Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

David, please take care never to send a CD to Keith. Not fair to try and
push him into doing what he actually said, or break his word, even
at the cost to you of a CD!


Don't worry Jim, there's very little chance that I'd ever send Keith a CD
:-)


Er, no - there's *no* chance you would get to send me a CD, but you can send
one to your whiny *old biddy* chum, if you like - I've still got his address
from when I sent him a *pristine* set of Quad FM3/33/303 manuals and
literature (including console cut-out templates, IIRC) a few years back.

(Probably worth between 35 and 50 quid on eBay at the time - unsmartest move
I ever made, it turns out..!! ;-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

David, please take care never to send a CD to Keith. Not fair to try
and push him into doing what he actually said, or break his word, even
at the cost to you of a CD!


Don't worry Jim, there's very little chance that I'd ever send Keith a
CD
:-)

No shock/horror here at that. :-)

Should say that my previous posting was - as the eagles say - "for the
avoidance of all doubt". Just trying to cover Keith in case at some future
point the eagles find his postings on the archives are are muddled into
action against him by what he said. Only raised the matters in the first
place with the intent of avoiding him from digging a hole for himself with
them. Not surprised by his reactions.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article , Keith G

wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

David, please take care never to send a CD to Keith. Not fair to try
and push him into doing what he actually said, or break his word,
even at the cost to you of a CD!


Don't worry Jim, there's very little chance that I'd ever send Keith a
CD
:-)


Er, no - there's *no* chance you would get to send me a CD, but you can
send one to your whiny *old biddy* chum, if you like - I've still got
his address from when I sent him a *pristine* set of Quad FM3/33/303
manuals and literature (including console cut-out templates, IIRC) a
few years back.

Must confess I don't recall that. A number of people have given me copies
of those manuals, etc, along with other info from many other people. cf
below. So hardly a surprise if I can't recall, I'm afraid.


(Probably worth between 35 and 50 quid on eBay at the time - unsmartest
move I ever made, it turns out..!! ;-)

If your only concern is money, yes. Odd if you didn't know that at the
time.

However since you raise this I should point out something for any 'new
readers' of this group. May also help Keith to dry his tears over his lost
fortune and cheer up a little... ;-

I have for decades systematically collected documentation on old audio kit.
This serves two purposes.

One is to let me help others who have old kit they wish to use / maintain /
service / restore. I provide info and help when I can. I don't charge.
Happy to help if I manage.

The other is to publish info about audio kit and its history and technology
on the web. Again so that others can access it without any payment to me.

Anyone who sends me documents should know these are the reasons I collect
such material. I don't pay for it because I don't charge others for it. I
don't deal in either documents or kit. (FWIW Nor do I do any repairs, etc,
for others for money.)

As well as doing this to help those with kit, and promote an interest in
audio history, etc, I also do it because I'd like the 'pioneers' who
developed UK audio kit to have what they did more widely known and
appreciated. Many of them are now dead, others retired and unknown. Seems
to me only fair their work should get some coverage.

When I started doing this (decades ago, now!) the info was 'fading away' as
firms closed, paperwork binned, and people died or forgot. Most magazines
and writers took little interest in most old kit.

So I started collecting and making info available. Pleased to say others
have also done this and people now have a greater appreciation of the
topic. Ahem, including those with a special interest in euphemism well
established /euphemism audio technology like valves, vinyl, horn
speakers, etc. Happy to help when I can, even when I don't always share
their preferences. No charge. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Er, no - there's *no* chance you would get to send me a CD, but you can
send one to your whiny *old biddy* chum, if you like - I've still got
his address from when I sent him a *pristine* set of Quad FM3/33/303
manuals and literature (including console cut-out templates, IIRC) a
few years back.

One who sells equipment without the manual? I hate those...

(Probably worth between 35 and 50 quid on eBay at the time - unsmartest
move I ever made, it turns out..!! ;-)

Some time ago, I misplaced the manual for my FM3. Quad sent me a new one
for free.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Er, no - there's *no* chance you would get to send me a CD, but you can
send one to your whiny *old biddy* chum, if you like - I've still got
his address from when I sent him a *pristine* set of Quad FM3/33/303
manuals and literature (including console cut-out templates, IIRC) a
few years back.

One who sells equipment without the manual? I hate those...


Personally, I think you're going to struggle to find *anyone* who gives a
monkey's about that.

While, OTOH, *hundreds* will be interested to know I had two FM3/33/303
setups at the same time - here's one of them I got for 125 spons from the
local hifi shop (before they decided to put all secondhand trade-ins on
eBay):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...d%20-%2001.JPG


No problems with either of them except for a switch-on thump on one of them
which I cured with a new capacitor:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...d%20-%2005.JPG


....which I don't think is too shabby for someone with *zero* electronics
experience or training....

;-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

Keith G Originally wrote:
----- Message -----
From: "Keith G"
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:15 PM
Subject: Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)




Maybe 'pointless' but it's good, cheap fun! ;-)



As can be seen, the clueless clique have been googling but not
efficiently. Even the self-proclaimed "professional" but he is
just a not very good hobbyist - Arny, leapt in once supplied
with a few clues.
And the two David's both easily led up the garden path did their
googling and as usual typed into search the clues but only garnered
info from the first page of results, primarily the notoriously
inaccurate Wikipedia.
All too predictable is that over the coming months they will continue
on their learning curve of how copy protection has evolved and how it
is now incorporated into copyright material. Then they will portray
they knew all along.

They are feeling vunerable and very silly so you must not be tempted
to perplex them further, do not ask why has Apple removed copy
protection from iTunes downloads? And as this is an audio group you
must not mention Macrovison strippers (though it is relevent) nor
HDCP handshaking. And just do not ask about Hauppauges clever USB
capture device - Just don't ask!
And for goodness sake under no circumstances mention remastered
scousers and copy protection, the clique will only spend sleepless
nights scouring red books. They are very old and easily befuddled.
There is even a poster who thinks "Scotch" is a nationality?
Do not mention that Scotch is an over-taxed alcoholic drinkypoo.

You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"No Win No Fee" wrote

As can be seen, the clueless clique have been googling but not
efficiently.

Why don't you try finding out what the law *actually* says before posting?
As I said before it's a good idea to get your facts right before calling
other people names.
Not only are you gratuitously offensive, you are also *wrong* about
copyright. Contrary to what you appear to believe you don't become "right"
just by being able to insult others.

Oh, and by the way nether macrovision nor HDCP makes one iota of difference
to copyright law. Both, like DRM and SCMS, are simply mechanisms intended to
make it difficult to breach copyright. It's just as illegal to copy a
copyright recording whether any of these "copyright protection" mechanisms
are in use or not.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 15:59, No Win No Fee wrote:
Keith G Originally wrote:
----- Message -----
From: "Keith G"
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:15 PM
Subject: Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)




Maybe 'pointless' but it's good, cheap fun! ;-)



As can be seen, the clueless clique have been googling but not
efficiently. Even the self-proclaimed "professional" but he is
just a not very good hobbyist - Arny, leapt in once supplied
with a few clues.
And the two David's both easily led up the garden path did their
googling and as usual typed into search the clues but only garnered
info from the first page of results, primarily the notoriously
inaccurate Wikipedia.
All too predictable is that over the coming months they will continue
on their learning curve of how copy protection has evolved and how it
is now incorporated into copyright material. Then they will portray
they knew all along.

They are feeling vunerable and very silly so you must not be tempted
to perplex them further, do not ask why has Apple removed copy
protection from iTunes downloads? And as this is an audio group you
must not mention Macrovison strippers (though it is relevent) nor
HDCP handshaking. And just do not ask about Hauppauges clever USB
capture device - Just don't ask!
And for goodness sake under no circumstances mention remastered
scousers and copy protection, the clique will only spend sleepless
nights scouring red books. They are very old and easily befuddled.
There is even a poster who thinks "Scotch" is a nationality?
Do not mention that Scotch is an over-taxed alcoholic drinkypoo.

You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Now look here old chap, you musn't go round bursting the cliques little
bubble, it's the only thing that protects their fragile little lives.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om,
resender wrote:
You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Now look here old chap, you musn't go round bursting the cliques little
bubble, it's the only thing that protects their fragile little lives.

You appear to be replying to yourself, old chap.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians, film
makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from their
work?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


Property is theft, eh Rob? :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 19:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Now look here old chap, you musn't go round bursting the cliques little
bubble, it's the only thing that protects their fragile little lives.

You appear to be replying to yourself, old chap.

Shows how much you know Mr RichardTop.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

David Looser wrote:


Breath deep.....and relax

Why don't you try finding out what the law *actually* says before posting?
As I said before it's a good idea to get your facts right before calling
other people names.

I do, I know my subject, it's you who leaps in without the facts.
The thread was evolving in context of Keef donating a CD to a charity
shop which would re-sell the "pre-owned" CD, all perfectly legal.

Not only are you gratuitously offensive, you are also *wrong* about
copyright. Contrary to what you appear to believe you don't become "right"
just by being able to insult others.

But I am right, you are corrupting the debate issues in an attempt to
shore up your weak and inaccurate argument.


Oh, and by the way nether macrovision nor HDCP makes one iota of difference
to copyright law. Both, like DRM and SCMS, are simply mechanisms intended to
make it difficult to breach copyright. It's just as illegal to copy a
copyright recording whether any of these "copyright protection" mechanisms
are in use or not.


I didn't say otherwise, you need to calm down and re-read the thread.
I obviously threw in a few clues to bait and you fell in head first.
You all did as instructed and googled SCMS and DRM, but as usual you
took your info from the first search result, the imbecilic Wikipedia.
It wasn't me who said copy protection was not included in CD, It is-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3256945.stm
And that is from 2003, and it has evolved further since then.
A few lobbed in the Red Book standard, they didn't do their homework,
now there will be further frenzied googling by the clueless clique
and still none of you will get it right.

David.




You need to get some sleep.
Jesus loves you.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"No Win No Fee" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:



Why don't you try finding out what the law *actually* says before
posting? As I said before it's a good idea to get your facts right before
calling other people names.

I do, I know my subject, it's you who leaps in without the facts.
The thread was evolving in context of Keef donating a CD to a charity shop
which would re-sell the "pre-owned" CD, all perfectly legal.

It is, of course, perfectly legal to sell a CD second-hand, or to donate it
to a charity shop which then resells it. All that is, as you say, perfectly
legal. However had that CD been ripped to a computer, mp3 player or whatever
by the original owner, then that ripped copy becomes unlicensed as a result
of the disposal of the original disc as the licence has now been transferred
to the new owner of the original disc, and thus retaining or listening to
the copy is a breach of copyright law. Keith's original statement was that,
if he was given a CD, he would rip it to an mp3 and then donate the CD. This
rip would be an unlicensed and thus illegal copy as soon as he donated the
original CD.


But I am right,

Sorry, but you aren't right. Check your facts.


I didn't say otherwise, you need to calm down and re-read the thread.
I obviously threw in a few clues to bait and you fell in head first.
You all did as instructed and googled SCMS and DRM,

Sorry to disappoint you but I did no googling, I didn't need to.

It wasn't me who said copy protection was not included in CD, It is-

No, you said that it was:-

quote
"Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced.
unquote

There is no "copy-protection code" on a CD, whilst that on a DVD does not
allow *any* copying.


And that is from 2003, and it has evolved further since then.
A few lobbed in the Red Book standard, they didn't do their homework,

The "Red Book" specification, which defines what an "audio CD" is, has not
changed. There have been a few attempts to market CDs with DRMs, but these
attempts have now been abandoned due to problems caused to legitimate users
of these CDs. These DRM CDs are not "Red Book" CDs, nor can they use the
"Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo.

now there will be further frenzied googling by the clueless clique
and still none of you will get it right.

Again I have to point out that the one who still hasn't got it right is
yourself.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians, film
makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from their
work?


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book. And I think people could,
as part of the package, have use of and access to things that enable
them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life. Like vinyl and valve
phono amps, that type of thing :-)

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion, and I have twigged
that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has given me a
persuasive alternative - yet. It's those who say, as a matter of
verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I might take issue with.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 20:00, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should
own anything at all.


Property is theft, eh Rob? :-)


You have me pegged Mr Keith! :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 07:31, David Looser wrote:
"No Win No wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:



Why don't you try finding out what the law *actually* says before
posting? As I said before it's a good idea to get your facts right before
calling other people names.

I do, I know my subject, it's you who leaps in without the facts.
The thread was evolving in context of Keef donating a CD to a charity shop
which would re-sell the "pre-owned" CD, all perfectly legal.

It is, of course, perfectly legal to sell a CD second-hand, or to donate it
to a charity shop which then resells it. All that is, as you say, perfectly
legal. However had that CD been ripped to a computer, mp3 player or whatever
by the original owner, then that ripped copy becomes unlicensed as a result
of the disposal of the original disc as the licence has now been transferred
to the new owner of the original disc, and thus retaining or listening to
the copy is a breach of copyright law. Keith's original statement was that,
if he was given a CD, he would rip it to an mp3 and then donate the CD. This
rip would be an unlicensed and thus illegal copy as soon as he donated the
original CD.


Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or
perhaps something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think
at least, necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't
see anything wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to
persuade me that is, I'll listen.

And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which
Arny summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc are
worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without copyright it
would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making a film, let alone
make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd rather live in a world
with films, recorded music, books etc. even if I have to pay for them, than
one where those things didn't exist because nobody could afford to produce
them.

And I think people could, as part of the package, have use of and access
to things that enable them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life. Like
vinyl and valve phono amps, that type of thing :-)

Not quite sure what that has to do with the subject, apart from the point
that without copyright recordings your valve amps would have rather less to
do ;-)

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion,

Of course, all statements made in this group, unless claimed as "facts" (and
often even when they are!), are opinions; that's the nature of forums like
this.

and I have twigged that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has
given me a persuasive alternative - yet.

Persuasive alternative to what?

It's those who say, as a matter of verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I
might take issue with.

Wrong about what? You stated your opinion and it's not for me to say that
it's not your opinion is it?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

I keep repeating it because "No Win" keeps saying otherwise.

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or perhaps
something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think at least,
necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to persuade me that
is, I'll listen.

Commercial recordings are made to produce an income for those involved in
the production. If anyone could legally make a copy of a commercial disc and
then pass that disc on to someone else who takes a copy and passes it on in
turn, in theory an entire town could each hold a copy of a recording
obtained from just one paid-for disc. This would dramatically reduce the
income of the recording industry. Whilst you might consider the industry at
present too money focused and too greedy (and I wouldn't disagree)
eliminating all controls on copying would almost certainly result in the
collapse of the commercial recording industry. Then the only records then
made would be amateur "back-bedroom" productions, advertising funded and
vanity projects.

In my opinion copyright needs to balance the interests of the producers and
consumers of intellectual property. I've said before and I'm happy to say
again that I think currently the law is weighted in favour of the producers
and I'd like to see it re-balanced. But I do think that if copyright law
were to be simply abolished, or unlimited copying of commercial recordings
permitted, that the results would be to effectively end the supply of
recorded music to the public.

And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which Arny
summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

If you don't want to read re-statements then don't read them! They are
addressed to "no win", not you.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com

I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy.

The moral issue has been described quite clearly - by keeping the MP3 file
you are behaving as if you hold a license that you have already sold or
given away.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

No Win No Fee said...

You need to get some sleep.
Jesus loves you.

This theory as to why all mammals periodically enter a "naturally
recurring state characterized by reduced or absent consciousness,
relatively suspended sensory activity, and inactivity of nearly all
voluntary muscles"; does not stand up to close scrutiny and would only
be accepted by this poster if you were to provide links to properly
conducted scientific studies in which it was clearly shown that those
subjects whom Jesus did not love did not require "sleep" and were thus
free to spend the hours of darkness in such activities as watching
shopping channels on TV and tidying the cupboard under the sink.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians,
film makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from
their work?


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

A snag is that the way society and economy tends to work means that
producing something like a feature film can be expensive. (And in the UK
the government has just shut down the body that funded films like the Oscar
Winning "King's Speech" because they decided it was a waste of money!)

However, many people already choose to do work 'for free' or create works
others can use without any payment. I'm sure you can find musicians that do
this. You can also find webpage authors, computer programmers, am dram
enthusiasts, etc, etc. Linux is largly built on the work of thousands of
people who work on it and its applications, etc, and happily 'give away'
their work. Often without caring that most people don't know their name or
download and install without any thought of saying 'thanks'.

Others wish (or need) to earn a living out of performing, composing, etc. I
can't see anything wrong with them doing so *if* those wanting the result
think it worth the price. So far as I am concerned the primary choice to
ask for payment or not should be with the person doing the work. if they
want to charge and no-one wants to pay, then no-one should simply take the
work. Up to the performer or composer to decide what they'd then choose to
do if no-one will pay.

And 'rights' in 'copyrights' are plural. So those who create or publish can
specify *which* specific 'rights' they will sell, and the terms and
conditions. Just as the potential customer can reject that offer or accept
it. Just as a publisher has to agree specific terms with an author or
performer and also with people buying copies from the publisher.

So we already have a 'mixed economy' in these terms.

I suspect that many other would *like* to give their work for no charge.
But are hampered by details like the shopkeepers expecting them to pay for
their food, and the bank to have the mortgage paid, etc.

I'd love to see many detailed aspects of copyright law changed. But my
concerns are about works that are 'orphaned' or were produced decades ago
and the original artists/publishers have *already* had many years to
recover payment.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om,
resender wrote:
On 24/03/2011 19:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Now look here old chap, you musn't go round bursting the cliques
little bubble, it's the only thing that protects their fragile little
lives.

You appear to be replying to yourself, old chap.

Shows how much you know Mr RichardTop.

Sorry. Make that two minds without a single thought.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'd love to see many detailed aspects of copyright law changed. But my
concerns are about works that are 'orphaned' or were produced decades ago
and the original artists/publishers have *already* had many years to
recover payment.


I agree, my particular complaint is the time for which copyright lasts. The
copyright for a work created by an individual last for that persons lifetime
plus 70 years. So if I pay a royalty for the use of such a work say 60 years
after the author's death who is collecting that royalty? his/her
grandchildren?, the shareholders of a publishing company? Why should those
people who did nothing to create the work receive payment for it's use?

The history of copyright law seems to have been to continually ratchet-up
the length of time for which a copyright lasts, and I gather from what I've
read of the 1998 US act known as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act" that some people were seriously suggesting that copyright should last
indefinitely! So should Shakespeare still be in copyright?, or Chaucer? Who
nowadays could claim "ownership" of their works? The whole idea is, IMO,
totally barmy.

Having said all that I do firmly believe that if someone is good enough as
an author, composer, recording artist or whatever to do so professionally
then they should be entitled to protect their income by insisting that those
who wish to enjoy their work pay for it. Similarly if a corporate body has
invested considerable sums in creating a film or whatever then again they
should be entitled to receive a return on that investment from those who
wish to enjoy the results of it.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/03/2011 20:00, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should
own anything at all.


Property is theft, eh Rob? :-)


You have me pegged Mr Keith! :-)


Thought I might'a done, Dr Rob!! :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc are
worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without copyright it
would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making a film, let alone
make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd rather live in a world
with films, recorded music, books etc. even if I have to pay for them, than
one where those things didn't exist because nobody could afford to produce
them.


Of course they would - and even given the current state of play, I'd
suggest we'd have better films. Do you think people like Mike Leigh care
about copyright? Well, I don't know, obviously. I would agree with you
on one point: it's unlikely we'd have as many films if it were not for
copyright.


And I think people could, as part of the package, have use of and access
to things that enable them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life. Like
vinyl and valve phono amps, that type of thing :-)

Not quite sure what that has to do with the subject, apart from the point
that without copyright recordings your valve amps would have rather less to
do ;-)


Subject of copyright? It's absolutely central, in the sense people would
want to 'steal' in the first place. But no matter.

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion,

Of course, all statements made in this group, unless claimed as "facts" (and
often even when they are!), are opinions; that's the nature of forums like
this.


Yes, agreed - you started with 'are you telling me . . .' - just wanted
to be clear.

and I have twigged that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has
given me a persuasive alternative - yet.

Persuasive alternative to what?


The current system we have - 'end of history'.

It's those who say, as a matter of verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I
might take issue with.

Wrong about what? You stated your opinion and it's not for me to say that
it's not your opinion is it?

Plenty of people say, as a point of apparent unequivocal fact, that
copyright is good, and I am wrong in my opinion.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 13:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians,
film makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from
their work?


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

A snag is that the way society and economy tends to work means that
producing something like a feature film can be expensive. (And in the UK
the government has just shut down the body that funded films like the Oscar
Winning "King's Speech" because they decided it was a waste of money!)

However, many people already choose to do work 'for free' or create works
others can use without any payment. I'm sure you can find musicians that do
this. You can also find webpage authors, computer programmers, am dram
enthusiasts, etc, etc. Linux is largly built on the work of thousands of
people who work on it and its applications, etc, and happily 'give away'
their work. Often without caring that most people don't know their name or
download and install without any thought of saying 'thanks'.

Others wish (or need) to earn a living out of performing, composing, etc. I
can't see anything wrong with them doing so *if* those wanting the result
think it worth the price. So far as I am concerned the primary choice to
ask for payment or not should be with the person doing the work. if they
want to charge and no-one wants to pay, then no-one should simply take the
work. Up to the performer or composer to decide what they'd then choose to
do if no-one will pay.

And 'rights' in 'copyrights' are plural. So those who create or publish can
specify *which* specific 'rights' they will sell, and the terms and
conditions. Just as the potential customer can reject that offer or accept
it. Just as a publisher has to agree specific terms with an author or
performer and also with people buying copies from the publisher.

So we already have a 'mixed economy' in these terms.

I suspect that many other would *like* to give their work for no charge.
But are hampered by details like the shopkeepers expecting them to pay for
their food, and the bank to have the mortgage paid, etc.

I'd love to see many detailed aspects of copyright law changed. But my
concerns are about works that are 'orphaned' or were produced decades ago
and the original artists/publishers have *already* had many years to
recover payment.


Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold. Once you
put monetary value on that type of thing reasoning becomes perversely
skewed. Now, 'in the real world', people need to eat. But this
discussion isn't really about people scraping a living, is it? It's
/more/ to do with supporting corporations and wealthy individuals, and
helping them maintain their little lot?

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 09:23, David Looser wrote:
wrote

Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

I keep repeating it because "No Win" keeps saying otherwise.

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or perhaps
something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think at least,
necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to persuade me that
is, I'll listen.

Commercial recordings are made to produce an income for those involved in
the production. If anyone could legally make a copy of a commercial disc and
then pass that disc on to someone else who takes a copy and passes it on in
turn, in theory an entire town could each hold a copy of a recording
obtained from just one paid-for disc. This would dramatically reduce the
income of the recording industry. Whilst you might consider the industry at
present too money focused and too greedy (and I wouldn't disagree)
eliminating all controls on copying would almost certainly result in the
collapse of the commercial recording industry. Then the only records then
made would be amateur "back-bedroom" productions, advertising funded and
vanity projects.


I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny. In fact, overall, they've done pretty well out
of me.

In my opinion copyright needs to balance the interests of the producers and
consumers of intellectual property. I've said before and I'm happy to say
again that I think currently the law is weighted in favour of the producers
and I'd like to see it re-balanced. But I do think that if copyright law
were to be simply abolished, or unlimited copying of commercial recordings
permitted, that the results would be to effectively end the supply of
recorded music to the public.

I don't agree. I can only think of Radiohead as a counter to your
reasoning, because I don't know enough about how making music works. I'm
afraid your argument won't change my behaviour. For example:

I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me
(jazz) but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue,
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy
the music. I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process.
Perhaps you're saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked
down the performer and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate?
And relied on the performer to ensure everything went to the people it
should go to? Or lent the CD, and made clear that it must be returned
after a period (3 weeks?). Or I should simply have put the CD away in
the cellar, and carried it with me for the rest of my time, or until I
securely deleted the stored copy?

Can you give me a practical steer here? I don't know quite what you're
saying.


And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which Arny
summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

If you don't want to read re-statements then don't read them! They are
addressed to "no win", not you.


OK! I thought your, and Arny's, position were quite clear by now though.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 12:20, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com

I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy.

The moral issue has been described quite clearly - by keeping the MP3 file
you are behaving as if you hold a license that you have already sold or
given away.


That's your interpretation of my behaviour. It's not incorrect, just far
from complete. My morality is in part informed by the extent to which I
do harm/good, not legal scripture.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films
etc are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without
copyright it would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making
a film, let alone make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd
rather live in a world with films, recorded music, books etc. even if
I have to pay for them, than one where those things didn't exist
because nobody could afford to produce them.


Of course they would - and even given the current state of play, I'd
suggest we'd have better films. Do you think people like Mike Leigh care
about copyright?

It seems likely that many authors and performers have little interest in
'copyright' per se. The question, though, becomes how they eat and live and
have the time and effort to devote to their 'creative' work.

For a film, you need more than "Mike Leigh". You need a number of other
people to work on the film if it is going to be done on a basis much beyond
one man and his home videocamera.

Many of us are happy to do some work 'free' because we wish to do so. But
those who do this still need to eat, have somewhere to live, and the tools
for the work they do. This can be a part-time 'hobby' and done on an
amateur basis - but only if support or income is present from other means.

In the case of something like a feature film you'd probably need a lot of
money for all the equipment, travel expenses, etc. Again unless your film
was based on what was possible in your own backyard.

In the absense of any copyright at all, how would expect this to be
function? I can see various possibilities that would do in various cases.
But I can't see why others should not be able to choose a 'copyright'
method if that suits them and their audience.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.

--
Eiron.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 25/03/2011 13:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, [big snip]


Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

I also like the 'free' and 'open' ways of doing things for many purposes.
But I also think it is a matter for the individual author or performer if
they want to only provide their work in return for an income. Up to them to
state their terms, and for others to decide if they want the result enough
to agree, or go without.


Once you put monetary value on that type of thing reasoning becomes
perversely skewed.

I don't agree that with a blanket assertion that it is always "perversely
skewed". Some people write or perform as a means to make a living. If they
are good enough for others to pay, why should they not do so?

Now, 'in the real world', people need to eat. But this discussion isn't
really about people scraping a living, is it? It's /more/ to do with
supporting corporations and wealthy individuals, and helping them
maintain their little lot?

That for me is a key point. It is one thing to have in place a legal
framework that allows the creator or performer to earn a living from their
work. It is something else for businesses to then take control of this for
their own ends.

To me it all has to be judged on the basis of what it serves, and who
benefits in each case. That means I'd wish to see some detailed alterations
to copyright law where I think at present it harms either the
creator/artist and/or the people who would like to use the results. But I
don't expect or wish to see it entirely banished.

Consider Linux. I like this partly because of how it works. But also I like
the free and open approach. I'd love to see more computer users adopt this.
But I don't want to ban Microsoft or Apple or change the law so that anyone
could copy and use their softwareware for free. I'm happy for the two
approaches to compete. My only concern is that people have a fair view of
what is on offer so they can decide on a well-informed basis, and either
contribute/pay and use on the basis they decide suits them best.

I'm not a fan of Windows or Microsoft. But I don't feel it is my job to
tell others *they* shouldn't like it. Provided they are well informed and
aren't making a choice based on misinformation or ignorance, up to them to
choose for themself.

In terms of things like music or film or books the choices are similar. The
point of copyright law should be to set a fair framework people can use as
suits them as people. The difficulty is that the framework we have at
present seems to me to be based on an older and different world, then
morphed by pressure from big companies into what suits *them*. So there are
many detailed changed I'd like to see. But not the removal entirely of all
copyrights.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:47, Eiron wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the
recording industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.


You'd be quite right there, of course :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:47, Eiron wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the
recording industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.


You'd be quite right there, of course :-)

I look forwards to those who have acted as you describe then telling the
artists and publishers to discover what reactions they get. When they do,
please let us know the outcome. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are
worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without copyright
it
would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making a film, let
alone
make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd rather live in a
world
with films, recorded music, books etc. even if I have to pay for them,
than
one where those things didn't exist because nobody could afford to
produce
them.


Of course they would - and even given the current state of play, I'd
suggest we'd have better films. Do you think people like Mike Leigh care
about copyright? Well, I don't know, obviously. I would agree with you on
one point: it's unlikely we'd have as many films if it were not for
copyright.

Film making is an expensive business, and the first thing the would-be
producer of any film, however modest or "arthouse", needs to do is secure
the finance. The film industry has traditionally used a form of
"pay-per-view" as the means by which it finances it's production, more
recently it has taken to selling copies retail. Both of those methods of
generating a financial return depend on copyright.

But there are other business models which we can see from TV. We have the
tax-funded approach, as seen with the BBC, or there is commercial
sponsorship as with commercial TV. But both of those have their own
disadvantages, in particular both are more centrally controlled than the
film industry is, thus leading to less consumer choice..

And I think people could, as part of the package, have use of and access
to things that enable them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life.
Like
vinyl and valve phono amps, that type of thing :-)

Not quite sure what that has to do with the subject, apart from the point
that without copyright recordings your valve amps would have rather less
to
do ;-)


Subject of copyright? It's absolutely central, in the sense people would
want to 'steal' in the first place. But no matter.

My comment referred to your gratuitous reference to "vinyl and valve phono
amps". What has the technology used got to do with the issue?

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion,

Of course, all statements made in this group, unless claimed as "facts"
(and
often even when they are!), are opinions; that's the nature of forums
like
this.


Yes, agreed - you started with 'are you telling me . . .' - just wanted to
be clear.

Well I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked if my reading of your
comment was the correct one.

and I have twigged that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has
given me a persuasive alternative - yet.

Persuasive alternative to what?


The current system we have - 'end of history'.

You haven't given a persuasive alternative either. Our present world has
grown up with copyright and it's hard to imagine what it would look like
without it.

It's those who say, as a matter of verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that
I
might take issue with.

Wrong about what? You stated your opinion and it's not for me to say that
it's not your opinion is it?

Plenty of people say, as a point of apparent unequivocal fact, that
copyright is good, and I am wrong in my opinion.

Do they? We all have opinions on all sorts of subjects and what is the point
of having an opinion if you don't believe it to be true? In the case of
copyright we can only speculate on what the world would be like without it,
so obviously there cannot be "unequivocal fact".

My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much they might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer cost of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I don't
think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

Since the dawn of history people have sold their skills and labour for money
(or equivalent). This applies whether your skills are as a farmer, a
warrior, a bureaucrat, a craftsman, a performer or indeed a writer, composer
or film-maker. Do you think that none of these skills or talents should be
"sold", or are you making a distinction between those who produce physical
products and those who produce "intellectual property"?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

Since the dawn of history people have sold their skills and labour for
money (or equivalent). This applies whether your skills are as a farmer,
a warrior, a bureaucrat, a craftsman, a performer or indeed a writer,
composer or film-maker. Do you think that none of these skills or
talents should be "sold", or are you making a distinction between those
who produce physical products and those who produce "intellectual
property"?

Wonder what Rob would think if he wrote a book and sent the manuscript to
a publisher, and it was rejected, and returned.

Then found it was later published and became a best seller with nothing
being paid to him.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny. In fact, overall, they've done pretty well out
of me.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

I don't agree. I can only think of Radiohead as a counter to your
reasoning, because I don't know enough about how making music works.

Radiohead is an interesting case. AIUI it Radiohead were a band who, having
made a lot of money from sales of previous releases, decided to offer one on
a "pay what you think it worth" basis. From my memory of news reports at the
time some people paid the recommended price (i.e.. what it would have
normally cost), others paid less than that, whilst a large number paid
nothing. I'm not sure how much less the group got than they might have
expected from a normal release; the publicity given to the case probably
meant that some of those who paid nothing downloaded the album for free just
because they could, and would not have done so at all if they'd had to pay.
Personally I don't think that a rational way to sell anything, I notice that
my local supermarket doesn't offer it's products on a "pay what you think
they are worth" basis. As far as I am aware neither Radiohead nor any other
band has repeated that gimmick since. And how people responded to that case
does not necessarily indicate how they would act if the "pay what you think
it worth" model was the norm. My guess, FWIW, is that it would soon move
into a situation where hardly anybody ever paid for downloads.


afraid your argument won't change my behaviour. For example:

I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me (jazz)
but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue, copied
the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy the music.
I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process. Perhaps you're
saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked down the performer
and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate? And relied on the
performer to ensure everything went to the people it should go to? Or lent
the CD, and made clear that it must be returned after a period (3 weeks?).
Or I should simply have put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with
me for the rest of my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?


As current law applies clearly the last option is the legally correct
approach. As for "who gets hurt" that would depend on whether you cost the
band a sale. Had you, rather than giving your copy to your friend,
recommended he went out and bought his own (and he had done so) the band
would have gained a sale, so you potentially cost them one by your action.
The loss of one sale may not be the end of the world, but if everbody who
buys a CD costs the band one further sale by acting as you did then their
income from that CD has been cut by 50%.

Suppose, if copyright did not exist, you went to the concert with your
laptop and a pile of blank CD-Rs. Then you bought one CD, ran off a load of
copies on your laptop, and offered the audience the chance to buy a copy
from you, rather than an 'official' copy. Without copyright that would be
legal, but do you think it ethical?


David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote


I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me (jazz)
but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue, copied
the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy the music.
I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process. Perhaps you're
saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked down the performer
and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate? And relied on the
performer to ensure everything went to the people it should go to? Or lent
the CD, and made clear that it must be returned after a period (3 weeks?).
Or I should simply have put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with
me for the rest of my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?

Can you give me a practical steer here? I don't know quite what you're
saying.


I think one thing that comes out of all this is that if you do rip a CD and
give the original away (to anybody or any organisation) you had better not
mention it here - as it seems to me it might be 'unsafe' so to do! ;-)

Makes the question 'Have you finished with that newspaper?' look like
someone intends to diminish Mr Murdock's personal fortune by his share of
the price of that paper, does it not? How many times could that paper be
passed along for free before it was considered a problem? How many times
could that paper be passed along for say 'half price' before it was
considered a problem?