Teldec has been closed down, Philips
> Classics has been closed down, Angel classics has been virtually
> eliminated, BMG classics as all but ceased operations, etc.
Actually not. The corporate downsizing you speak of was happening long
before the burning phenomenon of the late 90s began, and has everything to
with: 1) the end of the CD replacement cycle; 2) the inability of new music
to gain widespread acceptance; 3) extraordinary mismanagement by both
upper-level corporate executives and individual label personnel; 4) a
sea-change in the nature of the corporate ownership of classical music
divisions.
CD burning has no more to do with the current crisis in the classical
recording industry than casual copying of LPs to cassette had to do with the
near death of the industry in the 1980s (and which I was present at). When
there are no new composers to speak of (at least in terms of widespread
public acceptance, and, hence, sales of discs), few credible attempts at
cultivating new audiences (as opposed to this crossover crap), and a
situation where virtually every saleable piece of old music has seen dozens,
if not hundreds, of CD releases, the collapse of these divisions was
inevitable. And more will collapse until the media conglomerates who own
them get a clue about the business they are supposed to be in. They're
hoping that a new technology, 5.1 audio, will bail them out one more time.
I don't think it will, but only time will tell I guess (although I
personally think that electronic distribution of repertoire offers a much
greater risk-reward ratio). But, at the end of the day, consumers copying
CDs has virtually nothing to do with the collapse of these badly managed
companies. Their management deserves 100% of the credit that that.
Matt C
Steven Van Impe
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20020327101538...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> If you purchased the CD and then made an additional copy
> for yourself (that's what I do) then it is neither illegal or unethical.
But
> you are depriving the artist of the income from the purchase of the CD by
> making a copy of someone else's CD whether it is a library or your
mother.
In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on discs
loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
Steven
Matthew B. Tepper
news:Lpmo8.68493$in3.20...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
I hope lots of journalists read your words.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Markesten
to accomodate content providers who wish to incorporate copy protection
technology in CD burners.
Of course, Philips owns the patent on the CD burner as well.
It's all about money.
SanV
companies have kept prices of a cd artificially high since its
introduction.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:45:39 -0500, Arthur La Porta <al...@cornell.edu>
wrote:
Arthur La Porta
What's interesting about that? Philips doesn't sell recordings, why
would they worry about protecting copyrights?
Arthur La Porta
Huh? How do you define "artificially high?" In inflation-corrected
dollars CD's are significantly cheaper than LP's were at the end of the
analog era. It is true that the production cost for the media itself is
low, the dominant costs are recording fees, artist royalties, promotion,
distribution, etc.
Arthur La Porta
I don't believe burning of classical CD's is terribly widespread.
However, the crunch at the classical devisions of the big media
conglomerates has a lot to do with the sales declines in the pop
devisions of the same companies, which have seen significant losses due
to burning, mp3 swaping, etc. If a recording is in print, I am quite
willing to pay for it.
bal...@australia.edu
> Terrymelin wrote:
> >
> > >I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> > >and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
> > >
> > >1- illegal?
> > >2- unethical?
I make copies of discs I've borrowed from the library but only if they
are oop. For example I recently found the Stokie/LSO Scheherezade in
my local library and as I couldn't find it anywhere on the net I felt
quite justified in making a copy and one for a friend as well.
AMCOS is the Australian guardian of copyright and their rules state
quite clearly that if a book/CD or other medium is no longer available
to be bought in Australia then it is perfectly legal to copy it. I
don't know whether that's the case in the US.
Cheers
Baldric
John Putnam
"horizon" <mcarn...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Lpmo8.68493$in3.20...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
I haven't heard the phenomenon expressed so well. Thanks and regards,
John Putnam
Matthew B. Tepper
news:3ca1fdf5$0$256$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
Here in the USA, we have the same thing with blank audio and video tapes,
and (I think) with blank music CDs.
The corporate suits want to double-dip, that's all there is to it.
Sonarrat Citalis
news:9vko8.23733$8%1.103...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
> 1- illegal?
> 2- unethical?
One thing you could use it that is neither illegal nor unethical is to buy CDs,
make copies of them, then sell them back to the local Wherehouse. That way you
eat the profit for them, but still save a little money.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
My inbox is protected against all forms of bulk mail and spam.
"The cats...they're up to something. Watch them." -Christopher Titus
John Robicheau
"Arthur La Porta" <al...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3CA22DF6...@cornell.edu...
>
> Huh? How do you define "artificially high?" In inflation-corrected
> dollars CD's are significantly cheaper than LP's were at the end of the
> analog era. It is true that the production cost for the media itself is
> low, the dominant costs are recording fees, artist royalties, promotion,
> distribution, etc.
>
point well taken, but is a double cd worth twice what a single disc costs?
...there is some inherent "value" that *each cd* has or that's what they
want you to believe ( this excludes budget releases, doube ffortes etc)
are Mahler's long symphonies worth more because they are on
multidisc sets?
is Britten's War Requiem worth $ us 36?
MIFrost
Terrymelin <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020327101538...@mb-fz.aol.com...
Are you certain of this? Am I within the law (or am I acting ethically) if I
tape a radio broadcast? What about recording a radio broadcast of a cd
recording (as opposed to a concert or live broadcast)?
I was under the impression that in the US, where I am, it is legal to copy
articles, TV programs, and recorded music for one's own personal enjoyment
but not for sale or distribution. I don't know where I got that idea but I
thought I read it somewhere once.
MIFrost
Matthew B. Tepper
news:afe35cfd.02032...@posting.google.com:
> AMCOS is the Australian guardian of copyright and their rules state
> quite clearly that if a book/CD or other medium is no longer available
> to be bought in Australia then it is perfectly legal to copy it. I
> don't know whether that's the case in the US.
Sadly, no. If only it were!
Marcus Maroney
> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
> 1- illegal?
Yes, but so is speeding....
Consult the following:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
Specifically, Chapter 5 (Copyright Infringement) and Chapter 1,
Sections 107-112, which deal with "limitations on exclusive rights" to
the copyrighted work.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, passed in 1992, also deals
somewhat with this issue:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Alan Sweeney
> In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on discs
> loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
>
>
> Steven
IMO, yes. Absolutely. If you've paid for the royalties, why not?
Are you in the habit of simply giving people your money and not
expecting something in return?
Here in the U.S., royalties are paid on Audio Only CDRs (the kind
needed for stand-alone burners). So if one pays for these
more-expensive discs, one can, IMO, copy anything one damn well
pleases onto them without any moral qualms.
That said, my basic attitude is this: fuck 'em. They are out to make
as much money as possible (nothing wrong with that), and I am out to
keep as much of my money as possible (nothing wrong with that either).
Until the FBI or the cops or a band of caped superheroes or someone
else forces me to desist I'll copy whatever I want -- and whoever
doesn't like it can simply piss off. Esp. since much of the time I
*do* use Audio Only discs.
If I rob a bank, I'm going to get hunted down. If I copy a CD from
the library, no one in law enforcement gives a damn. Why not?
Because it means nothing. It is insignificant and not worth anyone's
time and energy fighting.
I spend $150 a month on CDs. If I want to pick up a few for free on
the side by making copies of library discs...well, I simply don't
believe it's causing the recording industry much lost revenue. And if
it does ... oh well, tough shit. Half the time, if I really love the
disc, I'll eventually buy it (and wouldn't have had I not copied it to
listen to...thus, my copying often = more dough for the industry, not
less).
- Alan.
Alan Sweeney
> "Steven Van Impe" <svan...@antwerpen.be> wrote in
> news:3ca1fdf5$0$256$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
>
> > "Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:20020327101538...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> >
> >> If you purchased the CD and then made an additional copy for yourself
> >> (that's what I do) then it is neither illegal or unethical. But
> >> you are depriving the artist of the income from the purchase of the
> >> CD by making a copy of someone else's CD whether it is a library or
> >> your mother.
> >
> > In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on
> > discs loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
>
> Here in the USA, we have the same thing with blank audio and video tapes,
> and (I think) with blank music CDs.
Yep -- with the blank Audio/Music Only discs there is a royalty
slapped onto and above the price of the disc.
- Alan.
evan johnson
wrote:
>I spend $150 a month on CDs. If I want to pick up a few for free on
>the side by making copies of library discs...well, I simply don't
>believe it's causing the recording industry much lost revenue. And if
>it does ... oh well, tough shit.
Yeah. How much does Sears get affected if I steal that television?
Is Ford going to go out of business if I steal that car from the lot?
evan
Alan Sweeney
> One thing you could use it that is neither illegal nor unethical is to buy CDs,
> make copies of them, then sell them back to the local Wherehouse. That way you
> eat the profit for them, but still save a little money.
With Ebay it's rather easy to actually *make* money doing this --
given a photo, a decent text with relevant info, a ten-day auction
starting on a Thursday (thus it's up for two whole weekends), and not
purchasing the disc for full-price in the first place. I almost
always sell discs on Ebay for more than what I paid.
- Alan.
Paul Goldstein
>
>I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
>and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
>1- illegal?
>2- unethical?
My own opinion as a lawyer is that this falls within a grey area of fair use.
Your analogy to taping tv shows on a VCR has some merit, I think, and the
Supreme Court upheld the legality of the practice in the famous Betamax case.
Paul Goldstein
Paul Goldstein
says...
This argument assumes that MFrost would otherwise buy the CD in question. A
very dubious assumption.
Paul Goldstein
Sonarrat Citalis
news:fedbaba3.0203...@posting.google.com...
Maybe the record companies should sell directly to eBay. What do you think?
Terrymelin
>
>It's all about money.
Of course it is but it doesn't make it any more ethical to make a copy of a CD
you didn't buy yourself which deprives both the artist and the company of
income which is their right to collect.
Terry Ellsworth
evan johnson
<Paul_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Then it is a very small leap indeed (what is the marginal cost of
producing a CD, anyway?) to saying that he should receive a free copy,
direct from the manufacturer, of any CD he would not otherwise buy.
evan
Terrymelin
>companies have kept prices of a cd artificially high since its
>introduction.
Yes, but just because you feel that way doesn't give you the right to steal. I
don't like the price of a Rolls Royce but I'm not going to steal one.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on discs
>loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
>
>
And they go to the artists? How do they know which CDs will be copied?
Terry Ellsworth
alp
> ...there is some inherent "value" that *each cd* has or that's what they
> want you to believe ( this excludes budget releases, doube ffortes etc)
> are Mahler's long symphonies worth more because they are on
> multidisc sets?
>
> is Britten's War Requiem worth $ us 36?
>
To the extent that a 2 cd set contains more music and requires more
time to record, it seems fair. There are cases where a symphony just
barely overflows one cd and the record company doesn't supply a filler
(that kept me from getting Haitink's VPO Bruckner 8) but it doesn't
happen too often.
Britten's War Requiem at full price seems excessive, and that's why I
never got it. I guess a lot of people are willing to pay that much...
Brendan R. Wehrung
> I make copies of discs I've borrowed from the library but only if they
> are oop. For example I recently found the Stokie/LSO Scheherezade in
> my local library and as I couldn't find it anywhere on the net I felt
> quite justified in making a copy and one for a friend as well.
>
> AMCOS is the Australian guardian of copyright and their rules state
> quite clearly that if a book/CD or other medium is no longer available
> to be bought in Australia then it is perfectly legal to copy it. I
> don't know whether that's the case in the US.
>
Once again our Australian cousins teach us a lesson in cultural civility.
Were this to be true in the U.S. (with the RIAA record police able to
enlist the forces of the FBI) or Europe (I don't know what they enforce or
don't enforce) less would be out of print for a long time. Perhaps
somebody got the idea from Japan, where I'm given to understand copyright
protection is maintained by frequent (if small) issues--or they lose it.
Brendan
Brendan R. Wehrung
Isn't (or wasn't) there an exemption allowing copying for study purposes?
I'll make the occasional copy of something out of print with this
understanding.
Brendan
Paul Goldstein
I don't see any connection whatsoever between what I said and what you said. If
he borrows a disc from the library, plays it five times, and returns it to the
library, is that stealing in your opinion? What is the difference if he borrows
the disc from the library, burns a copy, and plays that copy five times? And
what if the disc is one he would never buy in any event?
But I do like your Penguinesque use of the word "indeed."
Paul Goldstein
Eric Nagamine
Isn't the the difference between CDs and TV shows that at least for
network television it airs for free for the audience, whereas CDs are
product to be sold for profit.
As a librarian, the way I read fair use under Title 17 is that it is
different for libraries versus joe citizen.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
Bob Stringer
<Paul_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
I only rarely deal with intellectual property issues, so I
can't say this with complete confidence, but I have
difficulty seeing copying something from the library, or
from any third party, as a fair use. It's too similar to
the Napster situation for me to consider it a grey area,
since in both cases people are copying something that
doesn't belong to them.
Also, the Betamax case didn't go to the question of whether
consumers could make "archival" copies (i.e., permanent
copies for the home library). All the court held was that
movie studios weren't entitled to an injunction against the
sale of video recorders. The lower court held, as a factual
matter, that the recorders didn't facilitate copyright
infringement. The Supreme Court upheld that finding based
on evidence that a great many media companies did not object
to *their* broadcasts being copied (which meant that the
Betamax wasn't *necessarily* being used to make improper
copies) and that the average consumer used a recorder
primarily to record for later viewing a program he couldn't
view when it was being televised. [I think the court even
questioned whether fast forwarding to avoid seeing
commercials happened very frequently, and to the extent it
did whether it was significantly different than getting the
hell out of the room during commercials when you're watching
in "real time."] The court considered that sort of
"time-shifting" a "fair use" because it supposedly
*enlarged* the viewing audience. Accordingly, the movie
studios simply failed to prove that copying harmed the value
of their copyrights.
"Fair use" normally (always?) is limited to copying which
does not materially impair the marketability of the work
which is copied. In the Betamax case, "time shifting" didn't
impair the market, but in another case, involving a
different kind of use (archiving, for example), the result
could be different, especially when you consider the fact
that Sony won the Betamax case by only a 5-4 vote. The court
did not discuss whether it was ok for consumers to make
*permanent* copies of movies or broadcast material for
archival purposes (i.e., for home "libraries"), and as far
as I'm aware (and remember the caveat that I don't
specialize in this area), no case has directly dealt with
that subject.
Last year, in the Napster case, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held that Napster wasn't making a "fair use" of
copyrighted materials. The Court considered both the
Betamax case and an earlier Ninth Circuit case involving the
Rio (the portable MP3 player) very different because the
methods of "shifting" in those earlier cases did not
simultaneously involve distribution of copyrighted material
to the general public; the "shifting" in those case exposed
the copyrighted material only to the original users. Also,
although Napster wasn't being used to sell MP3's, the court
nevertheless felt that the use was still "commercial" rather
than personal (and therefore less entitled to protection)
because files were being distributed to anonymous requesters
who were getting for free something they ordinarily would
have to buy.
[That last point, by the way, strikes me as rather circular,
since the same thing could have been said of the Rio. As the
result of the Ninth Circuit's earlier decision, Rio users
get to play portable MP3's without paying anything extra for
privilege of playing the copies. But what the hey.]
In short, I don't see that big of a difference between
copying a music file from an anonymous person on the web and
copying it from the library. In either case the copy is
being made to avoid having to purchase a CD. It's no answer
that maybe the user wouldn't have bought the CD, he was just
taking advantage of something that was free, because
cumulatively it does make a difference. Or at least it's
reasonable to suppose so.
Bob Stringer
SanV
And I haven't, other than to make selection cd's for myself (and for
close family, but that doesn't really count, well, maybe it does). But
obviously the huge price difference between a normal cd and a empty
cd-r does make it very attractive to a lot of people to burn cd's.
I've always thought it strange (I could easily be wrong here) that cd
prices didn't drop in the years after its introduction in line with
falling production costs (maybe that pertains more to hardware like cd
players than to media like cd's).
Bob Stringer
(Brendan R. Wehrung) wrote:
>Isn't (or wasn't) there an exemption allowing copying for study purposes?
>
>I'll make the occasional copy of something out of print with this
>understanding.
Here's the applicable statute, 17 U.S.C. Section 107:
#########
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the
fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use
made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a
finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors.
#########
Note the limitation -- there has to be "fair use."
Subsection (3) means that it's less likely to be a fair use
if you make a copy of an entire work. Also, as I understand
it (and I'm willing to stand corrected) what you do copy has
to be for the purpose of relatively immediate use. In other
words, you can't make a copy of a book or magazine and put
it on your shelf with the idea that it may be of use to your
studies some day in the future.
There was a case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
several years ago where a Texaco researcher had made
complete copies of something like 10 or so journals for
future use. The Court held that that wasn't a "fair use" of
the materials. There were some quirks in that case, which I
won't get into, and the three judge panel did split 2-1.
But suffice it to say that the copying of complete CD's from
a library seems (to me, anyway) pretty similar to what the
court held was improper in the Texaco case.
Bob Stringer
Jon Bell
SanV <sver...@iupui.edu> wrote:
>I've always thought it strange (I could easily be wrong here) that cd
>prices didn't drop in the years after its introduction in line with
>falling production costs (maybe that pertains more to hardware like cd
>players than to media like cd's).
Most of the costs of a CD are in paying the people involved: the
performers, the engineers, the producer, the record company execs, the
distributors, the retailers.
Some companies have been able to sell new CDs cheaply by paying some of
those people less, or eliminating them from the food chain entirely.
Consider Naxos. Most companies have cheap reissues of old material that
have already basically paid off their production costs. Some companies
can sell stuff amazingly cheaply by licensing it for a song and forgoing
the usual retail distribution channels. Consider Brilliant Classics, with
many multidisc sets that you can get for $2 per disc or less at Berkshire
Record Outlet, or Zweitausendeins in Germany. How many "real" record
stores carry Brilliant Classics?
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Sonarrat Citalis
"Bob Stringer" <bob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:51c5au482mtqhttfc...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Mar 2002 04:50:19 GMT, ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Brendan R. Wehrung) wrote:
>
>
> >Isn't (or wasn't) there an exemption allowing copying for study purposes?
> >
> >I'll make the occasional copy of something out of print with this
> >understanding.
>
> Here's the applicable statute, 17 U.S.C. Section 107:
>
> #########
>
> § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the
> fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
> reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
> specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
So I can claim that the Weissenberg and Kocsis CD-Rs a friend of mine sent me,
were went to me for criticism. :)
Steven Van Impe
> >In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on discs
> >loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
> And they go to the artists? How do they know which CDs will be copied?
Royalties don't work like that.
Royalty companies collect as much cash as they can squeeze out of the
public. They then redistribute it, after taking their share, to the artists
who really need it - that's the theory.
In reality the money goes to the record company, which uses it to boost
certain pop acts to huge one-day successes by massively expensive promotion
campaigns.
Steven
Alan Sweeney
> Maybe the record companies should sell directly to eBay. What do you think?
Many independent pop and rock labels do exactly that. I think it's a
godsend for them.
- Alan.
Alan Sweeney
> copying a music file from an anonymous person on the web and
> copying it from the library. In either case the copy is
> being made to avoid having to purchase a CD. It's no answer
> that maybe the user wouldn't have bought the CD, he was just
> taking advantage of something that was free, because
> cumulatively it does make a difference. Or at least it's
> reasonable to suppose so.
>
> Bob Stringer
Fuck 'em if they don't like it. EMI had an extra $30 million to toss
away on Mariah Carey...if burning discs at home is hurting them, they
sure don't act like it.
And, "in either case the copy is being made to avoid having to
purchase a CD" is not necessarily the case. I used Napster to
download public domain material (turn of the century cylinder
recordings) which I would have never heard otherwise. I used the
material for a paper I wrote on "Coon Songs" and racism in American
entertainment. *I* didn't use Napster to steal, and resent the
implication that I did. I also resent Fascist thugs (i.e., judges)
shutting down a major hub of information sharing. Many people were
using it to steal...so what? Many people use guns to commit robbery
and murder, but they haven't outlawed those yet.
- Alan
Alan Sweeney
So what's the guy supposed to do? Pay royalties -- pay extra for his
blank media -- and refrain from burning copies simply because of some
moral qualm over whether or not those bucks go to the artists?
If "they" want to put royalty fees on blank media, it's *their*
responsibility to divvy up the spoils. The consumer shouldn't have to
worry about it. If those fees aren't going to the artists, then both
the consumer and the artists are being ripped off...big surprise.
I doubt the royalties go to the artists. It's my understanding that
in the U.S. at least those fees go to the RIAA -- God only knows what
those thugs do with it. In any case if I shell out extra money to pay
for royalties because it's assumed I'll pirate something...I'm gonna
damn well pirate something. I'm not going to pay a preemptive fine
and then not do the freakin' crime.
- Alan.
Jon A Conrad
>I've always thought it strange (I could easily be wrong here) that cd
>prices didn't drop in the years after its introduction in line with
>falling production costs
The cost of making the physical CD itself is a very small portion of the
overall cost; the real expense is in creating/producing the music that the
disc contains. That's what has to be paid off (though with classical
repertoire it sometimes never is, the initial outlay is so high) by
charging for the product.
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
Simon Roberts
It's a rather large leap from "it's not unethical to copy a cd one would
not otherwise buy" to "he *should* receive a free copy"....
Simon
evan johnson
<Paul_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <3ca28cb7...@news.yale.edu>, evan.j...@ELIyale.edu says...
>>Then it is a very small leap indeed (what is the marginal cost of
>>producing a CD, anyway?) to saying that he should receive a free copy,
>>direct from the manufacturer, of any CD he would not otherwise buy.
>
>I don't see any connection whatsoever between what I said and what you said. If
>he borrows a disc from the library, plays it five times, and returns it to the
>library, is that stealing in your opinion? What is the difference if he borrows
>the disc from the library, burns a copy, and plays that copy five times? And
>what if the disc is one he would never buy in any event?
A library is a different story, because one has the disc for a limited
time and for a specific reason: so other people can have access to it
as well, *sequentially.* It's just like computer software: the moment
the possibility exists for multiple people to simultaneously use a
product for which not all of them have paid, something unethical has
transpired.
>
>But I do like your Penguinesque use of the word "indeed."
Thank you; I try :)
yours,
evan
evan johnson
wrote:
>It's a rather large leap from "it's not unethical to copy a cd one would
>not otherwise buy" to "he *should* receive a free copy"....
Fine: should he request such a deal from a record company, they should
see no reason to refuse, given that argument.
evan
horizon
"Jon A Conrad" <con...@copland.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:a7v492$rr5$1...@copland.udel.edu...
> The cost of making the physical CD itself is a very small portion of the
> overall cost; the real expense is in creating/producing the music that the
> disc contains. That's what has to be paid off (though with classical
> repertoire it sometimes never is, the initial outlay is so high) by
> charging for the product.
This is definitely true. For instance, one of the reasons that companies
are reluctant to take the NYP into the studio is that their recording
sessions have a history of going overbudget. Hence, virtually everything
that has been recorded with them over the past 15 years is largely the
product of live recordings (including most of the Masur stuff). But, even
then, the costs are still substantial, and their sales probably
underwhelming. And I'm sure that the NYP is not alone in that regard.
The economics of the industry need to radically change if orchestras want to
keep make recordings -- unless, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the
record companies can convince consumers that they simply must replace their
current collections with 5.1 audio, DVD-A or SACD versions of orchestral
standards. Otherwise, the upfront money will eventually dry up completely
for most, if not all, orchestras and ensembles. The goose that laid the
golden eggs is dying, and short of being rescued by the widespread adoption
of a new music format, I cannot imagine the basis for it being brought back
to life. In my opinion, classical musicians are going to have to starting
thinking more as entrepreneurs, and less as union members -- especially when
their so-called "partners" in the recording industry show so little interest
in even vaguely pursuing a credible program for expanding the market for
classical music. But the blaming of consumers for this downturn in the
industry is completely wrongheaded. In the end, how many more Beethoven
symphonies am I supposed to own? I personally own 8 complete cycles
[Furtwangler, Karajan '62, Wand, Harnoncourt, Jochum/COA, Toscanini/NYP,
Mengelberg, Gardiner], and a lot of individual performances. Personally,
I'm thinking about reselling a couple of sets, not buying more. At midprice
or budget, or in an electronic format at a discount price (which, once you
take the current wholesale price for a top line CD into account, and
subtract the costs for production, physical distribution and sales, and
retail advertising, should end up around $7.00 a disc), I'm very willing to
take a chance and give something a listen. At full price, they've got to be
kidding me.
Matt C
Kirk McElhearn
> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
> 1- illegal?
> 2- unethical?
If you live in France as I do, it is both legal and ethical. We pay a
tax on every blank CD, as well as cassette and video tapes. This tax is
supposed to be distributed to artists, and covers the right to use the
medium to make a copy.
Kirk
vice | versa
Translations from French to English, English to French
Traductions francais-anglais, anglais-francais
ki...@mcelhearn.com http://www.mcelhearn.com
Kirk McElhearn | Chemin de la Lauze | 05600 Guillestre | France
Terrymelin
>the disc from the library, burns a copy, and plays that copy five times? And
If you can't really see the difference here no amount of rational explanation
will help.
Terry Ellsworth
Paul Goldstein
says...
Oh, I am touched to the quick.
Paul Goldstein
Fred Bloggs
> On 27 Mar 2002 18:28:31 -0800, evolvi...@cox.net (Alan Sweeney)
> wrote:
>
>
> >I spend $150 a month on CDs. If I want to pick up a few for free on
> >the side by making copies of library discs...well, I simply don't
> >believe it's causing the recording industry much lost revenue. And if
> >it does ... oh well, tough shit.
>
> Yeah. How much does Sears get affected if I steal that television?
> Is Ford going to go out of business if I steal that car from the lot?
Heh...all this talk of `intellectual property` really has you
confusing the issue with actually stealing property, hasnt it! Its
*copies* he is talking about. Did you hear him suggest he`d actually
steal cds from the shop? Or is there no difference?
Paul Goldstein
>
>On 27 Mar 2002 18:26:44 -0800, Paul Goldstein
><Paul_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9vko8.23733$8%1.103...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "MIFrost" says...
>>>
>>>I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
>>>and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>>>
>>>1- illegal?
>>>2- unethical?
>>
>>My own opinion as a lawyer is that this falls within a grey area of fair use.
>>Your analogy to taping tv shows on a VCR has some merit, I think, and the
>>Supreme Court upheld the legality of the practice in the famous Betamax case.
>
>I only rarely deal with intellectual property issues, so I
>can't say this with complete confidence, but I have
>difficulty seeing copying something from the library, or
>from any third party, as a fair use. It's too similar to
>the Napster situation for me to consider it a grey area,
>since in both cases people are copying something that
>doesn't belong to them.
>
Bob, all of your points are good, and that is why I say it's a "grey area." The
factor which complicates things for me is the library factor. Even Terry
Ellsworth seems to agree that it is lawful for MIFrost to borrow a CD from his
local library, bring it home, and listen to it as much as he likes. Yet that
activity, in and of itself, is "depriving the artist of his money," if you
accept the (very questionable) assumption that every CD borrowed from the
library represents a lost sale. (Of course, the same is true of books.
Libraries allow millions of people to read books - "for free" - that otherwise
they would have to buy.) So where are we to draw a principled line between
lawful use of library materials and unlawful ripping-off? I don't have a
completely satisfying answer to this question, but in my opinion, the factor of
personal use versus commercial use is very important. Very few people have any
difficulty condemning a person who copies CDs borrowed from the library and then
sells the copies to people. But in my opinion, copying a CD borrowed from the
library for strictly personal use is a lot like taping a TV program for strictly
personal use. (The TV program is every bit as protected by copyright as the CD,
by the way, even though the TV program may be aired "for free." The CD is lent
out "for free" too, of course.) It is another kind of time shifting, in part.
I may not have time to play the borrowed CD during the 3 weeks I'm allowed to
borrow it. So I copy it for future listening. The genie in the bottle is the
existence of the "free" lending library.
BTW you are quite correct to point out the faulty assumptions on which the
Betamax decision was based. But the legal principle for which the case stands
is quite solidly established.
Paul Goldstein
Sonarrat Citalis
<bubbam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o9p6aucibj2k2mh2b...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:37:49 -0800, "Sonarrat Citalis"
> <sona...@postmark.net> wrote:
>
> >"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:9vko8.23733$8%1.103...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> >> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> >> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
> >>
> >> 1- illegal?
> >> 2- unethical?
> >
CDs,
> >make copies of them, then sell them back to the local Wherehouse. That way
you
> >eat the profit for them, but still save a little money.
>
> It may not be illegal but it is certainty unethical.
Why? They get their profit, then give you $2 for the CD, then put it back in
the bin priced at $10. Now that's unethical.
Charles
Charles
"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9vko8.23733$8%1.103...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
> 1- illegal?
> 2- unethical?
>
> If I tape a TV program with my VCR or a radio broadcast with a cassette
> recorder for my own private enjoyment is that illegal or unethical? I have a
> videotape of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate that was broadcast several years
> ago and I thought I might like to show it to my children when they got
> older. Was I wrong to do that? Should I erase it? How about the movies I've
> taped? Is that different from people who download music from the web? (I'm
> not talking about running off many copies for wide distribution.) If I read
> an interesting article in a magazine can I copy it to show my friend if I
> don't want to lend him the whole magazine?
>
> Can I make a compilation disc of music from several discs I own? What if I
> don't own all the discs? What if some are borrowed from a friend? I think
> that brings us back to copying discs from the library.
>
> Is there a lawyer in the group who can explain the legal principle that
> controls these issues?
>
> MIFrost
>
>
>
>
evan johnson
Bloggs) wrote:
The difference is only the marginal cost to Sears for that television.
It's not infinitesimal, but compared to Sears' budget it's pretty
minimal. Of course, if everyone did it there'd be a problem, but that
stipulation applies to CDs as well...
evan
Matthew B. Tepper
@news.yale.edu:
> On 27 Mar 2002 18:28:31 -0800, evolvi...@cox.net (Alan Sweeney)
> wrote:
>
>>I spend $150 a month on CDs. If I want to pick up a few for free on
>>the side by making copies of library discs...well, I simply don't
>>believe it's causing the recording industry much lost revenue. And if
>>it does ... oh well, tough shit.
>
> Yeah. How much does Sears get affected if I steal that television?
> Is Ford going to go out of business if I steal that car from the lot?
Ah, but what if you had a matter-duplicator which would enable you to
make a COPY of the TV or auto, without depriving Sears or Ford....
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Matthew B. Tepper
news:fedbaba3.02032...@posting.google.com:
> I doubt the royalties go to the artists. It's my understanding that
> in the U.S. at least those fees go to the RIAA -- God only knows what
> those thugs do with it. In any case if I shell out extra money to pay
> for royalties because it's assumed I'll pirate something...I'm gonna
> damn well pirate something. I'm not going to pay a preemptive fine
> and then not do the freakin' crime.
Cf. William Tenn's science fiction story "Time in Advance."
Matthew B. Tepper
><bubbam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:o9p6aucibj2k2mh2b...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:37:49 -0800, "Sonarrat Citalis"
>> <sona...@postmark.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9vko8.23733$8%1.103...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> >
>> >> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local
>> >> library and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>> >>
>> >> 1- illegal?
>> >> 2- unethical?
>> >
>> >One thing you could use it that is neither illegal nor unethical is
>> >to buy CDs, make copies of them, then sell them back to the local
>> >Wherehouse. That way you eat the profit for them, but still save a
>> >little money.
>>
>> It may not be illegal but it is certainty unethical.
>
> Why? They get their profit, then give you $2 for the CD, then put it
> back in the bin priced at $10. Now that's unethical.
No, just market economy.
Bruckner Junkie
any evidence that the mass pirating of classical music is a factor in
the shrinking market, post it.
The larger crisis in the recording industry may be caused in large
part by pirate culture, but it isn't a key factor in the classical
niche. Only if you think that we are entitled to be supported by the
profits from the labels' pop departments.
Arthur La Porta <al...@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<3CA1E923...@cornell.edu>...
> ...and is one of the contributing factors to the fact that that Erato
> Records has been closed down, Teldec has been closed down, Philips
> Classics has been closed down, Angel classics has been virtually
> eliminated, BMG classics as all but ceased operations, etc.
Richard S. Sandmeyer
evolvi...@cox.net (Alan Sweeney) wrote:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy?earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<a7tbj...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> > "Steven Van Impe" <svan...@antwerpen.be> wrote in
> > news:3ca1fdf5$0$256$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
> >
> > > "Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
> > > news:20020327101538...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> > >
> > >> If you purchased the CD and then made an additional copy for yourself
> > >> (that's what I do) then it is neither illegal or unethical. But
> > >> you are depriving the artist of the income from the purchase of the
> > >> CD by making a copy of someone else's CD whether it is a library or
> > >> your mother.
> > >
> > > In Belgium, royalties are payed on blank media (like CD-Rs) and on
> > > discs loaned from a library. Is it then okay to copy?
> >
> > Here in the USA, we have the same thing with blank audio and video tapes,
> > and (I think) with blank music CDs.
>
> Yep -- with the blank Audio/Music Only discs there is a royalty
> slapped onto and above the price of the disc.
>
> - Alan.
This "tax" or royalty on blank media that was passed in the US some years
back has always puzzled me. What exactly is it that we are paying it
for?
Clearly it isn't being paid for the right to make copies of things we
already own (e.g., to make a casette of a CD to play in a car without
CD-player, or to archive our own library of out-of-print LPs on CD).
Those cases are already covered under "fair use" and no fee need be paid.
Right?
Yet I'm sure the recording companies wouldn't admit that paying this fee
on blank media gives us permission to copy at will whatever we want (e.g.,
library copies, copies lent to us by friends, off the air broadcasts of
copyrighted recordings, etc.) So again, what is it that we are paying for
with this tax?
Is it just a levy that RIAA or some similar lobbying group managed to have
enacted to compensate themselves for expected losses to copying? If this
is the case, then I can't help but sympathize with the poster who said
that if he's going to be fined in advance anyway, he's certainly going to
go ahead and commit the crime.
It would be interesting to know what fraction of the money collected by
this tax goes to classical artists. Probably a miniscule percentage, but
then I expect copying isn't as widespread for classical recordings (based
on my limited observations) as it is for some other genres.
Rich Sandmeyer
richsand at iximd dot com
Wolfgang Schelongowski
evan.j...@ELIyale.edu (evan johnson) writes:
>On 27 Mar 2002 18:28:31 -0800, evolvi...@cox.net (Alan Sweeney)
>wrote:
>>I spend $150 a month on CDs. If I want to pick up a few for free on
>>the side by making copies of library discs...well, I simply don't
>>believe it's causing the recording industry much lost revenue. And if
>>it does ... oh well, tough shit.
>Yeah. How much does Sears get affected if I steal that television?
>Is Ford going to go out of business if I steal that car from the lot?
They have one less than before. When somebody copies a CD the
producers of that CD still have the same number as before.
--
"Some people are heroes. And some people jot down notes."
-- Terry Pratchett, The Truth
Matthew B. Tepper
news:richsand-280...@192.168.123.135:
> This "tax" or royalty on blank media that was passed in the US some
> years back has always puzzled me. What exactly is it that we are
> paying it for?
The Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI/BMG office cocaine budgets. Next question!
Bob Stringer
Sweeney) wrote:
I wasn't talking about public domain material. I was
responding to the general question about whether it's ok to
copy a CD from the library.
Bob Stringer
Bob Stringer
<Paul_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
I guess we are pretty much in agreement.
I think it's worth adding that the legal question is pretty
academic. Unless (until?) we get to the point that the RIA
starts hiring detectives to look in people's windows to see
if they're making archival copies of VCR's or CD's, lawsuits
involving consumers just aren't going to happen. That's why
the only published court opinions concern commerical middle
men, such as Napster and Diamond (the Rio people).
By the way, three days ago the Ninth Circuit issued another
opinion in the Napster case, this time concerning the
modified preliminary injunction. I noticed that the
first-named plaintiff was Creeping Death Music. Kinda
emblematic, don't you think? "Creeping Death v. Napster."
Bob Stringer
bal...@australia.edu
Let's take Naxos for instance. They pay their artists a one off fee -
no royalties for them so does that change the ground rules for copying
Naxos discs?
Cheers
Baldric
Tim D. W.
> >It's all about money.
>
> Of course it is but it doesn't make it any more ethical to make a copy of a CD
> you didn't buy yourself which deprives both the artist and the company of
> income which is their right to collect.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
Hello,
The ethics of Audio CD-Rs thread caught my eye and I read through
the posts with interest as it is an issue that I have spent some time
thinking about as well. One of the first questions that came to my
mind (and may have already come up in the lag time between my last
visiting the thread and the posting of this message) after
establishing, as you have, that the ethical issue centers on fair
compensation to the artists and producers is the old question of
whether or not Audio CD-Rs in all instances are more unethical in use
than the purchasing of used compact discs.
Consider the tale of five parties interested in a disc. Person A
listens to a library copy of an original in-print disc and, liking
what he hears, decides to purchase a copy of the recording. But
instead of going to a local retail store he spots a used copy of the
disc on eBay for $5.00 and buys it-- thanking his lucky stars for such
a bargain! A few months later he decides that he needs more shelf
space in his listening room and sells the disc back again on eBay to
the second of the five parties. This buyer in time and turn does the
same, as do each of the others, so that by the end of the day we are
left with five parties having been exposed to this artistry while not
as much as one dime has made its way back to the artist.
Contrast with a second group of five interested parties lead by
Person B who also listens to an original in-print disc from the
library and, liking what he hears, decides to burn a copy onto an
Audio CD-R. A few months later he decides that he no longer wants
this disc but as the Classical CD-R Trade is not nearly as acceptable,
profitable or practical as the Classical Used CD Trade, he simply
holds on to the CD-R, burying it in the back of his closet. The four
remaining members of this group are then left to explore other
options-- including that of actually purchasing a copy of the disc at
retail. If just one member of this group makes such a purchase the
artist will (hopefully) enjoy some profit on his work.
Now, while I understand that Person B is for some a much easier
target, the real question comes up as to who is more unethical: Person
B (with his Audio CD-R) or Person A (with his re-sold used CD)?
Neither of these gentlemen did any good for the artist on acquiring
their disc, but which of the two had more (often realised) potential
for future harm (as long as the title is in print) to the artist?
Please note that the question of which Person is more ethical is
not, in my mind, answered by considering which person's activity is
more legal, as the terms "legal" and "ethical" do not equate.
Final Question? A search through the rcmr archive brings up many
threads relating to used compact discs--- but not many posts
questioning the morality of dealing in them. Do you think that this
is a trend likely to change?
Tim
(Persons A, B and C)
evan johnson
wrote:
> Final Question? A search through the rcmr archive brings up many
>threads relating to used compact discs--- but not many posts
>questioning the morality of dealing in them. Do you think that this
>is a trend likely to change?
As long as a physical copy of a disc changes hands, only one person
can have possession of it at a time. The royalties and other
associated profits upon the sale of the disc were for one copy of the
disc; and that's maintained.
When a copy is made such that two people simultaneously have the same
recording for which only one of them paid, the problems arise.
evan
evan johnson
Schelongowski) wrote:
>They have one less than before. When somebody copies a CD the
>producers of that CD still have the same number as before.
But what difference does that REALLY make in Sears' national
inventory? Virtually none. The question is the same one I posed
before: given the minimal marginal cost of producing CDs, why
shouldn't we be able to contact record companies and ask for a free
copy of any disc we wouldn't buy at retail price?
evan
Matthew Silverstein
>What is the difference if he borrows
>the disc from the library, burns a copy, and plays that copy five times?
Terry replied:
> If you can't really see the difference here no amount of rational
explanation
> will help.
Paul, I think this is code for "I don't know" . . .
Matty
Paul Goldstein
pasto...@yahoo.com says...
>
>terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote ....
>
>> >It's all about money.
>>
>>Of course it is but it doesn't make it any more ethical to make a copy of a CD
>> you didn't buy yourself which deprives both the artist and the company of
>> income which is their right to collect.
>>
>> Terry Ellsworth
>
> Hello,
>
> The ethics of Audio CD-Rs thread caught my eye and I read through
>the posts with interest as it is an issue that I have spent some time
>thinking about as well. One of the first questions that came to my
>mind (and may have already come up in the lag time between my last
>visiting the thread and the posting of this message) after
>establishing, as you have, that the ethical issue centers on fair
>compensation to the artists and producers is the old question of
>whether or not Audio CD-Rs in all instances are more unethical in use
>than the purchasing of used compact discs.
[snip details]
To speak of this as an ethical issue strikes me as extremely strange, but just
for informational purposes I will point out that the right to transfer ends with
the sale of the copyrighted item, so that the copyright holder has no legal
right to interfere with a resale of the copyrighted item. The resale and
repurchase of a CD, therefore, raise absolutely no legal issues. And yet buying
a used CD does deprive that beloved record company (and/or artist) of revenue.
This is yet another reason why all arguments based on the record company and/or
artist's supposed right to profit on each transaction involving its or his art
are fundamentally invalid.
Paul Goldstein
Owen Hartnett
rich...@iximd.com (Richard S. Sandmeyer) wrote:
>
> This "tax" or royalty on blank media that was passed in the US some years
> back has always puzzled me. What exactly is it that we are paying it
> for?
>
> Clearly it isn't being paid for the right to make copies of things we
> already own (e.g., to make a casette of a CD to play in a car without
> CD-player, or to archive our own library of out-of-print LPs on CD).
> Those cases are already covered under "fair use" and no fee need be paid.
> Right?
Wrong. Your tax on the blank media allows you to make copies of things
you already own. Or to time shift broadcasted works.
This all works down to the Sony/Betamax decision, where the US Supreme
Court said that time shifting of broadcast material was an allowable use
under copyright law. Having been whipped in this case, the record
companies went and struck a deal with Congress that allowed them to slap
a tax on blank media. In return, Congress put forward the stipulation
that you can make multiple copies of things you now own on this blank
media.
For more info on myths about Copyright law, see:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/mirrors/faq/copyright/myths/part1
-Owen
David Wake
mentioned: I missed some of this thread).
Suppose I buy a CD, then make a backup copy for fair use purposes.
Later, I decide I don't like the CD any more and sell it on Ebay,
still keeping my backup.
1. Was copyright violated in this sequence of events?
2. If so, where exactly? (assume that I intended to keep the CD at the
time I made the backup copy)
David
Bob Stringer
wrote:
As I understand it (and I don't claim to be infallible in
this area):
1. Yes
2. When you sold your main copy but kept the backup.
Caveat: I don't know of any court opinions concerning Music
CD burning. I'm going on analogy to how I understand it
works with software.
Bob Stringer
Brendan R. Wehrung
> MIFrost <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
>> and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>>
>> 1- illegal?
>> 2- unethical?
>
> tax on every blank CD, as well as cassette and video tapes. This tax is
> supposed to be distributed to artists, and covers the right to use the
> medium to make a copy.
>
> Kirk
>
Anybody know a French recording artist? It would be interesting to learn
what, if anything, reaches his accountant.
Brendan
rofke
I am taping classical concerts, recorded from the Dutch radio on dat
tape, and burn them on a cd,
do you think that's immoral?
A step further, I record a lot of contemporary music programs,
unavailable on cd, and exchange them with people all over the world.
do you think that's immoral?
(besides promoting Dutch composers)
Rolf
Kirk McElhearn
> Anybody know a French recording artist? It would be interesting to learn
> what, if anything, reaches his accountant.
Oh, I'm sure this money goes only to those artists who sell a lot.
Britney Spears must get more than most; I'm sure classical artists get
squat.
Kirk
Paul Goldstein
Will Self
wrote:
>I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my local library
>and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is this:
>
>1- illegal?
>2- unethical?
>
>If I tape a TV program with my VCR or a radio broadcast with a cassette
>recorder for my own private enjoyment is that illegal or unethical? I have a
>snip<
Yawn...how many dozens of times has this moral/legal/ethical dilemma
thread been rehashed here? Give it a rest, folks, there's too much
music out there to discuss. It is, and always will be, a matter of
personal choice -- regardless of how many posters weigh in on either
side of the matter. Any further discussion is a waste of rhetoric and
an excuse to posture; nobody's opinion regarding the matter will
change due to all the blather.
Will
Tim D. W.
> > The ethics of Audio CD-Rs thread caught my eye and I read through
> >the posts with interest as it is an issue that I have spent some time
> >thinking about as well. One of the first questions that came to my.....
[cut]
> To speak of this as an ethical issue strikes me as extremely strange, but just
> for informational purposes I will point out that the right to transfer ends with
> the sale of the copyrighted item, so that the copyright holder has no legal
> right to interfere with a resale of the copyrighted item. The resale and
> repurchase of a CD, therefore, raise absolutely no legal issues. And yet
Hello,
Why is this "extremely strange"? Is it because the law is on some
fronts fairly tidy and remaining within the law should be the primary
concern of this issue? It was another reader who raised the point of
compensation to artists and producers as an ethical (NOT legal)
question, and I simply started from there. Certainly those of us,
myself included, who love bargains and have picked up used discs of
in-print recordings of living artists are doing nothing illegal and
will not lose much sleep over it. And I am not even suggesting that
there should be any changes to any existing laws to address this
point. I simply hold there there may be more sides to the story than
simply:
(a) Audio CD-R copy of libray disc = Morally Corrupt
(b) Activities not illegal = Necessarily on the Moral High Ground
> This is yet another reason why all arguments based on the record company and/or
> artist's supposed right to profit on each transaction involving its or his art
> are fundamentally invalid.
Good point.
Tim
Alan Sweeney
> Hello all,
>
> I am taping classical concerts, recorded from the Dutch radio on dat
> tape, and burn them on a cd,
> do you think that's immoral?
I don't think the behavior you've described is immoral at all.
> A step further, I record a lot of contemporary music programs,
> unavailable on cd, and exchange them with people all over the world.
> do you think that's immoral?
> (besides promoting Dutch composers)
You are doing nothing wrong. Keep doing it.
- Alan.
John Robicheau
<bubbam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:62u7au07ihi62l3ns...@4ax.com...
> time. You just can't expect that they will send it to you.
>
> Bubba
Plenty of reviewers dump their free promos on the used market........
Matthew B. Tepper
$se.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
And it isn't merely reviewers who get those promos, apparently. Many
radio station employees get them too. The amusing thing is that one can
seemingly always find not merely one copy, but multiple copies of the
various mockera singers' CDs at just about any Los Angeles-area used-CD
store, for weeks after their release.
Margaret Mikulska
bubbam...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> "John Robicheau" <pri...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Plenty of reviewers dump their free promos on the used market........
>
> them? Perhaps that would be the correct thing to do but that isn't the
> way the world works.
Not destroy, but give away to somebody who'd like it and listen to it.
-Margaret
--
mikulska at silvertone dot princeton dot edu
Alan Sweeney
> no royalties for them so does that change the ground rules for copying
> Naxos discs?
>
> Cheers
>
> Baldric
I don't think it changes the ground rules, because I don't think there
are ground rules -- I think it's every [wo]man for him/herself. That
said, I won't copy a Naxos disc because their prices are reasonable
and I *like* Heymann and his repertoire-centered (as opposed to
artist-centered) outlook. I'm sick of shelling out top dollar for the
benefit of overblown egos and moronic business models.
- Alan.
Alan Sweeney
> Yawn...how many dozens of times has this moral/legal/ethical dilemma
> thread been rehashed here?
Yawn...it has been rehashed exactly 914 times, according to the U.S.
State Department Bureau Of All Pointless Knowledge To Be Found On Sol
III.
> Give it a rest, folks, there's too much
> music out there to discuss.
You aren't discussing music, either -- you are adding to a thread you
claim to find pointless. You are adding to the blather. I don't see
you starting a new thread about
which-recordings-follow-Beethoven's-metronome-to-the-letter or
who-likes-Vainberg or what-about-this-here-disc-at-Berkshire or
which-Mahler-cycle-do-I-buy-now-I-already-own-Solti-and-I'm-looking-for-a-new-perspective-on-these.
Some of us are here for information. Some for entertainment. Some to
pass time. Who are you to dictate what an assortment of individuals
decide to discuss or find important? If you think this thread is a
waste of time, why don't you just ignore it instead of smearing your
own high-mindedness all over it?
> It is, and always will be, a matter of
> personal choice -- regardless of how many posters weigh in on either
> side of the matter.
No, really?
> Any further discussion is a waste of rhetoric and
> an excuse to posture
Your post is likewise a waste of rhetoric. It is an excuse to bray
about your superiority and preen over your supposed wisdom.
> nobody's opinion regarding the matter will
> change due to all the blather.
No, really? Your blather isn't changing anyone's mind re: pointless
blather, either. Perhaps you should go play Dad somewhere else.
- Alan
Nils-Eivind Naas
news:20020327101538...@mb-fz.aol.com:
>>I recently purchased a cd burner. I find works I like at my
>>local library and copy them. They're for my own private use. Is
>>this:
>>
>>1- illegal?
>>2- unethical?
>>
>
> Actually it is both.
A bold statement, since neither you nor the original poster state
where you live. In this country at least, the copyright law has
always explicitly allowed "single copies for personal use" of
copyrighted works (computer programs have recently been excluded,
though). But with the current pressure on legislating bodies from
various copyright-holding oligarchies, this may not last long.
--
Nils-Eivind Naas
Oslo, Norway
JR
wrote:
>>1. Was copyright violated in this sequence of events?
>>
>>2. If so, where exactly? (assume that I intended to keep the CD at
the
>>time I made the backup copy)
>
>As I understand it (and I don't claim to be infallible in
>this area):
>
>1. Yes
>2. When you sold your main copy but kept the backup.
Although it's obvious that duplicating CDs NOT for personal use is
illegal, the situation in question is tricky.
Let's say:
a) a person makes 1 million CD-R copies (for personal use) of a CD he
bought
b) there is no law providing for responsibility for such duplication
The person sells the original used CD (and none of the duplicated
ones).
Both actions were legal: transfer of property and duplication for
personal use. If a duplicated CD were sold, it would be duplication
not for personal use and therefore illegal.
Juozas Rimas Jr (not the one playing)
http://www.mp3.com/juozasrimas (oboe, piano, strings)