|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:19 pm 
I agree with what you're saying, Hannah. I was just sort of questioning those people who say they're not stealing when, in fact, they just might be (based on a legal definition). For example, in school we're technically not allowed to show movies in class unless the school has a licensing agreement with whatever studio or distributor. The exception is when the movie is directly a part of classroom instruction. Showing The Lion King as a reward on Friday, for instance, is not allowed. Teachers break this rule all the time, but it's the law (or so I've been told from administrators). They may think it's stupid and that they're not doing anything wrong, but legally they are. saellys wrote: If in fact there is some bizarre law against making a copy of an album I bought using a blank CD I bought in order to give it to a friend for free, then I am one of those people who don't have a problem with it because the law is stupid. It seems to me (based on copyright law) that distributing music (or any copyrighted work) is illegal whether it is 1 copy or 1,000. After reading more into copyright law, you could be right. It's confusing. Copyright law states: copyright.gov wrote: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; And under fair use: copyright.gov wrote: 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 The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. However, when reading the punishments section of the law, it states: copyright.gov wrote: (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. So does that make it OK to do so as long is the value is under $1000? That's in contradiction to the RIAA website which states that making even ONE copy is illegal. (By the way, I didn't base my initial position on the RIAA website since I figure they're biased. It was based upon the first part of the law. I hadn't read about punishment or fair use.) Or maybe it means it IS illegal, but simply unpunishable criminally (which still leaves room for civil action). This article seems to sum up my confusion. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pollmusic9aug09,1,7413745.story? coll=la-headlines-business Here's a good quote from it: latimes wrote: Even lawyers say the law is hard to understand. Distributing free copies of a purchased CD or DVD is only a federal copyright crime if the value of the copied discs exceeds $1,000, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Elena Duarte.
But giving away even one copied disc may be a civil violation or break a state law. "A strict interpretation of the law says that if making a copy robs the marketplace of a sale, it is prohibited," said attorney Mark Radcliffe, a copyright expert at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. "So anyone giving a copy to a friend could technically be sued. But there is some sentiment that as long as people are only giving copies to families and a few friends, it's probably OK. But how many friends should one person have?" In the last decade, copyright activists and entertainment companies have battled over that very question. Courts have generally avoided commenting on the appropriateness of copying CDs for friends or how many friends constitutes a copyright violation. But music and film companies have argued that any sharing violates the copyright code. Anyway, would you agree that record sales are important to a band on a label even if they see just a fraction of the profits from them? I just like to hear your perspective. Personally, if I like an album I'll buy it because I think it's support for the band... even if they don't get much from it. Whew. I'm tired. I've spent a good couple of hours looking into this stuff, and unfortunately I don't feel much more informed. _________________ "If you're a ninja, every day is like friday." -Jamie M. |
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 | Posts: 2857 | Location: Lake Jackson, TX
|
|
        |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:51 am
Pirated CD? Meh. Eisley will have really made the big time when the pirated t-shirts start to show up.  _________________ 
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: complexities Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:49 am
Okay I have to rant a bit here. First - in these debates record companies are often villified because they are seen as big bad corporations taking advantage of innocent artists and persecuting 80 year old grandmothers. There is, of course, considerable truth to that view, but it is quite incomplete. While they do typically profit disproportionately from cd sales compared to the artist (although there are exceptions these days, as in the deal my pals in Korn have with EMI), the labels also build up the "brand awareness" of said artists in the interest of said sales. That awareness translates into ticket sales, merch sales, etc. that typically (again this model is starting to change) only the artist sees return from. If the cd is not selling it does not behoove the company to continue to support and promote the artist. Believe it or not, labels are comprised of people who do work very hard to help their artists in many ways - cash, radio support, tour buses, posters, advances for recording costs, innumerable contacts and phone calls. Now I could easily turn around and just rip that last sentiment to shreds with stories from my own experience, but that would weaken my point - which would still be valid. Second - when you filesteal (I despise that sweet sounding futurespeak term 'fileshare') you are ripping off more than just the record company and the artist. Yours truly, for example. As a producer I only see return on cd sales, not ticket and merch sales. I am also paid up front - but without the potential for a piece of the backend sales it is not economically worthwhile for me to produce records. Songwriters also only see returns from cd sales and airplay - nothing from tickets and merch. Eisley is of course self-contained, writing all of their own material. But that is not always the case. The vast majority of you have music in your collection that was written by one person and performed by someone else. Should only the performer be allowed to profit in those cases, and at that only via live performance and t-shirt sales? As overall cd sales decrease - and they have absolutely plummeted - there is simply much less money to pay engineers, techs, studio owners, roadies, session players, record company staffers, tour managers (Boyd!). I realize I am tilting at windmills here - clearly cds will very soon go the way of vinyl and cassettes. The answer lies in finding a way to monetize the internet. ITunes represents only a tiny drop in the bucket of downloads, but at least it is a drop in the right direction. This next bit will send shivers down the spine of those of you who think of the internet as a god given right and that information should be free. ISPs and the trunk line providers should be paying large licensing fees to copyright owners, which they should pass on to their customers. That's right, I said it - people should pay for music (and all intellectual copyright) as a built-in fee within their DSL or cable bills. Analogous to how you pay for music every time you enter a nightclub. Are you aware that nightclubs pay ASCAP and BMI money (which is then distributed to the copyright owners) based on average attendance in that club? You don't pay for it specifically, nor do you get to select what songs the dj plays, but those fees are basically built into the price of admission and beer. Any business where money changes hands and also plays music is supposed to (and usually does) pay for that music - why should ISPs be any different? Think about it. Thus endeth the rant for now. I await the vitriol. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:17 am
Mr. Gibbs, I have honestly never considered an awful lot of those points. Thank you for bringing them up. I really appreciate seeing the point of view of someone with so much experience in the industry. I understand the role the label is supposed to play, but in many of the ways you listed I don't see WB playing it. Radio support hasn't been there, only recently did the band get a tour bus, and unless I'm mistaken Boyd has designed every Eisley poster for tours and album promos alike--the label seems to get a lot of free or very cheap work out of him. I can't speak for what kind of advance they've received (recoupable, I suspect), nor the volume of contacts and phone calls, but the rest seems to be the kind of things fans can observe in action. I've never considered the producer's reliance on album sales, and I think this is the first time since the EPs were released that I've actually cared what happens to Eisley's producer. There has to be some way for the labels to compensate for the decline in CD sales, but so far they seem to be trying to make established online music stores cave to their whims rather than innovate something of their own. I do not agree at all that ISPs should be the same as nightclubs, for the simple reason that many, many casual Internet users do not obtain music. People who enter a nightclub are there to dance, drink, and get laid. I dare say the majority of Internet users are not so specialized. There are plenty of people who use it for research, gaming, socializing, and what have you and never touch BitTorrent or an MP3 blog aggregator. Why charge them for something they'll never use? It would be a fine way for the labels and producers and copyright owners to make more money, but it wouldn't be the fair way. I have no doubt that labels are chock full of smart people who are in tune with the changes in technology and eager to distribute a product that will reach the most possible people and generate the biggest profit for everyone involved in creating it. That's why it depresses me to see the industry act like idiots. There has to be a better way, and until they find it I will keep downloading and supporting bands I love by going to shows and occasionally buying albums. And I maintain that it's a bad idea to treat someone poorly because a friend gave them a CD for free, since he himself did nothing illegal or wrong and that free CD turned that person into a fan of the band. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:27 am
Right or wrong, filesharing/stealing is the reason so many indie bands have a chance to sell records these days. _________________ Just to lay with you, there's nothing that I wouldn't do (save lay my rifle down). |
|
|
Joined: 08 Feb 2004 | Posts: 597 | Location: Houston/Boston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:28 am
I do not agree at all that ISPs should be the same as nightclubs, for the simple reason that many, many casual Internet users do not obtain music. People who enter a nightclub are there to dance, drink, and get laid [quote] Do you not make my point for me here? People do not enter nightclubs to listen to music according to you, yet music is a very large attractant - is it not so on the internet? |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:38 am
Ribbs = Richard Gibbs? Hello, sir! I'm a big Oingo Boingo fan, and clearly, you've done some fine work with these Eisley kids. I think the important thing to remember is that we're in an adjustment period right now. Record labels are figuring out how to get their cut of this whole internet business. The iTunes store is a great start, and as long as people really care about the issue/depend on the money for their livelihood, it will be worthwhile for people to put effort into innovation. Finding a way to make money without suing 12 year olds would be a great start to help us remember that record labels, like artists, are our friends! They get great music to us! And in increasingly cool methods! _________________ Just to lay with you, there's nothing that I wouldn't do (save lay my rifle down). |
|
|
Joined: 08 Feb 2004 | Posts: 597 | Location: Houston/Boston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:40 am
Saellys wrote: I understand the role the label is supposed to play, but in many of the ways you listed I don't see WB playing it. Radio support hasn't been there, only recently did the band get a tour bus, and unless I'm mistaken Boyd has designed every Eisley poster for tours and album promos alike--the label seems to get a lot of free or very cheap work out of him. I can't speak for what kind of advance they've received (recoupable, I suspect), nor the volume of contacts and phone calls, but the rest seems to be the kind of things fans can observe in action. Still figuring out how to use this quote thing. Agreed, WB could do more. That said, however, they do much more than you see as a consumer. Just because you aren't hearing Eisley on the radio doesn't mean WB isn't trying to place them. Radio is a whole other sad story these days. You are right that WB certainly gets a very large bang for the practically non-existent buck from Boyd and the band. But realize Boyd is in it for the longhaul (literally when he's driving), whereas WB needs to see a return from their investment within an album cycle or two. Unfortunately WB is a publicly held company accountable to stockholders, not just a bunch of music lovers working out of their garage. And yes, the advance is recoupable and the terms are heinous. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:06 am
"Unauthorized copying is punishable under federal law" I am not saying that you should not burn cds for friends, because me and my best friend share music, but how its really beneficial to the band to burn their cds for friends is really beneficial is a load for crap that peopel come up with to ease their conscience for burning music. _________________ But I cannot discover any advantage except in honor, in glory, and in right action. Therefore I consider these goals to be primary and supreme over all others. Cicero |
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2005 | Posts: 3611 | Location: San Diego
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:41 am
Maybe I should just become a studio musician and get a union gig, 
All this is depressing. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:52 am
Don't be depressed - there is considerable hope to be had. The good news is that the demand for music is only increasing and the variety and quality thereof (if you are willing to dig a bit) is actually mindnumbing. We are witnessing the destruction of the old ways of doing business in the world of music - and very soon movies and television. It's definitely gonna be very messy for a while, but the optimist in me believes that one way or the other it will all work out to everybody's benefit. We are in the throes of a revolution. Not a good time to be a session musician, btw. Kinda like being a foot-soldier in Washington's army. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:54 am
And thanks for the kind words, national phenom! |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:56 am
Sometimes I don't want a whole album. Sometimes I just want a song... so I open up Limewire, and I get that one song. Most of the time I listen to music of bands that are broken up, or the members are dead... in other words, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, John Coltrane, Thelonius Monk... what about sharing that music? Sure, it's still under copyright, but sometimes it's hard to find things unless you search for it on a Torrent or through a file'stealing' program. Is that still just as wrong as downloading say, an Eisley CD? I see the point for current bands, bands that are still making records and trying to get airplay and fans... but what about the oldies? They need no more promoting and they aren't whacking out records anymore, so why not share that music? _________________ my name's carrie and i love a good sandwich so if you have a sandwich, come roll with me! 
i'm gonna marry the mars volta. |
|
|
Joined: 01 Nov 2003 | Posts: 8260 | Location: new hampshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:08 am
Ribbs wrote: Not a good time to be a session musician, btw. Kinda like being a foot-soldier in Washington's army. Haha, thanks for the advice. Great job in the Eisley album BTW, so much beatiful and lush instrumentation that (probably) would have been nowhere near the album if they had worked with the previous producers. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
Last edited by DRMS_7888 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:09 am
That's an easy answer for me, being a former member of a defunct band. Those people (me) still see money from their efforts, or at least would if people weren't stealing them. Just because the Beatles broke up decades ago, do you believe that Sir Paul does not or should not receive royalties? I'll grant you that it can be difficult to find some songs, but that certainly does not mean that the artists/creators should relinquish their rights to you. I am not here to assuage anyone's guilt nor am I about to prosecute anyone - just asking people to really think about the ramifications of their actions. Sometimes I really only want the red jellybeans - does that give me the right to rip open the multicolored bag in the supermarket and eat the red ones without paying? |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2006 | Posts: 98 | Location: Malibu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> bootleg copy.
Page 4 of 20 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
