I never said anything about burning cd's or dvd's. If I buy a cd then I own the cd and I own the copy of music on that cd. If I scan a copy of one picture I developed at Eckerds am I stealing from them because I now have 500 copies of something they produced through use of their intellectual property? Heck no. I know Microsoft is taking steps to where people cannot put WinME on more than one computer. Those steps include some kind of one time only forced internet registration with Microsoft which records your machine id. Apparently Microsoft is taking charge of this issue when it comes to their products, unlike the record industry. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Heck no because it's still your intellectual property (the photograph). The developing of the picture for you doesn't give Eckard ownership rights to the underlying property. The photographer (or the creator of the work) retains the ownership of the intellectual property (the photo). The fact that they developed your picture doesn't mean they gained any ownership of the photo. By that standard, I'd have to cut Lexmark, Microsoft, eMachines and whoever made my monitor in on any profits I got from selling the screenplay I wrote (not that I am going to get any profits, but that's my example). Just because I used their products to create my work doesn't mean they gained an ownership interest in my creative work. On the other point, you implied that downloading songs wasn't theft because one can't buy an MP3 at Best Buy, one can only buy a CD. By that standard, my copying and distributing WinME on DVD is not theft because I am offering it to people in a format that they can't otherwise get the product on. If the format that the intellectual property is sold on is what does or doesn't make distributing that intellectual property on another format theft, then my offering copies of WinME on DVD would be essentially the same as your offering MP3s on Napster. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
And if you buy a CD, you own the CD, but you do not own the music that is on that CD. The music is still owned by the record company and the artist. As the owner of the CD, you can't simply do whatever you want to with that music because you don't own it. You own a CD. That gives you certain rights (copying for personal use. Selling the CD itself to someone else, etc), but it doesn't give you ownership of the music itself. And by your standard, wouldn't I have the same rights to take my purchased copy of WindowsME and make copies in whatever format I see fit and distribute them to whomever I want? I mean, if I buy the CD-ROM, don't I own the software encoded on the CD-ROM? I should be able to make copies and give them away to whomever I want. But the law says different. It'd be like if I were making a movie, for example. I want music in my movie, so I buy a copy of Jeff's CD and just put the music into my film wherever I want to. By your standard, it would be perfectly fine for me to do that. The courts, on the other hand, would award Jeff a large sum of money for my theft of his intellectual property. And in my example, I wasn't even making a copy of his music. I was incorporating it into another work. There was no chance of a loss of CD sales based on my using Jeff's song in my movie (unless people hated my movie so much that they then refused to purchase anything Jeff did because his song was associated with my horrible film), but that still doesn't make it legal. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited February 20, 2001).]
{b]Besides, go prove that price fixing and collusion is occurring, and I'll be the first to tell you that the government should prosecute the hell out of those companies. Until then, it's all conjecture and our laws don't allow us to shutdown companies because we think they might be doing something wrong. Pirating music, however, is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is illegal in any court of law. The simple fact is that its not prosecuted for whatever reason (not worth the effort, too costly, invasion of privacy, etc). However, it's still illegal and nothing anyone says here will change that. No one -- not even Napster -- has tried to make the argument that what's going on using Napster is legal.[/b] I guess you didn't read the articles from davo's link. In it there are complaints from the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits brought forth by 28 states saying that record companies used price fixing measures which cost the public more than $500 million since 1997. In addition, there is an article where Napster contends that copying MP3's is perfectly legal. I guess the courts haven't been as sturdy in your belief that copying music is piracy because there have been suits pending in court for about 2 years. Apparently it's not a simple fact at all. You don't think someone will then make a product to copy those? If the music is able to be played, something must know how to read it. If you can read it, then you can make a machine that will read it and rewrite it to a different product. Besides, are you saying that your solution to stopping copyright infringement is to replace the CD? You want companies to stop producing all music in Tape / CD format and force everyone to buy some new technology to listen to it?. I'm saying it's not my responsibility to change my listening habits because the music industry is having a hissy over how their products are used. If it's their product then they should create it in a manner that it cannot be used in a way they don't want it to be used. Instead of blaming 50 million Napster users try pointing the finger at 5 record companies. No, they are upset that Napster is facilitating the illegal distribution of products they own the legal rights to. This is not true. Before Napster there were hundreds of web sites where you could download complete albums in real audio or mp3 format. There were also huge mailing lists that would mail out whatever songs you requested. You never heard a peep about this issue until Napster showed up. Napster is making money from this, these other places just did it as a hobby. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
From now on, I reserve the right to allow mrpaige to argue for me. He does it so much better than I. Timing: I think the problem here is that you are not placing any value on the music itself. You see value in the CD but not in what is on it. The concept of used CD's, as mrpaige put it, is different from copying because you are not putting more into the marketplace. Courts have ruled that this is perfectly acceptable because the selling of used CD's does not amount to a loss to the owner of what's on the CD - the music. They got paid already for that CD by the original owner. If they put too many CD's in circulation and they aren't purchased, that is their fault, not that of the consumers. However, copying and passing them out IS the fault of the consumer who is doing it. Intellectual property may be a "slippery slope," but it is absolutely relavent here. If I write a song and you profit by it or get it for free, I have a right to sue you for copyright infringement. Why? Because it was my work and sweat that went into it and you are getting it for nothing. Whether you believe it to be or not, it is unethical to take something that does not belong to you. Maybe the MP3 does, but the song does not. The real problem I have isn't in your use but in the proliferation of the copying through Napster. I could care less about a few guys trading songs, etc. I DO care about 5 million doing it. dylan: I stopped using Books On...oops. because they asked. I felt it would be unethical to continue using something that legally belonged to someone else. Did I think it was stupid? Hell yes, but it is their right to trademark whatever they like and it is my repsonsibility to respect that. No doubt I didn't want to get involved with lawyers and it wasn't really a legal issue for me. For me, it was an ethical issue. I was using something that didn't belong to me. Now, I'm not. As for your downloading because you don't have much money, well, I hear ya. I know exactly how you feel. I would probably buy 100 CD's every week if I could. But, that is reality. If you can't buy, you can't buy. It may be frustrating but it goes beyond simply wanting something you can't always afford. For many artists, you are not just stealing money from them, they consider it ripping off their art. It's hard to understand from that perspective without knowing what it feels like to be in that situation, I know. Try to realize that, for many musicians, a single song represents literally 100's of hours of writing, rehearsing, practicing and recording. I just finished a batch of 7 songs that took (from arrangement to mixdown) 6 months. My parner and I played every instrument (or hired others to do so), recorded everything on our own, arranged it, rehearsed it, practiced the parts and mixed and mastered it. It took literally dozens of hours just to get vocals. On one song, I must've done 50 takes on a 12 bar guitar part because I was writing it as I went. It is emotionally and phyically difficult to do that work. It is of considerable value to me now that it is done because of all the time and emotion that went into it. One song is about the death of my partner's father. Whether we sell it on a CD or not, there is no way we could assign a proper dollar value to it because of what it meant to us to do it. I guess I just ask that everyone try to understand that, for many of us who write, perform and record music, the act of coypying music en masse for free is a violation of our art. Just because it is pop music (or whatever) doesn't mean there wasn't a tremendous amount of work put into it or that it doesn't hold enormous value. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
I think we're getting muddled in analogies! Few more "replies". Microsoft licenses Windows, the record industry does not license music cd's in that manner. I consider my developed photo to be the finished product. I can't see it unless it is developed by Eckerds. This would be the equivalent of a company using their patented technique of putting your screenplay into the proper screenplay format to be viewed. Your monitor and printer are much like the camera, simply tools. When I buy a cd I do own the copy of music on that cd. I should be able to do whatever I want with it as long as I'm not making money off of it. If I want to mix it and remix it, copy and paste it with other songs, that's my right. When you take music from an artist and put it into a movie for profit then you are indeed breaking the law. You know I'm on my laptop lookin around on it and there is this Windows Media Player on it. Funny thing about it is that it lets you copy songs from the cd you're playing. It's convenient because I just put in a cd and copy it all so I can just listen without the cd whenever I want. I wonder if Microsoft will be named as a co-defendant for aiding in the theft of music? ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
1. Technically, you are licensing the music on the disc for your personal use. To use the music in other ways (such as playing your CDs in your retail store, for example), you have to get a different license. You may be able to get away with some things that aren't legal without falling under the wrath of the owners of the work, but that doesn't make doing those things legal. 2. The developing process at Eckards is merely a tool to develop your work. You can argue it all you want, but the law says the creator of the work owns the work. Eckerds did not have any input in creating that work and gets no ownership interest by developing your work. The creator owns the picture. And even if I used a patented program to put my screenplay in the proper format (which I did, by the way), it wouldn't give the creator of that program an ownership interst in my creative work. The program is merely a tool, just as the developing of a picture is merely a service performed on your creative work. It's a horrible analogy because it has no basis in any law. By your standard, the company that produces CDs for Jeff (assuming he makes CDs) gets a royalty interest in the music on the CD. Yet that doesn't happen. Jeff contracts a company to press his CDs and he just pays them the fee for doing that. The CD manufacturer never gets any ownership interest in that case (in the case of record companies, they get ownership interest in the music because they buy it from the artist specifically). 3. You may think you should be able to do whatever you want with the music on the CD as long as you aren't making any money off of it, but the law disagrees. Making or not making money isn't the standard. (What if I were making my movie for release on public access TV and had no profit motive, would that make using music without permission okay? Not in the eyes of the law). The fact that you've bought a CD doesn't give you the right to copy the music within (which you do not own by purchasing a CD) beyond your own personal use. Even making a copy for your buddy down the street is technically illegal. The record companies won't go after you for that, but that still doesn't mean it's legal. So, if making a copy for your buddy down the street is illegal, how can the widespread copying that Napster allows be any different? (Or for that matter, how can Napster be any different than a CD pirating organization that sells pirated CDs on the street corner in NYC?) The thing that makes Napster different than a Microsoft (for making the Win Media Player) or even a company that makes CD burners is that their products have legitimate uses beyond any potential illegal activity that consitutes the bulk of their use. Napster, in its current form, has little use other than for illegally distributing intellectual property. Microsoft can use the Betamax defense and easily win (you may not remember, but when consumer VCRs first hit the market, there were lawsuits that claimed VCRs should be taken off the market because they were nothing more than devices to make illegal copies of intellectual property. The courts ruled that the potential uses for VCRs went well beyond the potential illegal uses and ended up setting forth several rights for consumers that still reign supreme today). Napster tried to use the Betamax defense, and they rightfully lost. One could use a Ford to run down pedestrians, but Ford can't be sued because someone used their product for an illegal purpose. WinMedia Player would fall into a similar category. Napster does not. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
The arguement about stealing from a store and 'borrowing' from Napster: When you steal from the store, you are stealing from the store, not from the record companies and/or artist. That CD has been paid for by the store already and the store has made the lost. It would be like someone stealing the CD from you ... you are out the $15 bucks, not the record company. Not to mention, when you steal the CD, there are losses of raw material, (a whopping 15 cents) man hours, packing, shipping, ect... As opposed to downloading a song off the internet... the ONLY thing lost is a POTENTIAL sale. My CD collection is VERY small. Before the internet, I might have purchased 20 CD's ... 10 of them a total waste that I do not use anymore. Since then, ive bought maybe 3 CD's...3 that i use ALL the time. I don't mind purchasing those 3 CD's at a $10 price, but i refuse to buy any more crap that im not going to use. I wouldn't mind paying 2-5 bucks for a single song that i LIKED and i was allowed to create my own CD's with whatever music I wanted on it, as long as I paid for each song. But of course, that would put many factory workers, cover artists, ect out of work. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
I guess you didn't read the articles from davo's link. In it there are complaints from the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits brought forth by 28 states saying that record companies used price fixing measures which cost the public more than $500 million since 1997. Great then. Like I said, if there's any evidence, the FTC should go for it. That issue is resolved. In addition, there is an article where Napster contends that copying MP3's is perfectly legal. I guess the courts haven't been as sturdy in your belief that copying music is piracy because there have been suits pending in court for about 2 years. Apparently it's not a simple fact at all. Umm, no. I don't know what this case is about, but in the big case against them, even Napster did not make any attempt to deny that their service has a very large illegal use. The only question was how involved Napster actually was. The fact that this infringment is occurring has been accepted by everyone. Instead of blaming 50 million Napster users try pointing the finger at 5 record companies. Why? Why not blame the people who are doing illegal things as opposed to the companies producing legitimate products? Why blame the victim for a crime? If someone gets mugged, who's fault is it? The person who did the mugging or the victim because he carried a wallet? This is not true. Before Napster there were hundreds of web sites where you could download complete albums in real audio or mp3 format. There were also huge mailing lists that would mail out whatever songs you requested. You never heard a peep about this issue until Napster showed up. Napster is making money from this, these other places just did it as a hobby. Before Napster, it couldn't be done on a widescale and was not available to every amateur internet user out there. That's why your copying a CD is not prosecuted -- it's not worth it. Suing individuals would cost more than you recover from it. I guess I should have clarified. I should have said, they are upset that Napster is facilitating the LARGE-SCALE illegal distribution of products they own the legal rights to. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited February 20, 2001).]
The analogies are getting thick but here is the essential problem with your argument about photographs. With them, you paid for the use of their equipment. Your transaction is complete. By that definition, I would have to pay my guitar manufacturer, the manufacturer of my recording equipment, microphones, etc. just for the use of the music. Ford doesn't own your truck after you purchase it. You paid for the building of it. Jiffy Lube doesn't own it once they fixed it. Services have been rendered. I can say this, the music is owned by the person who placed the copyright on it. Sometimes, that isn't even the artist. In some cases, it might be someone else. Michael Jackson owns most of the Beatles' catalog. He gets money any time it is sold. The point is that the art is more important than the medium. I just recorded a version of a Bruce Springsteen song. Before I can sell it, allow it to be played on radio, etc, I have to get his permission and the permission of anyone who has ownership rights. They allow me to use the song so long as they get paid all of the publishing royalties (above) and performance royalties (payment from when the song gets airplay). Depending on the song and the artist, some require that points from the record be conveyed to them as well. Just because you own a CD or an MP3 doesn't mean you own the music. Technically, you have bought a recorded copy that gives you limited rights (you can make a copy for YOURSELF) to it. This is understood when you make the purchase. Just because you don't like the law doesn't make it legal. You can speed all you want, but, if you get caught, you have to pay the ticket. shanna is right that everyone accepts that it is copyright infringement. No one is saying that it isn't. They are just saying that Napster isn't liable for that infringement which, of course, they are. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
The following article doesn't really deal with napster directly, more software related, but it does make some interesting points about ownership in the digital age: ------------------
I understand the distinction now between increasing the number of copies of a song (Napster), and reselling an old CD. You probably have that part of the law on your side, as I guess it pertains to "copyright infringement". Because used CD stores are not against the law, however, does not make them any different from Napster in my opinion. Like many have said, the effect of buying a used CD is that the record company has lost money. The number of copies may not have increased, but so what, they still lost money. I would imagine that the number of people that buy from used CD stores far outweighs the number of people that use Napster. I would wager that it's not even close. The fact that 'more copies' may or may not be out there doesn't seem relevant if your concern is simply lost revenue. I have never once heard an opponent of Napster say "I don't care about the lost revenue, I just care that there are more copies out there of my song". What about if I buy a CD from the store, make a copy of it, and then sell it to a used store? Someone else then buys that same CD and does the same thing. A new copy is created each time, and the record company only got paid for one. Heck, the consumers are even making money off of the music themselves. Yet that is completely fine. The 'number of copies' has increased, but hey, the CD got paid for, so where's the copyright infringement there?
What about if I buy a CD from the store, make a copy of it, and then sell it to a used store? Someone else then buys that same CD and does the same thing. TheFreak, this is illegal -- way more illegal than what Napster users do. If you sold the copy of the CD, not only are you stealing , but you're actually profitting off of someone else's work. I believe that would actually be a jailable offense (if, for example, you bought a CD and made 100 copies and sold them). If you sold the CD you originally bought, your license is revoked (and granted to the buyer) and any copies you make have to be destroyed. Not that they would be in reality, but that's what the law says. Basically, you're buying a license to the music, rather than the CD itself or the music on the CD. The 'number of copies' has increased, but hey, the CD got paid for, so where's the copyright infringement there? Think of it this way. Suppose you buy a $1,000,000 painting and pretend you have a super-cool replicator device. You can now resell the painting, but you can't make some more copies and sell those too. The same thing applies to any product, including music. The only difference is that music is easily replicable while most other products aren't. I would imagine that the number of people that buy from used CD stores far outweighs the number of people that use Napster. Napster recently admitted that copyright infringement occurs at an average pace of 10,000 songs per second. Assuming this is 24 hours a day and 10 songs per CD, you're talking about the equivalent of 86 million CD's created illegally per day. At $10 per CD, that's nearly $1 billion daily in fraud. Obviously, this simplifies things quite a bit, but I don't think used CD stores come close to this. Besides, if copying of songs were legal, then no one would ever buy them. One person could buy a CD and then everyone in the world could theoretically listen to it simply by getting copies of it. That can't happen with trading CD's because more copies aren't being created. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
That's assuming that perfect copies were available, whch they aren't. Most available MP3's that are downloaded are encoded at 128 kb/sec. When played over crappy computer speakers over the hums of hard drives and cooling fans this is indistinguishable from CD quality. Try to play those MP3's over real speakers, however, and there is a very noticable drop in quality. I have bought albums that I had on mp3 for this very reason. This also assumes taht every mp3 out on the net doesn't have any jumps or skips, doesn't end early, etc... Not sure if you've ever tried to download an MP3 before or not but those are VERY common defects... dylan ------------------ [This message has been edited by dylan (edited February 21, 2001).]
This is a pretty funny sentence. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Record Companies didn't like Used CD stores, either, and did make an attempt to shut them down. It wasn't that long ago (mid-90s, I believe) They failed in that quest, and the courts have specifically ruled that Used CD shops are legal and that consumers do have some, limited rights that come with the purchase of a CD (including reselling that CD and copying for personal use). If it had been up to the record companies, we wouldn't have used CD stores, either. I make the point because TheFreak seems to be implying that the record companies don't care about the used CD market potentially taking away sales but do care about Napster potentially taking away sales. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
mrpaige--no, I know full well that the record companies don't like used CD stores and went after them at one time. That was my point, that the anti-Napster stance comes mostly from being upset at loss of revenue. Used CD stores take away revenues just as Napster, in theory, does. The record companies know this, which is why they went after used stores also. That's why I think people seem to be hiding behind the 'copyright infringement', 'increasing the number of copies' argument to argue against Napster now. It makes sense, but it's not the real reason they're upset, it's because of the perceived loss of revenue.
That's assuming that perfect copies were available, whch they aren't. Most available MP3's that are downloaded are encoded at 128 kb/sec. When played over crappy computer speakers over the hums of hard drives and cooling fans this is indistinguishable from CD quality. But you're assuming that just because that's not available now, it won't be in the future. Most likely, you will be able to make near-perfect copies in a few years when broadband internet is available to most people. At that point, if the recording industry has set a precedent that copying is OK, they are screwed. This is a pretty funny sentence. Timing, I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean, but here's the source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/533642.asp The quote: But the appeals court said no such protection extends to Napster because the company knew users were swapping copyrighted songs. The panel also said there was evidence of “massive, unauthorized downloading and uploading of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works - as many as 10,000 files per second by defendant’s own admission.” ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
But the copyright infringement does two things in this case that it didn't in the other. 1. There is copyright infringement that wasn't there in the used CD case (one is not making copies, so there is no infringement. The used CD stores were targeted under licensing issues, as well as under the idea that they weren't approved retailers. Companies do have some rights in preventing retailers from selling their products), and 2. It is the copyright infringement angle that allows the record companies to win against Napster. Because of the copyright infringement angle of Napster that wasn't present in the Used CD case, you see why people like me or Jeff or whoever can be against Napster (in theory) and for Used CD shops (and I am for Used CD shops for reasons beyond the fact that I am friends with two people who happen to own Used CD shops. I've actually never purchased a used CD from a Used CD store, though). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I don't see 10K files of being downloaded a second ... maybe at any given second, 10k songs are in the process of being downloaded. What a nice fluffy statistic. ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!
