Wally wrote:
Rob wrote:


If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow
people access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to
pay if they want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you
are not entitled to decide on their behalf that they wish to work
for nothing.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is
undetected) you take the author to a wider audience.


Doesn't this make an assumption about how the artist expects to get paid?

Not as I see it. I think if you use someone's work (invention, song,
whatever) you should 1) acknowledge that fact in an open way, and 2)
share any profit you gain with the originator. I appreciate (2) is
problematic btw ;-)

The work may be done, but that doesn't mean that the doer of the work has
been paid, or paid in full.


Absolutely - that's exploitation.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:


If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow
people access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to pay
if they want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are not
entitled to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for nothing.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is undetected)
you take the author to a wider audience.



Sorry. It isn't clear to me what you are talking about as I can't decide
who terms like "your" in your statement refer to.

That's OK. The 'you' is a hypothetical user of someone else's work

An author may or may not enter into an agreement with someone else w.r.t.
some of the copyrights of some/all of their work(s). If they do, then they
will be bound by that provided the other party also does so. If they do
not, then they can decide for themself how the work may be used by others.

If someone plagurises, then that is wrong. It is both immoral and illegal.
The UK law gives authors the right to assert that they are the author of
their work. It is illegal to pass off the work of others as your own
without getting specific permission.


I did want to leave aside legal details - just cos it's law don't make
it right! But on your moral point I think we agree.

[snip]


In the end, there was a steady growth in interest in Barbirolli and
the Halle as a result of the Society re-issuing CDs with the help of
Mike Dutton and others. (I hope my website helped a bit with this, but
can't be sure.) The proven demand probably eventually helped encourage
EMI to do their own-label re-issues in due course. Pleased to say that
a large amount of the back catalogue has been available - in some
cases in really excellent versions that are clearer to enjoy than the
old LPs!



I suspect the LPs capture more of the essence :-) And I think your
anecdote nicely captures the nonsense copyright.


I would put it differently. :-)

I would say that I would prefer the copyright laws to be such that if
someone has 'bought' the right to control/make copies then that right
depends on them actually showing they *are* willing to do so.

In fact, the copyright agreements I have with my old publisher (IoP)
include an equivalent statement. In effect, if they allowed one of books
to go out of print for a period, and declined to reprint, I can take back
the copyright and make other arrangements if I so desire. It would be nice
if a similar arrangement was common or required for musical recordings.
However the point here is that the copyrights involved would then revert to
the authors (composers and musicians) it would *not* simply become a 'help
yourself' for anyone who wanted to make a free copy and pay the authors
nothing.

*Unless* the persons owning the copyrights decided to permit this...


OK - I think we fundamentally disagree on this point: I don't think
copyright is good. It won't do any good going into the reasons here, but
if you're interested the 'critique' section of this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

gives a summary. However, given where we're at (that is, copyright does
exist) your 'willing' clause seems a good idea.

FWIW I have made about as much of my 'work' available on the web (free
access) as I have had published in books. I am also currently negotiating
to get the content of my books on the web for free access. However I expect
anyone who uses the work to do so in accord with some conditions. (Spelt
out on one of the 'Scots Guide' pages.) This is to avoid plagurism or
others simply making money out of other people who could access the work
for nothing.


Everything I've written is available FOC - in fact I actively encourage
its use. If I have the capacity and time to write a book, I'll try to
ensure no copyright applies. I can only buy so many valve amplifiers
after all :-)

I do think it's a little ignorant when people don't attribute - I'd
guess 5% of students plagiarise in a major way, and it does get on my
nerves for a variety of reasons.

Rob

Rob wrote:

Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not
making a decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to
plagiarise, attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the
plagiarism is undetected) you take the author to a wider audience.

Doesn't this make an assumption about how the artist expects to get
paid?

Not as I see it. I think if you use someone's work (invention, song,
whatever) you should 1) acknowledge that fact in an open way, and 2)
share any profit you gain with the originator. I appreciate (2) is
problematic btw ;-)

I was thinking of a musician who writes and records a piece of music
specifically for public replay on the radio, knowing that he'll get a
royalty each time it's played. If a commercial radio station were to then
use his work without paying the royalty, then it could be argued that
they're ripping him off. He could have spent months on it, funded the
recording budget from his own pocket, and see the thing as a long-term
investment which might last months or years.


The work may be done, but that doesn't mean that the doer of the
work has been paid, or paid in full.

Absolutely - that's exploitation.

Yup, so the notion that the 'work is done' doesn't necessarly hold as the
point at which copyright no longer applies.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Rob" wrote


OK - I think we fundamentally disagree on this point: I don't think
copyright is good. It won't do any good going into the reasons here, but
if you're interested the 'critique' section of this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright



Glad to see that someone is at least willing to *look* outside of the
box.....

"Iain M Churches" wrote


OK. All I can say to that is 'As ye sow, so shall ye reap...'
I am pretty sure if you were on the other side of the fence, and
were the one being cheated, then your outlook would change.


Being cheated or not in a given situation depends upon your expectation of
that situation...



But, it may be that your stance is just to generate a good
discussion. That's fine too. It's working:-)


Absolutely not. In simple terms, I believe the game of 'catch as catch can'
played by the MI and pirates is caused by and sustained by MI greed. I do
not begrudge the heads of the Retail Food industry their wealth as they
appear to be anything but greedy when you consider their pricing policies.
It's a VFM thing in my book.


eBay is full of them. 5000 offers were "withdrawn" from E.Bay UK last
year. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg. I have bought four
counterfeit CD's in the past year, and one bootleg. In all cases, the
vendor claimed total innocence. One refunded the cost of the
CD (a James Taylor rarity!) and postage, plus a fiver for goodwill.
One could make a profit at buying and returning counterfeits


I gather it's quite possible to by fake CDs that have extra material on them
to use up available space (Vangelis) - it appears the pirates have a better
sense of fairness (and VFM) than the original publishers...!!



Sure. No-one inside the MI (including you) wants to consider there may
hve
been a better way than *greed*....

The problem is that you must regard the industry as an entity, and not
judge it by the sales of just a few records. There are many recording,
like
classical works that are very expensive to make, and have slow sales.
Many recordings, including a huge percentage of pop records don't
reach the break-even figure.


I'm struggling to avoid a response that includes the word 'patronising' at
times...

OK, I'll go with it. When the MI tries to create it's own market and
promotes some witless idiot with nice tits (gender immaterial) and lucks
out, I say 'tough' - it's no different to any other industry where similar
speculative moves are carried out.

Not only are we expected to be deeply understanding about the MI's continual
thirst for huge profits, we are expected to feel sorry for them when their
plans go awry. I got news for you Iain, it happens to everyone - you can
build the world's number one tourist attraction and lose your shirt on it.
(I read earlier that Quad never made a penny out of the ESL63...??)




And the way consumerism works is that if summat is too expensive (or
deemed to be overpriced) then it will get ripped off - that's the way of
the world. Your own cited examples demonstrate just how much of a market
there is for 'knock offs'....

People only by these counterfeit CDs because they are so cheap,


Er, yes...

Have a little think about that one - it's kinda fundamental to what I'm
saying. Try it the other way round: People *don't* buy the real thing
because it's so expensive...



It is indeed pleasant work - but involves very long hours, and much
dedication. You can't knock of at 1700 because there's something
good on 'telly:-))


The implication that every/anyone else can is very strong in that remark....



(nothing to plough, nothing to lift and haul), it's also very rewarding
(while stifling a lot of real talent, I gather).

Many hopeful artists make no money at all, and the record company
meets the loss on poor sales. This is of course counterbalanced by
good sales on other recordings.


Yes and yes...

(???)



Salaries as far as musicians and recording staff are concerned
are appropriate for the level of skills required. It's a lot more
involved than most people think:-)


:-)



A very pretty young female journalist, with short skirt and very
sharp pencil, visiting Decca once asked me "How many album
do you record in a day?"


Of couse, she meant *sell*... :-)



Interesting that the strongest defenders of such an obviously flawed
system in this group are those that are connected and derived financial
benefit from it, isn't it?

Not surprising. That's how we make a living.



Unlike the 'hopeful artists'...?? ;-)



I've said it a thousand times - pitch a music CD (*any* music CD) at say
1.99 a go and work back from that in terms of payments/royalties or
whatever and this whole piracy thing would melt away under the heading of
'who can be arsed?' but that wouldn't suit the MI at all would it?

It's like asking the breweries to produce good beer at 1p per pint, or
farmers to sell prime beef at 50p/kilo :-))


No, they are stupid figures - I base my figure on the fact that I, for one,
would be prepared to pay that amount for an Audio CD and have done so dozens
of times.

Tell ya summat for nowt Iain, the MI will *never* sell me a CD at 16 quid!!
(I can get an electric drill, jigsaw or sander for that sort of money FFS!!
;-)

In article , Wally wrote:
I was thinking of a musician who writes and records a piece of music
specifically for public replay on the radio, knowing that he'll get a
royalty each time it's played. If a commercial radio station were to then
use his work without paying the royalty, then it could be argued that
they're ripping him off. He could have spent months on it, funded the
recording budget from his own pocket, and see the thing as a long-term
investment which might last months or years.

The work may be done, but that doesn't mean that the doer of the
work has been paid, or paid in full.

Absolutely - that's exploitation.

Yup, so the notion that the 'work is done' doesn't necessarly hold as the
point at which copyright no longer applies.

In most everyday situations, the point at which the work is regarded as
having been "done" is the point at which input of effort from the person who
is doing the work ceases. This is why a mental adjustment is required when
considering copyright work which provides income long afterwards, when the
person who did the work may no longer be doing anything.

Rod.

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:


If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow
people access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to
pay if they want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are
not entitled to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for
nothing.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is
undetected) you take the author to a wider audience.



Sorry. It isn't clear to me what you are talking about as I can't
decide who terms like "your" in your statement refer to.

That's OK. The 'you' is a hypothetical user of someone else's work

OK. IIUC for me, the problem is that someone other that the author simply
does not have the moral or legal right to plagurise or copy or distribute
the author's work *unless* the author approves, or there is some other
reason - e.g. author long dead, so has no interest one way or another.

'Copyright' appears and is owned by the author as soon as the work is
created. The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various copyrights, but
that is a matter for them. If they have sold or rented rights, then the
body or person who obtained the rights would have the relevant control.

The above is fine with me. It means the author decides if they want to give
work away, or charge for it, etc. Their work, their choice. Otherwise, why
should they bother in the first place?

[snip]


*Unless* the persons owning the copyrights decided to permit this...


OK - I think we fundamentally disagree on this point: I don't think
copyright is good.

I regard it as a moral right of the author, and hence expect the law to
accord with that. If people want a different sort of economy/society then
fair enough, but in a capatalist/market system the author has to sell his
work, just as do others.


FWIW I have made about as much of my 'work' available on the web (free
access) as I have had published in books. I am also currently
negotiating to get the content of my books on the web for free access.
However I expect anyone who uses the work to do so in accord with some
conditions. (Spelt out on one of the 'Scots Guide' pages.) This is to
avoid plagurism or others simply making money out of other people who
could access the work for nothing.


Everything I've written is available FOC - in fact I actively encourage
its use. If I have the capacity and time to write a book, I'll try to
ensure no copyright applies. I can only buy so many valve amplifiers
after all :-)

But copyright *does* apply. It is what gives *you* the right to tell others
that they may freely copy your work if that is you wish. No-one else has
the right to tell you what to do on this matter *unless* you decided to
enter an agreement with them.

I do think it's a little ignorant when people don't attribute - I'd
guess 5% of students plagiarise in a major way, and it does get on my
nerves for a variety of reasons.

I am in part concerned by students who cheat and pass off work as their
own. (Government ministers please note. :-) )

However I am also concerned about publishers and organisations who make
copies and distribute them *to make money* without consulting the author or
getting permission. This goes on, and is piracy or theft. It steals from
the author who might otherwise get payment for their work. It steals from
the purchasers who are being tricked into paying for what they might have
got at lesser (or zero) cost.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Keith G wrote:

Tell ya summat for nowt Iain, the MI will *never* sell me a CD at 16
quid!!

Nor I. About 12 quid is my absolute limit - and I've to be both gagging
*and* flush. Otherwise, it's more like 6-8 quid (or 3-5 for clsasical). I
always keep an eye on cheapo stuff from charity shops and eBay (y'can't beat
CDs for a quid or two!).

I agree with you - the MI is shafting itself because it's charging rip-off
prices in an environment where people can make perfect copies for 10p a
throw. It should wise up, realise that the bottom has fallen out of its
market, and come up with a better survival strategy than making a lot of
noise and trying to get punters thrown in jail. Why should I pay top dollar
for some album or other, just so they can profiteer from it and pour far too
much dough into promoting their latest teen money-spinner? They can go ****
themselves.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:22:54 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Keith G wrote:

Tell ya summat for nowt Iain, the MI will *never* sell me a CD at 16
quid!!

Nor I. About 12 quid is my absolute limit - and I've to be both gagging
*and* flush. Otherwise, it's more like 6-8 quid (or 3-5 for clsasical). I
always keep an eye on cheapo stuff from charity shops and eBay (y'can't beat
CDs for a quid or two!).

I agree with you - the MI is shafting itself because it's charging rip-off
prices in an environment where people can make perfect copies for 10p a
throw. It should wise up, realise that the bottom has fallen out of its
market, and come up with a better survival strategy than making a lot of
noise and trying to get punters thrown in jail. Why should I pay top dollar
for some album or other, just so they can profiteer from it and pour far too
much dough into promoting their latest teen money-spinner? They can go ****
themselves.

Agreed. Entirely, without qualification. This is *much* more important
than any bull**** about the myth of 'cable sound'. I love my Sony
CDP-715E CD player, but I'd gladly stomp it flat if Sony would take a
quid off the price off a CD. Actually, given volume, make that a
penny.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Rob
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:


If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow
people access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to
pay if they want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are
not entitled to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for
nothing.

Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is
undetected) you take the author to a wider audience.



Sorry. It isn't clear to me what you are talking about as I can't
decide who terms like "your" in your statement refer to.


That's OK. The 'you' is a hypothetical user of someone else's work


OK. IIUC for me, the problem is that someone other that the author simply
does not have the moral or legal right to plagurise or copy or distribute
the author's work *unless* the author approves, or there is some other
reason - e.g. author long dead, so has no interest one way or another.

'Copyright' appears and is owned by the author as soon as the work is
created. The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various copyrights, but
that is a matter for them. If they have sold or rented rights, then the
body or person who obtained the rights would have the relevant control.

Yes, OK, I sort of know that. It's just *I think* copyright does more to
stifle innovation, reward and dissemination than it creates. It's just
my view, and I think you disagree, and that's fine.

The above is fine with me. It means the author decides if they want to give
work away, or charge for it, etc. Their work, their choice. Otherwise, why
should they bother in the first place?


That's a fettered choice.

[snip]


*Unless* the persons owning the copyrights decided to permit this...



OK - I think we fundamentally disagree on this point: I don't think
copyright is good.


I regard it as a moral right of the author, and hence expect the law to
accord with that.

I think when you use the words 'moral right' it's necessary to look at
the intent of the perpetrator (for want of a better label) - if someone
is using something that isn't theirs, and attributes that use explicitly
(names the author) or implicitly (downloads a song), and no harm comes
from it (beyond perhaps a dented author's ego) I see no moral problem.

fair enough, but in a capatalist/market system the author has to sell his
work, just as do others.


They don't have to.



FWIW I have made about as much of my 'work' available on the web (free
access) as I have had published in books. I am also currently
negotiating to get the content of my books on the web for free access.
However I expect anyone who uses the work to do so in accord with some
conditions. (Spelt out on one of the 'Scots Guide' pages.) This is to
avoid plagurism or others simply making money out of other people who
could access the work for nothing.



Everything I've written is available FOC - in fact I actively encourage
its use. If I have the capacity and time to write a book, I'll try to
ensure no copyright applies. I can only buy so many valve amplifiers
after all :-)

(**)
But copyright *does* apply. It is what gives *you* the right to tell others
that they may freely copy your work if that is you wish. No-one else has
the right to tell you what to do on this matter *unless* you decided to
enter an agreement with them.

I didn't know that.


I do think it's a little ignorant when people don't attribute - I'd
guess 5% of students plagiarise in a major way, and it does get on my
nerves for a variety of reasons.


I am in part concerned by students who cheat and pass off work as their
own. (Government ministers please note. :-) )

Yes indeed - or lazy civil servants :-;

However I am also concerned about publishers and organisations who make
copies and distribute them *to make money* without consulting the author or
getting permission. This goes on, and is piracy or theft. It steals from
the author who might otherwise get payment for their work. It steals from
the purchasers who are being tricked into paying for what they might have
got at lesser (or zero) cost.


Well, that's a rather different argument and is simply exploitation -
although I would imagine from your comments above (**) legal redress
exists, absence of legal aid notwithstanding.

Rob