posted
So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
Tsk, tsk, tsk... no matter how gray that area looks to you, you're still stealing.
Yes, you may be a broke college student (my heart bleeds not in the least) but what about the broke musicians who are looking to make a living off of their hard work? How about those that are hoping, working and striving to get a recording contract from one of the companies you are blatantly ripping off?
It's not a slippery slope, it's a big old cliff.
Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms. You bust your butt on a term paper. You've researched your heart out, you've written and re-written, edited and printed it out. You've put your blood, sweat and tears into it. And you pull a solid and well-deserved A.
After you turned it in, though, a grad assistant photocopies it and starts putting it on their website as a perfect term paper for sale. Or maybe they just give it away free and make money off the on-site advertising.
How do those apples fit you? Your work ripped off and given out. And the grad student just smugly smiles and says, "Whatcha gonna do about it, chump?"
And yes, the D and D books really tore into me. I've written for gaming companies and I'll tell you, it pays darned little, but it's all they've got. Maybe you're looking at TSR/Wizards of the Coast and saying, they're the big dogs, they will always be around. Guess what? It's not going to happen.
You see, they were bought by Hasbro, a traditional toys and games manufacturer that looks at a heavy and steady bottom line for all of their products. TSR must be a money-maker or they will be cut. That's why they released version 3.5 of the rules, even though version 4 was scheduled already for next year. Sales started to lag on the core books and something had to be done to meet the revenue requirements.
TSR, great company in its day, has been bought by Wizards and then by Hasbro. Unlike some other gaming companies, if it starts to go South on them, it will not be spun off and returned to the gaming world at large. It will just be quietly packed away, along with the d20 system, and it will disappear. You wouldn't believe how close that already is to reality.
But hey, download those books for free. Kill off the golden geese.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the d20 gaming system is open source, so to speak. Freely copyable. Many of the rules are available online, with open licenses to copy. Many of the gaming materials for D&D and other games are published under this license, and are also freely copyable (and even modifiable). What is and isn't is clearly marked.
And it is not stealing in any legal or moral sense of the word. It is civil copyright infringement (it's not even a criminal act, like all stealing is. It does become criminal if one distributes in a very large quantity, but not until then). Morally it's not even particularly like stealing, either, though it's still wrong (in most cases). However, if one already owns the gaming materials, reference materials generally constitute fair use, for instance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
No, I don't delete them. I go out and buy the CD so it's legal and morally acceptible for me to have them!
I wasn't saying I don't have the money to buy CDs, I'm saying I don't have the money to buy cars. The problem is, if I spend all my money buying CDs because half of them I don't like, then I'll never have the money to buy a car.
quote: Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms....
A better way of designing this analogy is that I'm selling my A-graded term paper and I find someone else just giving photocopies of it away. You're right, I'd be pissed. I don't see the problem if someone wants to come to me (or the other guy, even) to pick up a copy and read through it to see if they want it or not, as long as they give it back. Why is that a problem? I certainly won't have a happy customer if they buy my paper titled "Unreality: An Unreal Nework Description" which they think is about some kind of crazy existentialism when it's actually about the client-server network structure of Unreal Tournament. My A-graded paper will quickly net them an F.
Amazon.com allows you to stream the tracks from some CDs on their web site. This isn't a problem for you because it's allowed by the record company. The record company is no doubt thinking that people who've heard the music will want to buy the CD and improve sales. This is morally correct for you, because of the record company mandate. However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
I think, and this is just venturing an opinion, that you're angry at people who consume and consume and consume free illegal music. I understand why, since taking so much without contribution is more than just morally questionable, it's just wrong. I think that since am at the fringe of that group, you see me as an effective target for your frustration, even though I use filesharing programs as a sit-at-home way of going to Wal-Mart (which is some miles away and rather inaccessable) and scanning a CD under the little barcode-thingie and listening to the CD there.
quote:However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
The samples available on Amazon are just that, samples. Not the entire song. Just a taste. If you want to sample the music first, an option that simply wasn't available for the first 80 years of recorded music sales (apart from radio play), get down to the store. Most big music stores will let you listen to cds first, there are headphones set up for this purpose.
I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just up to the artist. Whatever they say goes.
Hmmm.... well how about if I say everyone who reads this post owes me $1, to compensate for the effort of me writing it?
Or for that matter, if I paint a mural on my wall, do I have the right to demand that passerbys not look at it without paying?
The truth is, once an artist releases a song or any work to the public, they lose some say over what happens to it. People can hear it and repeat it to their friends and share it. For instance, if I hear a poem I am free to remember it and repeat it to my friends, who can in turn repeat it to their friends, regardless of what the author wants me to do. That's just a fact of life about information - once it is out people can share it and take part of it, even if the creator wants them not to. It's not rape at all, but rather the sort of spreading of ideas that allowed civilization to come about in the first place. The creator, of course, has the right to refrain from even sharing their idea or work with the public, but once they have the cat is out of the bag.
We can pass laws to try and restrict this if we want to promote the production of certain sorts of works, but at a certain point these laws become counterproductive - and we really ought to change them.
And I mean, really... do you REALLY think I'd have a right to demand that $1 from everyone who read this post of mine, and declare that those who refuse are criminals?
posted
Tres, you're oversimplifying. Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
It's not so much the idea itself that's the problem, but the distribution of such. The owner of th at poem may object vehemently to its use in a pornographic magazine, perhaps, or may feel that having it read on the radio would cheapen it. It's that author's right to restrict distribution - it's why you need "express written permission" to reproduce anything.
As for the mural example, you actually tripped yourself up. Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative. That's how museums make their money. You'd essentially be making your house a museum.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
Well, legally no, but morally I think the answer to all of these (except the last, which is a matter of giving credit not distribution) should be yes. There is really no significant difference between these and telling my friends the poem, and it only seems like there should be because we are used to the law being set up that way. The law should be changed accordingly.
quote:Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative.
That's exactly right, and that's what musicians did for years, more or less. The only thing that changed is that the internet essentially made their "curtain" see-through.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise. At least not without the express permission of the owner... and, quite often, not until you pay the owner some form of royalty or license fee.
It's not a matter of credit. You are benefiting from their product, and they are not. You are essentially getting something out of their work without passing that benefit along to its rightful ownder.
As for the curtain analogy, when it becomes transparent it's time to find a new type of curtain - not time to take it down. When your clothes get holes, it's time to buy new clothes... not say "oh well, I guess I'll just go naked".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise.
It always comes down to this. I say yes we do have these rights (as evidenced by the fact we can share it with friends in various situations that are equivalent), and someone else says no we don't (and hence claims that those situations are in someway different from these other situations). Then I ask why we don't if we are allowed to share in the situations I gave. Then a bunch of differences (it's on a small scale, or there isn't any physical copying going on, etc.) are given and I claim those differences aren't significant to the issue. Then we get stuck.
So, I'm not sure where to go from here. The problem is that we don't have any fundamental, agreed-upon rules from which to argue about ethics.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla asked: "Can you copy songs onto your computer from internet radio stations? If so, why not just do that?"
Yes, you can. However, one of our radio stations had an explanation for why they could no longer afford to stream their station on the Internet. It had something to do with the record companies, and copyright laws. They took it off their site, dagnabbit.
Also, I have mentioned this before, but there are bands who ENCOURAGE trading of their live music. They allow tapers to tape their live shows, and they are OK with people distributing them using a SHn format, Bitstream, and another one I can't remember.
My husband trades live music. He has a lot. He never copies the studio cds, and we always buy cds of the bands we like. Plus, we pay thirty bucks to go see our favorite band, whom we found due to someone giving us a cd. Thus, the band makes a whole heck of a lot money on us by letting us trade their live music, because we want to see them live.
It is interesting, because the first reaction people have when I give them cds is, cool, I am going to buy one of their studio cds, which one do you suggest?
These are mostly jam bands, but heck, they are making out very well on this process. I am sure the big labels don't allow it, though.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really? There are an awful lot of things that are okay (or forgiven) when done on a small scale that are definitely not okay when done on a massive scale.
I'm not even arguing this on a legal basis, even thhough the law currently favors my position. I'm arguing it on an ethical one. The artist did the work, they deserve the benefits. You did not create the work, you don't. Passing it around to a few friends acts more like advertising for the artist, nothing works better than word of mouth. Using it in your own work, or putting it where anyone in the world can get it for free benefits everyone except the person who created it. How is this fair? How is this just?
[ September 14, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Wheatpuppet) I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
First, I have no problem with people who admit they're stealing. I can deal with an honest crook. It's the justification to make it seem okay that bugs me. And I'm not blind to the advantages that listening to music first does for you and the music company. My point was that I didn't care, because not everyone has your integrity. We can't legislate just for the people who play fair.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really?
No, I don't think there is. For one thing, once my friend has it, he can tell it to his friends, who can tell it to their friends, and so on until millions of people have heard it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it will lose something in the telling. And your intent was to tell it to a friend. A personal thing, that despite your speculation will likely not affect the artist's income. Making it available to the world - and I mean that literally - provides a perfect copy of the original, with the intent to make it unnecessary to buy.
I believe we've danced this dance before, with the same outcome. I strongly suspect that copyright laws will change in the next 20 years, if only because enforcing them may become impossible. But I have to wonder what will happen when all art, all music, all writing, all movie-making becomes work-for-hire. And I don't know that I would want to continue writing if I had no rights over how they were presented and distributed.
If you can come up with a way to make sure that what I create stays intact and correctly attributed, I can bend on the rights for distribution. Otherwise, not a chance in hell.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because this whole debate pisses me off...
So, Tresopax, if you spent, say, $100,000 recording an album in a studio and then I took the CD, put it on Kazaa and millions of people downloaded it but no one bought it, you'd go "La la la. How wonderful! All this sharing with friends!"
Or would you say, "Bloody hell, how am I going to pay for the studio costs now that everyone already has the music?!?!"
If you read this and say, "Wow, what a stupid and simplistic example" then you'd be right. It's almost as stupid and simplistic as your entire argument.
DISTRIBUTING MILLIONS OF DIGITAL REPLICAS OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS READING A FEW FRIENDS A POEM.
Maybe file sharing should be legal, at the moment it's not. Grow up, accept responsibility for what you're doing and get off your bloody high horse.
Done like a dinner.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Really, your argument has no sense of degree. What's the difference between telling someone a song and making it available instantly for countless millions? About the same as getting a splinter in your chest and having a spear rammed through it. Or possibly getting a friendly jab in the arm from a buddy and getting an uppercut from Lennox Lewis.
Telling someone a poem, or creating a mix tape for a girlfriend, or photocopying an album cover for your wall is all pretty much in that "fair use" domain, I'd imagine. Then again, I'm totally talking out of my butt when it comes to actual legal matters regarding copyright.
When you put something up on the internet for free downloads and copying, you are, whether you like it or not, becoming a distributer. You are performing the same role as the record company, or publishing company, or art gallery, but you are doing it without permission and not charging anything for it. More importantly, you're not giving anything back to the artist, or even asking their permission.
Some artists are cool with free distribution. Others are not. It's not your decision, though... it's theirs.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not file sharing is stealing is not an issue where degree should matter, though. To say telling a friend a poem is fine whereas sharing a song file with strangers is stealing, is like saying stealing a warehouse full of toys is stealing but just shoplifting one is perfectly fine - on the grounds that the store would not be hurt by losing just one.
If we are talking about degree, you could make the argument that both sharing the poem and the mp3 are stealing, but that sharing the mp3 is stealing to a greater degree - slightly stealing you might say. The problem is, sharing a poem with a friend is not "slightly stealing" or anything like that. It is not stealing at all.
Ethics,
If I were in that situation, I'd probably respond much closer to the first case than the second. Most likely I'd say "Yes, they like me! Now how do I make a profit?" If I can produce music that millions of people will bother to download, I'm quite the success as a musician. I'd probably be famous enough to do well at concerts, with merchandise sales, etc. I'd much prefer to have the immediate CD sales to pay for the recording too (and this would probably lead to inferior recordings), but I believe those are just the rules of the game.
But at least give me this man.... You really needed that head-into-wall smiley they just added. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, technically, it's performing without permission...
Everything is a matter of degree. Everything. Especially when it comes to the law. If you stole a dollar from me you would have committed a crime, but it's probably not worth my time trying to track you down to punish you for it. If you posted my bank number and PIN on the Internet you have made it possible for anyone at all to steal from me, and even you might agree that there's a crime that needs stopping.
Degree is everything in law, and in punishment.
Please listen to me. I'll type slowly. When you recite a poem for a friend, it's technically distributing it without permission. BUT, on that small scale it operates more as advertising for the works of the author. Unless you are capable of reciting everything the author did, if your friend enjoyed the poem you recited he would have to go buy the author's works to get more of the same. If you stick it online and someone reads it and likes it, it is entirely possible that thanks to other filesharers he can go right ahead and download everything the author wrote, for free. Right now it is possible to get nearly every book OSC ever wrote, in text format, without paying him a dime. Tell me, how long do you think he'd be able to keep writing were this to continue?
You have offered no method of paying him. I don't see him going on tour and selling t-shirts. You have offered no method of ensuring that his works remain unaltered, or that his name stay on them.
You have, in short, offered nothing but the belief that you should be able to enjoy the work produced without paying for it, and you seem remakably resistant to the notion that this might hurt the artist and prevent him from creating more art.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize it could hurt the artists and harm their ability to produce more works, but I can't change what I think a person can and cannot do with music just to help the artists, any more than I could change my views to help consumers get music cheaper. The parameters are what they are, whether its harsh or not, and we have to work around them. Somehow we have to figure out how to get authors paid knowing their works can be shared as files. I'm not too worried because I think few people want to read books on their computer screens. I'm more worried about the gaming industry and what this could mean for them.
Finally. "I know it's going to screw artists but I don't care. All I care about is getting stuff for free." Nice one, bruva.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that wasn't at all what I said if you'll give me a fair reading. I said I know it could screw the artists, but that's the way it is and we have to accept it. I said nothing about wanting to get something for free, which doesn't factor into it any more than the wants of the artists do. It's just a matter of the reality of what people are and are not entitled to do.
The fact is, sometimes people are entitled to do things that could screw over other people to some degree or another in some way. Fortunately, I think we can find plenty of ways to minimize the damage in this case.
posted
So, what you're telling me is that you think file sharing screws artists, but rather than try to work out ways to prevent it from screwing artists, you want to change the laws so that the artists won't be being screwed legally anymore?
posted
No, I think file sharing sometimes screws artists somewhat and I would love to find ways to prevent it from screwing them, but I also think it is something people are entitled to do regardless and hence the law should be put in agreement with that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda like Drake and Morgan ripping off the immorally-but-legally thieving&murdering conquistadores: the worst part was that the privateers didn't sink all of the Spanish shipping.
posted
It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
posted
How is that comparable? We don't pay for the TV shows, the advertisers do. And they know they're taking a chance that no one will watch or remember their ads. But the people who made the show you're watching got paid.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They only got paid because many viewers did not exercise their right to change the channel and paid for the program they were watching in ad-watching time. Had they all started not watching ads, the advertisers would stop paying the networks and the creators of the TV programs would not be paid - they would be screwed over by viewers trying to get TV without ads. That was the whole issue with TiVo.
Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've not read this entire thread yet so this may have been covered. If so I apologize.
This follows along with 'ownership', music etc....
Karaoke. Thsi medium was created for the sole urpose of allowing others to sing along/perform without vocals from the original recordings. You bought the CD with the musical score YET, according to the RIAA/Labels etc, you cannot play this without paying then yet again, and again, and again.... where does that end? Is that more morally right than file sharing? They got paid for their product for petes sake. Yet they want to keep on geting paid. and paid, and paid from the very same copy you already paid for. Doesn't the fact that you paid for it in the first polace give you license to use it as intended? Since this IS the sole purpose of what you bought the CD for AND the labels know this, put it out with that very intention.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: by Tresopax It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
There was an interview some time ago by one of the head honcho's at Turner maybe 2 years ago that hit on this very thing. According to this guy, when you skip commercials you are stealing content and he wants something done to 'those thieves'. Very militant guy that was.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
But that ratio is changing, which is the whole problem. The theme of your posts seems to be that as long as at least someone is still paying for music, you shouldn't have to.
quote:The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Ah. Well, that explains it. I don't agree with this. It may sometimes be necessary to do something that screws someone else over to some degree, it might be convenient, it might even be untraceable or unstoppable, but I do not believe that you are in any way, shape or form entitled to do so. That, to me, smacks of offensive arrogance and disrespect for others.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
If an advertising agency buys space on a billboard, I am not required to stop my car and look at it. All that has happened is that the ad agency paid the owners of the billboard so they can place their ad there, in the hopes that I might look at it and consider them favorably when I'm out shopping. That's all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you're basically arguing for your right to screw people over is somewhat amusing. If it weren't so frightening that so many others feel the same way you do.
And that's the real problem. If you said to me, "I don't care if I screw over artists", that's fine. It's one person. But when ten, and a hundred, and then several million people say to themselves "it's okay to screw over artists"... well, then the artists get fed up of being screwed all the time... or they end up not being able to create anything anymore.
The ratio *is* changing. More and more people are feeling that it's okay to download *anything* for free. Hey, it's on the interent, it should be public domain, right? Wrong. That's like saying "it's in a magazine, it's public domain" or "it's on television, it's public domain" or claim any other information transferrence medium becomes public domain.
As for your comment about people not wanting to read books on a computer... eBooks are becoming more and more popular... as are eBook readers that are roughly the size of a hardcover. They're basically the literary version of mp3 players... and they will usher in a new era of stealing from artists, and this time from artists who *don't* have the money to spare.
---
No, the law should not be changed to accommodate those who feel it's their right to screw other people over. There should be *more laws* to *prevent* those people from screwing over anyone they feel like. Such as the laws that protect people from fraud. Or from theft. Or from any number of other things. Just because thieves think it's their right to screw over the little guy, that doesn't mean it is... or that it should be.
You're promoting anarchy, you realize. Anyone who wants to do something can - the laws be damned. Again, laws only keep the honest people honest... the dishonest and unethical don't care one whit about them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand Flying Cow. (I really don't, I'm not being stupidly sarcastic, as I very often and against my will end up doing) I don't understand what you mean by saying that published works on the net aren't public - for the taking, in other words If someone downloaded music or a poem from the net and then claimed that they had made it, then that's grounds for a lawsuit. I apologize if I'm missing the obvious Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
If someone decides they WANT something they wrote to be available online, THEY can make that choice and post / distribute it online. Kinda of like the way people can't sleep in your house without your permission...
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, if you're talking about things published exclusively online - like an article for an online zine - then yes, they are available free of charge. But if the person asserts their copyright on that article, then you can't publish it on your website.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just butting in and pointing out that the public domain and being available in public are two very very different things.
The only (major) ways a work can go into the public domain are if it is a government report (this is more specific a category than it sounds), if the copyright holder(s) place it in the public domain, if the copyright expires, or if a court orders it put in the public domain.
The public domain is a free for all zone. You can do whatever you want to with a public domain work. Absolutely whatever (though if some of the elements of the work are subject to other intellectual property laws, such as trademark, you have to be a little careful: you can still use them, but your ability to make derivatives is restricted by the trademark or other right).
For instance, if the Bono copyright act had not passed, Steamboat Willey (a very early Mickey Mouse-esque cartoon by Disney) would be in the public domain. One would be able to make copies of that work, distribute copies of that work, and generally do whatever one wanted with characters in that work. The one exception would be with certain likenesses of the main character (and this would only apply for derivatives, not for distribution of original in whole or in part), because those likenesses are near enough the likeness of Mickey Mouse to infringe on Disney's trademark.
Putting something up in public implies no right to distribute a work (except those ephemeral "copies" implied by the method of distribution, such as at caching servers).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
Back to my question, apply that to Karaoke CDs. Those are made with the express purpose of putting it out in 'public domain' so to speak. Yet the Labels want to continue charging for it ad infinitum.
They (the labels/RIAA et al) want their cake and to eat it to and screw us, the consumer out of every penny. Their hands aren't exactly clean here either. Two times that *I* know of they've been caught with their hands in the price fixing cookie jar. That doesn't justify 'stealing', but it does at times make it understandable why the attitude of today is so prevalent.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, karaoke CDs do not put the music in public domain.
The publishers of those CDs pay license fees to the copyright holders to use the songs. The reason the RIAA asks for a continuous license is because the purchase by the end-user (say, a bar) generates income for that user. It's essentially a royalty fee.
posted
I'm not a bar nor do I make any money yet I'm expected to continue paying the RIAA/Label.
Royalty fees my big toe when one doesn't garner income from it. Just a way for them to squeeze people more.
Bars don't generate true income from it either. Not in the sense they are charging customers to listen like the 'stars' do in concerts.
If that were the case then there could be NO music in bars, stores, or anywhere else because stores make money from sales of things other than music. The business of a bar isn't to provide music. Its to provide a drinking/socializing atmosphere. Bars have TV's but you don't see the NFL suing bars for having Monday Night Football on.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Bookwyrm, you might want to read the fine print at the end of Monday Night Football, or listen to what the announcers say very quickly near the end:
"Reproduction or rebroadcast of tonight's Monday Night football without the express written consent of (insert both team names here), the National Football League, Monday Night Football and ABC is strictly forbidden."
And they will sue, all of them. That's why you never see Sports Bars touting "Come and watch the greatest football games of all time!" Also, most of the chain sports bars actually do pay a licensing fee to show those broadcasts since they are done for promotional purposes. The local mom and pops sports bars often aren't hunted down and asked for payments, but there are lawyers who do travel from town to town explaining the situation and leaving a bill behind.
And yes, they do that with music, too. Generally it's done by ASCAP, a songwriters/producers association. That's why so many places, especially chain stores, use Muzak or their own broadcasting. The rights are covered by the fees they pay to Muzak or to their own "in store radio station."
A retail store or restaurant can be hit by ASCAP (and have it stand up in court) for simply playing open broadcast radio from the local AM/FM station where their customers can hear it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet another sign of how well the RIAA checks it's facts before suing people:
quote:Six record labels including Sony, BMG and Virgin have withdrawn a $300m lawsuit against a 66-year old woman sculptor who, it turns out, has never used file sharing software.
The RIAA said Sarah Ward was sharing 2,000 songs through the KaZaA P2P network exposing her, at $150,000 per offense, to $300,000,000 in penalties. But not only had she never downloaded a song, but as a a Macintosh user, she couldn't even run the KaZaA software, which only runs on Windows.
With characteristic bad grace, attorneys for the RIAA members reserved the right to harass the woman in future:
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," wrote Colin Zick, attorney for the record labels, the Boston Globe reports.
Having attacked naval cadets, students, young children and now innocent senior citizens, the music business appears not to fear the consequences of its litigation. However, it can't afford too many more cases of mistaken identity.
Good thing they "caught" her sharing files on Kazaa...
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article didn't say. One guess is that the ISP may have screwed up the identity of the person using the IP at that time.
Other than that, I know that they've got bots that they've used in the past to scour servers for possible (as in any word contains something from a title that they own), and they got beserk without checking it out first (there was a school that owned a title that the RIAA told them to delete).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
