JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Music Piracy

Does that mean that I (SINCE I ADMITTEDLY DON"T have a hard and fast position) I try to obey the law, but would like to UNDERTAND the morality issues better! SHOULD stop talking about it, Since you have done so much research I don't understand why it is NOT worth your time to enlighten a true seeker such as myself with your knowledge. I still say my questions are valid otherwise "SERIOUS THINKERS" would not have considered them.

anyway thanks for your time, and I am sorry that your efforts in enlightening me seem so fruitless to you.

I genuinely DON'T see HOW the argument is CLEARLY ONESIDED, but I would like to. that would make things easier!

sorry my last post duplicated

Kenneth, please don't misunderstand me, I don't say your questions aren't valid.

My position is, simply, that the concept of ownership is, TO ME, not odd at all. It makes sense, in my opinion, that folks who create something unique, whether it is something tangible, the design of something tangible, or whether it is a story or an idea or a musical composition, should have an exclusive right to the copying, distribution, and publication of such creations. To you, I believe, it is odd that someone should be able to claim ownership of an idea, and as that is how you find the concept, you are unclear as the morality of such.

Well, to start with, I applaud you for obeying the law, even if you find the premise odd. The truth is, I really don't know what else to say. Except to simply ask this question:

Do you think it is immoral for people to insist on ownership of their intellectual property?

thanks for the explanation of your point. I was kindof thinking that you were getting frustrated with me and that you were saying my point was absurd like the other dude! I don't think it is necessrily Immoral to INSIST on ownership necessarily, but it could be. I think it is WEIRD!

I will restate this ONE MORE TIME. and any publisher that is interested should maybe contact me (even though i think it would definitley be immoral:

I have written sales scripts in the past, and several years back I became intrigued with using artificial intelligence to optimize the sales process. (it's is a long, if not totally uninteresting story) one of the byproducts of that process was a random word generator that self optimized based on response. also self developed by the AI (think evolution) were parameter filters that decreased the likelyhood of impossible-pharases, less likely phrases etc. .... I am totally serious when i say I COULD at this time, with the proper resources, ( I could do it now on my desktop, but it would be a slow process) program a computer to write all possible songs up to a given lenght, and then could copyright them all and put EVERY writer out of business. I could even make it where it will generate the MOST LIKELY sensible songs first to optimize the run time!

My question to you is WOULD THAT be unethical, immoral, unfair? WHY because of MY ingenuity? Now that I have said these things on a board where publishers and writers frequent, I'm sure people will actually consider the idea, and weigh it's utilty and consider it's possible application and usage. the CONCEPT of the ownership of ideas is flawed in my opinion, because althouth a computer spitting out randon, and then optimized combinations of words, CAN in fact do it faster, WHO cares if it copyrights a billion BAD songs. It WOULD have the ability to CREATE EVERY GOOD song as well. then it would just be about MATCHING the new songs that any creative person comes up with, with the prior art! I think THAT would be just WRONG in some way.

I SERIOUSLY don't see WHY this is an invalid argument against intellectual property. recipes are not covered because they are considered MERE ingredients. but I say WORDS ARE MERE ingredients. and if you don't think so I can't understand WHY. althouhg I would like to.

So, you don't think it's necessarily immoral, but it could be. Well, there's the rub.

I believe the path to enlightenment to be paved with stone. Descartes began with self...cogito ergo sum. Pretty solid. As a kid I began to decide things. My early decisions were about my likes and feelings. I picked favorites, allowing myself the prerogative to change my mind. The funny thing is, over the years, most of my favorites have remained constant: favorite color, blue; favorite movie, the original King Kong, favorite female singser, Patsy Cline; favorite male singer, Ray Charles; favorite song, Early Morning Rain; favorite food, bananas. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't pick a favorite, or make an important decision. To me, it seems odd. I'm not saying it's a flaw, but I can't imagine how it isn't a hindrance.

Anyway...

I think it is most decidedly not immoral that someone insist on control and ownership of their thoughts. Die Gedanken Sind Frei!

Here's another question:

Do you think it is moral for someone to copy another person's idea, invention, design, song, or thought without their permission, while knowing it is against prevailing copyright laws?

Xavi,

First welcome to the site since this is the first time I have crossed your path. Second, just for the record, your work is copyright protected the moment you fix it to a tangible medium. Registering it with congress, as you describe, only adds additional rights to the basic rights you already have. I strongly suggest that you get a copy of John Braheny's "The Craft and Business of Songwriting" (if you can't buy a copy, most libraries have them for free to check out) and read it as it will clarify this and many other things that are often discussed incorrectly on the web and elsewhere. Your comment is a very common misunderstanding of that law.

And to Mike, your post above (on the previous page where you waxed quite poetically) needs to be in Rolling Stone magazine or somewhere else where that type of writing might still be appreciated. It was among your finest written moments here.

As for Copyright and File Sharing, if you don't send other people a COPY (be it digital, analogy or otherwise) then you haven't broken the copyright laws. However, if you play it for crowds, there are also federal laws on Performance Rights of works. That's where you can get in trouble depending on the numbers and circumstances. Copyright is literally that. The right to make a copy of something. Play the song from your own copy for your friends and family, and that's fine. Make them a copy to listen to at their convenience, that's not legal. Sell them your copy, that's also okay because you didn't make a new copy, you simply transferred your rightfully owned copy to them for whatever terms you want. If you want to put it on a server and broadcast it to the world, you can absolutely do that as well. You just have to pay both the Songwriter Royalty for Peformance as well as the Artist Royalty for the Performance (which is relatively new and is collected by Sound Exchange rather than BMI. ASCAP or SESAC).

If you lived in Europe, you'd have to pay a lot more for a lot more uses. For example, if you have a party with 3 friends over and you're playing music on a boombox for them, you may very well wake up the next morning with a bill attached to your door for the usage. And I am not makign that up. They take their music rights very seriously in Europe. Of course it's also a corrupted system in many ways, but it's certainly far more restrictive than the US is in how you use your own copy of music.

Using someone elses work for your own commercial gain can cause you issues on many levels, but that's too complex to discuss here and as Mike likes to say, I am not a lawyer. If you push past the law because in your opinion it's wrong or stupid or you simply don't agree with it, you might soon be needing the services of a real lawyer however.

Brian

That's certainly not true for all of Europe. There is no single pan-European copyright law, each country has its own version. Downloading, for example, is legal in The Netherlands, while ripping a CD to your iPod on the other hand is formally illegal in the UK.

There's all sorts of fun idiosyncrasies with the current patch work of laws. For example, in The Netherlands it is allowed to make hard copies for personal use and copyright holders are supposedly compensated for this with levies that are collected on all blank media. The first problem is that the organization that collects the levies has yet to figure out how to distribute the money fairly (since they don't know who copied what how many times). The second problem is that, due to the EU requiring free traffic of all goods between member states, I am absolutely free to order my CD-Rs from a company in Germany, where those levies aren't collected. (I could order from the US as well, but then I'll have to pay import taxes).

Of course, the EU are striving to harmonize these laws across states, but that will probably take a few more years at least, knowing how slow the political windmills turn...

(to further complicate matters, the European Union does not currently include all European countries)

Thanks, Brian, but it's already published somewhere that's better than the Rolling Stone...here. Feel free to reprint it in the newsletter if you'd like (heck, I didn't affix the copyright before publishing, so it's probably p.d. )

Now, back to Kenneth,

As to your question, first I'll comment, then I'll answer.

Your idea of registering works generated by computer is nothing new. Years a ago we, here, were discussing a computer program that supposedly could tell if a song was "good" or had commercial potential. In that discussion, we came up with the idea of copyrighting every combination of musical notes as generated by a program. I'm sure Brian will remember that discussion. (I should have copyrighted it, I guess ).

Unless you added into your program a way to avoid registering copyrights for works which were already registered, you'd be infringing existing copyrights. Also, the fees would be prohibitive. It costs money to register each work. From where would your income be generated? Would you be depending on suing future authors whose work was successful? No, it smacks of something an evil genius from Batman comics would be doing to spoil it for everyone else (I'll show them, I'll turn on this ray and make them all empty their bank accounts and send them to meeeee! HA HA HA HA. First Gotham City, tomorrow the WORRRRLD!).

I don't believe it would stand up in a court. It is completely against the letter and spirit of the law. It is "gaming" the system just because you can. (I think your ant farm is STUPID, little brother, so I'm going to plug this sonic pest repeller in my side of the room and drive them crazy, nyaa nyaa.) You even state one of your consequences here would be "put every writer out of business" well, for that statement alone I'd recommend not doing it. I find it is obviously and absolutely immoral.

Just because we don't like, don't respect, or don't understand something that others do is no reason to spoil it for them.

Awe Mr. Dunbar, methinks yer wasting way too much of yer valuable time chasing Kenneth down this rabbit hole. Please come back to us because we need you in Realityville.

Midnite

Patents and copyrights are two different things. A copyright is for intellectual property, and it lasts for the life of the creator plus 50 years. A patent is for inventions but it only lasts for a set number of years, some where in the vicinity of 20-30 years.

Without these protections, how would a writer or inventor get paid for their skills. Why would they bother, society would suffer and not advance. Copyright is good and necessary.

Wow why are people so anti- about a course of serious conversation that doesn't even invovle them. i appreciate the time MIke is taking AWAY from reality ville.

as for the cost.. of the computer generated work I was under the impression that it was copyrighted as soon as it was commited to media, and that it could be batch submitted for additional protection, the TIME problem and the problem of duplicating previous work CAN be solved by filters. I agree it is immoral, which is WHY i am not pursuing it further myself, IT IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITIES TO DO.

I personally live on the tipping point of SEVERAL big questions. I have my "favorites" as well, but LUCKILY i have been able to change myself. I like myself better now than the me I used to be. By not being affraid to look at both sides of ALL questions I beleive I can actually work towards positive change in myself and the world as a whole!

that's MY intent

thanks ALL for the fruitfull discussion!

One other question on te morality issue.. Do you think it would be immoral for a large energy corporation to develop, PURCHASE, or otherwise gain control of a patenet for a "free energy" or even a drasticly more effecient energy system for the sole purpose of holding the IDEA away from mankinsd so that it can continue to profit from the inefficiency of the "current" technology? I think morality ALWAYS comes back to INTENT. LAWS on the other hand should be the practical application of boundaries for people that WITH bad intent or negligence, need to be regulated. again just my opinion.

Kenneth,

I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are limits to the size of which a group of works may be bundled for copyright registration. If I am correct, cost would be a big factor, if not, it still wouldn't be cost effective...how would one see profit from it? From lawsuits? Once every possible song became off limits, composition would simply end, which, I'm sure, was part of your reasoning to deem it immoral.

Many things are legal which may be found immoral. If one believes in absolute morality, it is not complicated. If one is a moral relativist, then it all is subjective anyway, I guess. Yes, I'd find it immoral but not illegal for a large corporation to squash beneficial technology. I'm certain it has been done already many times. However, I think it would be a bad thing to try to legislate morality. It's involves too "democratic" a decision, democracies don't work well for long, thank God we're a democratic REPUBLIC. It would lead to democratic totalitarianism and open the door to state sponsored religious persecution. In the old days, morality was legislated and they burned witches at the stake.

I believe that education, and discourse, such as we are having here, becomes a "safety valve" or "lubricant" to the friction between morality and law. What I find most important is not so much whether we can convince each other of what is right or wrong, but that our discourse is being had in a public forum which is being viewed by people who may be forming their opinions and ideals concerning the topic. (Midnite, I would submit that as a reason why, time permitting, I always welcome discussions with folks as long they are kept polite and civil. We who write posts on forums should be well aware that our "audience," if you will, is much larger than the cadre of participants.)

So yes, I think law and morality are two sets with intersections, unions, members, quantifiers and all that is applicable to basic set theory.

More simply, I believe in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. (and I don't mean Caesar the dog whisperer.)

MIKE,

AMEN..I just sometimes think that the intent of the "pirates" is often NOT immoral, and so should be looked at by the LAW to see if it does indeed need to be ratified. as an example thieves often steal to eat. if the sytem is totalitarian and unfair like apartheid it HSOULD be ratified and often the VOICE of those that don't have the standing, is squashed by the RULE of the PWERFUL .. it's like when obsolete technology gets locked in. I say that leaders should ALWAYS be looking at things from perspectives that are outside of their self interest or they run the risk of being tyranical and eventually overtrhown.. evolution doesn't HAVE to be cataclysmic!

I also find it interesting the way people often split hairs in favor of their self interest, like those that want to say SONGs are just like liquor or any other material object, but thenm think that they are intighteled to some kinfd of obscure tax break on the sale and distribution (export or interstate) of theiir product. it seems hypocritical to be STEADFASTLY on both sides of an issue.

my opinions are not set in stone and YOU have given ME FOR ONE lots of food for thought, and I thank you!

Ah, but I think it IS immoral to fileshare work against the composer and/or publisher's wishes. For a moral relativist, it's easy to say: "Well, my morals disagree with your morals." To them I say, "Well, that's why we have laws." If everyone lived in what I consider to be a "moral" way, we wouldn't need laws.

We do have laws, however, and the copyright laws are currently in favor of those folks who agree with me. Any folks who don't like those laws can either change them, break them and run the risk of punishment, or live with them.

I find many people don't even split hairs. They simply behave in their self-interest. That, to me, is not wrong if it is moral. Self-interest, to me, is not always something that makes me comfortable or gives me pleasure. Heck, when I'm lifting weights in the gym, those muscles burn. I absolutely love some drugs, but I don't take them. I find women of all kinds to be very attractive, but I stay true to my wife. Whiskey tastes wonderful to me, but I don't drink alcohol. I do all these things in my self-interest. I am completely interested in my health, welfare, marriage, and salvation.

You are welcome, Kenneth, you also have given me food for thought, and for that I thank YOU!

All the Best,
Mike

WOW after all of this it seems we agree more than we disagree... funny how that happens if you remain patient. ... I am glad that you consider it WORTH your time to at least CONSIDER another persons viewpoint...

"gaming" the sytem is what all agents within the sytem do in one fashion or another. it is in my opinion the UTTER disregaurd of the sytem itself and the other agents within the system that is IMMORAL.. I agree with your discription of self interest, but I would expand it (FOR MYSELF ) to say that it is often the things that are scary , uncomfortable, charitable (even when I would PREFER to profit) that ARE in my TRUE self interest... I am interested in a better world! and a better me.

I will continue to do my best to follow the law, so long as I am not being ruled by tyrannical laws that hurt my brother for the gain of some other elite group that retains POWER. Because I was ordered to do so , is not an excuse for immoral behavior. I have a mind. and a soul, and a VOICE thanks to God and all of those that fought and DIED for that!

It is scary for alot of old people (NOT SAYING ANYONE HERE IS ONE OF THEM) to think that the generation that THEY raised will take good care of them and actually give them a fair share for their contribution. they FEAR the new, and so they let fear turn to greed, and try to INSINT on ownership, and compensation of artificially inflated value for their contributions and become the sytem THEY so hated when they were the YOUTH!


I find myself TRYING not to follow this pattern as I get older.

Jim,

Thanks for chiming in from Europe. I was referring to discussions I've had both with European PRO's (Bumra Stemra if I spelled it close enough for you to know what I am referring to) for example and also to people in France, Italy, Germany and Belgium. In France in particular (where the story about the party originates) they seem pretty hard core. In fact, across a lot of Europe I found much less live music taking place than in the USA because venues told me that it's just too expensive to license it. It was significantly more than in the USA where it's often the cost of a cup of coffee per day to have live music in a small venue. In Italy, the concept of common music spilling out in every venue across town was totally alien. Go to Chicago and you can often find music in venue after venue. Not all of it great, but certainly a lot going on just about any night of the week.

I am really glad to have you here Jim. I wish we could get more Europeans in on these discussions. You have to deal with a lot of unique problems there and we could learn from them. It just proves that, as I've been saying for 11 years, "we're all in this together" sometimes whether we like it or not.

Brian

Yeah, the French do seem to be pretty hardcore when it comes to copyright. They were also pushing for the EU to adopt a three strikes law (get caught downloading something illegally three times and your internet connection will be shut down permanently).

As for live music, in the Netherlands our PRO (indeed, Buma/Stemra) charges 7% of what is paid to the artists. A lot of venues, in particular the smaller ones, don't pay the artists hence they also don't pay the PRO...

... a totally serious question, I have a brother who lives in Cambridge in the U.K. I live in California in the U.S. Who's laws would govern the sharing of music between us? the U.S Laws, the U.K. laws, or is it determined by the law of the land WHERE the music was CREATED? I'm tellin you, you need a degree to actually even follow and abide by the law these days!

Nope. You and your brother would each be bound by your local laws.

I assume then, that would that be the same for my freinds in the military in Iraq and afghanistan. It's HARD to be legal, even if you are RAELLY trying. and then to furhter the problem when I try to discuss the laws with the people who supprt them they tend to get very frustrated about explaining what seem like discrepencies.

It's not at all hard to be legal, simply buy your downloads or get free downloads that are legally offered by the artist/owner. Instead of filesharing questionable material, send your friends links to artists' websites that offer legally downloadable material. That helps the artist far better than filesharing, you drive folks to their websites where they can learn much more about the artists than they would by recieving a faceless mp3 that is barren of contact info.

Here's a link to my friend Jennifer Brantley:
http://www.jenniferbrantley.com/home.html

And here's my friend Jeff Epperson:

http://www.myspace.com/jeffeppersonsongs

I wholly recommend that artists offer free downloads of their material (as long, of course, that it is all material of which they own the rights to do so.) The legally free download is a great way for artists to build their fanbases. But even streaming audio is a good way to get the message out.

Interested in improving the indie music scene? Linkshare!

It is hard when you network with people in places with totally different cultures and laws. I don't want to ACCEPT music that is illegally obtained either, and all of the people i know, know that I am a music sponge and love to soak up all I can. I have been turned on to different stuff from all kinds of places , some I even have to check a map to see where the hell they are! so I guess you could say, JUST DON'T SHARE FILES UNLESS, but that doesn't really encompass the issue to my satisfaction because I want to still be able to share music to the extent of BOTH the legal and moral limit! As we have mentioned before if I just wanted to stay legal there are a thousand ways around any law, (I think offshore banking (among other things) to avoid taxes is QUESTIONABLE behavior, but depending on HOW you do it it is not necessarily ILLEGAL). I am a child of the information age and the borders that made jurisdiction easy to decide in the past doesn't really apply anymore. IF the law only pertains to the location of the server WHERE the files are copied, then the moral issue becomes of the utmost importance, because legally the sky is the limit. So again I have a dilema, I (as I have said) will continue to follow the law to the best of my ability, and continue to wrestle with the moral issues, and continue to contribute to artist that my taste endear me to.

I have freinds that are contractors that work overseas, I have contacts through my business in strange places, (I always HAVE to check to make sure they are NOT in a country that is trade restricted, but that's why my wife and I have lawyers for the business. BUT I am beginning to feel like I will have to do the same to simply discuss art over a distance, and share ART.

IF all artist put their music up for FREE download, that would also eliminate the problem, AND I for one would do all I could to MAKE sure they are compensated for what is a BIG part of MY life. If artist where non profits, I would donate, but I DON't want to fuel ANYONES gravy train either! you have to have done something pretty damn spectacular to deserve the dream that fuels alot of so called ARTIST!

"when all art is signed anonymous, we'll turn your big bang theory into a small pop hypothesis" Sage Francis.

I hope I am not infringing on his copyright by quoting his lyric here!

No it's not. You just have to know where to look!

All sites listed there link to Creative Commons licensed music, most if not all of which can be legally obtained for free. It is also legal to share CC licensed music with your friends. Incidentally, you'll find my music there too.

maybe I should have said it's hard to be LEGAL while being assured of the morality! Like is said I'm sure one could USE any of a milllion loopholes if they set their mind to it! That is a COOL LINK THANKS. I like what they stand for, I USED TO MARK ALL OF MY WORK WITH "ALL RIGHTS reversed" and I still encourage people to use what they like from what I have done, and I ask them to only inform me if they like something I have done enough to USE it, and In some cases if they use it INTACT WITHOUT CHANGE i request that they give me the credit,(which still seems a little arrogant on my part to me) but I can't really INSIST or hope to MANDATE that even!

just my opinion!

Interestingly, it looks like the RIAA is going to stop suing individuals and work with ISPs more closely to issue copyright infringement notices to those accused of file-sharing. Multiple notices against an individual will eventually result in service disconnection. Maybe a slightly better strategy than claiming tens of thousands in damages per song.

http://soundtempest.net/2008/12/19/riaa-to-stop-lawsuits-against-customers-focus-on-isps/

there is actually a seperate post about this

http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/676292/page/1#Post676292

this may look like a good idea if you are on the side being protected, but it is alot like being happy about getting rid of habius corpus, or getting rid of your constitutional rights against indiscriminate wiretapping, or waterboarding, (don't get me wrong, I am not necesarily STEADFASTLY AGAINST ANY OF THOSE THINGS, just an analogy) it's good as long as it is pointed away from YOU, but as soon as you realize that you have let the cat out of the bag, you'd better be sure you never look like a mouse!

It's not strange to me to think that the ISPs will take the side of the larger, more powerful interest, and that is not always a good thing.

here is a good article that makes a good counterpoint.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902930.html

if you read it to the end it even offers a good fair compromise solution. the only thing standing in the way is greed, and the unwillingness to see the bigger picture. grasping for the past is not economically feasible. it is a waste of time energy and ultimately MONEY!

I like what Bob Lefsetz says on this:



Let's hope he's right about that last bit.

Full article: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/12/19/1529/

the government will do whatever we allow it to do... WE are the government(at least indirectly), as much as we TRY to deny it!
that is my only reason for having these discussions. in this OPEN FORUM (thanks to Brian and the LAWS of the U.S and whatever countries that anone is is allowed access from) we can have open discussion and debate on these issues, and if we are open minded enough to listen to the arguments o others then we can come up with equitable solutions that leave no consideration unvoiced!

as I have stated MANY times I don't beleive ANY educated person (educated being the key word) would say "IT SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR US TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT, EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT ALL WRITERS AND OTHER CREATIVE FOLK THAT WE RELY ON FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND ESCAPE ARE GOING TO GO BROKE AND STARVE!"

even the Kids that I know that download EVERYTHING music, movies,software (funny how many artist think it's just fine to use pirated software!) are fairly esy to educate when you tell them that they are STEALING from PEOPLE not just a faceless industry, the almost ALL say the same thing... "I WISH I could give the CREATOR some money directly rather than support the industry that wants to sue me, and makes it HARD for me to GET my copy" (I't sEASIR to steal music then it is to get it from te people that are paid to DISTRIBUTE it!) does that tell ANYONE ELSE who the REAL bad guy is here! the music industry is grossly NEGLIGENT on these issues. that's the enemy. not the consumers!

My stand.

1. It's not okay to use pirated software to make music you plan to SELL later. There's at least one person HERE in JPF who has openly admitted to the deed.

2. There's a thin line between theft and piracy. Theft is active, piracy, as it is nowadays, is passive, since most people aren't even aware that buying copied music in a nondescript "store" somewhere is supporting piracy.

3. The law was made mainly to protect the interest of those who has interest, so the point is moot in blaming it. If you want to curb piracy, you do it actively, regardless of the law.

I have to agree in concept with MOST of what you say,(SO ARE YOU SAYING IT IS O.K. TO USE PIRATED SOFTWARE IF YOU AREN'T MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT? just curious and if so how do you justify that to the SOFTWARE designer (that is the equivalent of the musician) working hard at a keyboard to CREATE code to eek out a meager living?)
I do wrestle with all of it myself. I listen to alot of hip hop, and as everyone knows "sampling" is big part of where hip hop came from. I think the laws split hairs.. I personally am working to try to make sure that the sides that people take on this issue are based on a truer understanding of the issue at hand. NOT just a knee jerk or emotional reaction without CONSIDERING the big COMPLEX picture.

I appreciate the dialouge this forum allows it is helping to form MY opinions, and I hope it is for others as well!

Oh, don't get me wrong, but let me rephrase my statement. It is NOT okay to use pirated software. PERIOD.

No splitting hairs needed. The law was made to protect the interest of those who have interest to begin with, so you can be thankful that whether or not anyone's interests here need protecting, there's the roof over the head protecting us from the rain.