|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 85 of 206:
| 
Sep 11 19:05 UTC 2000 |
That's a flawed analogy.
You can make a good comparison between viewing art in a museum, and
listening to a song on the radio - it's actually cheaper to listen to a song
on the radio, and everyone gets to enjoy it, once. The selection is limited
in both cases to what the museum curators and radio station operators believe
their membership would enjoy or value, and what they can get.
A better comparison might be of photocopying an artist's print to
avoid paying a royalty fee to the artist and poster company. Is that
stealing?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 86 of 206:
|
Sep 11 19:46 UTC 2000 |
Okay. Suppose I am a museum. I buy the artist's work. Whatever it is. Then
I start making copies of that work and selling them to the public in my museum
store, without paying the artist anything for the privilege. Is this theft,
considering that most museums are non-profit organizations and that they do
own the work?
|
tod
|
|
response 87 of 206:
|
Sep 11 19:53 UTC 2000 |
Depends what you mean by "Copies"
|
jazz
|
|
response 88 of 206:
|
Sep 11 20:04 UTC 2000 |
Since Napster copies aren't sold, I'd assume you mean giving away
copies (or at least selling at print cost).
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 206:
|
Sep 11 20:07 UTC 2000 |
But is an mp3 really a "copy"?
|
aaron
|
|
response 90 of 206:
|
Sep 11 23:31 UTC 2000 |
Is a print of an artwork really a "copy"? Is a photocopy really a "copy"?
I guess "close" counts in more than just horseshoes and hand grenades.
re #86: When you bought the artist's work, did you buy the right to reproduce
and distribute copies? Maybe not.
|
ashke
|
|
response 91 of 206:
|
Sep 12 00:16 UTC 2000 |
well, was that defined in the contract, or when you buy a piece, are you in
charge of how you distribute it, and able to account for such
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 206:
|
Sep 12 05:43 UTC 2000 |
Museums pay a great deal of money to estates of artists for the privilege
to show their works. Of course, the copyrights have expired on a great
deal of art.
I am sure that all the reproductions of art works, especially of current
artists, are done with royalties and other contractual terms with
the artists or their agents.
Re #85: if an artist sells a work of art to a museum, this may or may
not include an exclusive license or a nonexclusive license to make
copies, or even a restriction that reproductions may not be made.
Any object of property, tangible or intangible, has many possible
"rights" associated with it, each of which can be independently
marketed or reserved. For example, for real estate, there is the
right to own the land, a right to own the minerals on the land, a
right to cross the land with vehicles or utility lines, a right to
build a house, etc. All of these rights are separable and can be
owned by different persons. The same is true of any work of art,
with rights to display, to make reproductions, to *own*, etc, all
separable.
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 206:
|
Sep 12 13:32 UTC 2000 |
It's one thing to own the right to display an artpiece, but it's another thing
to reproduce it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 206:
|
Sep 12 16:25 UTC 2000 |
That's what I said..... :)
|
krj
|
|
response 95 of 206:
|
Sep 15 03:26 UTC 2000 |
((( Summer Agora #537 now linked as Music #279.
I hope the music cf readers figured out how to skip
reading it a second time. )))
|
brighn
|
|
response 96 of 206:
|
Sep 15 13:46 UTC 2000 |
I'm terrified. I never thought this day would come:
I agree with Rane and disagree with Ashke.
Listen. theft is theft. Justify it all you want, but theft is theft.
People have said things about the RIAA's pricing scheme. I know that when I'm
hungry, I sure don't like the "pricing scheme" in the snackshop in the
building where I work. I don't use that as justification to steal food.
I continue to think that people who defend Napster to the death are a bunch
of spoiled, arrogant, American brats who are not just stealing, they're
justifying the current religious right argument that shoving Xian morals down
our throats is justified because we really HAVE lost our sense of moral
direction.
As a side note, every piece of music created in the last 80 years or so is
copyrighted. The relevant distinction is what rights have been released to
the public. There are certainly tracks available on Napster which have been
totally or partially released to the public domain.
|
polygon
|
|
response 97 of 206:
|
Sep 15 15:11 UTC 2000 |
Re 96. No, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. "Theft" in
this context is merely spin. Theft requires that you are depriving the
legal owner of the physical object that you are stealing. Sorry, but that
is the law.
To repeat, I have never downloaded any unauthorized music, and I have
never used Napster or Gnutella. However, I am *deeply* frightened by the
way RIAA, MPAA and others have twisted the copyright laws to their
benefit, very much in defiance of the public interest.
Before 1976, you could be sure than anything which had been published at
least 56 years earlier was in the public domain. By 1976, that would be
about 1920. For the last quarter of a century, that date has been frozen,
as Congress and the entertainment industry have extended the length of
copyrights again and again. Not only is this bad public policy and a
corruption of our political system, it is contrary to the U.S.
Constitution, which gives Congress the power:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Congress has been acting, since 1976, as if the word "limited" were
"unlimited". Moreover, the rights of "authors" have been largely
disregarded in favor of the rights of publishers, music companies, etc.
And the international copyright treaties (written by the entertainment
industry) provide that once the right of copyright owners are extended, we
are not allowed ever to take them back. For example, the atrocity which
was passed under the cover of the impeachment hearings (transferring
copyrights from musicians to record companies, a huge grab of intellectual
property) CANNOT BE REPEALED unless the U.S. abrogates those treaties.
See the recent Atlantic Monthly article about this for many details.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 98 of 206:
|
Sep 15 15:25 UTC 2000 |
I checked the Home Audio Recording Act and this is one interpretation I found:
RIAA Clarifies the Legality of Home Audio Recording
The following is a part of a reply from http://www.soundbyting.com (a
Recording Industry Association of America site) to those who enquired
whether non-commercial copying of CDs to MD constituted copyright
infringement.
Personal use copying was considered by Congress when it enacted the Audio
Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). The AHRA was a legislative compromise
to deal with certain, specifically defined, categories of digital audio
copying. Attempting to balance the various competing interests, among
other things, the AHRA required the manufacturers of covered devices to
(1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty on
each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement what is known as
a
serial copyright management system (or SCMS) which prevents all but first
generation copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the
devices, which might have otherwise found themselves subject to liability
for contributory copyright infringement (among other things), received a
statutory immunity from suit.
Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for
noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all
analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered
devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such
copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.
The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to
a
computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc
and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not.
The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers
devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making
digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as general
computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that
they do not pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means
that neither the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity
from suit for copyright infringement.
In summary: You cannot be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies
with AHRA covered devices (e.g. MD and DAT recorders).
Further information on the Home Recording Rights Act is available from
the
Home Recording Rights Coalition
While I haven't been able to find the actual act (so far), this is an
interesting interpretation. So I can record all I want on a cassette, or
an MD, but burning a CD is infringement, according to this!
|
anderyn
|
|
response 99 of 206:
|
Sep 15 16:07 UTC 2000 |
Here's some more from the RIAA web site --
riaa / copyright basics
Digital Music Laws
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)
This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright
violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use; eases
access to advanced digital audio recording technologies; provides for the
payment of modest royalties to songwriters and recording artists and
companies; and mandates the inclusion of serial copying management
technology in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit
multi-generation audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies).
In general, the AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the
primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Digital audio
cassette players, minidiscs, and DAT players are devices covered by the
AHRA. This law will also apply to all future digital audio recording
technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each
new product becomes available.
The AHRA provides that manufacturers (not consumers) of covered devices
must: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty
on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial
copyright management technology (such as SCMS) which prevents copies of
copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the devices receive
statutory immunity from infringement based on the use of those devices by
consumers. To learn more about the administration of the royalties paid
on recording devices and media, see the section on AARC.
Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are
not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay
royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that
neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them,
receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.
For additional information go to
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA)
For more nearly 30 years, the RIAA has been fighting to give copyright
owners of sound recordings the right to authorize public performances of
their work. Before the passage of the Digital Performance Right in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995, sound recordings were the only U.S. copyrighted
work denied the right of public performance. All that has now changed.
This law allows copyright owners of sound recordings the right to
authorize certain digital transmissions of their works, including
interactive digital audio transmissions, and to be compensated for
others. As amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, the
right now covers cable and satellite digital audio services, webcasters,
and future forms of digital transmission. Most non-interactive
transmissions are subject to statutory licensing at rates to be
negotiated or, if necessary, arbitrated. Exempt from this bill are
traditional radio and television broadcasts and transmissions to business
establishments.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
This landmark legislation has its origins in the 1996 World Intellectual
Property Organization's Diplomatic conference in Geneva, attended by more
than 160 nations. There, two new treaties were negotiated (see
International Law section) that represent the most important overhaul of
international copyright law in the last quarter century. The treaties
raise the minimum standards for copyright protection worldwide and make
it easier to fight piracy of American products overseas.
Although U.S. copyright law already met the treaties’ standards,
legislation was needed to meet the treaties’ prohibition of devices
used to undermine electronic "locks." The Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) (among other things) does just that, among other things, by
prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of devices.
The DMCA law also delineates the responsibilities of Internet service
providers (ISPs) in cases of infringement online. For example, the law
formalizes a notice and takedown procedure between ISPs and copyright
owners. It is now clear that when an ISP is aware it is posting or
transmitting infringing content, the ISP must act to remove the
infringing works or it may be liable for any resulting damages.
The DMCA also contains the key agreement reached between the RIAA and a
coalition of webcasters and satellite audio delivery services. This
section provides for a simplified licensing system for digital
performances of sound recordings, such as those on the Internet and
through satellite delivery. This part of the DMCA provides a statutory
license for non-interactive non-subscription digital audio services with
the primary purpose of entertainment, if terms of the license are met.
Such a statutory licensing scheme guarantees webcasters and satellite
services access to music without obtaining permission from each and every
sound recording copyright owner individually and assures record companies
an efficient means to receive compensation for sound recordings. For
information on the specifics of offering DMCA-compliant digital
broadcasts and the terms of the statutory license, see the Webcasting FAQ
section. For information on obtaining a statutory license, see the
Licensing section.
The greatest gains from the DMCA will be realized internationally. This
law is a model for ratification and implementation of the WIPO treaties
in other countries, where protection of sound recordings online is not
sufficient. Formal U.S. ratification of the treaty package moves the
worldwide ratification effort closer to the 30 countries that must ratify
the treaties for them to take legal effect.
For additional information go to
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act)
The No Electronic Theft law (the NET Act) is significant because now
sound recording infringements (including by digital means) can be
criminally prosecuted even where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
derived from the infringing activity. Punishment in such instances
includes up to 3 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. The NET Act also
extends the criminal statute of limitations for copyright infringement
from 3 to 5 years.
Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
works (as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5
years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. Individuals may also be civilly
liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual
damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per work
infringed.
For additional information go to
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02265:@@@L
|
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.
|
