JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Music Piracy

copyright last 70 years after the songwriter is dead- enough time for your descendents to enjoy any $$$ from your songs

the concept of intellectual proerty is valid to some extent, but it is not well difined and in my opinion never will be well enough defined to cover ALL new ideas. I could, with a computer, conveivable produce and copyright EVERY possible compination of letters and characters etc. would I then own ALL information?

BTW, EMOTICONS are now covered by copyright. so any little character that you use at the end of a sentence formed by a combination of puncuation marks is by definition TECHNICALLY PIRACY!

Kenneth,

At some point, that's a decision for courts to make. There should be, and I imagine is, a reasonable limit. However, I don't think it's something that should be delineated by a law. Until someone is artful enough to define a law that would be reasonable and equitable, it should be up to people to decide on a case basis. What is scary is what we could end up with if politicians get into legislating the boundaries. Aaaargh!

In the meantime, in my opinion, it's not a reason to throw out the copyright laws.

courts ARE RUN by politicians. the almighty dollar will always decide. and IT will always decide based on self interest. not necessarily because they are EVIL, but because you ALWAYS see things from your own perspective. the BEST manipulators will always be in control.

I work in the electronics industry and it is funny how many pending law suits for intellectual property copyright infringement, stay pending past the life of the actual companies that hold the rights for the disputed property. it all comes down to the economics of enforcement. the winner is always the one who has the MOST RESOURCES to fight the battle with.

I agree we can't abolish ALL the laws JUST YET, but when they are this far from reality we have to TOTALLY rethink their basis, and the practicle application thereof.

At the start of this thread the proposition was about someone taking furniture that someone else made out of their front yard by someone in a truck... if that persons truck made an exact replica of the furniture without any harm being done to the maker. (a theoretical LOST POTENTIAL SALE IS NOT HARM !) would the furniture maker have any damages? are his ideas for furniture really so revolutionary that they should be patentable?

until the economy is based on actual VALUE there will always be a discrepency. the problem is that MOST artist don't want to WORK for a living.. (NO OFFENSE) THEY WANT THE DREAM! the VALUE of art has been artifically inflated by the ART INDUSTRY to allow for profits for the machine itself. is a two and a half hour experience at the movies actaully worth the (whatever the current box office ticket prices are now?) I have to say NO (and the same for most MAJOR commercial musical acts) I will pay to be entertained for a few hours, but not at the rate that is currenlty being charged. I am just as entertained by street performers who are gracious and happy with a small token, BECAUSE they don't have to kick their money up the chain to pay the fat cats.

Kenneth,

I agree on most of what you say.

As to the potential sale not being harmed, that's not exactly the problem. It is not a potential sale that is harmed in your example, it is the value of the item. What is the furniture worth if it can be duplicated for free? Well, then it is worth nothing. The value was destroyed by the duplication. In filesharing it goes beyond that. If someone owns a copyright, then they have the right, within the law, to control the making of a copy. Value has not even entered into it, at that point. If the copyright is registered at the Library of Congress, then current U.S. law also allows for damages to be recouped.

Right now, as you say, the economy is not foundationally based on value, but there is the floating value of a currency. There is a dollar amount assigned by law in certain transactions concerning music (the per unit fee for mechanical royalties for example.) The very technology that allows for filesharing also allows individual artists to become their own "machine." One such artist, a friend of mine who wrote novelty tunes, songs about Texas college football, invested money in a bunch of cd's and a tour in Texas after having some of his songs get a big response on Texas radio. This was very early in the downloading phenomenon (it wasn't "filesharing" then.) With a local "hit" on his hands, he couldn't sell hardly a cd and had to cancel the tour early. Why? Because the value of his cd was reduced. No one wanted to pay him for a cd when they already had burned one on their computers in the dorm. He lost a lot of potential sales, lost money on his product and didn't make enough on the tour to offset the cost of his cd duplication. That's a real world example of lost potential sale from a very talented indie artist who was not part of the machine.

I HEAR ya on that example, but the ABILITY TO BE DUPLICATED is not CAUSED by the sharer. It is a byproduct of the media and the distribution technology. It's like i have a freind that lives VERY NEAR an outdoor venue. SO near in cfact that the sound is CLOSE to as good as bad seats at that venue. (I'll still pay for tickets if teh artist WARRANTS me spending the money to see the REAL show)But from my freinds house, it is NOT illegal for me to listen, it is NOT illegal for me to set up a tape machine at his HOUSE and listen later. what IS illegal is for me to make a copy and PROFIT from the SALE of the copy. (even if you buy a cd you can duplicate it for personal use, and you can even invite a freind over (as long as you don't charge them) and let them listen to your copy. so WHERE does the ILLEGAL activity occur. is it the person that doesn't spend a cent and listens to a freinds copy, or is it the freind that let's the other freind listen, or is it in the copying from the free airspace outside the venue. I think it SHOULD only cover ACTUAL profits. if the venue wanted to protect their sound they should use technology to make it uncopyable. if someone BREAKS their technology through their own inginuity then good for them. If they PROFIT they owe it to the owner, but SHARING for free, shouldn't be illegal. Now if i were to set up a LOUNGE for people to come and listen to music for free, that I captured LEGALLY then turned around and sold advertising. (NAPSTER, YOUTUBE, etc.)IF that advertising can be proven to be generated SOLELY by the value of the SHARED information, THEN an equitable portion thereof should be distributed to the owner of the information. HOW could you possibly regulate any of the rest of it?

What about libraries. should we have to pay user liscence fees on anything we read or listen to at a library.. it IS a LENDING (SHARING) library.. Benjamin Franklin was for the FREEDOM of information. that is the BASIS of the lending library concept. It SERVES the greater common good. You sell ONE COPY of a book to a library and they let THOUSANDS of people read it AND collect fees!

Kenneth, the act of duplicating is carried out by the sharer. I'm sure they'll say, "but Dude, I wouldn't actually buy this, but I'll just take it for free."

By the way, what is illegal IS the copying itself. That's why it is called a copyright. Only the owner has a right to copy. It becomes another, separate infringement to sell.

We can borrow a book from a library. The library either already paid the copyright owner, or was excused by the owner, and they now own that copy. Then we return the book. If we don't return it, it is considered "stolen." Now, if we copy that book, sit down and write out the whole darn thing by hand. Then we've "copied" it and we do not have the "right" to "copy" because we don't have the "copyright."

It has nothing to do with the "common good." I can buy a book of porn and give it away and also let thousands read it. Many would say that wasn't providing "common good," but it still does not infringe the copyright, because I never copied it. I can sell the book I bought, but can't make a copy of it, or sell an unauthorized copy. (notice that word...AUTHORized? Pretty clever these wordmakers.) There are a few "fair use" applications for education and even for home use, but I don't know the fine details of all that.

So then IF the copying IS the illegal part HOW DO you regulate what a COPY is the era of electronic distribution. COPYING SHOULDN"T BE ILLEGAL ..(a copy is made along every node of the internet of a small piece of al the information that is transmitted that way, so by the PAY PER COPY logic every one sending an mp3 to a freind OWES and every one owning a node that the packets travel on owes, and so on.

Imagine I have a copyrighted piece of art in my possession and I walk into a public place where there is a photographer taking a picture. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY REGULATE THE COPYING.

THAT is my point. COPYING cannot BE effectively enforced. a copy is made in your brain when you listen or look(we call it memory ) there will conceivably come a time when MEMORY is recallable at a very HIGH degree of acuracy. do you CHARGE everyone for everything they EXPERIENCE? What do you consider a copy is it when the original WAVE is reproduced. because you have only to look at the physics of the material world to realize that all things are COPIED millions of times WHEN they are created, and they continue to be copied forever. it's ONLY the "resolution" and the "UTILTY " of the copy that makes it harder to replay it .

On another note. I often record scratch tracks in my apartment. SOMETIMES my wife is watching the TV in the other room. SHOULD i be sued over the BLEEDTHROUGH. I'M SURE IT is there at SOME level (nasa probably has instruments accurate enough to detect it!) on almost ALL my recordings, sometimes there is a song being used on a commercial that someone paid a fat royalty for , and there I am recording it (totally by accident) and GOD FORBID a freind wants a copy of my song because they like what I have done. (NOT THE BLEEDTHROUGH) copying CANNOT be regulated. PROFITING can. that's why in MY humble opinion the laws NEED revision.

No, they are not. Only one specific emoticon ;-) has been trademarked (not copyrighted) and only in Russia. Worst that the "owner" could do is sue a bunch of companies for using that emoticon as their logo... that's assuming his claim stands up in court (which probably will not).

Which proves my point! LAWS are only as good as they can be effectively enforced. I am NOT a lwayer... copyright, patent, trademark.. it's all a bunch of B.S.!) I am going to go and copyright every perturbation of pattern of light and sound and own all information. then no one can DO anything, because it will be copying me. come on... the laws SHOULD reflect the reality of WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO accomplish. and they SHOULD be ultimaltely enforcable! NOT the letter of the law, but the actual LOGICAL intent! I am all for people getting paid for ingenuity, and creativity, but NOT for someone trying to make or enforce laws that DON't MAKE SENSE! So ultimately the "stand up in court" is all that matters anyway. I would bet that any one of the major corporations could CRUSH 99 % of us in any legal battle over OWNERSHIP. just because of the logistics and economics involved. DOES THAT MEAN THEY ACTUALLY OWN EVERYTHING! DAMN, they beat me to it!

Kenneth, There's the rub. If copying isn't illegal, then any ability to be paid for inventing, creating, or composing art, designs, music, or ideas in general will be finished.

In the case of the photographer, it's like watching a picture of Times Square, it is fair use. If the photographer's work is part of a landscape, then he can't complain if it is copied when the landscape is photographed. If it is materially the raison' d'etre of the photograph, then it is arguable. Now, how effective is this kind of enforcement? Well, that's why we are writing in this post.

Your brain is off limits to the court. The copies you make are not retrievable to other folks. It is when you decide to rely on your memory and copy the copyrighted work that an infringement takes place. If, for example, I went and saw a movie, then wrote a book about as much of it as I could remember, I'd be violating the copyright. Now, is it enforced? Not unless I'm stupid enough to show a lot of people. But it is still against the law. Like growing pot. Folks grow pot in the basement. If nobody ever finds out, it's not enforced, but it is still against the law.

On your "bleed through" scenario, you are not copying the commercial, it is present in the soundscape of your recording. Now, if you are using that loophole of the soundscape or landscape in order to circumvent the intent of the law and focus on the copyrighted material, you could get busted, but how in God's name that would happen would take a very convoluted circumstance. Not likely.

It is the intent of the law to provide a right to an author, composer, inventor, or designer to determine the kind and use of any copies made of their work. Ancilliary duplications of portions or even, under reasonable circumstances, of entire amounts of their work is not covered. It is then a by-product of the act of duplication.

I think it is education that needs to be addressed. People need to learn that all music is not free...that it is up to the composer of the music to decide whether or not it is free, and it is their right to decide how and to what use it is copied.

In other words. It is the composer who is free...not their music.

NOT NECESSARILY TRUE

SEE THIS LINK:

http://www.gizmag.com/visualizing-d...ne-step-closer-to-dream-recording/10558/

scientist are coming up with ways to access the actual data in the visual cortex, and it is not inconceivable that it will someday be at a high resolution, and be done with ALL the senses.



also.. would you leave it to something SO SUBJECTIVE as vague interpretation like SOUNSCAPE etc. and that way it can be determined by a court, and can be muddied up into whatever the most powerful manipulator wants. WHY NOT THINK IT THROUGH and MAKE the law reflect the intent. I say that the background soundscape is what influences EVERYHTING to be what it is.. nONE of us are creative , we are just redoing what we have experienced in a SLIGHTLY new way.

COPYING happens as a NATURAL result of a wave travelling through any material medium. it CANNOT be regulated.

A crative person SHOULD NOT be compensated unless they can also provide some UTLITY. ideas SHOULD NOT be sellable. If i am a painter and I take an image of what i invision in my visual cortex. that picture is a valuable thing because it can serve a utilty. when it was NOT transmitted. it was WORTHLESS. the copying didn't provide the utilty, only distribution can do that. then others can see the art. and be influenced. but until someone actually bases a commercial transaction on it it has NO MEASURABLE ECONOMIC VALUE in a REAL economy. JUST MY OPINION!

Kenneth, we adjudicate on subjective and vague interpretations all the time. Things like "reasonable and prudent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt," and "more likely than not," are ruled on every day. It's a mostly subjective world, that to which you object.

In my opinion, the intent of the law is very clear. The composer of music alone has the legal and, also in my opinion, the moral right to copy, others do not have that right. Copying can't be regulated, but it can be something for which one is held accountable.

Ah Well,
You go to the Gas Station to put some gas in your car. Well the guy in front of you paid for his gas so you should get yours for free?

You go to the Grocery Store for some Bread and Eggs. The person in front of you paid for his grocerys so you should get yours for free?

And you get a job and go to work. Well the Boss paid the other guy, so are you going to work for free? Are you? You want to get paid for working but you want to help yourself to free music? What about the Songwriter, the Artist, the Producer, the duplication service? They should serve you for free? Why?

If an artist or inventor withholds their work from society because they are unable to produce it by themselves and/or they are unable to profit from it, then the world has lost any potential value from that work. Imagine, no Mona Lisa, no electric light, no "Achey Breaky Heart." What a shame

then I say equally that all of the images and sounds that interrupt MY soundscape ARE environmantal pollution and a fee should be levied against the owner/ distributor for dirtying up the free airspace that I have a right to. it's like spam.. if yu broadcast something , or make it available (detectable) SHOULD i have to pay because it is copied when I experience it.. I know that it is a subjective world, but we know more now then we did when we wroite these laws. it is insane to think that we can continue to make SMALL revisions when they are SO SUBJECTIVE that they can be bent to srve wichever purpose suits the most influential voice. a composer should not be able to stop someone from copying their composition anymore than you can tell someone not to repeat a phrase.. that's MY catch phrase!! stupid.. it HAS to be rethought, so that it makes sense in the current times.

I don't pirate music. I don't take groceries , gas, or work for free, but I think it is insane to copare MATERIAL to intellectual property. I DO listen to music that I haven't paid for. If I like it enough I will buy a CD.. typically I rip them to my computer and store the CD incase I have a hard drive crash....I was under the impression that I what I was doing was legal. I listen to you gguy's copyrighted songs on soundclick ALL THE TIME. I would buy a CD if I liked it enough. AM I BREAKING THE COPYRIGHT LAW when my computer makes a copy in my temp file and spools it back to me to listen to. I DON'T record and save the songs. Maybe it is just me, BUT it seems we are comparing apples and oranges. I PAY for what I find value in. If I don't find value I DON'T pay (I ALSO don't steal it) but by the prevailing logic I GUES I COULD BE! that's crazy to me! OH well My two cents is only worth 2 cents if someone will exchange 2 cents for it. that's the way I see it.

Well even brothers can disagree.

My Ideas
(c) 2008 by Mike Dunbar

then I say equally that all of the images and sounds that interrupt MY soundscape ARE environmantal pollution and a fee should be levied against the owner/ distributor for dirtying up the free airspace that I have a right to. it's like spam.. if yu broadcast something , or make it available (detectable) SHOULD i have to pay because it is copied when I experience it.. I know that it is a subjective world, but we know more now then we did when we wroite these laws. it is insane to think that we can continue to make SMALL revisions when they are SO SUBJECTIVE that they can be bent to srve wichever purpose suits the most influential voice. a composer should not be able to stop someone from copying their composition anymore than you can tell someone not to repeat a phrase.. that's MY catch phrase!! stupid.. it HAS to be rethought, so that it makes sense in the current times.

We JUST became brothers, and now you want to disagree!

I think alot of it is just semantics, but i think the semantice ARE important!

P.S. I just copied YOUR ideas!

I have been reading along here and I just can't figure out your argument, Kenneth. Are you saying that because the technology to copy music is ubiquitous, then is should not be illegal to copy and share recorded music?

If you follow this along to a logical conclusion, then musicians will only be paid for live performances (if they can get someone to pay) -- any recordings would be free to copy and share. Is this the end result you think is fair? You might and that is OK, but don't expect the majority of writers of original material to agree with you.

Kevin

Kenneth,

Just a joke, I may disagree with you, but I like the way you think.

Kenneth it is not illegal to backup onto a PC or copy a CD for your own private use. As long as you have bought and paid for it you can do what you like with it. It is however illegal to copy it for others or otherwise distibute it.

The same rules apply to legal downloads they can also be put on CD or backed up.

I disagree with your conclusion. I say the resposibilty to make something UNCOPYABLE is the authors. If someone can copy it and does, that's fine up to the point that they gain some material profit, at which point they should pay. I think it is MUCH more realistic to think of it as EARN FOR PERFORMANCE, EARN FOR DISTRIUTION OF A PRODUCT WITH A GREATER VALUE THAN CAN BE COPIED, OR LITIGATE AGAINST THOSE THAT profit FROM RECREATION, or find another way to earn.

I know it is not a popular concept because so many poeple think that they should be able to create something ONE TIME and earn from it forever. (or I guess 70 years past death?) I say Once you put something out there the only ownership you have is YOUR VERSION of it,

I just think the WHOLE thing needs to be rethought.

IF someone could explain HOW to regulate it, OR HOW it makes sense to propose ownership of something as common as WORDS IN A SONG!

I often write songs that contain a cliche, DO I OWN them if they were public domain when I used them, and then I copyright the song... and if someone else copies my work In whole or in part, what is the RIGHT thing to do about the RIGHTS???

Big Jim,

am I O.K. if i let my freinds listen to MY copy of a paid for CD.. I am not profiting , I am sharing.. like hey man ... listen to this.. (does it change if they are on my couch, if I email it, if i put it as an MP3 on my website?) it seems really MUDDY to me!

Kenneth,

Some creators are not capable of putting out their version. There are many very talented, even great songwriters who can't sing, play, or entertain worth a darn. Your model deprives them of a way to profit from their work.

If you share a file, you have made it available for download, that is being complicit in a crime. That is one of the ways that creators make their work uncopyable. By making the risk of copying it not worth taking.

The only way to do that is to never share it with anyone else -- don't record it, don't play it public, etc... My conclusion seems valid. You are basically saying that as long as you can copy something, you should be able to share it as long as you don't charge. Copyright laws aren't really that muddy and it seems to me that by your discussions that you seem to follow mostly the spirit of the law. If you listen to cover songs on soundclick or artist's versions on LastFM, Rhapsody, or anywhere else you can probably be assured that those organizations are paying some kind of royalties.

Kevin

I hear ya, and I understand the argument, but I don't understand HOW a person who takes the SAME words and phrases that have been in use since the dawn of our language can simply recombine them and say I OWN THAT PARTICULAR COMBINATION.. again IF that is the case ANY major corporation has the ability and resources (WITH TODAYS TECHNOLOGY) to use a computer to produce every possible combination of letters and spaces within a givin length and they will have ALL POSSIBLE SONGS within that given length ( and evryhting else!). should they then OWN them and be able to control their use?

and If I share a file ON MY OWN site that is password protected and ONLY available to MY FREINDS (I would also let tehm listen to the CD in my living room), at what point is the law broken? I hope you understand MY confusion. It is a weird concept to me...

ALSO what about the soundclick thing. Should I stop listening to the copyrighted music there, or does the invitation to listen make it O.K. to listen, can I have a freind listen in over my shoulder, how about over the phone line if they happen to call me while I am listening? what if I invite someone to listen to one of YOUR songs on soundclick, (in my living room) or if I send them a link, is that piracy, I am just confused on HOW you actually discern all of this UNLESS you use the INTENT and PROFIT model that I refered to before.

If I BUY a cd can I let someone borrow it? (can I let someone come to my house and put it in their portable cd player and listen to it and then leave it when they leave? shouldn't I be BUYING a USER Liscence. but I think it is all TOO complex to make sense.

THERE HAS TO BE a better way!

Kenneth,

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a better way. Present it to Congress. Get them to adopt it. Then present it to the world, and get everyone to call it the Cade Protocol. Of course, we'll never give you a penny for it.

As soon as you copy that file to your website. If you let others listen to it and copy it, your are liable for huge fines. Pretty straightforward.

That is all covered by the licensing set up by Soundclick and musicians on soundclick chose their own licensing model. There is no piracy there -- unless someone has a song for sale (not downloadable without paying) and you copy it using other means. PLEASE DO!

Listening to and copying are two completely different animals. The problem is never listening -- it is making copies of stuff (except for copies allowed for archiving and backup). It is really clear and simple -- Listen all you want, just don't copy!!

Kevin

HA HA I'm IN !!!!.. Now if I can only raise enough capital to afford the right lobbyist. Do insane anarchist typically have lots of money? BROTHER can you spare a dime? It's for a GREAT cause ! I don't hve all of the details worked out yet, but it entails all of US making FAR less, and the by product is that the price of evertything will come down! P.S. did I mention that if we don't DO THIS RIGHT AWAY the world will come to a screaching halt?! did i miss anything?

NOT TO ME? so If I have these songs that I BACKED UP on my computer in MP3 format, and I listen to it, then it's legal, But when someone else listen ON MY computer to MY song that I bought it's legal or illegal? What if they ACCESS the file over my network, but on their device? is it the WAY that I let them listen to MY song that I backed up , or the device that is used, or what?

Either I can let someone else listen to a song I paid for.. (either by turning up the volume or by letting them have access to it by another medium.. wireless , web, phone speaker< whatever) or it's Illegal, sharing is sharing, otherwise it is just descrimination about the WAY i am sharing.

Kenneth,

An old acquaintance of mine, the late Studs Terkel, recommended a wonderful story called "The Anarchist's Convention" by John Sayles. If I had a copy of it, I'd lend it to you, but my copy was given away several years ago.

Here's a link to it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchists-Convention-Other-Stories/dp/1560256915

It's worth the price. Mr. Sayles would appreciate it.

Mike

Mike,

YOU ARE KILLIN' ME

IS IT LEGAL TO GIVE AWAY YOUR COPY? ISN'T that sharing,

THERE'S ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION WHAT if i GIVE YOU A COY OF A cd AND DESTROY MY COPY, OR IN EFFECT give you MY copy. I HAVE ALREADY LISTENED, THAT'S o.k. RIGHT? THAT'S LIKE SELLING A USED BOOK. EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE GAINED FROM THE INFORMATION YOU CAN SELL THE BOOK AFTER, Right?

I will definitely check out this book. thatnks for the tip!

this stuff is just crazy to me... it doesn't seem to fit todays technology!

No, the copy you make is for "fair use," I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that fair use is only for your personal use. This was all developed before today's tech, but the spirit of the law still fits. Rather than making it incumbent upon the author, designer, etc. to create an "uncopyable" product, which you have already so aptly argued is impossible, they simply made infractions VERY expensive. That is how it is made, if not uncopyable, very risky to copy. However, you can sell a used book, a used car, a used cd, or a used dollar bill. You just can't copy them.

Is it crazy, it's human stuff, of course it's crazy.

the "fair use" thing is weird to me.. I really don't know if it is O.K. to let someone listen to MY cds? I want to do the right thing, but it gets weird, Like you can listen but you have to come to MY house and use MY device to hear the CD,

If they call me on the phone would it technically be LEGAL for me to say Here listen to this.. and hold the phone up to the speaker of MY stereo, how about my vonage phone, how about MY MP3 on my server(since I copied the CD) do they have to listen to it on MY device, or when they are in my house can they use THEIR network appliance to listen, does it change over distance? it's all fuzzy logic to me, and people sometimes say I'm being rediculous, but I think these are valid questions that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand!

I have actually Bought copies of CD's multiple times, rather thanDOWNLOAD a new copy when my files were corrupted as a way to SUPPOERT the musician, and the industry. I have no problem compensating people for what I consider valuable, but I also LIKE to share what I like with others. and I don't want to break laws, but I would like to be able to use modern technology to do so. My brother and I used to listen to eachothers CDs all the time, Now that we are seperated by distance I would like to be able to share music with him still, but I don't want to be a pirate. i think it is weird that I could tell him "listen to this", when he is in the next room and turn the volume up, or call him and say "here listen to this" and hold the phone up the the stereo, and that be different then saying "listen to this" in an email or on my website.

HiDee Brother Ken.

Back in the Vinyl Days it wasn't Such A Problem...ya play the record, it wears out/ya buy Another if ya Like It That Much.

Records were relatively-cheap to make/cheap to buy. Fortunes were made.

Then came Reel-to-Reel Tape. (& FM Music Stations.) Music still sold well-enough for the Artists & Writers to eat-regularly. BUT every blank Cassette/Reel-to-Reel ya buy, you're ALSO paying a Surcharge that BMI & ASCAP divide-up & pay out to the Above-Mentioned Folks who are BEHIND what get's Taped & Pirated.

So NOW you've got all SORTS of ways to Pirate Music. Does that make Piracy any Different? Yep, YOU can hear it FREE in Bars & Elevators...BUT those Bars & Elevator Folks ARE Paying for the "Free" Use you made of it/Artists & Writers ARE Getting Paid for Their Wares.

You CAN play every CD & Download ya buy for a fair-sized Audience of..perhaps..Friends &/or Family Members. (& the Creator of that Music/Owner of that Copyright HOPES some of them, too, might just BUY a copy..too!) But the minute you play it for a (say) Dance Hall Crowd..with PAYING Customers...EXPECT to get a Visit from the Kind Folks at BMI or ASCAP whose JOB it IS to enforce your Paying For "Fair Use" of that Creation.

& the first Copy ya SELL someone..shame on ya. &..just to remind ya IF ya have a Conscience...EVERY COPY ya give away (Free) COSTS some Artist/Writer a wee-bitta DESERVED Income, too.

OF Course You CAN Get Away with it. Probably Millions of people DO..Yearly. What bugs me is you want to LEGITIMIZE It.

I neither Copy nor Download Files. I buy 2nd-hand CDs at the Local Flea Market. BUT..at least the Artist & Writers GOT their Loot when the CD got Originally-SOLD/My Conscience is clear.

Improved Technology is NO excuse for Defective Morality.

All JMO, of course!
Best Wishes,
Stan

I am not tying to LEGITIMIZE it. I am trying to reassess it.I agree with PART of what you are saying. YOU SAID "You CAN play every CD & Download ya buy for a fair-sized Audience of..perhaps..Friends &/or Family Members. (& the Creator of that Music/Owner of that Copyright HOPES some of them, too, might just BUY a copy..too!) But the minute you play it for a (say) Dance Hall Crowd..with PAYING Customers...EXPECT to get a Visit from the Kind Folks at BMI or ASCAP whose JOB it IS to enforce your Paying For "Fair Use" of that Creation."

That is what i have been saying share all you want but don't charge.

I also don' download or copy music, but i do SHARE music with my freinds. I usually do it when they are PRESENT so no copy, but I am not sure that it would be WRONG morally for me to send someone a copy of an MP3 for them to check it out and see if they like it. I can see BOTH sides.

as far as making a copy and giving it to someone, that's when it gets weird. BECAUSE of todays technology that's what you do any time you "LET SOMEONE LISTEN" over the technology we use today. my argument is IF it is legal to oplay someone a song in the next room by turning up the volume on YOUR stereo then it should be legal to USE a telephone or walkie talkie to do it over a greater distance, and if that IS legal then you shiuld be able to do the same thing over the internet.

that's just MY opinion.

I think the bigger question is still HOW can someone claim to OWN a combination of words. AGAIN given the resources I could set up a randon word generator that would spit out EVERY combination of words up to a certain lenght. then I could go copyright it, and i would OWN ALL POSSIBLE SONGS within that given length. the very IDEA of ownership of a combination of words, (no matter HOW skillfully assembled) strikes me as odd.

I realize it is an unpopular concept, ESPECAILLY HERE! but I think people tend to get an artificialk sense of VALUE. we call ourselves ARTIST because we combine words, and we want people to pay us every time ANYONE sings plays listens, etc.

I appreciate the great concversation this is bringing. I don't pretend to know the answers, I just am saying the "answers" that we have now aren't right for the questions.

best wishes to you too!

This has got to be one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Your arguments make almost no sense at all, but you keep repeating them hoping some of these ridiculous statements might make sense after awhile. There's really no point in discussing this anymore. Good luck on ya.

Kevin

WOW dude, that's exactly what I mean by dismissing them out of hand! WHY is it absurd? are you saying that it is not possible, are you saying it is not practicle, or are you saying you can't think of a valid argument. either way to call someone elses point absurd without some reference as to WHY is rude. don't THINK that you know my reasons for posting. I personally think these questions make for fruitful discussion. if you don't then you don't have to read or post. but WHY be rude. If you see no point then don't discuss it. good luck to you also, but please refrain from rudeness for rudeness's sake.

I'm glad the oversimlified understanding that works for most peope DOESN'T always satisfy me. if I have BOTHERed YOU somehow (although I'm not sure HOW I did that???) I apologize.

have a better day!

Kenneth,

I could make a case that there is no such thing as ownership at all. How can we own something? We can, maybe, control things for a while, but then we die and they're out of our control.

But, ownership is one of man's earliest concepts. He probably trapped or killed an animal, then fought off anyone else who wanted to eat it. Fast forward to the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. People began to question ownership. They went way past socialism to communism, and called it a collective ownership. But still, the big, tough humans controlled everything, and the worker's paradise became a killing field for vodka drinking alcoholic megalomaniacs and bureaucratic sadists.

Now, folks who would have been sixties radical peace and love, hippy flower children have turned a cynical edge and have embraced chaos and entropy over love and peace. They see unlikely conspiracies and rube goldberg machinations as motives and reasons for the ills of our society, when actually we've been Jackson Browne's "happy idiots...struggling for the legal tender" just trying to buy a few minutes to sit in the tree and play the flute. And what does the new revolution do? Does it give us the "level playing field" and the chance to compete with the "big boys?" No. At a time when a songwriter could create and produce sounds that can compete with anything their idols once spent fat cats' money to do, the very light within them is turned into a thief. The spark that moves the speakers sets all the products out onto the front lawn in a mock eviction and lets the neighbors walk away with our dreams and hopes and trade them like cheap baseball cards. Oh, some musicians get famous. The lucky ones who are good at entertaining. They're young and pleasing to the eye. Clever and fast on stage, talented fingers flying over keys and frets, dancing feet and smiles with perfect, blue tinted, Crest strip teeth that sing dead on pitch thanks to that box on the floor and who appeal to their frat brothers and sisters in a hazing of lost morality, jaded youth, and the best speakers Sam Ash has on sale that week. Meanwhile the unlucky, the merely gifted, the ordinary looking next door neighbor, the hot stop clerk who is neither tragically handsome nor fashionably nerdy, punches the clock to get home and cheat his family out of a few minutes of "quality time" to write that new song that's been chewing its way out of his brain since lunch break. Once, oh so long ago, the unlucky saw a new world full of promise. A place where they could sell some music without it costing the price of a new house to produce. A place where they could reach the public without supplying the radio guy with hookers and cocaine. A place where music lovers and musical lovers could meet and appreciate each other. But it was never to be. The very sparks that could have created the place burned holes in the fence of the ball park. The fans didn't have to buy a seat. The homerun hitter looked up at the ragged, empty bleachers. He thought, this one is for the hungry children at home, and knowing there would be no bonuses, there would be no salary, there would be no endorsement deals, he knocked the ball out of the park. As it sailed out into the streets beyond, the crowds there cheered mightily. Then they stole the ball.

I would like to add another post just to kind of illustrate MY point about intellectual property,(although it is NOT directly related) HAS anyone here tried to get a domain name registered only to find out that the cool name YOU came up with or the business name you have already trademarked was already taken by someone else WHO is not even using it, who just registered it and OWN it because they thought SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT want it. I think THAT is absurd. I remeber when the WWW was brand new and people were registering domains for EVERY company name they could think of JUST so they could sell a company the use of it's own name. Loopholes like this are caused by leaving things vague and subjective. SHOULD anyone have been able to register someone elses undisputed AND trademarked business name JUST for the purpose of holding it hostage?

BUT, I think THAT is LESS absurd then a copyrighted group of words or phrases. I feel that I am entighteled to my opinion, and that my illustrations show at least some validity to my argument. If anyone disagrees that is fine also. I personally enjoy discussing things with people whether they agree or not, othrwise I would ONLY talk about things within a small group of likeminded people.

WOW mike that was awesome. I am ALMOST willing to pay you for that fine piece of writing! I think that the WHOLE industry HAS to evolve, and luckily I am not affraid to try to vision different versions of the music industry rather than live in the denial that it IS an obsolete dinosaur! IF any of us dreams of the gravy train I think the dream ITSELF is flawed. the dream should be to do something Enjoyable and valueable to society while earning a living AND HOPEFULLY a surplus to pass on to your offspring. I don't think you have to be pretty to sing, or even have a peferct pitch, I LOVE Tom Waits, who TO ME AT LEAST doesn't fit that mold, but he is both creative and expressive! I buy his cDs over and over again. AMONG OTHERS. but the MODEL itself is flawed, it's OUTDATED. if you could start over (which YOU CAN'T) how SHOULD it be. how COULD it work. that's where you'll find solutions rather than just bellyache about the problems. I'M not saying that's what YOU are doing, but that is the temptation,..denial, complain, and then die bitter... or adapt eveolve, thrive. i think it IS a choice. thanks for the post though it is alot to think about, and I'M SURE i will learn from what you have shared (even if it is not RIGHT AWAY!)

If it's morally wrong to use and idea today then it's morally wrong to use the idea from the past. So the guy who came up with the wheel should still be getting paid or his decedents.

Putting a time limit on morality is stupid. So if it's not immoral to not pay the wheel guy then it's not immoral to not pay the record guy.

Piracy is NOT merely a question of morality. The guy who "invented" the wheel couldn't care less, since copyright is a fairly modern idea.

Again, if it's a stupid idea, is it okay if someone "steals" your song?

I wrote somewhere that writing a song and "selling" it (as opposed to licensing it, effectively losing your "ownership") is like selling your soul. Sure, a lot of people would sell their souls if they can, but there are still a few who rather not.

For a history of the beginnings of copyright go to a search engine and type in Statues of Anne. Copyright predates the U.S. Constitution. The idea was to allow someone to realize some fruits for his labour so he would continue to create as it was supposed to enrich the populous as a whole.

If you want to change U.S. Copyright Law you can always petition the Congress with your reasons. Otherwise you will have to live with the Law as it presently is.

The basic thing is, if you manage to create something that is of value to others you have a right to realise some monotary return for a limited time before it goes into the Public Domain. No exceptions no relief. If it is worth something to you, it is worth paying for. And we also have laws against robbing Liquor Stores. If you rob a store don't expect any relief there either.

Everybody copies, consciously or unconsciously. We don’t live in a bubble, we have so called ‘influences’ in our writing, our styles. Having said that, it is easy enough to copyright a song- send the form PA with a $45 check to the copyright office (or do it online for $35).

You can also copyright a number your songs under a collection for the same fee, just make sure you add the names on page two so you can copyright them individually. I had heard that the copyright office was going to start charging $1 per song on that list, in addition to the copyright fee, but I don’t know if that’s been implemented yet. So copyright your songs. And if someone blatantly infringes your copyright, sue them!

I know that won’t help with the millions (I wish I would have that kind of an audience!) that may copy your songs on line for free, but at least they are paying you the ‘homage’ of thinking your music is cool to have (even for free!) I have more trouble with the guy who plagiarizes you and steals your idea and call him his/her own that with the occasional Joe who just wants to listen to your song for free.

I still say the concept itself is odd. the words and phrases are all copied, reassembled, and then you OWN them? my wife is a great cook. she OFTEN comes up with whole NEW creations and wites down the recipes, but MOST would consider it insane for her to try to collect a royalty any time someone COPIES that dish! I can't for the life of me understand the difference, are you saying she is LESS creative, that she puts LESS of her soul into her creative cooking? Is her CONTRIBUTION and hard work worth LESS than a WRITERS?

Kenneth,

I've done some research and have an answer to your question about your wife's recipes. It's really very interesting. If you want the answer, I'll need $5.00. You can PM me and I'll give you my mailing address. I'll want a postal money order and a self-addressed stamped envelope. My written answer will be copyrighted so you may not reproduce it here. It's really very interesting.

All the Best,
Mike

NO SALE! I'm no sucker, I also have a very interesting answer! in fact My response to your proposition is interesting so I will copyright it, and then I will put it here on the web, and anyone who HAS this post in their temp file will be a pirate!

actually it's funny you say that. I used to write sales scripts! It's HARD work and alot of data analysis to get them optimized. but, I have been told they are not copyrightable! (I could be wrong, the LAWYER who told me that was NOT the most trustworthy person I ever met! and he did not specialize in intelectual property, and it was in plain conversation not under the bounds of LEGAL ADVICE!)

(C) copyright, Ken Cade 2008

Kenneth,

A lot of things on the internet a copyrighted. There's no law broken when they are viewed on a computer, even though they may exist in a temp file. Trust me on this: serious thinkers have already considered the basic premises of every argument you've made. Me, I'm for ownership of intellectual property rights. I've put in enough detailed work on this subject, though, I know your position and you know mine. Party on!