OT:How to avoid a subpeona?
08-12-2003, 03:08 PM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Rich -
To answer a few questions you had... you may make a copy of your Metallica Tape onto a CD because you PAID for the tape, and copyright law says you may create 1 copy. You may not download the CD because that is not the origional you own (d).
Your roomate may play the Nelly CD to whomever he wants, and long as he does not "broadcast" it using RF equipment, or charge a fee to listen to it. If he went out and setup a big enough loud speaker to send the audio across the country, nothing could be done because it is not a broadcast.. however, I would imagine he's break some noise violations.
Night clubs, if they have a cover charge, must pay BMI and ASCAP rights fees because they are making money of the use of the CD. If they do not charge a cover, they do not have to pay rights fees.
Broadcast stations pay rights fees to be able to play the songs over the air. I run a Sports Station, not a music station, but because I play bumper music of various artists, I must pay a fee. My current fees for ASCAP and BMI are $29,850 a year... for a station that does not play music!!!!
A few conflicts here. 1st.. don't be jealous of what they make. They make millions in a year.. and say the average career of an artist is 4 years, those millions will be all they get. Some may be serious drug users, and if that is against your morals, don't buy the CD. (therefore not supporting their habit by giving them money) How long does it take to make a track? Sure, it may take an hour to lay it down and get it mastered, but how long did it take to think it up, get the band to play it right, then finally get it good enough for someone to sit and produce it?
You cannot think so narrow.. there are many other factors in the cost involved.
Baseball players make a ton of money for 6 months work... fair? Sure it is. If people are willing to pay $30 a ticket to support them.... If you think that their pay is too high, don't go to the games. Simple as that.
To answer a few questions you had... you may make a copy of your Metallica Tape onto a CD because you PAID for the tape, and copyright law says you may create 1 copy. You may not download the CD because that is not the origional you own (d).
Your roomate may play the Nelly CD to whomever he wants, and long as he does not "broadcast" it using RF equipment, or charge a fee to listen to it. If he went out and setup a big enough loud speaker to send the audio across the country, nothing could be done because it is not a broadcast.. however, I would imagine he's break some noise violations.
Night clubs, if they have a cover charge, must pay BMI and ASCAP rights fees because they are making money of the use of the CD. If they do not charge a cover, they do not have to pay rights fees.
Broadcast stations pay rights fees to be able to play the songs over the air. I run a Sports Station, not a music station, but because I play bumper music of various artists, I must pay a fee. My current fees for ASCAP and BMI are $29,850 a year... for a station that does not play music!!!!
How long does it take for Nelly and company to make ONE track? And HOW much do they get paid??? THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN!!!! I heard stories (from two feet awy from Axl Rose himself) about Guns N roses writing **** while high on coke within an hour or so of actually recording the album. And they made more off of that one song, even after thier cut, than I'll ever see in my life
You cannot think so narrow.. there are many other factors in the cost involved.
Baseball players make a ton of money for 6 months work... fair? Sure it is. If people are willing to pay $30 a ticket to support them.... If you think that their pay is too high, don't go to the games. Simple as that.
08-12-2003, 03:53 PM
#32
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Shawnee, Kansas
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a performer too, albeit one who never came within a mile of "making it". And although I can bash the entertainment industry with the best of them (Scott, you and I should definitely grab a beer one day and swap war stories), in this instance I have to come down on their side.
These discussions always seem to focus on the sorry state of the music industry, and how little the performers/radio stations/record companies deserve our money, how overpriced CD's are, etc. That stuff's all true, of course, but it isn't the point.
There's nothing ambiguous about U.S. copyright law in this matter - file sharing of copyrighted material is illegal, and it always has been. Even if millions of people have done it without getting caught. Even if music sucks and the RIAA sucks and record companies suck and all art should be free anyway. Even if you don't like it.
There's a lot of talk on the Net about getting the copyright laws changed. It's not going to happen. A lot of young people don't understand this, but in general, our lawmakers don't give a damn about this issue. They have more important things to do than draft legislation to let teenagers get their Britney for free. Try as I might, I can't see that as a totally bad thing.
The RIAA are without doubt a bunch of pigs - but their actions are perfectly within their rights under the law. Part of the problem is that they let us get away with file sharing for so long. People have begun to think they have some sort of basic right to free, unlimited music - and it's not true. It's never been true, and it never will be. The quality of the music, or the integrity of the copyright holders has no bearing on the law.
Also, if you think you can out-hax0r them by spoofing an IP or clicking the "Block RIAA" dialog box in Kazaa, you're very naiive.
I don't have a moral problem with downloading mp3's - I've done it just as much as everyone else. It was great while it lasted. The free ride is coming to an end and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
These discussions always seem to focus on the sorry state of the music industry, and how little the performers/radio stations/record companies deserve our money, how overpriced CD's are, etc. That stuff's all true, of course, but it isn't the point.
There's nothing ambiguous about U.S. copyright law in this matter - file sharing of copyrighted material is illegal, and it always has been. Even if millions of people have done it without getting caught. Even if music sucks and the RIAA sucks and record companies suck and all art should be free anyway. Even if you don't like it.
There's a lot of talk on the Net about getting the copyright laws changed. It's not going to happen. A lot of young people don't understand this, but in general, our lawmakers don't give a damn about this issue. They have more important things to do than draft legislation to let teenagers get their Britney for free. Try as I might, I can't see that as a totally bad thing.
The RIAA are without doubt a bunch of pigs - but their actions are perfectly within their rights under the law. Part of the problem is that they let us get away with file sharing for so long. People have begun to think they have some sort of basic right to free, unlimited music - and it's not true. It's never been true, and it never will be. The quality of the music, or the integrity of the copyright holders has no bearing on the law.
Also, if you think you can out-hax0r them by spoofing an IP or clicking the "Block RIAA" dialog box in Kazaa, you're very naiive.
I don't have a moral problem with downloading mp3's - I've done it just as much as everyone else. It was great while it lasted. The free ride is coming to an end and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
08-12-2003, 04:11 PM
#33
Thinking outside da' bun...
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
What if the paper has lines on it like notebook paper. Is it illegal for me to make color copies of it and give to everybody I know so they dont have to buy notebook paper? I dont know, Im just asking.
Also what about this. If its not illegal to have people over at your house to listen to your music in your living room (you still own the CD), I think some file sharing program should be made to where you can delve into a persons public folder on their computer and listen to their music on their PC. After all, they still own the music and its still in their possession, you are just listening to it. Therefore stereo receivers could be made to share music without ever downloading it. You just tell it to play a song and it finds whoever owns the song in a query and streams it from their PC. It would seem this is just like going over to someones house and listening to it, but much easier and it gets around any copyright or intellectual property law.
Also what about this. If its not illegal to have people over at your house to listen to your music in your living room (you still own the CD), I think some file sharing program should be made to where you can delve into a persons public folder on their computer and listen to their music on their PC. After all, they still own the music and its still in their possession, you are just listening to it. Therefore stereo receivers could be made to share music without ever downloading it. You just tell it to play a song and it finds whoever owns the song in a query and streams it from their PC. It would seem this is just like going over to someones house and listening to it, but much easier and it gets around any copyright or intellectual property law.
08-12-2003, 04:58 PM
#34
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UD, I don't get your paper analogy, could you explain what you mean better?
The rake one is good though. But you're wrong about the CD, you can loan it to your neighbor, but not copy it for him. The same holds for the rake, you can loan it out, but if you try to build your neighbor an identical rake, you could be in trouble, if the rake has active patents.
The massive assault on fair use is a desperate attempt of two dying industry cartels (the RIAA and MPAA) to try to maintain their outdated production/distribution system.
They (along with the software giants) fabricated the concept of "Intellectual Property" to confuse the issues of patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Check out the SCO v. IBM lawsuit to see barratry and extortion that makes the RIAA look like the EFF.
The rake one is good though. But you're wrong about the CD, you can loan it to your neighbor, but not copy it for him. The same holds for the rake, you can loan it out, but if you try to build your neighbor an identical rake, you could be in trouble, if the rake has active patents.
The massive assault on fair use is a desperate attempt of two dying industry cartels (the RIAA and MPAA) to try to maintain their outdated production/distribution system.
They (along with the software giants) fabricated the concept of "Intellectual Property" to confuse the issues of patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Check out the SCO v. IBM lawsuit to see barratry and extortion that makes the RIAA look like the EFF.
08-12-2003, 05:12 PM
#35
Nordschleife Master
The RIAA are without doubt a bunch of pigs - but their actions are perfectly within their rights under the law. Part of the problem is that they let us get away with file sharing for so long. People have begun to think they have some sort of basic right to free, unlimited music - and it's not true. It's never been true, and it never will be. The quality of the music, or the integrity of the copyright holders has no bearing on the law.
These are FACTS I agree with 100%
I don't have a moral problem with downloading mp3's - I've done it just as much as everyone else. It was great while it lasted. The free ride is coming to an end and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
Now, this part is a mere opinion, and one that is wrong. If you honestly think the downloadingof mp3's will ever come to an end as a result of the RIAA then YOU are the one who is naive!!!!
As long as anything exists in a digital form, it CAN and WILL be uploaded to the internet, where it CAN and WILL be downloaded in one way shape or form. (and very possibly for FREE I might add!)
These are FACTS I agree with 100%
I don't have a moral problem with downloading mp3's - I've done it just as much as everyone else. It was great while it lasted. The free ride is coming to an end and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
Now, this part is a mere opinion, and one that is wrong. If you honestly think the downloadingof mp3's will ever come to an end as a result of the RIAA then YOU are the one who is naive!!!!
As long as anything exists in a digital form, it CAN and WILL be uploaded to the internet, where it CAN and WILL be downloaded in one way shape or form. (and very possibly for FREE I might add!)
08-12-2003, 05:20 PM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: R-U-N-N-O-F-T
Posts: 2,590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What got me wondereing was a couple weeks ago I heard on the news that 900 subpeons went out. :EDIT, replying to a way earlier post.
One of the things that really put a bug up my **** was that back when all this crybabying started about Napster was the pricefixing suit for CDs that pretty much got swept under the rug and finally settled for what a dollar something per claimant? You know that they made a hell of a lot more than that and a regular buyer was only insulted by the settlement.
Personally I would have no problem paying $.50 per song to download (well maybe a little given RIAA"s attitude), which is more than I pay for on a CD, but RIAA is so damned hellbent that I'm going to pay $18 for a whole CD that I won't listen to most of.
And after the suit Sony or anyone else is still not selling Cds any cheaper!!!!!!!
When I do buy a CD now it's used or from BMG and it's always a buy 1 get 2 free and pay shipping on all 3, helps out the average a bit. But that horseass attitude has got me cranked about this.
One of the things that really put a bug up my **** was that back when all this crybabying started about Napster was the pricefixing suit for CDs that pretty much got swept under the rug and finally settled for what a dollar something per claimant? You know that they made a hell of a lot more than that and a regular buyer was only insulted by the settlement.
Personally I would have no problem paying $.50 per song to download (well maybe a little given RIAA"s attitude), which is more than I pay for on a CD, but RIAA is so damned hellbent that I'm going to pay $18 for a whole CD that I won't listen to most of.
And after the suit Sony or anyone else is still not selling Cds any cheaper!!!!!!!
When I do buy a CD now it's used or from BMG and it's always a buy 1 get 2 free and pay shipping on all 3, helps out the average a bit. But that horseass attitude has got me cranked about this.
Last edited by triscadek; 08-12-2003 at 06:05 PM.
08-12-2003, 06:15 PM
#37
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Shawnee, Kansas
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as anything exists in a digital form, it CAN and WILL be uploaded to the internet, where it CAN and WILL be downloaded in one way shape or form. (and very possibly for FREE I might add!)
08-12-2003, 06:35 PM
#38
Thinking outside da' bun...
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
My analogy on notebook paper is, you can duplicate and pass out infinite number of copies of notebook paper on the street that you made on a color copier and no one will make a fuss, but you make infinite copies of an MP3 and distribute and theres a fuss. Im just looking for the legal difference here. You could wear a sign that says "Made 10,000 identical copies of this piece of notebook paper from a single sheet I bought at the store and Im giving them away for free" and nothing would happen.
08-12-2003, 06:45 PM
#39
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So nothing is on the paper? That's not really analogous then, since I don't think anybody has a patent or copyright on paper.
If that paper had a copyrighted poem on it, that would be more similar to violating music copyrights.
Copying a blank sheet of paper, is more like making your own blank CDs, which is perfectly legal, since the CD patent is long dead.
If that paper had a copyrighted poem on it, that would be more similar to violating music copyrights.
Copying a blank sheet of paper, is more like making your own blank CDs, which is perfectly legal, since the CD patent is long dead.
08-12-2003, 07:22 PM
#40
And after the suit Sony or anyone else is still not selling Cds any cheaper!!!!!!!
I really don't download many MP3's. Most of the time when I do it's either one song off a CD I would never buy, or listening to a band that someone recommended. If I like them, I'll pick up their CD when I see it. If I don't, the files won't be wasting space on my computer for long.
If something like Apple's .99 per song thing really caught on, I'd support that. I don't have a problem with paying for songs, but I'm not going to spend $20+ for a CD with 1 or 2 tracks I'll listen to.
08-12-2003, 07:47 PM
#41
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by iloveporsches
If something like Apple's .99 per song thing really caught on, I'd support that. I don't have a problem with paying for songs, but I'm not going to spend $20+ for a CD with 1 or 2 tracks I'll listen to.
If something like Apple's .99 per song thing really caught on, I'd support that. I don't have a problem with paying for songs, but I'm not going to spend $20+ for a CD with 1 or 2 tracks I'll listen to.
The best thing to do is focus on forward thinking indy labels and local artists, until the RIAA comes to its senses, or goes broke as the established artists leave to join us in the 21st century.
08-12-2003, 08:06 PM
#43
The best thing to do is focus on forward thinking indy labels and local artists
Ok, so the Appleshare would be better if it was just pay .99 and then it's yours forever, do what you please with it.
08-12-2003, 08:46 PM
#44
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by iloveporsches
Ok, so the Appleshare would be better if it was just pay .99 and then it's yours forever, do what you please with it.
Ok, so the Appleshare would be better if it was just pay .99 and then it's yours forever, do what you please with it.
One of the easiest ways to get around Fair Use is DRM: Digital Rights Management, which is a euphamism for Draconian Restriction Methods. They want to tie each specific file to one combination of hardware and software. Want to listen to the songs on your new computer? Too bad. The license was for the one you downloaded the song to. Want to transfer copies to your notebook, PDA, or car stereo? Too bad.
Windows XP already has features like that: it has a signature from your hardware at the time of install. Change it too much and it refuses to run.
08-12-2003, 09:01 PM
#45
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Perry 951
.....
Broadcast stations pay rights fees to be able to play the songs over the air. I run a Sports Station, not a music station, but because I play bumper music of various artists, I must pay a fee. My current fees for ASCAP and BMI are $29,850 a year... for a station that does not play music!!!!
....................
.....
Broadcast stations pay rights fees to be able to play the songs over the air. I run a Sports Station, not a music station, but because I play bumper music of various artists, I must pay a fee. My current fees for ASCAP and BMI are $29,850 a year... for a station that does not play music!!!!
....................
Imagine what the music/video stations pay for rights.