Re: MD: MD trading
Here is the act in question http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html See section 1008 which says SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html Youse guys can bitch all you want to but it don't change the law, and the big buck recording companies weren't able to push it down our throats either. In all the time I have had a minidisc recorder, I have copied one, CD that I didn't own. Most of the stuff I record is from the radio, jam sessions, concerts that I have permission, practice sessions, or my own gigs. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * "Sydtech" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 27 Dec 1999 | Pirates are what gives the record companies the cold sweats. | True "tape traders" (or whatever the format) trade boots, NOT pirate copies | of stuff that's available. As I said before, I am not a lawer, but I figure that whoever owns the rights to the live performance owns the rights to recordings made of the performance. At the very least, the performer himself probably owns the rights to his own performance. So, I figure that if you do not have his permission to distribute copies of recordings of his performance, you do not have permission to distribute copies of recordings of his performance. But you would have to ask a copyright lawyer whether or not a live performance qualifies as being "tangible" under law. Anyway, the original poster was asking about "trading" MD copies of commercially released CDs, which is piracy. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4aBZJgl+vIlSVSNkRAhhkAKCp6UfcUYgafnZfNskn7dNfFt10nACdG0CZ goG/EIR19NeHocZZtOYdK+Q= =qFqJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
It works the other way too Jeff. I've bought CDs in the past because I've borrowed and copied the artist's work from a friend then grown to love the tunes. Word of mouth (or word of MD-recorder) is possibly the best recommendation for a new artist. Just a thought. - Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 2:46 AM Subject: Re: MD: MD Trading Nobody is hurt if you weren't gonna buy the material anyway. Many of the CDs in my collection are of music that I decided to buy long -- sometimes years -- after first hearing it; if a friend had given me a bootleg copy of any of those recordimgs, I'd not have bought it so long afterward. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:52:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the act in question http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html See section 1008 which says SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html Youse guys can bitch all you want to but it don't change the law, and the big buck recording companies weren't able to push it down our throats either. Surely this is where you've shot your own argument in the foot? When is obtaining a piece of commercially available, copyrighted material not a commercial endeavour? When do they start giving it away for free? Where does it give you, or anybody else the right to obtain copyright material without owning a legitimate copy? Surely all this means is that if you have a CD player, a MD player, an MP3 player, a tape player, you don't have to purchase several versions of the copyright material, you can simply purchase one, and use your various other formats to record this copyright material for your own, non-commercial use? Where does it say you can pirate it offa friend who happens to have a copy? Where would you draw the line? Say a small town with 1000 or so "friends" living in it, they'd only have to purchase one legitmate copy between the whole town, and the rest could just pirate it for free, so long as there was no money changing hands? Surely you can't be trying to say this sort of thing is allowed by this? I'll repeat surely every time you obtain a piece of copyright material it is a commercial endeavour, unless you're breaching the copyright, or simply copying it to another format so you can still use it on other platforms. In all the time I have had a minidisc recorder, I have copied one, CD that I didn't own. Most of the stuff I record is from the radio, jam sessions, concerts that I have permission, practice sessions, or my own gigs. It has to be said, that in all of this, I just think people are reading into this things they wanna hear. Specifics from generalities, that probably came about to pre-empt those with greed attempting to make punters by multiple copies... Once again, what does it say in the copyright notice on any of your prerecorded CDs or whatever you use? Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html Youse guys can bitch all you want to but it don't change the law, You're right. The law, however, says you may distribute the *medium*; it does not say you may distribute the *content*. Folks, trust me. I deal with these issues daily. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
- Original Message - From: goobster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:46 AM Subject: Re: MD: MD Trading Let's look at reality: please cite a single case (documented, so we can all look it up) when law enforcement could prove copyright violation without defining it as an intent of making of profit from copying a work of art (CD, etc), be my guest. I have not looked for them yet, but I know there are a number of cases involving just this, most noticeably the recent cases where Fox proceeded to have numerous internet sites shut down, despite the fact they were non-commercial fan sites, relating to it's TV series X-Files. Fox went as far as to threaten court action in these cases, and I'm sure I remember a case where Fox prosecuted somebody for distributing free copies of the X-Files theme music which had been recorded from one of it's videos. I am not sure where I can get copies of these cases, as I have yet to find them on the net (other than the individuals concerned own accounts on web sites) and I do not have direct access to various establishments in the US which would allow me to gain access to this information. As I was one of the people whom Fox contacted relating to the closure of an X-Files fan site I had, I may still have the letter they sent, in which case I could scan this and upload it - assuming I can find it in the attic. If the laws in this country did not prohibit me from doing so, I would also post the minutes of a court case I was involved in where I sued somebody for swapping copies of a recording of my band in exchange for "rare recordings of popular artists". Whilst the distribution of these discs may have been beneficial to the band for getting them well known, I resented the action because the person concerned was getting a lot of recordings which I would have liked myself, was making a recording freely available which my band had just paid £500 to have duplicated from our master copy with the intention of selling them, and was also passing our band off as something we are not (he claimed we were a "rare band of international acclaim"). What I hated most of all was that I had been the one working my guts off on stage to make this recording a really good one, and then we would not make a penny from it because this "person" had dished copies out. At the moment we are now a non-performing band because the money we wasted on CDs resulted in us not having the funds to replace the damaged P.A. equipment which has now given up on us and is uneconomical to repair. Almost all the people who were going to buy the CD have got a copy "from a friend". Maybe that is why I resent piracy so much, but even so, it is still illegal. My personal feelings make me think that I would like to see the so-called "people" who claim copying CDs doesn't hurt anyone lined up on death-row, but that would go against my beliefs. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
I have been sitting silently here reading all of the posts and "interpretations" regarding the AHRA, copywrite, ethics and such. It has been quite an interesting little thread. I have read some more intelligent posts, great BS posts, and down right idiotic posts. We have not yet heard from any lawyers yet, which may be quite interesting, but I thought I would give a little insight from the "other" side of things. Not an artist, not a huge record company, but the "middle" man. An independant studio. I have done the actual recording for quite a few artists. Some bigger ones, alot of "no-names". I will not give any names because they are irrelevant to the conversation. == First things first: The AHRA and copywright laws are written to be interpretted either way. Most laws are. But in reality, they will be used against any individual who violates them. You can argue that the AHRA gives you the "right" to copy, blah, blah, blah... and maybe it does. The copywright laws however, do not. If I copy a CD that I borrowed, I am in violation. Will I be sued, no. If I set up a trading ring to trade pirated copies (that is what an illegal copy is), will I get sued? Maybe, if I get noticed. If I am discovered, I most definitely will get legal notice to stop. Whether they go so far as to sue me is a matter of money. Don'y forget, they don't pay legal fees, you do. Any judge will most likely side with the copywright holder. As for it being "commercial" and such, it is simple. You did gain when you received something in return. That is a gain. A blank, another recording, ANYTHING! Again, if it is pushed to court, you will lose. So it is illegal. But so is driving 56 MPH in a 55 MPH speed zone. Most of the time, no one cares - including the police officer. Lets talk about bootlegs. Recording a bootleg (the actual process of recording the source show) is not illegal at all. It may be prohibited at the venue that the artist is playing at, but it is legal to do so. Distributing it is illegal, however. If it is done for profit, expect to have a possible lawsuit. Again, trading those shows is most of the time ignored. Get an artist who cares, and the legal notices start. The key words in both these instances is distribution. That is what draws the attention. === Next I would like to address "Magic": I have not looked for them yet, but I know there are a number of cases involving just this, most noticeably the recent cases where Fox proceeded to have numerous internet sites shut down, despite the fact they were non-commercial fan sites, relating to it's TV series X-Files. Fox went as far as to threaten court action in these cases, and I'm sure I remember a case where Fox prosecuted somebody for distributing free copies of the What does this have to do with the AHRA? If the laws in this country did not prohibit me from doing so, I would also post the minutes of a court case I was involved in where I sued somebody for swapping copies of a recording of my band in exchange for "rare recordings of popular artists". Whilst the distribution of these discs may have been beneficial to the band for getting them well known, I resented the action because the person concerned was getting a lot of recordings which I would have liked myself, was making a recording freely available which my band had just paid £500 to have duplicated from our master copy with the intention of selling them, and was also passing our band off as something we are not (he claimed we were a "rare band of international acclaim"). What I hated most of all was that I had been the one working my guts off on stage to make this recording a really good one, and then we would not make a penny from it because this "person" had dished copies out. At the moment we are now a non-performing band because the money we wasted on CDs resulted in us not having the funds to replace the damaged P.A. equipment which has now given up on us and is uneconomical to repair. Almost all the people who were going to buy the CD have got a copy "from a friend". Maybe that is why I resent piracy so much, but even so, it is still illegal. My personal feelings make me think that I would like to see the so-called "people" who claim copying CDs doesn't hurt anyone lined up on death-row, but that would go against my beliefs. Hmm, touching story. The laws do allow you to post the final judgement, however. You can also post the case number publically. I would like to see this very information. Why you ask? Because I doubt you. You sound like you want to blame someone for the fact that you made a few CDs and tried to make it big, but it did not go anywhere. You act as though those few copies, that the person traded away, is the cause of the failure. Please do not interpret this as me insulting you by calling you a failure or anything,
Re: MD: MD Trading
An X-Files fan site shut down by FOX was mentioned here. FYI, the case was won by FOX based on the concept of "trademark dilution" (a very valid concern), not on copyright issues per se. It had to do with the context where copyrighted work was used, and with the "message" that could be interpreted differently from the "message" contained in the series and the official web site. Again, you might hear about an mp3 server shut down by an ISP for mp3 files trafficking, but it's more than likely a preemptive action on the part of an ISP who are wary of *possible* legal action against them. In general, undercover agents approach traders with an intent to *buy* a copy of a work of art, only then the arrest could be made. In case of doubt, read KW Jeter "Noir". It includes a rather graphic description of an arrest of a copyright violator. __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking anything from anyone when you trade an MD. It's been pointed out to you (several times) that that's *exactly* what's happening. You're taking property from someone who hasn't authorized you can do so. You can rave and scream -- misinterpreting both laws and and the constitution to your heart's content -- but you can't change this. for creativity. People use and build on each others' ideas all the time in the U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes creativity, freedom and economic growth. What promotes creativity is the artists' ability to actually make a living from their work. In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas. That's something else that's been claimed several times in this discussion. . .and it's been refuted every time. In fact, it's not grey at all; it's quite clear. Keep claiming it, though, and maybe you can *make* it so. It is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry. All the edges are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal is. On the contrary, copyright law is quite clear in this regard; you may make a recording for your own personal use, but you may not transfer it. Nowhere does it say, "unless you want to." As I mentioned above, the issue has very often been resolved in favor of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free flow of information and ideas. That's the way our Constitution was meant to be construed. . . .And in this case, it's clearly on the side of the individual person whose work you're stealing. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
| The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down | by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or | the United States Constitution. See below. All of which was superceded by the Copyright Act of 1976, better known internationally as the Berne Agreements, which is explicitly clear as to what you are allowed to copy. The AHRA is a clarification of and extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. Well, the Constitution was not (and cannot be) superceded by any mere law, but Steve's interprtation of that document is not one that's likely to be accepted by any court hearing a copyright case. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
- Original Message - From: Sydtech [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 5:26 AM Subject: Re: MD: MD trading A small point of clarification: "Trading" traditionally refers to people *trading* (i.e. not selling) bootlegs of unreleased recordings, usually concerts but often demos, etc. This is a lot different than "pirating", which is someone duping one (or more) copies of a commercially available recording and giving/trading/selling it. Trading is just the act of swapping one thing for another. The "trading" referred to on the newsgroup or on this list is usually of pirated material. The scale of the act does not make it any more legal, it just makes it not worth the industries time persuing. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD Trading
After following the thread for a little while I thought to chime in. While I'm not a lawyer (and from what I gather, neither is anyone who's commented on this is, either), I've done a little searching on this slow day at work. From the RIAA homepage (http://www.riaa.com/musicleg/ml_ol.htm): --- Audio Home Recording Act This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use and eases access to advanced digital audio recording technologies. --- And from the minidisc homepage (http://www.minidisc.org/ahra.html) : --- RIAA Clarifies the Legality of Home Audio Recording The following is a part of a reply from http://www.soundbyting.com (a Recording Industry Association of America site) to those who enquired whether non-commercial copying of CDs to MD constituted copyright infringement. ...Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit. The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as general computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they do not pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means that neither the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement. In summary: You cannot be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies with AHRA covered devices (e.g. MD and DAT recorders). --- The hurdle to winning the argument that trades are legal (and not infringement on copyright) would be to convincingly define a trade as a "noncommercial" exchange. While I couldn't find the governmental legal definition of "noncommercial," I know I've read somewhere of the argment that trades in kind are considered noncommercial. This assumes that it is a product for product with neither parties coming out ahead--i.e. profiting--from the exchange. Should I have more time today I'll look into it. __ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer 860.409.2612 McGraw-Hill Technology Division Farmington, CT mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Oh, mi mala vida! - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
From: Magic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trading is just the act of swapping one thing for another. The "trading" referred to on the newsgroup or on this list is usually of pirated material. The scale of the act does not make it any more legal, it just makes it not worth the industries time persuing. You didn't read my email. Pirated = copies of commercially released stuff, usually done on a mass scale. Bootleg = copies of material not commercially available, usually concerts Pirates are what gives the record companies the cold sweats. True "tape traders" (or whatever the format) trade boots, NOT pirate copies of stuff that's available. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 27 Dec 1999 | All of which was superceded by the Copyright Act of 1976, better known | internationally as the Berne Agreements, which is explicitly clear as to | what you are allowed to copy. The AHRA is a clarification of and extension | to the Copyright Act of 1976. Nit-pick on myself. The Copyright Act does not supercede the Constitution, but the previous body of copyright law which was written as a specific incarnation (for lack of a better word) of the ideals set down in the Constitution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4aBbogl+vIlSVSNkRAoC2AKDixr1MNTAu2wC7S79wmSYdzWJ2+wCg6lub 456VKt/WZO81k7eEOuIwNNE= =dqeV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * "J. Coon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 27 Dec 1999 | or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or ^^^ | medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical | recordings. That one word "use" is probably the most significant word in the entire phrase. "Use" and distribution (or redistribution) are *NOT* synonymous in the eyes of the law and never have been. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4aBfogl+vIlSVSNkRAoGoAKCQ5bZ1eNlxl39T5rAXtva1m3uKVQCeJoTe k+VruJXIBeqLCVQroWsklAM= =czIq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
Wow, you backed me up on something (the Constitution cannot be superseded by any law), in a sort of back-handed way, but cool! I liked your post about free speech in the U.S.A., too. I see an intellectual honesty I didn't expect. To Jeff and those who share his point of view, what I described really is what our founding fathers were considering and writing about when drafting the Constitution. The intellectual property rights were meant to be exceptions, the general idea was information was to be freely disseminated and free and copied as often as possible, more freely than in any other society in human history, with only extraordinary efforts being protected by patents and less extraordinary but significant efforts being protected under what has become copyright law. It's part of the freedom of being an American. Letting information and arts flow freely promotes economic strength and forestalls tyranny. There's a trade-off between having people be able sue someone else (which would require the legal machinery of the federal government) for using any thought they may have expressed or used and allowing people to exchange information (for example, freedom of speech) without fear of interference or prosecution by the federal government. In the U.S., we've struck a balance decidedly toward information and ideas being expressed and disseminated as freely and openly as possible, with a consequence that intellectual property rights are not always cut and dry, and are a little less protected than you might think. In the U.S., we let wackos carry guns, we let hate groups babble on incessantly, and we let home MD users record CDs they don't own. The first two are obviously unethical, you think the third is unethical and I don't. But all three are legal in the U.S. (unless the wacko has a criminal record or something). As a practical matter, I just don't see the harm unless you are pushing someone else's music as a commercial product and generating a revenue stream, while you see harm in revenues foregone by those who own the intellectual property rights but have people listening to their music for free. You think of it as stealing, which I think is preachy and harsh and conceptually incorrect, but I understand where you're coming from. It would be very tough to prosecute someone criminally in this country based on such speculative harm. Now if you're selling minidiscs you made of a CD (whether you owned the CD or not) on the street corner or on e-bay, bang-zoom you're outta there, and in for a hefty fine at the very least. That's commercial use. It's not a matter of if you owned the CD etc. you recorded to MD, it's a matter of what you do with the MDs you recorded. Is trading an MD with your good friend commercial use? I don't think so. But it's a grey area, I admit. In all honesty, I think your being troubled by home recording of CDs that people don't own themselves is understandable and is principled. It's just not the balance we have chosen in the U.S. and the reasons are rooted in our Constitution and in our history. We've chosen to let the music flow like wine. The results have been incredible. Enjoy!!! As a general rule, in the U.S., not until someone is very clearly making a buck off of someone else's music, in a very concrete way, does it become illegal. After all, copyright infringement may be prosecuted as a crime, and the legal standards for proving a crime are usually quite high in this country, since we don't want the government to be able to prosecute willy nilly every hate-mongerer or home recordist. We prefer to be free. We don't want the government snooping around in our minidiscs. ; ) At least that's the way I see it. Believe me, these are far from original ideas, they are just high-tech manifestations of ideas which had their incipiency over 234 years ago, and they've changed the world. In my experience, the views I have expressed are pretty common fodder in scholarly legal circles. Perhaps, when you come to terms with the literal, clear meaning of the AHRA, you will be less astonished now. BUT I DOUBT IT ; ) Regards to the list, Steve On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 07:32:05 +6, in you wrote: | The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down | by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or | the United States Constitution. See below. All of which was superceded by the Copyright Act of 1976, better known internationally as the Berne Agreements, which is explicitly clear as to what you are allowed to copy. The AHRA is a clarification of and extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. Wow!!! Thanks Jeff!!! (for the following:) Well, the Constitution was not (and cannot be) superceded by any mere law, but Steve's interprtation of that document is not one that's likely to be accepted by any court hearing a copyright case. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
Re: MD: MD Trading
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. --- Okay, clarification is needed for some (let's shorten the definition): No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on [...] the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. --- The word "non-commercial" is more than likely to mean "not intended for making a profit", and the rest of AHRA deals with explicit prohibition on making a copy and using it for making a profit without an explicit permission of the copyright holder (who in that case is entitled to royalties). Let's look at reality: please cite a single case (documented, so we can all look it up) when law enforcement could prove copyright violation without defining it as an intent of making of profit from copying a work of art (CD, etc), be my guest. __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * goobster [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 27 Dec 1999 | analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial | use by a consumer of such a device or medium for "use" means use, not distribution or redistribution. 'nuff said. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4aEs+gl+vIlSVSNkRAj5OAJ91zYz3ZpWfuudqtHyvjf5WTAt8BwCgvVkV PnKrAUyCIr/CwQhWJ0Vch1s= =1cuH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD Trading
"Thomas, Ferris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The hurdle to winning the argument that trades are legal (and not infringement on copyright) would be to convincingly define a trade as a "noncommercial" exchange... This assumes that it is a product for product with neither parties coming out ahead--i.e. profiting--from the exchange. By that argument, it would be acceptable only if I gave you all copies of an album so that I did not have a copy in my possession, and you gave me all copies of another album. In that scenario neither party comes out ahead and/or profits. However, when I give you a copy of an album and you give me a copy of an album, we both come out ahead because we both have an original album and a copy of another album. So we both now have two albums whereas before we only had one each. That's "coming out ahead" and profiting in my book grin - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
We're not talking about bootlegging CDs by the tens or hundreds of thousands, just you and a mate helping each other out. So it's OK for me to steal your car, as long as I only drive for a few miles? = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | Nobody is hurt if you weren't gonna buy the material anyway. Indeed you're | helping all the peeps who work for blank media manufacturers [Gaz thinks | this is a intenable position to maintain but does so anyway!] I wasn't going to buy your shareware anyway, becuase you are charging a ridiculous price for something that costs next to nothing to manufacture. Diskettes and CD-R blanks are cheap, after all, and I am helping the media industry by buying them instead of your software, right? And I am not hurting you at all, am I? Hypocrite. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4Zkt7gl+vIlSVSNkRAu6yAJ42+2XsCif67J96gYVzJYJJAuBqlwCfS59a Yln9481BjlzYTuT7GjmqBbM= =Gco0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | Nobody is hurt if you weren't gonna buy the material anyway. Indeed you're | helping all the peeps who work for blank media manufacturers [Gaz thinks | this is a intenable position to maintain but does so anyway!] I wasn't going to buy your shareware anyway, becuase you are charging a ridiculous price for something that costs next to nothing to manufacture. Diskettes and CD-R blanks are cheap, after all, and I am helping the media industry by buying them instead of your software, right? And I am not hurting you at all, am I? Hypocrite. By copying stuff you would never have bought I would say you are harming none. If some guy copied my shareware games who would never have paid the registration fee anyway, I've lost nothing and actually helped make the world a better place. You can't argue with that!? Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "Blessed Be." - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD trading
Yes, ethics matter. But copying a friend's CD is not unethical. And in the United States, it's not even illegal. You may wish to re-read the AHRA - it allows copies of works *you* have bought, not anyone else. The idea is that it's "reasonable" to let someone take a copy of something they've bought and put it onto another medium (be it MD, CDR, tape, whatever) for their personal use. The idea is that you're not ripping anyone off because you're not using both copies at once - it'd be unreasonable to expect someone to re-buy their music on MD. It doesn't give you the right to copy stuff bought by others. In effect, the AHRA extends your rights to be able to tranfer recordings between mediums for *your* use. Simon Have a great xmas everyone - I'm just taking 10 mins off to get away from my grandparents after dinner :p - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
C'mon guys, this is a MiniDisc list. We've all got minidisc stuff and I bet 99% of you have used it for unauthorised recordings. If we really want to enter the silly season Unauthorized doesn't mean copying borrowed material. When you purchase a CD in the United States, you become the owner of that copied piece of material, and inherit a certain limited set of rights with it. You are allowed under the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) to make a copy of a CD which you have legally purchased for personal use. Personal use doesn't mean non-commercial, it means PERSONAL. That is, you are allowed to listen to it and are not permitted to give it away. Count me as part of the 1% that has never copied a borrowed album to MD. The only unauthorized recordings that I've made are of live concerts. were the discs 74min long the same as CDs? Now that some CDs break the standard up to about 80mins, guess what... 80min MDs!!! Yes, but that means for personal use only. /Andrew - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | By copying stuff you would never have bought I would say you are harming | none. If you would never have bought it in the first place, you have no legal or moral right to make a copy from someone else who has. | If some guy copied my shareware games who would never have paid the | registration fee anyway, I've lost nothing and actually helped make the | world a better place. You can't argue with that!? Say that when your food is paid for by those shareware fees. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4Zm9zgl+vIlSVSNkRAhb1AKCtq8kob5SmW99E7xgzDwF5vSuDwgCfXJM0 /HM08SXNA2c5czEMvoe4nLw= =1MPa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | By copying stuff you would never have bought I would say you are harming | none. If you would never have bought it in the first place, you have no legal or moral right to make a copy from someone else who has. wot are all those guys in the blank disc / tape factories gonna do if we stop buying blanks. Do you wanna put em all out of a job? You would of course cos I bet at least 90% of blank MDs are used to copy CDs. | If some guy copied my shareware games who would never have paid the | registration fee anyway, I've lost nothing and actually helped make the | world a better place. You can't argue with that!? Say that when your food is paid for by those shareware fees. Here in Britain we still have a decent Social Security system to ensure almost everyone at least has a roof over their head and food to eat. Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "Blessed Be." - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
- Original Message - From: PrinceGaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 8:23 PM Subject: Re: MD: MD Trading Here in Britain we still have a decent Social Security system to ensure almost everyone at least has a roof over their head and food to eat. Tell that to the hundreds of people you see everyday selling "The Big Issue" on the streets, I'm sure they could tell you a few things about the realities of our social security system. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
Nobody is hurt if you weren't gonna buy the material anyway. Many of the CDs in my collection are of music that I decided to buy long -- sometimes years -- after first hearing it; if a friend had given me a bootleg copy of any of those recordimgs, I'd not have bought it so long afterward. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
On 25 Dec 1999 08:48:01 -0500, in you wrote: You obviously feel strongly about this, but are somewhat misinformed. Take a look at the Berne agreements on international copyright law, which in the US is known as the Copyright Act of 1976, and is the core of US copyright law. They were not laid down by our founding fathers. They were not purchased from the US congress. The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or the United States Constitution. See below. Copyright law is governed in the U.S.by the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Statutes are merely congress' implementation of the constitution. There is a provision in the Constitution dealing explicitly with copyright law. It trumps all else. Our founding fathers sought the free flow if information as the economic oil that would promote our economy, and it worked gloriously. Intellectual property rights are the EXCEPTION to this free flow of information. They were meant to be narrowly construed. Result: as a constitutional matter in the U.S., benefit of the doubt will often go to the MP3 manufacturer, the college kid running the web site, the hobbyist trading MDs, the music fan recording music off of the radio, the television viewer taping a TV show, etc. etc. That's how it works in the U.S., over and over and over, despite ne'er do wells yelling THIEF at every turn. Federal judges understand this very well. Other nations were not founded on this principle in the way the United States was. The American Home Recording Act (AHRA) makes things explicitly legal which would have been legal anyway if anyone was ever dumb enough to prosecute a home recordist. The powerful and wealthy recording industry managed to get SCMS and the extra fees from MD sales out of the deal though. Read the AHRA, not a summarization of it or someone else's interpretation of it. It means EXACTLY what it says. It contradicts what you are saying. None of this has anything to do with copyright law. And it has not stopped artists like Amie Mann from forming their own labels. All of these issues derive from copyright law. The power of the recording industry derives from copyright law. The recording industry has manipulated the laws in its favor. Recording artists have fought long and hard to even the playing field. The internet may finally even the playing field. Thank God. | Please think. Recording a friend's CD is unethical? Think about what | unethical is. The law is not ethics, the law is not morals. Ask | Muhummad Ali. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought we were discussing a point of law, not ethics. But if you wish to discuss ethics and morals, so be it. Do you really believe that it is ethically and morally justified to STEAL the ARTIST'S $1.50 per cd sold because you do not like scummy practices of his record label? Do you really believe it is RIGHT to take from the artist what little he does get from the work he has done? Is it FAIR that you and your friend get the artist's work and he gets NOTHING? The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking anything from anyone when you trade an MD. Think about it literally. In the United States we want to exchange ideas as freely as possible and still promote creativity. Thus the NARROW exception of intellectual property laws, as it puts an economic damper on the free-flow of information, though it provides an economic incentive for creativity. People use and build on each others' ideas all the time in the U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes creativity, freedom and economic growth. In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas. It is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry. All the edges are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal is. As I mentioned above, the issue has very often been resolved in favor of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free flow of information and ideas. That's the way our Constitution was meant to be construed. It bothers me when someone gets on their moral high horse and acts like copying someone else's CD is like shoplifiting. It's not, either in the mechanics of the deed, in law, or ethically. It's simply not stealing. It's recording a CD. Stealing and recording a CD are two different things. It's really quite simple. And recording a CD at home, even if it's someone else's, is not illegal in the U.S, if you don't sell it to someone else. Read the AHRA. Not what someone says it says, not the summarization of the statute, but the actual words of the statute. It means exactly what it says, no ifs ands or buts. Hopefully I've opened someone's mind, but I doubt it. I should have been a little less abrasive in my previous post. My apologies. To those of you who have implied I don't know what I'm talking about, well,
Re: MD: MD Trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | wot are all those guys in the blank disc / tape factories gonna do if we | stop buying blanks. Do you wanna put em all out of a job? You would of | course cos I bet at least 90% of blank MDs are used to copy CDs. What are all those guys making blank media going to do when you put the recording artists out of work, leaving you with nothing to copy? | Here in Britain we still have a decent Social Security system to ensure | almost everyone at least has a roof over their head and food to eat. *srnk* -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4ZvRKgl+vIlSVSNkRAt+UAJ9BupnUSxx4OBq5jJrHk22CkR/ktQCfWmet VNNN/MZvXmKnKKBG5+g1poc= =d8ys -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
A small point of clarification: "Trading" traditionally refers to people *trading* (i.e. not selling) bootlegs of unreleased recordings, usually concerts but often demos, etc. This is a lot different than "pirating", which is someone duping one (or more) copies of a commercially available recording and giving/trading/selling it. This ranges from making a (tape/CD/MD) copy for a friend (so they don't buy it) thru ripping MP3s and putting em on an FTP site thru "apartment pirates" that crank out copies with CD duping machines and sell them on the street. Pirating is what keeps the record companies up at night. This is a small but crucial distinction. Traditional tape/MD/CD traders are usually diehard fans that have every bit of commercially available recorded output from an artist and are first in line at the store anytime something new is released, but who collect rarities and bootlegs that aren't available through traditional channels. There's a direct correlation between the pirating of commercially available recordings and lost revenues for record companies. It's a tougher time proving a loss of revenue for record companies due to "honest" bootleg trading by fans who will scoop up *any* commercial release by a particular artist - even lame ripoff tactics like greatest hits packages with a handful of "new" tracks to guarantee sales to the fanatics (remember Pink Floyd's "Shine On" box set?). Some labels recognize that there's a market to exploit and make the boot stuff available for a fee thru fan clubs, etc. (Frank Zappa, Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix's family, etc). Scott BTW, as a side point, there's a surprising number of artists that make a lot more money off of live shows than record dealsthey are ripped off far more by their record companies than by the pirating of commercial recordings. But that's another thread. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 | The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down | by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or | the United States Constitution. See below. All of which was superceded by the Copyright Act of 1976, better known internationally as the Berne Agreements, which is explicitly clear as to what you are allowed to copy. The AHRA is a clarification of and extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. [...] | The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking | anything from anyone when you trade an MD. As I have stated rather more eloquently before, BS. Every time you illegally copy a copyrighted work -- which under Berne means *ANY* idea set down in a tangible form -- you steal something from the artist who created the work. I suggest *you* read the Copyright Act and the AHRA more thoroughly yourself, because you seem to have missed the important parts. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4Zvk4gl+vIlSVSNkRApV+AJ9aqkutr/1FkcztbLb1WqcMTNQBZACg8D8O rc4cZEQeOMUHKuzGIuzYcdY= =jCbF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright law is governed in the U.S.by the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Statutes are merely congress' implementation of the constitution. There is a provision in the Constitution dealing explicitly with copyright law. It trumps all else. A law cannot violate the Constitution. That's it. If that's what you meant by "trumps all else" you are correct. Result: as a constitutional matter in the U.S., benefit of the doubt will often go to the MP3 manufacturer, the college kid running the web site, the hobbyist trading MDs, the music fan recording music off of the radio, the television viewer taping a TV show, etc. etc. That's how it works in the U.S., over and over and over, despite ne'er do wells yelling THIEF at every turn. Lawsuits against MP3 playback devices and the like will lose not because of "copyright law" but because the devices are not inherently illegal, and while they can be used for illegal activities, they can also be used for legal activities. On the other hand, lawsuits against people bootlegging concerts and illegally copying and distributing copyrighted music will (and have, over and over and over) win because they involve explicitly violating the copyright of those works. The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking anything from anyone when you trade an MD. They are taking away a potential customer. This is a free market system. Everyone who doesn't own a particular album is a potential customer for that album. It doesn't matter if you would have bought the album or not -- you are still a potential customer. If a recording medium didn't exist for you to copy a CD, you might actually buy the CD. If you wouldn't buy it, then you must not really want it. The theory of "potential customers" and "potential markets" are cornerstones of our economic system. You can dislike the system, but right now we live in it, and under that system, copying an album, photocopying a book, copying software... all of these acts *do* take things away from people. People use and build on each others' ideas all the time in the U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes creativity, freedom and economic growth. It's legal as long as they aren't blatantly copying someone else's work. If they are, and the "inventor" was smart enough to patent their work, stealing other people's unique ideas is grounds for losing a patent law suit in the U.S. In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas. It is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry. All the edges are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal is. As I mentioned above, the issue has very often been resolved in favor of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free flow of information and ideas. That's the way our Constitution was meant to be construed. You do realize, of course, that everything you have said about the Constitution is solely your opinion, and that there are thousands of legal scholars who know more about these issues than you or me who spend their lives debating the meanings of and interpretations of the Constitution? It bothers me when someone gets on their moral high horse and acts like copying someone else's CD is like shoplifiting. It's not, either in the mechanics of the deed, in law, or ethically. It's simply not stealing. It's recording a CD. Stealing and recording a CD are two different things. It's really quite simple. You're right -- it really is quite simple. As simple as stealing. The only difference is that stealing a CD off a shelf deprives the store owner a piece of inventory, as well. And recording a CD at home, even if it's someone else's, is not illegal in the U.S, if you don't sell it to someone else. Clarification: it isn't illegal if you are recording a CD *you* own. Recording a CD someone else owns is illegal. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
If you choose to believe that the laws as purchased by the recording industry from congress represent ethics, enjoy your world. The recording industry will screw artists, consumers, and anyone else who stands in the way of Mr. Greenback, and will use their money to make the laws fit this purpose. Please think. Recording a friend's CD is unethical? Think about what unethical is. The law is not ethics, the law is not morals. Ask Muhummad Ali. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, ethics matter. But copying a friend's CD is not unethical. And in the United States, it's not even illegal. You make believe you know it's illegal to trade MDs. The truth is nobody knows and the recording industry would never contest the issue in court because they'd likely loose and the world would laugh in their face, just like it did with the MP3 debacle. You know what happened when the recording inustry tried to SUE in FEDERAL COURT to make selling an MP3 recorder illegal? They LOST. Big-time. That frivolous, greedy little incident likely cost the taxpayers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. THAT'S unethical. Is it illegal to trade CDs? I don't think so. By the way, the recording industry would have you believe it's illegal to sell used CDs. WRONG. It's not unethical and it's not illegal. Just because the recording industry doesn't get any more money in their pocket doesn't mean it's illegal or unethical. Trading MDs is a grey area, yes. But not because it's unethical or immoral. It's a grey area because the law is so messed up. You know, every MD that's sold in the U.S. includes a fee that goes to the recording industry, even if all you do with it is record your own CDs. You know what? That SUCKS. Maybe that's unethical, eh? The least you can do is catch a guy a break if, having paid this fee, he wants to trade MDs with a friend. Copyright law was meant by our founding fathers to promote the arts and creativity and strengthen our nation through economic incentives. It wasn't meant to line the purses of the recording industry. The recording industry didn't even exist at the time. The recording industry is not creative. The recording artists are. You think the recording artists like the recording companies? Hahahhahahaha! The recording companies STAND IN THE WAY of creativity, day after day after day, in tis businesss practices and during recording sessions. And you want to arm them to the teeth with copyright law? Where is the line? Is it illegal to SELL an MD of a CD? YES. It may even be unethical. Is it illegal give a CD as a gift? NO. Is it illegal to give away a home-recorded MD as a gift? Is it illegal in the United States to record someone else's CD to MD for personal use? NO. Is it illegal to give it away as a gift? NO. Is it illegal to trade it? Grey. Is it unethical to trade it? Maybe you think it is, but please, it's not unethical simply because the recording industry wants it to be illegal. You are implying people who trade MDs are unethical. That's pretty harsh. I'm stating explicitly I think you should think things through a little more. FYI, I have never traded an MD. I don't even know anyone else with an MD recorder. Trading MDs is not exactly a pox on our society. Please, just because someone asks a question about trading MDs, and if they could be prosecuted for doing so, don't take some potshot about ethics. It's a very rational question, and it's not a sign of someone who is unethical. Most likely, it's a sign of someone who loves music, and who buys lots and lots of music. Just my opinion of course. I'll never touch the subject again. Do I think I changed your mind? NO. Regards to the list, and Merry Christmas, ; ) Steve On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:26:29 +6, in you wrote: I would like to do some MD trading of some popular music groups. However, before I do, I would like to know if it is in violation of the copyright laws to copy and trade minidiscs which have been recorded from an original CD. Yes, it is, unless you are the copyright owner or have written permission from the copyright holder. Does anyone have knowledge in this matter? Yes. Could you point me to any links which explains the copyright law? http://library.stanford.edu/cpyright.html You might also do a web search on "copyright" and "fair use". Has anyone heard of anyone being charged if it is indeed a violation of the law? Does it matter? Is it "wrong" only if you get caught? Do ethics count for anything? = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
Re: MD: MD trading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 25 Dec 1999 | If you choose to believe that the laws as purchased by the recording | industry from congress represent ethics, enjoy your world. You obviously feel strongly about this, but are somewhat misinformed. Take a look at the Berne agreements on international copyright law, which in the US is known as the Copyright Act of 1976, and is the core of US copyright law. They were not laid down by our founding fathers. They were not purchased from the US congress. | The recording industry will screw artists, consumers, and anyone else who | stands in the way of Mr. Greenback, and will use their money to make the | laws fit this purpose. Oh, sure. You spend $15 at the local shop for an audio CD. The shop keeps about $5 of that, the shop's distributor gets another $5. Of the remainder, the artist gets $1.50; the remaining $3.50 goes to the record company. The exact ratio is subject to the contract signed between artist and label, but these values are fair approximations. None of this has anything to do with copyright law. And it has not stopped artists like Amie Mann from forming their own labels. | Please think. Recording a friend's CD is unethical? Think about what | unethical is. The law is not ethics, the law is not morals. Ask | Muhummad Ali. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought we were discussing a point of law, not ethics. But if you wish to discuss ethics and morals, so be it. Do you really believe that it is ethically and morally justified to STEAL the ARTIST'S $1.50 per cd sold because you do not like scummy practices of his record label? Do you really believe it is RIGHT to take from the artist what little he does get from the work he has done? Is it FAIR that you and your friend get the artist's work and he gets NOTHING? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4ZMsRgl+vIlSVSNkRAvCqAJoDt1FljY+Po3F22aGoMzJacf1bJgCfaY8M njsGYKjwysYeKW8V+SI1l7I= =T2ho -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
If you choose to believe that the laws as purchased by the recording industry from congress represent ethics, enjoy your world No, I'm not talking about laws at all in this case (and, by the way, the laws that govern this predate both the recording industry and Congress; their antecedents predate this country entirely). When you duplicate someone else's intellectual property without permission, you are as guilty of stealing just as much as if you took their car. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
Yes, ethics matter. But copying a friend's CD is not unethical. And in the United States, it's not even illegal. If wanting it to be so *made* it so, you'd be right. Distributing copies of copyrighted material without permission is, indeed, illegal. You make believe you know it's illegal to trade MDs. Not at all. You may trade MDs all you want -- as long as they don't contain copyrighted material for which you don't have permission. The truth is nobody knows and the recording industry would never contest the issue in court because they'd likely loose and the world would laugh in their face, just like it did with the MP3 debacle. When it's detected on a large scale, it's taken to court -- regularly. . . .And the recording industry wins -- regularly. You know what happened when the recording inustry tried to SUE in FEDERAL COURT to make selling an MP3 recorder illegal? They LOST. This is an entirely different issue. The industry lost because it was ruled (rightly) that what they wanted to do was "prior restraint" -- they wanted to put in restrictions because people *might* steal the work. In a situation in which someone demonstrably *has* stolen the work, the law is squarely on the side of the owners of the work in question. Trading MDs is a grey area, yes. No. It's actually quite clear. When you steal someone's property -- whether real, personal, or intellectual -- you're a thief. The fact that you want the property doesn't change this -- nor does the fact that you *reallyt* want it. But not because it's unethical or immoral. *EXACTLY* because it's both illegal and unethical. You know, every MD that's sold in the U.S. includes a fee that goes to the recording industry, even if all you do with it is record your own CDs. You know what? That SUCKS. Maybe that's unethical, eh? Absolutely. wrong + wrong right. Copyright law was meant by our founding fathers to promote the arts and creativity Yes, and stealing the fruits of someone's creativity lessens the incentive to create more. The recording industry is not creative. The recording artists are. You think the recording artists like the recording companies? You're really big on non sequiturs and irrelevancies, aren't you? You are implying people who trade MDs are unethical. Not at all -- as long as they have the rights to the material. I'm stating explicitly I think you should think things through a little more. I deal with intellectual property issues regularly in my work; it's unlikely you've considered them to the degree I have. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: MD: MD Trading
MD Trading of copies of original CDs is definitely illegal - no grey areas, that's piracy. Most traders on the net (including myself) trade in recordings of concerts that someone has taped (via various sources) and then offered for swaps or blanks and postage if the person has nothing to offer. These are the grey area recordings as we are not denying the artist or producer any royalties, and also not profiteering ourselves. People who sell these trades are condemned and flamed big style in my experience. A lot of artists are cool to this, Phish come to mind. Neil Young is pretty relaxed about it - there was even a tapers area at the HORDE shows in 97. Bruce Springsteen doesnt dig it and there was an article on Wired News a couple of years ago about a BS fan being busted by the RIAA, who traded on the net. He entered the dodgy area of having people send him cash to cover the blank tape and postage which the RIAA turned into profiteering (bootlegging). An excellent book on the subject is Clinton Heylin's "Bootleg: The Secret History Of The Other Recording Industry" - ISBN: 0312142897. Regards, Andy - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
Hi all, Seems a bit of a hot cookie today, this copyright stuff. Perhaps satan delivered a CD or two to some peeps for xmas and they are already thinking of all the CDs their friends must have received and are counting their supply of blank MDs. And why not? Copyright law sucks. Big time. My view is so long as you don't sell unauthorised recordings of music, films, games, or anything for a profit, then it's sorta alright and I dunno why anyone gets so excited. The one minor exception to this would be a program I released as shareware and which I received a fair amount of cash for and would hope anyone who hacked the registration is doomed to eternal damnation! We're not talking about bootlegging CDs by the tens or hundreds of thousands, just you and a mate helping each other out. I'm not even talking about burning a few copies of a top album in your CD-RW drive and selling them at a car boot sale (which I disagree with), it's getting a copy of something you would never have bought anyway so nobody loses out. At least thats what I tell myself when I take a shed full of CDs back to the local library and stop off at Richer Sounds to replenish my supply of blank MDs :-) C'mon guys, this is a MiniDisc list. We've all got minidisc stuff and I bet 99% of you have used it for unauthorised recordings. If we really want to enter the silly season spirit, recording works from the radio is illegal, so is the film "The Italian Job" I'm taping here in England from the BBC- despite paying a television licence fee :-( Well if I give them to my neighbour to watch / listen to it is. Minidisc was made for copying CDs, why were the discs 74min long the same as CDs? Now that some CDs break the standard up to about 80mins, guess what... 80min MDs!!! I would like to point out that the above are my views and do not necessarily represent the law of this or any other country, and that I am not indicating that I have actually performed any of the above activities whether stated explicitly or implied. Does that satisfy you legal types out there? Rat? Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "Blessed Be." Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://website.lineone.net/~princegaz/ ICQ: 36892193 - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
