All Songwriters Read And Stand Up

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nashstudio
  • Start date Start date
In the words of Maynard James Keenan:

"It is not your music to take"

I think he put it best. I use Napster all the time (not actually Napster, but something that does almoste xactly the same thing.

I admit to have downloaded albums before their release date and put them on CD, but I would NEVER downlaod an album after its release and put it on CD. If I like it enough to do that, the artist deserves my money. He worked hard for it (even though he probably gets shit from his record co.)

Jake
 
hixmix said:
Technically everyone has permission to make a digital or analog copy of a composers work for personal use.
Click to expand...


How so?



If I am an artist does it make me a criminal if I go out and paint a picture of a landscape that's on someone elses private property?
Click to expand...

That is REALLY stretching, but just for the sake of our discussion, I will say this: creating your own interpretation of someone's private landscape on a canvas is not owning a copy, nor is it depriving them of income they might have derived by the use of it. You are also entitled to "fair use", which grants everyone the use of such things. For example, if I were making a Trivia game and one of the questions was "Which of the Beatles is dead: John, Ringo, George, or Paul?", I could not be sued for using their names or the name of their band. However, if I made a game based solely on their band and called it "Beatles Trivia", I could be sued.

BTW, I love to photograph old trucks. Whenever I see one in someone's back yard or out in there pasture or whatever, I always go to their door and ask permission to photograph it. It just seems the right thing to do.

Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
 
One of the reasons blank audio media is manufactured and sold is because people have the right to make copies of musical recordings and broadcasts for personal listening purposes.

I have to "REALLY" stretch because I can't help thinking: What are the limits of the concept of "intellectual property"?
 
hixmix is right about that everyone can make a copy for personal use. In some countries (Sweden comes to my mind here) you can even give a copy to a friend as a present and you're still inside the law. This was a big issue in Sweden a while ago when a minister in the government had done just that, mentioned it in an interview in the #1 evening paper, and made the record company executives take one large dump in their pants. She is now being accused for the decreasing CD-sales in Sweden.

This personal copy thing was meant to cover situations like if you wanted to play your vinyl record in the car, which could have been a problem i imagine... You cross the line when you make more copies than you would reasonably need. How many is reasonably? Well, use what you have between your ears mixed with common sense, or in countries where prefered, contact your lawyer :D.
BTW, this stuff includes movies on TV, too. Usally, when a movie airs on TV, the commercial value in other areas has been exhausted. Or in some cases, it could actually re-boost rentals, sales etc.

In the twisted place where i live, any domestic CD is available for rental at your local blockbuster about one month after its release. Anything else takes about a year to reach the rental shelves. All perfectly legal. They even sell blank MDs and video tapes at the counter.

Napster was bound to happen sooner or later. It's still in its infancy. It will grow up and get a hair cut, just like anything else.

micmac
 
The problem stems from what people consider music, as an object. Music is not an object, it is a sound, and noone owns a sound. You can own a song, but that song is an idea, and what is owned by the copyright holder is the right to control the reproduction of the score, the lyrics, the packaging, and other productions of that sonic manifestation. Music itself is sound. It eminates from our radios, supermarkets, elevators, clubs, TVs, it's everywhere!!!! Listening to it is not stealing it. Same with the data. Data is nothing but energy, and it's not regulated. I can do anything I want with that.

So you can't tell me that burning a CD of a song for my own personal use is stealing.

Times are changing, people. The simple fact of the matter is that technology is racing forward, and if you can't keep up, you lose. The music industry is heading for some big changes and as one artist to others, I will say that it's time to make other arrangements.

Where I stand I would only hope for my music to reach the ears of appreciative listeners. There could come a day when I would wnat more control over it to protect the sales. But crushing innovation and change is not the way. You have to embrace these technological breakthroughs as music evolves.
 
I remember in the '80's there was a court decision that gave people the right to record video copies of television shows for later viewing. You could extrapolate that to include radio broadcasts.
And I'm not sure, but I believe it is legal to make copies of a work you already own for your own personal use, such as cassette copy to play in your car.
So you are partially right. There are cases where it is OK to make copies. But in each case, permission was already granted.
And just because recordable media is manufactured does not imply that you can use if for illegal purposes, such as the illegal recording of phone calls or video taping in a public bathroom or dressing room. Other examples: guns are manufactured, but that does not grant the gun owner the right to commit murder; cars that can drive 120 mph hour are manufactured, but that does not grant the owner of the car the right to exceed the speed limit.

This dialogue has got me wondering about the limits of things too. I was thinking yesterday about the "fair use" clause. Can you imagine the ramifications if it did not exist, and an artist was allowed to copyright a chord? Or a chord progression? Goodbye trusty 8 bar blues!

Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
 
Did I post in this thread or the other?

Anyway, the point of my initial post was somewhat similar to what Rats is saying. The industry has to change. At this time when the companies are not on the leading edge of that change, there are possibilties for greater fundamental change.

I bootleg CD's from friends because, as a consumer, I don't want to pay $18 dollars a piece for them. Is the artist hurt by my thrift? Well, yes. To use Nash's numbers, I've deprived that person of 7 cents. I understand a songwriter's outrage with regard to intellectual property, though I think that's usually the lesser issue. But if the issue is really about monetary compensation, I think outrage toward the end consumer is misdirected. If it's a question of ethics, which is worse, stealing copyrighted material for personal use or handing back 7 cents of an $18 CD back to the creator of the work?

Nash, I'm trying to understand your point, but I cannot see how advancing the agenda of the people who are really ripping you off is going to help you in the long run. New technologies can make the industry more democratic when expense such as distribution are nixed. Of course you should be paid for the sale and dsplay of your material, the trick will be to find a way to make money without record company enslavement.

Record companies overstate the financial impact of pirating and use it as an excuse to charge more for the product and pay artists even less. They are NOT on your side. Somewhere inside all of this, there is a way of restructuring the entire industry. I'd expect artists to be in favor of such things. It scares me to see so much artist support for the old regime.
 
lazyboy said:
Record companies overstate the financial impact of pirating and use it as an excuse to charge more for the product and pay artists even less. They are NOT on your side.
Click to expand...

Totally. And there's no way major record companies would ever lower CD prices, even if everyone suddenly bought a legal copy of every illegal mp3 they've got sitting on their hard drive.

micmac
 
I completely agree, lazyboy. I love the fact that technology is making it cheaper and easier than ever to record, master, duplicate, and distribute music.
But think about the small, independant guys that are trying to usher in the new regime. Take a small-time band that has put out a record all by themselves. They sell their CD's for 12 bucks each at gigs trying to recoup costs and eventually make a profit. Every time somebody makes a dupe of their CD instead of purchasing it, they lose 12 bucks.
I think the big labels love that. They do overstate their case, and indeed have never been on the side of the artist. I too hope there is a way to restructure the industry.
In the Rennaisance (sp?) the development of music and art were directed by the church, during the Baroque and Classical periods by the aristocracy, and in the modern age by big business.
I can't wait to see what's next! I hope it's by the artist for a change.
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
 
rats. argh.

Let's get logical.

the argument that "listening is not stealing" is getting boring. it isn't a BAD argument, it is completely logically invalid as an argument as it is a "truism".

what people are stealing is the aural representation of the artists work. to say that all the artists owns is the score is ridiculous. in fact, the score is a means to represent the actual owned INTELLECTUAL (ie. not physical) property, which is a sequence of sounds designed and arranged by the composer.

furthermore, how is the data representing music on a CD different from data representing music on a piece of paper? If the composer owns ONE form of representation of his work (the music), surely he has to own them all, because they are the means of bringing the music into reality, and that is all they're useful for!

there seems to be some confusion about WHAT is being stolen.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY is being stolen, as it is aquired through means other than those set up for it's aquisition.

The ISSUE however, revolves around money. People are LOSING cash (not so much, but orignally this was about small time writers/bands who NEED every cent they can get). It isn't being taken out of their pockets, but the guarantee is being written that they will never have it in their pockets because no one has reason to put it their anymore.

ALSO: I would like some people to clarify what "personal use" means. As far as I know, making a copy of one of MY PURCHASED CD's in order to listen to it in my car is legal; that is legitimate personal use. However, making a copy off someone else for you car is NOT legitimate personal use, because you don't own the original. AND copying bits out of songs for your own personal musical project use is also illegal. What 'personal use' then is then, I don't know.

We may not LIKE paying for music, but let's face it, we don't like paying for ANYTHING. But we still do, why make an acception in this case? Music, believe it or not, is a LUXURY for most people. They don't need it to continue living (no-one does). If you couldn't afford to buy food, I would understand you stealing THAT, and question why prices are so high that people have to resort to breaking the law to keep alive. If you can't afford to buy all the music you want, tough cookie, IMHO. I can't afford to buy all the music I want, so I buy the occasional, very carefully selected album, and do without the rest. I get a little bored though, but I don't copy/steal, I write my own and join forums like this :)

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top