Walmart Music

[Alexander]

Can someone help me out here? This is a generational thing, right?

Yeah, it's 'cause I'm an "old guy".

Home taping means you can make your own copies for your own use - like a cassette to play in your car.

Time to grow up.

See, to me there's a big difference between buring a copy of a friend's CD and illegally uploading that same CD to the internet via a file sharing service. We're talking about friends sharing the music they enjoy with one another (Remember sharing? It was an important concept back in Kindergarten), not sharing it with the entire world. Illegal downloading is bad because it is illegally *distributing* someone else's music (accross state lines and all that). What I'm talking about is *one* guy making *one* copy for himself. To play in the car, so to speak.

How about this one: A good friend of mine is a music theory professor. He makes copies of copyrighted music available to his students for use in his class. They can borrow the (burned) CDs from the library and make their own copies. I believe he also makes sound files for them to download. Is this bad too?

[Aggie87]

Not only is it bad, it's illegal.

[Neal Pomea]

Honestly if the RIAA, etc. were around in the 1800s and as influential as they are today, there would be no libraries and the very concept would be derided as communistic. It's only the fact that they have such a long history that keeps them safe.

In the U.S. libraries are covered in the copyright law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...08----000-.html

There's a short list of exemptions, like reproduction for the blind, exemptions for classroom teachers, fair use, etc.

On the question of whether authors are harmed by library lending, they are harmed more when libraries deem their works unworthy of being collected and preserved for public use.

[DukeCity]

Can someone help me out here? This is a generational thing, right?

Yeah, it's 'cause I'm an "old guy".

Home taping means you can make your own copies for your own use - like a cassette to play in your car.

Time to grow up.

See, to me there's a big difference between buring a copy of a friend's CD and illegally uploading that same CD to the internet via a file sharing service. We're talking about friends sharing the music they enjoy with one another (Remember sharing? It was an important concept back in Kindergarten), not sharing it with the entire world. Illegal downloading is bad because it is illegally *distributing* someone else's music (accross state lines and all that). What I'm talking about is *one* guy making *one* copy for himself. To play in the car, so to speak.

How about this one: A good friend of mine is a music theory professor. He makes copies of copyrighted music available to his students for use in his class. They can borrow the (burned) CDs from the library and make their own copies. I believe he also makes sound files for them to download. Is this bad too?

The copyright thing in a classroom has some very specific differences with copyright laws out in the real world. Even though I'm a teacher, I still haven't figured it all out. But even if I don't follow the letter of the copyright law, I like to think that I follow the spirit of the law. If your friend, the theory professor is putting one burned copy on reserve in the library for the students to have access to, that doesn't seem to be too much of an offense. I would hope that his policy would be to discourage his students from making more copies. Just as if he put his original on reserve, he should tell his students not to make illegal copies. After that, the responsibility is on the students (and I'm sure the students would do the right thing )

Another difference is with regard to sheet music. Most public school band directors I know NEVER distribute original parts to kids. They always make copies for distribution (I believe the copyright laws have specific guidelines for copying for educational purposes). Likewise, if they purchase a piece for thier band and the piece comes with 8 clarinet parts, but thier band has 27 clarinets (clearly a different kind of problem) they make enough copies to give to each kid.

Getting back to the original situation of two friends copying music for each other, yes it's illegal. Yes, to some extent it's immoral. But the world of music distribution is in such a profound state of flux that I think ultimately new laws, policies and procedures are going to be enacted to account for the digital/internet kinds of issues we're facing.

When we were talking about making a cassette dub of an LP or CD, it was generally understood that the cassette would entail a compromise in sound quality. Usually if someone gave me a cassette, and it turned out to be music that I wanted to listen to, I would seek out an LP/CD original of my own. With digital copies the difference in sound quality between originals and copies is minimal or non-existant, so it's a different matter.

Bottom line is the bottom line. People are trying to make a living in the music bidness. If copying means that one less sale is made, then that's a bad thing. Not to mention the karmic debt one my incur...

[rostasi]

mmmmm...maybe I should start charging people

when they ask me for my business card.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Can someone help me out here? This is a generational thing, right?

Yeah, it's 'cause I'm an "old guy".

Home taping means you can make your own copies for your own use - like a cassette to play in your car.

Time to grow up.

See, to me there's a big difference between buring a copy of a friend's CD and illegally uploading that same CD to the internet via a file sharing service. We're talking about friends sharing the music they enjoy with one another (Remember sharing? It was an important concept back in Kindergarten), not sharing it with the entire world. Illegal downloading is bad because it is illegally *distributing* someone else's music (accross state lines and all that). What I'm talking about is *one* guy making *one* copy for himself. To play in the car, so to speak.

How about this one: A good friend of mine is a music theory professor. He makes copies of copyrighted music available to his students for use in his class. They can borrow the (burned) CDs from the library and make their own copies. I believe he also makes sound files for them to download. Is this bad too?

The copyright thing in a classroom has some very specific differences with copyright laws out in the real world. Even though I'm a teacher, I still haven't figured it all out. But even if I don't follow the letter of the copyright law, I like to think that I follow the spirit of the law. If your friend, the theory professor is putting one burned copy on reserve in the library for the students to have access to, that doesn't seem to be too much of an offense. I would hope that his policy would be to discourage his students from making more copies. Just as if he put his original on reserve, he should tell his students not to make illegal copies. After that, the responsibility is on the students (and I'm sure the students would do the right thing )

Another difference is with regard to sheet music. Most public school band directors I know NEVER distribute original parts to kids. They always make copies for distribution (I believe the copyright laws have specific guidelines for copying for educational purposes). Likewise, if they purchase a piece for thier band and the piece comes with 8 clarinet parts, but thier band has 27 clarinets (clearly a different kind of problem) they make enough copies to give to each kid.

Getting back to the original situation of two friends copying music for each other, yes it's illegal. Yes, to some extent it's immoral. But the world of music distribution is in such a profound state of flux that I think ultimately new laws, policies and procedures are going to be enacted to account for the digital/internet kinds of issues we're facing.

When we were talking about making a cassette dub of an LP or CD, it was generally understood that the cassette would entail a compromise in sound quality. Usually if someone gave me a cassette, and it turned out to be music that I wanted to listen to, I would seek out an LP/CD original of my own. With digital copies the difference in sound quality between originals and copies is minimal or non-existant, so it's a different matter.

Bottom line is the bottom line. People are trying to make a living in the music bidness. If copying means that one less sale is made, then that's a bad thing. Not to mention the karmic debt one my incur...

I agree. But I recollect, in relation to home taping, that the record industry did a bit of market research and discovered that the people who did the most home taping were the ones who bought the most records. following that, I gather the industry tended to soft pedal on home taping - after all, they ran the risk of pissing off their best customers - and concentrate on real pirates.

Does the industry yet know what the effect of new technology is on all this? I doubt it.

MG

[couw]

When we were talking about making a cassette dub of an LP or CD, it was generally understood that the cassette would entail a compromise in sound quality.

so Alex should burn some mp3s for his iPod and stick to those then.

[Dr. Rat]

Well, the whole notion of copyright is that someone else owns the right to copy and distribute the thing you copy, so if you copy something and distribute it to other people, or make material available for such copying, you are infringing on someone's copyright. You aren't "sharing" because what you are giving away belongs to someone else (the right to copy). Sharing would be letting somebody have the legit edition you've got and NOT copying it. (Though even THIS is illegal in some places.)

Copyright is an odd notion compared to, say, owning a car, but the simple fact of the matter is that making copies from/for friends is against the law and it's morally more than a little gray. Not that I'm not gray myself, but let's not tell ourselves it's all OK because our friends are happy to receive the stolen property.

--eric

edit: the site I mentioned in another thread Copyright and Culture about the arguments made when copyright laws were first adopted may be of interest.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Dr. Rat

[Aggie87]

I would think burning copies of music that HE owns, for his own use, is up to him. MP3 copies, Ipod, backup cdr, compilation, whatever.

But borrowing someone else's CD to burn a copy of it is different. That's where the creator of that music is being deprived of a sale. It's easy to dismiss this if you're the beneficiary of "free" music and aren't impacted negatively, but someone else is losing income because you chose to do that. Is it ok if I burn a copy of my AEC box for Alex, or anyone else? Would Chuck care?

[Joe G]

FWIW, I preferred the non-animated version of rostasi's avatar...

[ejp626]

Honestly if the RIAA, etc. were around in the 1800s and as influential as they are today, there would be no libraries and the very concept would be derided as communistic. It's only the fact that they have such a long history that keeps them safe.

In the U.S. libraries are covered in the copyright law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...08----000-.html

There's a short list of exemptions, like reproduction for the blind, exemptions for classroom teachers, fair use, etc.

On the question of whether authors are harmed by library lending, they are harmed more when libraries deem their works unworthy of being collected and preserved for public use.

My broader point is had RIAA and others been around, libraries would never have gotten established in the first place and thus won a place (or exemption) in copyright law.

[Dr. Rat]

Honestly if the RIAA, etc. were around in the 1800s and as influential as they are today, there would be no libraries and the very concept would be derided as communistic. It's only the fact that they have such a long history that keeps them safe.

In the U.S. libraries are covered in the copyright law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...08----000-.html

There's a short list of exemptions, like reproduction for the blind, exemptions for classroom teachers, fair use, etc.

On the question of whether authors are harmed by library lending, they are harmed more when libraries deem their works unworthy of being collected and preserved for public use.

My broader point is had RIAA and others been around, libraries would never have gotten established in the first place and thus won a place (or exemption) in copyright law.

You're absolutely right: the position favoring the dissemination of knowledge (vs. the ownership rights) is FAR weaker today than it was. No money behind it, I suppose, and not enough public interest. The balance has gone all the other way vis-a-vis the law. Though practice is another matter entirely.

--eric

[.:.impossible]

I know this is another tangent, but do any of you buy used LP's and/or CD's? How is this different from burning a disc from a friend?

[couw]

I know this is another tangent, but do any of you buy used LP's and/or CD's? How is this different from burning a disc from a friend?

it costs way much more money

[Aggie87]

I know this is another tangent, but do any of you buy used LP's and/or CD's? How is this different from burning a disc from a friend?

There have been previous discussions about this on the board. Purchasing a used cd or lp is quite different. That used copy was (presumedly) legitimately purchased, and therefore royalties and income were duly paid. Ownership of that copy is transferred upon purchase. If 10,000 copies of that particular title were sold, the creators got what they were owed for those 10,000 copies.

If every owner of a legitimate copy of a release that sold 10,000 copies created a copy for a friend, then there would be 20,000 copies in existence, for which the creators only account for 10,000.

If you're a musician or a producer, is that ok to you?

[ejp626]

There have been previous discussions about this on the board. Purchasing a used cd or lp is quite different. That used copy was (presumedly) legitimately purchased, and therefore royalties and income were duly paid. Ownership of that copy is transferred upon purchase. If 10,000 copies of that particular title were sold, the creators got what they were owed for those 10,000 copies.

I disagree that the situation is really that different. From an economic (not moral) point of view, you need to consider past sales as sunk costs or sunk benefits. The fact that it was a legitimate purchase is irrelevant to the fact that there won't be any future revenue from a person who buys a used CD.

[Aggie87]

Extending that logic across the marketplace would mean that no used cars could be sold. Or used houses.

[Alexander]

There have been previous discussions about this on the board. Purchasing a used cd or lp is quite different. That used copy was (presumedly) legitimately purchased, and therefore royalties and income were duly paid. Ownership of that copy is transferred upon purchase. If 10,000 copies of that particular title were sold, the creators got what they were owed for those 10,000 copies.

I disagree that the situation is really that different. From an economic (not moral) point of view, you need to consider past sales as sunk costs or sunk benefits. The fact that it was a legitimate purchase is irrelevant to the fact that there won't be any future revenue from a person who buys a used CD.

Exactly. From that one sale, two (or more) people have owned the same disc. And the used record store profited from the second sale. In the case of home copying, no one profited from the creation of the second disc. In fact, when I copy a friend's disc, I'm actually *spending* money to do so (there's the cost of the blank CD, the jewel case, the card-stock upon which I print the cover and back cover, the printer ink, etc.).

I also think that there is a "fair use" issue here. When I buy a CD, it becomes mine to do with as a please. Everyone here seems to agree that it is "ethical" for me to rip the tracks to my hard drive so that I can, for example, make a copy to play in the car or transfer to my iPod. But somehow it is not ethical for me to *give* that "car copy" to a friend who hears it and likes it? Like I said before, I understand the problem people have with illegal downloading. It's not just making a copy, it's making potentially MILLIONS of copies. That would, indeed, be wrong. But making one copy? For a friend? If it's a crime, it's a victimless crime.

I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 CDs. Of that number, approximately 10 to 15 are burns. Of that 10 to 15, less than half were either copies made from borrowed discs or were given to me by friends (the rest were made from legal downloads for which I paid). I refuse to think of myself as some sort of criminal because a statistically insignificant number of my CDs were acquired in an "ethically shaky" manner.

[Chuck Nessa]

I refuse to think of myself as some sort of criminal because a statistically insignificant number of my CDs were acquired in an "ethically shaky" manner.

I already figured that out.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Chuck Nessa

[Aggie87]

Alexander - Did you read the below comments about copyright? You still don't care that you're creating an additional copy of an artist's work, for which that artist receives no compensation?

In the case of purchasing a used cd, i still maintain that the artist/producer received compensation for that copy. So what that ownership of that copy changed hands, and so what that there is an after-market that profits from the re-sale of that item.

Well, the whole notion of copyright is that someone else owns the right to copy and distribute the thing you copy, so if you copy something and distribute it to other people, or make material available for such copying, you are infringing on someone's copyright. You aren't "sharing" because what you are giving away belongs to someone else (the right to copy). Sharing would be letting somebody have the legit edition you've got and NOT copying it. (Though even THIS is illegal in some places.)

Copyright is an odd notion compared to, say, owning a car, but the simple fact of the matter is that making copies from/for friends is against the law and it's morally more than a little gray. Not that I'm not gray myself, but let's not tell ourselves it's all OK because our friends are happy to receive the stolen property.

--eric

edit: the site I mentioned in another thread Copyright and Culture about the arguments made when copyright laws were first adopted may be of interest.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Aggie87

[Neal Pomea]

I am more worked up by another issue, which is the hoarding of our heritage by copyright holders of old works that would have gone into the public domain were it not for the various extensions of the term of copyright in the U.S. The original term was 14 years, then 28, then now it's the lifetime of an author plus 70 years. That's quite a stretch.

Only one major company, Edison, has donated its rights to the public. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5139522

They say that's not criminal? I figured that out.

Someone mentioned fair use. We should look closer at the law. Fair use is meant to cover the likes of journalists quoting public figures for the purpose of reporting and criticism, etc. One of the factors used in determining fair use is the effect on the market, and another is the amount of material appropriated. Making an archival copy is one thing but giving a copy to someone, substituting for a sale, is likely not considered fair use.

Edited January 19, 2006 by It Should be You

[Mr. Gone]

From that one sale, two (or more) people have owned the same disc. And the used record store profited from the second sale. In the case of home copying, no one profited from the creation of the second disc. In fact, when I copy a friend's disc, I'm actually *spending* money to do so (there's the cost of the blank CD, the jewel case, the card-stock upon which I print the cover and back cover, the printer ink, etc.).

Hm, with the addition of a CD-R copy, two individuals are able to listen to the music at different locations at the same time. I guess this can be compared with a single user software license: a single user license allows the license owner to install and run the software on one computer. If I want to be able to run the software on a second machine of mine (not even on a friend's and *spending* money to do so is also involved here - second computer with all its devices) I'd have to buy another license.

[Alexander]

How do you guys feel about Joe Bussard? He's one of the world's formost collectors of 78 RPM records. For years he has made a well-known practice of making his collection available for copying. For the cost of taping, Bussard will make a custom cassette tape of any of the tens of thousands of discs in his collection (a catalogue of his collection is available on-line). Now, I realize that there are some big differences in this situation. First, the 78s are likely out of copyright. Second, in many cases Bussard owns the only known copy of a given record. Still, I would think that following the line of thinking of many of the folks on this board that Bussard's practice would be similarly "ethically shaky."

[Jazz Kat]

Well, the discs were being lent for the specific purpose of being copied. This friend and I often lend one another materials for copying. It's called "being thrifty."

Boy do I feel better now.

Can someone help me out here? This is a generational thing, right? I was raised on the concept of home taping. This was something my friends and I did all through high school and college. Want to share some good music with a friend? Make 'em a tape. I don't think there was *any* music that I was exposed to in high school and college (including jazz) that I didn't have *first* on a homemade tape. So then CD burning comes into play. I burn discs for friends, they burn discs for me in exchange. Is this a foreign concept? The idea was always to trade music for music. No one ever profits. If I like something a whole bunch, I'll usually pick it up in a commerical copy.

It seems to me that the "ethics" of copying only came in once CD burning became a factor. No one was complaining when we were making dubs onto tape. Why is that? Is it a sound quality thing?

Hey, I just bought Hank Mobley's Workout. (legally, of course) I have a sneaking suspision that Hank Mobley is not getting the money that I payed for the cd. Boy that's odd.....

[Chuck Nessa]

Hey, I just bought Hank Mobley's Workout. (legally, of course) I have a sneaking suspision that Hank Mobley is not getting the money that I payed for the cd. Boy that's odd.....

Do you know if his mama is? Do you know anything about this?