No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate

[piwikiwi]

I think you are wrong about this. I have known many people who would have made a lot more money had people actually bought their recordings and not just stolen them.

1) If I walk into a CD store and stick a jewel box in my pocket and leave, what is that? Piracy or theft? The actually texts from the OP state examples of illegal downloading. That is theft.

2) The interest for the artist is to sell more works of art, reproductions, etc... if thieves (oh, sorry, privateers I guess) sense that they will be caught and punished more often, then those who are not careerists (real Pirates who print of illegal bootlegs of movies, etc...) will be less likely to steal. Right now the state of online shoplifting (their is that gentle enough for you) is out of control. Kids learn this within a week of learning how to turn on a computer and we condone it by not enforcing these things. The "crack down" needs to be made clearer. It does. Otherwise we cheat the artists, and their families and those who want to live honestly have been penalized once again.

Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels.

[Debukochi]

My avatar is my photo - but am I potentially in trouble for displaying the curtain behind me in the photo without permission of the maker?

If you were selling the photo or using the photo for purposes of income (e.g. photo posted on a commercial website), and the pattern was recognizable…then you probably would be subject to paying royalties. I know that sounds silly, but in the design industry, all products that involve patterns typically have copyright protection—so you always need to watch what’s in the background.

In Boston, we’ve had very public and contentious cases where commercial real estate developers have pursued royalties when part of their property (esp. buildings) are in the background of something like a TV broadcast; even the news. Getting clearance ahead of time is the normal course of business for the television industry. The most blatant case was when owners of a “flagship” property downtown were having Boston police confiscate film from people taking pictures of their property—as they photographed it while standing on municipal property. The developers claimed ownership rights to all photography of their property. The fact that they were able to get city cops to enforce this was even more troubling and still an unresolved “issue” in our city. (Nothin’ says “family-friendly city” like having a cop bust mom for taking a picture of the kids by the pretty building).

There are no bounds to “silliness” when it comes to pursuing a buck.

[paulwl]

Big city real estate people – who have lawyers the way Marines have rifles – are particularly egregious in their pursuit of such (usually notional) bucks. They live to collect rent. And that philosophy long ago found its way to entertainment and media lawyers, who are closely related to the real estate variety and often travel in the same circles.

[Swampcabbage]

"Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels. "

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole. If an artist chooses to release their own material in that fashion, it is their choice. many of them offer clips via myspace and facebook, etc...

If they don't, then they probably don't want you taking it.

Steve Coleman is a great example of someone who has used this philosophy to success. However, respecting the will of the artist should be paramount. Filesharing or trading is literally taking something for nothing. And if someone decides to get exploited by a label, that is their choice and not yours to make for them.

[Debukochi]

Educators in the U.S. have limited copyright exceptions through the fair use doctrine.

Well, showing my ignorance on the subject, I didn’t realize that the “fair use” doctrine was US-specific. Good for us. I suspect this would have covered the teacher in the aforementioned Australian litigation. It’s nice to see our legal system taking a reasoned stance on something as all too often, we seem to set the precedent for unreasonable litigation.

[Pete Thomas]

Well, showing my ignorance on the subject, I didn’t realize that the “fair use” doctrine was US-specific.

It's not, many countries have "Fair Use". But it still won't allow teachers to copy entire works, as I think happened in the case quoted.

[Pete Thomas]

Folks who make threads all about themselves.

I don't see that happening here. I've seen it in other threads. This is a fascinating topic and seems to be a good healthy debate so far in spite of very contrary opinions.

I always think the the copyright discussions interesting as I find myself in the odd position (for me) of being on both sides of the fence. Ouch.

[piwikiwi]

"Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels. "

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole. If an artist chooses to release their own material in that fashion, it is their choice. many of them offer clips via myspace and facebook, etc...

If they don't, then they probably don't want you taking it.

Steve Coleman is a great example of someone who has used this philosophy to success. However, respecting the will of the artist should be paramount. Filesharing or trading is literally taking something for nothing. And if someone decides to get exploited by a label, that is their choice and not yours to make for them.

I don't know and never will because most of 'm aren't alive anymore and got paid per session instead of royalty's

[piwikiwi]

"Do you have an idea how many cd's I've bought by discovering them online and downloading them first? There are many ways of making money on music if you use the internet, if you just deal with people directly instead of with a label(unless it's your own ofcourse) it will be much more worth it. Artists whine about people stealing there cd's and at the same time they let themselves be exploited by recordlabels. "

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole. If an artist chooses to release their own material in that fashion, it is their choice. many of them offer clips via myspace and facebook, etc...

If they don't, then they probably don't want you taking it.

Steve Coleman is a great example of someone who has used this philosophy to success. However, respecting the will of the artist should be paramount. Filesharing or trading is literally taking something for nothing. And if someone decides to get exploited by a label, that is their choice and not yours to make for them.

According to the law I didn't steal anything, I didn't even break the law of my own country. Downloading music is not illegal here yet because there are no alternatives(yet)

[Debukochi]

Hopefully you purchased everyone that you stole.

This is an important concept that most people conveniently overlook or forget. Absent any “fair use” doctrine for this practice, I (hypothetically speaking—as in reality I’m sure I’d never do this ) impose my own fair use practice when it comes to CDs. That is, I may borrow a CD from someone (and let’s extend this borrowing to include ripping the CD to my hard drive while at work) but I only listen to the borrowed CD (physical or virtual) once (i.e. return the CD or delete the ripped file after one listening). Any subsequent listening is always off of a purchased CD (or MP3 file). Who can tell if you’re really going to like that 9:32 Buck Hill tune after listening to a 20 second sample on Amazon? Although this wouldn’t be legal, I think it conceptually addresses what piwikiwi is talking about—although I’ve always borrowed a CD for this process. Why I don’t do this with MP3 files is that, with a CD, you can be assured that the source material you’re listening to (on a one-time basis), has been legitimately purchased (assuming it’s not bootlegged).

Regarding compilations for students (and my teaching is limited to volunteer work for kids just starting out), I’ve always provided a MP3 download “prescription”. An email with links to a legit MP3 vendor works great. It’s their (or their parents’) responsibility to purchase and legally download the works. Typically, at only $0.99 each (as opposed to buying each album as I had to do when studying), I think it’s a reasonable expense for students. The sheet music for study can usually be addressed by getting an actual published collection (e.g. Real Book) to use with their studies. Again, I’d see this as a reasonable student expense. For teachers involved with theory and composition, a “temporary copy” of a score to assist learning of arranging is something entirely different. This expense would typically be too much for students. So what’s the answer? I think for U.S. students, teachers are protected. Apparently for others, like Australians, the answer is be wealthy or don’t study arranging. Kinda sad.

[Swampcabbage]

I don't know and never will because most of 'm aren't alive anymore and got paid per session instead of royalty's

I would recommend that you find out for certain and then contact the the members of their estate and ask if it's okay that you have a free copy of whatever recordings you have.

The problem is that this kind of logic is based on assumptions rather than facts. Each case is different and effects others differently. I've heard of players unwilling to sign records because they were never paid for the recording (mostly bootlegged live recordings).

And then there is the overall effect. Less record sales means less market shares means less airtime, means less exposure and advertising, means less audience and less gigs. They don't measure these things by illegal downloads or fileshares. It is in reported sales. Sure, the dial ain't going to move that much for jazz. But it may just a hint enough that some companies may take another chance at developing jazz again. Maybe not, but no one will know.

Doing the right thing should not based upon getting the right result. The ends DO NOT justify the means in this case.

[piwikiwi]

I would recommend that you find out for certain and then contact the the members of their estate and ask if it's okay that you have a free copy of whatever recordings you have.

The problem is that this kind of logic is based on assumptions rather than facts. Each case is different and effects others differently. I've heard of players unwilling to sign records because they were never paid for the recording (mostly bootlegged live recordings).

And then there is the overall effect. Less record sales means less market shares means less airtime, means less exposure and advertising, means less audience and less gigs. They don't measure these things by illegal downloads or fileshares. It is in reported sales. Sure, the dial ain't going to move that much for jazz. But it may just a hint enough that some companies may take another chance at developing jazz again. Maybe not, but no one will know.

Doing the right thing should not based upon getting the right result. The ends DO NOT justify the means in this case.

I didn't break any laws, I support artists and I spend up to 150 euros a month on cd's. So I don't care.

[Swampcabbage]

You can't purchase the music there?

[Swampcabbage]

So I don't care.

I think that truly sums it up.

[piwikiwi]

You can't purchase the music there?

That's the reason why it's not illegal yet not. I didn't make that up

[piwikiwi]

I think that truly sums it up.

If i really didn't care why the hell would i be buying cd's

[Debukochi]

It's not, many countries have "Fair Use". But it still won't allow teachers to copy entire works, as I think happened in the case quoted.

But I think this provides a really good example of that “line” that, when crossed, people begin to take exception to. If the copies were being made to facilitate public performance, even if that wasn’t for profit, I think most people would understand the need to pay royalties on each copy. As a means of communicating information to students, with no intent of public performance, and where it’s used exclusively as an education tool, I think that’s where most people struggle with “to the letter of the law” compliance—esp. when paying for each score would be unreasonably expensive for students. Sure, I understand that a case could be made that authors of materials in student text books are being compensated for each copy of the text book, but a score—esp. a contemporary score—isn’t available in that form. I spent far too many hours reviewing reams of scores published in historical anthologies—anthologies that I bought as a course textbook—but when I wanted to study a score of Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Mantra (I’m dating myself here), that had to be from a “borrowed” resource. To that end, is our culture more concerned about providing a means to facilitate education or are we more concerned with sating an industry’s need for revenue? I think that for the past 30 years, the latter has been a far more important priority for our society—which may help explain why contemporary concert music (not alluding to rock concert here) remains such an esoteric part of our arts culture. We seem to be in an epoch where we find it more important to leave subsequent generations with a legacy of ‘B’mers and McMansions than our arts.

[Face Ache Mike]

A while back I went with a delegation from the MU Music Writers Section to a House of Commons cross party conference to lobby for some changes. I'm not holding my breath.

Pete, I`m interested to know what your delegation proposed as a solution. Can you tell us how it went, what was said?

Thanks.

[Pete Thomas]

Pete, I`m interested to know what your delegation proposed as a solution. Can you tell us how it went, what was said?

It wasn't a case of us (The Musicians' Union) proposing a solution as this particular event had no question, it was more of a get together.

It was in fact less relevant to musicians than I'd hoped, more geared towards writers of word. Poets etc. (nothing wrong with that, I love 'em).

The best result for me was meeting was meeting Dennis Healey. Who asked me "is this the right place for the composers p*ss up?"

[paulwl]

Pete, don't be too disappointed. Musicians seldom get to be at the forefront of cultural change as do writers, playwrights, poets. Our art encourages a certain abstract and insular world view. Our craft often demands we give all our mental energy to theory and technique. And most of us feel ignored by the greater culture, so why not ignore it right back?