|
Grex > Music2 > #279: Napster: Thieves or Coolness? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
tpryan
|
|
response 100 of 206:
| 
Sep 15 16:18 UTC 2000 |
Since I have a library of feild recorded filk music, I have made
up compilation tapes. Some became very excellent gifts to freinds.
I had heard early on that if one makes more than 50 copies, you
can be considered a commercial venture, regardless of the intent to
spread the word of some good music going around.
|
brighn
|
|
response 101 of 206:
|
Sep 15 16:46 UTC 2000 |
Theft is theft, polygon. You're spinning in the other direction.
Or are you willing to come forward as a licenced lawyer giving free legal
advice?
|
tod
|
|
response 102 of 206:
|
Sep 15 17:02 UTC 2000 |
I can't help but think about what a well stocked music selection of
CD's are at the A2 library and ponder if folks tape them on cassette or
burn copies on their computers at home.
Does someone really take out a CD for only 2 weeks from the library?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 103 of 206:
|
Sep 15 17:37 UTC 2000 |
Well, we have. I've never taped a CD from the library.
|
scott
|
|
response 104 of 206:
|
Sep 15 17:41 UTC 2000 |
I'll admit to both practices. I've checked stuff out of the library and
decided I didn't care much for it, and then checked other stuff out and made
a tape or MD. Never burned a CD from a library copy. I guess my ethics need
calibrating. ;)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 105 of 206:
|
Sep 15 17:55 UTC 2000 |
Never made an MD from a library copy either. (Don't have a CD burner, so
can't say if I'd do that, but it's not likely.) With music, the whole thing
is that I prefer owning a "real" copy when at all possible. Hmmm. Same with
books... I mean, yeah, I *can* photocopy a book from the library (if I wanted
to, given the access at work and all) but most of the time, I'd prefer to just
go to the bookstore and *buy* it. (Notable exceptions being one textbook which
an editor here had as a photocopy from his medieval Welsh course at Harvard,
and which I am reasonably sure was unavailable for purchase even then, and
which he allowed me to copy... As I recall, it was most likely public domain,
given the pub. year.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 106 of 206:
|
Sep 15 19:49 UTC 2000 |
Re 101. No, Paul, "theft" for copyright infringement (as I said in the
other item) is a POLITICAL use of the word. It is precisely like the use
of the word "murder" for legal abortion. It has no legal meaning, only
shock value.
Yes, as a licensed lawyer (since you asked), I advise you to stop saying
"theft" to mean copyright infringement if you want me to take you and your
argument seriously.
|
jazz
|
|
response 107 of 206:
|
Sep 15 20:25 UTC 2000 |
It's a shame fewer artists haven't decided to sell MP3s. There's
nothing inherently wrong with the technology; it's like any other
recordable media, including Sony's MiniDisc and DAT, and has a plethora of
legal and legitimate uses.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 108 of 206:
|
Sep 15 20:51 UTC 2000 |
Does anyone know to whom the "royalty" tax assessed on blank media is
distributed and by what formula it is apportioned?
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 206:
|
Sep 15 21:10 UTC 2000 |
#106> I answered that questionin the other item. And I don't honestly care
if you take my argument seriously. Theft is theft.
|
scott
|
|
response 110 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:10 UTC 2000 |
Anyone know where I can get a media tax refund for the MDs and cassettes
(quite a few over the years) I've used for my own recordings?
|
krj
|
|
response 111 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:12 UTC 2000 |
Speaking of the media royalty: CNN.com ran a story which reports
that Germany is planning to put a similar tax, but a more whopping one,
on computers, modems, CD burners, and presumably other items.
The article says they were thinking about a 30% levy. This would be
handed over to the copyright industry.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 112 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:34 UTC 2000 |
I too, would like to know how the blanket royalties from blank
media sales are paid. It probably benefits the biggest record companies
the most.
I could see where a small time artist, suddenly hot, could have
more copies made onto blank media than 'e first published.
|
brighn
|
|
response 113 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:36 UTC 2000 |
Let me clarify my position; I forget that these are linked items, and so not
everyone has read my posts on the subject already. Plus, I'm not sure I've
specifically addressed the law issue.
I rarely debate law. I debate ethics. As far as I'm concerned, the laws in
this country are so confusing and overbearingly anal-retentive that it's
pointless to discuss them. Therefore, the "lega" definitions of words are not
the most relevant to me.
(er, legal)
Copyright infringement is theft, asthe term "theft" is defined in common
parlance; I provided that definition elsewhere. Napster encourages copyright
infringement. Actually, I have no particular opinion about whether Napster
and like companies should operate; my thesis has and will continue to be:
People who use Napster or any other system to infringe on legal copyrights
are committing an immoral act. I call this immoral act "theft", as do many
others.
I have no particular problem with copyright infringement per se; I personally
find it excessive that the RIAA would get so irate about it. As immoral acts
go, stealing from the rich is fairly low on the burn-in-hell scale, especially
if yo're taking a copy, and you wouldn't normally have purchased it anyway.
I also agree with the argument that distributing "samples" for free encourages
sales, and so in the long run the benefit to the company probably outweighs
theallegedly lost sales.
The crux of my thesis doesnt concern all that. It concerns the simple fact
that people who infringe on copyrights are committing an immoral act, and all
the justifying in the world isn't going to change that. It's a principle
issue: If your opinion is that it's all right to rip Lars off because Lars
and co are ripping you off, then say so. You're doing a bad thing in response
to a worse thing. Groovy. It's this sanctimonious "we have a right to this
music, and the RIAA is depriving us" attitude that I find distasteful.
I have home copies of things. Big whoop. It was inappropriate of me. Big
whoop. Ya know what else? I do 90 on the freeway. I'm rude to people now and
then. I yell at my cat when I'm in a bad mood. Those are all roughly the same
as macking some track from some superstar. And if I were scolded for any of
them, I'd say, yeah, I ain't perfect, but I try. I wouldn't say, "Hey, I have
a right because..." (well, maybe with the speeding, but that's because if you
do the speed limit in some areas, youre more of a danger..).
So whether you want to call it theft or infringement, polygon, the point is
the same -- there's no clear legal or moral justification for making illegal
copies of copyrighted materials.
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 206:
|
Sep 15 23:04 UTC 2000 |
Re #112: I'm curious about that, too. The royalties are interesting because
they basically are saying, "we're assuming you'll pirate music using this
stuff, so we're going to make you pay us now."
The RIAA's position, then, is basically that audio burned on a CD-R data
blank is an act of piracy you can be sued over, even if the same audio would
be legal if you put it on a DAT tape. Well, not 'legal', maybe, but you're
immune from suit. This also means there is *no* legal way to listen to
copyrighted music on devices like the MP3Trip MP3 Discman; even if you own
the CD, the act of MP3'ing the songs on it and putting them on a CD-R is
illegal. This is utterly bizarre law.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 115 of 206:
|
Sep 15 23:48 UTC 2000 |
re #113: When you say things like "I have no particular problem with
copyright infringement" and then turn around and talk about it being
"an immoral act" you send out some seriously mixed signals. What, if
anything, is the distinction in your mind between "immoral" and "illegal"?
re #114: The law on these matters is bizarre because it has essentially
been written by the copyright holders. There are only a few small groups
who lobby against copyright extensions, additional restrictions, etc, and
their resources are dwarfed by the movie studios, record companies, and
book publishers whose interests all lie in the opposite direction.
If these laws seem strange compared to other laws, it's because other laws
are usually written with some sort of consideration given to the public
interest..
|
russ
|
|
response 116 of 206:
|
Sep 16 05:30 UTC 2000 |
Re #96: So, in this "theft", what was taken?
Look at the Constitution, Paul. Copyright is a legal fiction which
is supposed to exist for the public good, as an incentive for authors
and publishers to reveal their creations to the public. They are
allowed to exercise a limited monopoly over copying for the term of
the copyright, after which the work goes into the public domain and
may be copied and used freely by the public.
There are limits on copyright even during its term. Fair use is a
label describing one set of limits. If you copy a work or part of
a work, if that copying is done under fair use the copyright owner
has no grounds for action against you. There are many non-infringing
uses for copies.
Distribution to strangers using Napster is probably an infringing use.
Regardless, it is not theft, as nothing is stolen. Stealing a book
on which the copyright is expired is theft. Copying a CD which is
under copyright is copyright violation. Two very different things.
Given the way that copyright law has been twisted to forsake the public
good for the monied interests, I'd say that Napster isn't a bad thing
at all. And I say this without having used or benefitted from it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 117 of 206:
|
Sep 16 06:44 UTC 2000 |
An act which is illegal violates public law.
An act with is immoral violates moral law.
What is stolen is the creator's right to control the distribution of their
work. Copyright is temporary because, it is assumed, the creator's rights on
distribution end shortly after their death. Copyright expiration is generally
based on the life of the creator.
|
tod
|
|
response 118 of 206:
|
Sep 16 11:38 UTC 2000 |
I like getting royalties everytime someone plays my songs in Europe.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 119 of 206:
|
Sep 16 12:06 UTC 2000 |
everyone should buy all their entertainment media in the far east, for pennies
on the dollar of u.s. prices.
|
drew
|
|
response 120 of 206:
|
Sep 16 20:31 UTC 2000 |
Napster Copyright Policy
Napster is an integrated browser and
communications system provided by Napster, Inc.,
to enable musicians and music fans to locate
bands and music available in the MP3 music
format. The MP3 files that you locate using
Napster are not stored on Napster's servers.
Napster does not, and cannot, control what
content is available to you using the Napster
browser. Napster users decide what content to
make available to others using the Napster
browser, and what content to download. Users are
responsible for complying with all applicable
federal and state laws applicable to such
content, including copyright laws.
Napster respects copyright law and expects our
users to do the same. Unauthorized copying,
distribution, modification, public display, or
public performance of copyrighted works is an
infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
You should be aware that some MP3 files may have
been created or distributed without copyright
owner authorization. As a condition to your
account with Napster, you agree that you will not
use the Napster service to infringe the
intellectual property rights of others in any
way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users
who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or
other intellectual property rights, of others. In
addition, Napster reserves the right to terminate
the account of a user and to block use of the
Napster service permanently upon any single
infringement of the rights of others in
conjunction with use of the Napster service, or
if Napster believes that user conduct is harmful
to the interests of Napster, its affiliates, or
other users, or for any other reason in Napster's
sole discretion, with or without cause.
In accordance with the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998 (the text of which may be
found on the U.S. Copyright Office web site at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/), Napster will
respond expeditiously to claims of copyright
infringement committed using the Napster service
that are reported to Napster's "Designated
Copyright Agent" identified below. If you are a
copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf
of an owner of the copyright or of any exclusive
right under the copyright, please report your
notice of infringement by completing the
following notice form and delivering it to the
Designated Copyright Agent:
NOTICE OF ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
1. Identity of the copyrighted work that you
claim has been infringed, or, if multiple
copyrighted works are covered by this
Notice, a representative list of the
copyrighted works that you claim have been
infringed using the Napster service:
2. Identification of the material that you
claim is infringing (including at a minimum
the user name under which such material is
available through the Napster service, and
the path and file name):
3. Your street or mailing address, telephone
number, and, if available, email address:
4. I hereby state that I have a good faith
belief that the disputed use of the
copyrighted material is not authorized by
the copyright owner, its agent, or the law
(e.g. fair use).
5. I hereby state that the above information in
this Notice is accurate and, under penalty
of perjury, that I am the copyright owner,
or authorized to act on behalf of the owner
of the copyright or of any exclusive right
under the copyright.
6. Electronic or physical signature of the
copyright owner or of a person authorized to
act on behalf of the owner of the copyright
or of any exclusive right under the
copyright:
Full legal
name:__________________________________
Napster user
name:__________________________________
All claims of copyright infringement should be
delivered to the following "Designated Copyright
Agent" of Napster:
Jonathan P. Earp
Napster, Inc.
1475 Veterans Boulevard
Redwood City, CA 94063
Voice: 650-482-9300 x8790
Fax: 650-482-9301
notice@napster.com
http://www.napster.com/terms/
|
gelinas
|
|
response 121 of 206:
|
Sep 17 00:15 UTC 2000 |
Re #117: No, "right of control" is not what's 'stolen'; *compensation* is
what's being taken. Infringing copyright means that the copyright holder
is not compensated for the copy.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 206:
|
Sep 17 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Not true. Infringement still takes place if the copyright holder distributes
their work for free but does not release that work into the public domain.
Unless the work has been released, it's illegal to copy work regardless of
the compensation or lack thereof (except as it falls under "fair use").
|
oddie
|
|
response 123 of 206:
|
Sep 17 04:30 UTC 2000 |
So if I download a legal mp3 released on mp3.com, for example, it's illegal
for me to put it on a disk and give it to a friend, even though they could
download exactly the same thing themselves at no loss to anybody?
|
brighn
|
|
response 124 of 206:
|
Sep 17 13:51 UTC 2000 |
Depends on MP3's release policy. It could be.
There are reasons why somebody would be willing to give something away for
free, but still insist that they be the only ones to distribute it. For one
thing, there may be elements of it that are necessary for the whole, that may
not be effectively communicated in copies. That's hard to see in the case of
music, but a short story may have been written with a specific font, links,
or page breaks that may be lost when passed along; or, more importantly, the
copier may decide to drop off the name of the author, either deliberately or
through oversight.
Also, companies may give something away as a promotion, taking the loss in
order to track interest in that product. A record label may be letting MP3
distribute so that the label can see who's interested in the music. The loss
in revenue is made up for a gain in market research. That benefit is lost if
people send copies to friends rather than having friends go to MP3 to
download.
I'm sure there are other reasons, too.
|