The Music Piracy Poll!

[Jazzmoose]

But that's why I make a distinction between "home-copying" (which is to say, you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy) and downloading. In the case of home-copying (at least in my case) it's an issue of exchange. I'll let you copy a CD (that I bought and paid for) if you let me copy one of yours (that you bought and paid for). In this case, we've BOTH paid for music and are allowing one another to share in it. You don't let *everyone* share in your music, just your friends. In the case of file-sharing services, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world can share in your music. These are people you've never met. And while you are getting something from them, it's not the same kind of "friendly exchange" that I'm talking about. Illegal file-sharing does seem to be an example of a "something for nothing" mentality. But the kind of sharing that I do is something else entirely. The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

Ah, I see; if you're personally acquainted with your accomplice, it's not an actual crime...

[RDK]

All of this makes me fondly recall the old days, when we actually invited each other to our homes to listen to music together...

[Dan Gould]

Gee Ray, I'm getting the feeling you're a wee bit older than I am ...

[Rooster_Ties]

But that's why I make a distinction between "home-copying" (which is to say, you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy) and downloading. In the case of home-copying (at least in my case) it's an issue of exchange. I'll let you copy a CD (that I bought and paid for) if you let me copy one of yours (that you bought and paid for). In this case, we've BOTH paid for music and are allowing one another to share in it. You don't let *everyone* share in your music, just your friends. In the case of file-sharing services, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world can share in your music. These are people you've never met. And while you are getting something from them, it's not the same kind of "friendly exchange" that I'm talking about. Illegal file-sharing does seem to be an example of a "something for nothing" mentality. But the kind of sharing that I do is something else entirely. The same way I'd invite a friend to share in my food and drink, I let my friends share in my musical bounty (and with 2000 CDs, it's bounty indeed). Frankly, in most cases, I burn copies for friends because I'm too stingy to let them borrow my CDs themselves. "You want to hear [insert name of CD]? I'll burn you a copy."

As I see it, this isn't really all that much different than shop-lifting. Every disc you burn for your buddies, Alexander -- or that they burn for you -- is music you or they get to enjoy without paying for it. Where I come from, that's not any different than sneaking into a movie theater, or into a concert, or anything else where there is an entry fee required to experience something.

So how is it again, Alexander, that you can justify steeling something -- simply because you happen to be friends with the person who aids in the theft?? Friendly, indeed.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[rostasi]

Yeah Alexander!

Quit breaking bread with your brothers!

Next time, tell him to buy his own damn bread!

Can't be putting those breadmakers out of business you know!

[couw]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

[Jim Alfredson]

The solution to see who is "right" is simple: Go spend $10,000 making a record (which is very inexpensive these days), press 1000 copies, and try to just break even, while giving away copies to all your friends and telling them, "Hey, I don't mind if you copy it for anyone."

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

I didn't know that. And what's half a dozen supposed to mean? Six a week, month, year, decade, lifetime?

MG

[couw]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

I didn't know that. And what's half a dozen supposed to mean? Six a week, month, year, decade, lifetime?

MG

ask the judge...

just be decent about it.

(what does decent mean???)

[couw]

No doubt Claude will chime in to tell me they have changed/are changing EU law here.

[Jazzmoose]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

I didn't know that. And what's half a dozen supposed to mean? Six a week, month, year, decade, lifetime?

MG

ask the judge...

just be decent about it.

(what does decent mean???)

No nude disc swapping allowed!!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

FWIW, making copies for/from friends is legal in the EU -- if you keep it decent, which is about half a dozen -- so it seems there are more folks who think like Alexander outside of the real world called America.

I didn't know that. And what's half a dozen supposed to mean? Six a week, month, year, decade, lifetime?

MG

ask the judge...

just be decent about it.

(what does decent mean???)

No nude disc swapping allowed!!

That's all right, I don't have any nude discs; I keep them covered up to stop horrid substances getting on them.

MG

[Claude]

In Germany jurisprudence defined a limit of 7 copies (from one original) for private copying. It was for photocopies but can be extended to any other media which falls under the private copying exemption. This means someone can burn CD-R copies for himself, family and a couple of friends but a student copying a CD for all his classmates would go beyond what is permitted.

Online file sharing does not fall under the private copy exemption, BTW.

Rightholders have to accept these private copies (they can prevent them with technical measures though), but are entitled to compensations in the form of levies on blank media and copying devices (which do now even include faxes and PC hard drives). These levies are paid to copyright associations which represent the artists.

This system exists in most EU countries. And in Canada: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

Edited January 23, 2006 by Claude

[etherbored]

i believe in doing the right and honest thing as it relates to all of this.

i *never* burn copies of any title readily available. however, i can't control what others do if i loan out a disc. i can't really see placing a "DO NOT BURN" label on the front of a jewelcase.

while mainstream commercial artists may enjoy an income that's able to absorb the filesharing (et al) trends, most of the artists all of us here enjoy cannot. i honestly feel that by burning and/or filesharing their material that it's tantamount to depriving an artist of income they would have otherwise enjoyed. after all, i paid for a recording of material to listen to privately, not the ability to copy and distribute that material.

on out of print rarities (titles not easily come by via the usual shops/sources), though, i have different feelings.

on the other hand, no doubt we all purchase a significant amount of used recordings (either LP or CD). an artist is in no way compensated for that...

-e-

[trane_fanatic]

Exactly, What about the issue of purchasing used CDs (profits reaped by the store only)? That's how I get most of my stuff.

As for me, I need to have a copy of the actual product in my hand, liner notes, artwork and all, so downloading is a non-issue for me unless it is OOP. I can understand why other fully law-abiding citizens would DL though. The music industry's actions have not exactly endeared themselves to music fanatics like me.

Edited January 24, 2006 by trane_fanatic

[.:.impossible]

How many of the musicians on this board buy their sheet music? Just curious.

[rostasi]

The solution to see who is "right" is simple: Go spend $10,000 making a record (which is very inexpensive these days), press 1000 copies, and try to just break even, while giving away copies to all your friends and telling them, "Hey, I don't mind if you copy it for anyone."

I'm not spending that kind of money, but I've been doing

close to what you said for years now. Friends and business acquaintances both.

If making money directly from your first CDs is the goal, then this is sheer folly.

This is not the purpose of making CDs.

As I said before, your CD is your "business card."

When you spend $10,000 on recording CDs, you can't think,

"Damn, I better sell a lot of CDs!" If you actually did make money -

hell, break even - you'd be considered an overnight success, -

it'd be great if that actually happened, but it's quite foolish to expect this.

What you should be asking yourself before you

spend the money is whether the future benefits

will pay for these discs - short term and long term.

Jim, if your band was doing some old boring "bar-band" crap,

then I'd say that spending $10,000 making a record would be a waste

(of course, there's some real crap out there, so, who knows...),

but when you get signed (I predict: after your next CD),

it's at that time that you say, "Damn! That was money well spent!"

...and not because you got your money back on either

This Is the Place or ...Boogaloo Sisters, but that

both of those recordings were great enough to perk up the ears of

listeners/broadcasters/et al. all over the US (and, soon, elsewhere)

thereby getting you the gigs that you might never have gotten.

THAT'S where the 10 Grand goes!

How many extra paying gigs did you get because of these discs?

How much more money did you make as a result of radio stations,

magazines, word-of-mouth, etc interest in these discs?

Maybe, you've only made a couple grand more from these extra gigs

in cities that you've been trying to get in to, but the money comes as

word grows.

So, in the same way that it's myopic to think only of the

one-to-one "cash from CD" benefit, it's equally short-sighted

to confine this discussion to the ideas of what's "right and honest"

(as if there's a solid ground of meaning) or using the tired

"where do we draw the line" cliche. I don't draw lines. I follow curves.

It's people in favor of the mass-murdering psychoses and pathological lying

of the criminal Bush junta who draw lines and get us in the mess that we're in today.

I think that the larger picture is being ignored in favor of easy wrap-up push-button statements

about "stealing" and "theft" and words such as "illegal" and "pirating."

I think that we owe it to ourselves to look beyond this and, like the above example,

see the larger picture - hopefully without the influence of the powerful elite.

[RDK]

i believe in doing the right and honest thing as it relates to all of this.

i *never* burn copies of any title readily available. however, i can't control what others do if i loan out a disc. i can't really see placing a "DO NOT BURN" label on the front of a jewelcase.

while mainstream commercial artists may enjoy an income that's able to absorb the filesharing (et al) trends, most of the artists all of us here enjoy cannot. i honestly feel that by burning and/or filesharing their material that it's tantamount to depriving an artist of income they would have otherwise enjoyed. after all, i paid for a recording of material to listen to privately, not the ability to copy and distribute that material.

on out of print rarities (titles not easily come by via the usual shops/sources), though, i have different feelings.

on the other hand, no doubt we all purchase a significant amount of used recordings (either LP or CD). an artist is in no way compensated for that...

-e-

But I've gotta ask - the Devil makes me do it - would some of these "non-mainstream/commercial" artists we here enjoy be better off with the few bucks that might come from an extra CD sale or with the additional exposure that "sharing" might bring them? I suspect it's something of both. I can only say from personal experience that if friends didn't loan me (or burn if we're being honest here) certain CDs by both jazz and non-jazz artists over the years that there'd be a big number of artists whom I wouldn't now be familiar with and support when I can, either by buying their music or paying for a live show.

[rostasi]

How many of the musicians on this board buy their sheet music? Just curious.

I want to know how many here have original paintings on their walls?

[Aggie87]

on the other hand, no doubt we all purchase a significant amount of used recordings (either LP or CD). an artist is in no way compensated for that...

-e-

On the original thread from which this one was hatched, I made the following comment about used recordings:

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.

I disagree with your comment that the artist was "in no way" compensated for that CD/LP. That copy was originally purchased legitimately somewhere, and the artist/producer/company received due compensation at that time. At that point they no longer have (or should have) a say on who possesses ownership of that copy. If it changes hands multiple times (and individuals and/or used CD shops profit from it), that's the market at work.

It doesn't change copyright status of that recording though, which is not possessed by the individual who purchases the CD. So that individual (or one down the line) doesn't have the right to copy the recording for close friends or the cyber-universe (at least in the U.S.).

And again, ethically it's just plain wrong to do this. How is this ever incentive for artists to continue producing recordings that we the music lovers want? Taking money out of their hands and expecting them to appreciate it?

[.:.impossible]

paradigms...

[Neal Pomea]

And again, ethically it's just plain wrong to do this. How is this ever incentive for artists to continue producing recordings that we the music lovers want? Taking money out of their hands and expecting them to appreciate it?

On the subject of incentives to be creative, I posted something on this topic on another board discussing food and recipes, and the copyright ownership of recipes.

It's as if the law assumes that I am so DISINCLINED to be creative, I won't so much as write down my recipe for 3 minute eggs unless I can be assured that it is copyrighted by me for the rest of my life plus 70 more years, covering my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

It also assumes that my offspring are so disinclined to be creative (or even fend for themselves!), they must be beneficiaries of my creativity for generations. Wouldn't that make them less likely to be creative (or fend for themselves?) I hope not to offend anyone here, but who are Disney's descendants who are so creative as the old man, for example? Disney himself benefitted from public domain stories like Snow White, etc.

It stretches things quite a bit to speak of copyright and compensation as the incentive for creativity. I want to see artists and creative people make a living, too, but we pay a very high price with these long copyright terms.

Edited January 24, 2006 by It Should be You

[Joe G]

Function, scale, intent, and discretion.

Words to live by.

[sheldonm]

Technology trumps your narrow concept of right and wrong when it helps the very people you are claiming it hurts. You make no allowances whatsoever for how downloading music today has become very similar to a user friendly radio. I for one can point to literally hundreds of cds and dozens of concerts I have attended as a direct result of exposure to downloaded music. I know of many MANY people who have had the exact same response. In a way, the democratization of music (im sure you will love that phrase) has led to increased fan base AND intensified fan base. I wouldnt be 1/100 of the jazz fan I am without access to the music. I just dont see how you draw the line as "Wrong" because it hurts artists when actually in MANY cases it helps them greatly. Maybe you are drawing it as wrong simply due to law, for which is even more absurd. Never once in my life did I consider legality and morality to be related.

You must also take into consideration the guy like Chuck who spent his life in the industry, recording, promoting and whatever else that goes into it and then someone takes his work, copies it and passes it on....

Without guys like Chuck who put out some of this music....where would we be???

m~

[Rooster_Ties]

Anybody want to send me burns of all their favorite CD's?? I mean, we're all friends here, right??

I'll burn you a bunch of mine for you too.

And isn't it great that as long as we're all friends - that nobody gets hurt in the process.