Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


snipped not necessarily disagree but not the point I'm trying to make


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.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority.
In much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of
bankers' excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it
right. Also, distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this
notion that the sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is
fanciful. And perhaps 'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off
the back of copyright revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we have.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, 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.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place. I like the idea of internet, unfettered,
distribution for example, but it's too disorganised for people like me -
I don't have the time or energy . . .

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?


No, absolutely, I'd have thought many performers etc do what they do
without a thought for money, or perhaps only a distant expectation that
they'll get some return. It's people elsewhere and their shareholders
that I'm concerned about.

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 see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value. I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

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.

Yes, and i'm not especially proud of this sentiment, but it really isn't
that simple.

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.


If I had to pick an expedient transitional arrangement it might be a
lump sum, or a a fixed term contract. But a practically endless stream
of money for something they had the opportunity to be a part of, that
happens to be popular, nope.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
David wrote:
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.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it
happened to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's
salary equivalent, and give the rest away.

So I'd be a little put out. But, and as I think most could guess, it's
really not likely to happen :-)

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, 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.
:

This probably isn't technically correct, having rethought it. But I
don't intend to spend too much more time incriminating myself as a
matter of permanent record :-)

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. :-)


Well, you don't know how I've acted. If I have copied CDs and then kept
the copies and given them away, you'd need to know the CD's origin, who
I gave them to, and what the recipient then did as a result.

But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people who
do the work, and see what they think.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 17:10, David Looser wrote:
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.


I really believe you'd be surprised. If the money went straight to the
artist I think a lot of people would pay what they think it's worth.


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?


No I don't and I wouldn't do that. I've made a call. I could be wrong,
but I don't think I am. I think the musicians and a few other people
will do pretty well out of my actions. I did do it for me in the first
instance, I'm not going to squirm out of that one.

I accept Arny's (and your) point that it could be illegal, depending on
the origin/nature of the CD. But as I've tried to maintain, I'm more
interested in the morality and 'hurt' arguments.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 18:28, Keith G wrote:

"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! ;-)


Yes - getting a bit bored with self-incrimination! Not that I have
distributed copyrighted material etc etc.

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?

Quite!

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

I've made the point that people shouldn't own things.

When you say "things" do you mean just intellectual property, or all
property?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it happened
to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's salary
equivalent, and give the rest away.

There probably would not be any "rest". The likes of J.K.Rowling are few and
far between, most "best sellers" do not make more than a few year's salary
equivalent.

I was sorry, BTW, that you didn't answer my question as to whether you felt
that it was always wrong to put a monetary value on talent, or if that only
applied to certain sorts of talent.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com,

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.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place.

Nope. At present people can and do:

Go and perform for friends or in clubs or bars or other places. Either as
amateurs of for a whip around or for some payment.

Produce music and put it on the net and invite people to try it - either
for free or in exchange for some money.

etc.

As I said, we have a 'mixed' situation where people have options.

I like the idea of internet, unfettered, distribution for example, but
it's too disorganised for people like me - I don't have the time or
energy . . .

Your legal and moral choice to not use. Not (legally) your choice to simply
make a pirate copy of material *without* permission. If you interest is so
weak that you can't be bothered then don't bother. No-one else is
compelling you so far as I know.


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 see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value.

I agree. However what seems "wrong" about that to me is the situation where
they either don't know they have any choice, or are mislead, or are forced
by circumstances that remove their choice - e.g. by working in a place
where it is dictated to them that they can't choose anything else. It is
these factors that control or limit their ability to make a free and
well-informed choice that are the problem in my view. You can't have a
meaningful 'choice' if you are denied the relevant info, mislead, or forced
which option to take.

I have no doubt that Microsoft exploit this situation. I'd expect that as
their interest is making money. So to deal with it we require others to
change how these free market distortions, etc, arise.


I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

And I (and many others) keep having to pay a 'Microsoft Tax' since when we
buy a new set of hardware it comes 'bundled' with an operating system and
apps I don't want and don't use. Again, this lack of the simple option of
being able to always choose *not* to have that seems unreasonable.

In theory you can reclaim what you paid for the unwanted pre-installed OS,
etc. But try this and see how you get on. Has anyone *ever* succeeded? And
why should you have to be put thought this for something you didn't want in
the first place when they could easily be a choice at the start?

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, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

I can't resist adding into this discussion an 'interesting case' I've just
encountered.

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by... John
Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!

He wrote it at the same time as he wrote "The Day of the Triffids", but it
wasn't published whilst he was alive. Now it has appeared. It was initially
published by Liverpool Uni, and now by Penguin Books. I presume at present
the copyright is between the Uni and his 'estate'. This raises the
question, should they not be paid for the work in bringing this to
publication?

Hard cases make bad law. :-)

BTW Only read part of it so far, but it seems quite enjoyable. Did make me
reflect that - on cover price - it cost me over 50 times as much as the
copy I have of Triffids. In fact I bought that second hand in Angel Lane
for 6d (old pence) so the ratio I paid is even bigger! :-)

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, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:


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. :-)


Well, you don't know how I've acted. If I have copied CDs and then kept
the copies and given them away, you'd need to know the CD's origin, who
I gave them to, and what the recipient then did as a result.

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it. They
and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to give the
info might not cause the court to look kindly on your behaviour.

But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people who
do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.

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 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


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.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat' if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


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.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat' if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.

If the new listener is a result of an old listener being lost - ie a
CD given away, then fair enough, no extra fee. But if the original
listener still has the music, the new one is properly obliged to pay
his share.


*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....


Clive Sinclair more like.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com
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.

There's no interpretation here, unless you have other relevant fact to
present.

It's not incorrect, just far from complete.

What else needs to be said?

My morality is in part
informed by the extent to which I do harm/good, not legal
scripture.

I consider the letter of the law to be a minimal standard that I hope to
vastly exceed in my day-to-day life, but that's just my own personal choice.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free
society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.


Impossible to assail the *rectitude* of what you say but it doesn't get us
an inch nearer to The Wrath Of Khan, does it? If instead a musician was paid
a one-off lump sum for his music (like Mozart and his contemporaries) and he
was any good, the price he'd get for his work would go up as time went on
and the music production company would be the ones to risk failure or reap
large rewards.

One benefit I can see straight away of a 'lump sum' system is it would
reward talent on a strictly pro-rata basis, instead of making 'flash in the
pan' spotty kids millionaires for well-marketed crap before they are old
enough not to be permanently damaged by it! (The money that is!)

It's the difference between a composer and a painter, isn't it?

Referring to another 'Star Thingy', I understand the jolly green giant in
Star Wars got a (then) handsome lump sum of about 20K for his role in Star
Wars while the considerably better off Alec Guiness was able to waive a lump
sum and took a punt on a percentage which netted him millions and probably
still is!


If the new listener is a result of an old listener being lost - ie a
CD given away, then fair enough, no extra fee. But if the original
listener still has the music, the new one is properly obliged to pay
his share.


If the musician was paid 'lump sum' that would be the music production
company's problem - what makes me laugh is that, in one instance, the same
company who owns and sells the music will sell you the device you need to
rip it off!

(That's a form of 'damage limitation' called 'having it both ways'!! :-)

*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....


Clive Sinclair more like.


Him too....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:45:00 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free
society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.


Impossible to assail the *rectitude* of what you say but it doesn't get us
an inch nearer to The Wrath Of Khan, does it? If instead a musician was paid
a one-off lump sum for his music (like Mozart and his contemporaries) and he
was any good, the price he'd get for his work would go up as time went on
and the music production company would be the ones to risk failure or reap
large rewards.

Still doesn't answer the question who is going to pay him this lump
sum?

One benefit I can see straight away of a 'lump sum' system is it would
reward talent on a strictly pro-rata basis, instead of making 'flash in the
pan' spotty kids millionaires for well-marketed crap before they are old
enough not to be permanently damaged by it! (The money that is!)


Big record companies signing new acts work the percentages. They
factor in what proportion of new acts are likely to make them money in
agreeing rates. For the individual artists life isn't like that. His
career stands or falls. His risk is consequently much greater than
that of the record company, so it is justifiable that his personal
reward should be likewise higher.

It's the difference between a composer and a painter, isn't it?

Referring to another 'Star Thingy', I understand the jolly green giant in
Star Wars got a (then) handsome lump sum of about 20K for his role in Star
Wars while the considerably better off Alec Guiness was able to waive a lump
sum and took a punt on a percentage which netted him millions and probably
still is!


Yup. Alec Guinness PLC was a large concern, well able to play the
odds.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 21:01, David Looser wrote:
wrote

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it happened
to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's salary
equivalent, and give the rest away.

There probably would not be any "rest". The likes of J.K.Rowling are few and
far between, most "best sellers" do not make more than a few year's salary
equivalent.

Well Dave P hypothesised my writing a best seller. Very nice of him, but
agreed, not likely. At my age :-)

I was sorry, BTW, that you didn't answer my question as to whether you felt
that it was always wrong to put a monetary value on talent, or if that only
applied to certain sorts of talent.


Well, this is difficult to answer*. Leaving aside the point about
whether talent is 'nature/nurture', I would say yes, it is wrong. Why:
there's never a right figure, distribution of wealth goes odd (really,
should Susan Boyle, bless etc, have netted £5m to date, plus whatever
she gets from blessed copyright?), and crucially I don't think doing
things for monetary gain is a good way of going about life. There's a
nice bit about EF Schumacher doing the rounds at the moment, and I would
go along with his 'Small is Beautiful' notions; apparently naive but,
and bearing in mind when it was written, remarkably prophetic.

Rob

* no offence meant with the delay - I'm sure I leave a lot of threads
hanging, just don't have/make time to answer.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

I can't resist adding into this discussion an 'interesting case' I've just
encountered.

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by... John
Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!

He wrote it at the same time as he wrote "The Day of the Triffids", but it
wasn't published whilst he was alive. Now it has appeared. It was initially
published by Liverpool Uni, and now by Penguin Books. I presume at present
the copyright is between the Uni and his 'estate'. This raises the
question, should they not be paid for the work in bringing this to
publication?

Hard cases make bad law. :-)


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 12:43, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


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.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise
of the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't
eat' if there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant)
minority. In much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a
result of bankers' excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't
make it right. Also, distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair -
this notion that the sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is
fanciful. And perhaps 'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off
the back of copyright revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the
problems we have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off
for free but,

Yes, I have a problem with that. But *I* think I do more or less the
right thing overall.

at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of
society should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when
most of us are not?

Yes. Its the equivalent of job for life if you hit lucky.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 13:21, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
b.com
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.

There's no interpretation here, unless you have other relevant fact to
present.


Well, as I suggested elsewhere - do you know the origin of the CD I
copied, who I gave it to, why, and what they did with it? If we're
talking morals equal 'right and wrong' there's no line to be drawn.
Unless you hold the law to be a moral benchmark - which it seems you do.

It's not incorrect, just far from complete.

What else needs to be said?


There is no 'the' moral issue. Morality is a vast concern for most
people, and it won't involve law.

My morality is in part
informed by the extent to which I do harm/good, not legal
scripture.

I consider the letter of the law to be a minimal standard that I hope to
vastly exceed in my day-to-day life, but that's just my own personal choice.


Ah. That's the crucial thing. I think a lot of law is variously
obstructive, discriminatory, daft, counter-productive, and ineffective.
It's also determined by a selection of barely accountable politicians
(etc). It's certainly not the basis of my admittedly odd morality.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 08:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:


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. :-)


Well, you don't know how I've acted. If I have copied CDs and then kept
the copies and given them away, you'd need to know the CD's origin, who
I gave them to, and what the recipient then did as a result.

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it. They
and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to give the
info might not cause the court to look kindly on your behaviour.


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit. The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.

But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people who
do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.


Yes, I will given the opportunity.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.


Well of course under present law royalties do go to the estate - for 70
years after the authors death. Whilst, as you must by now have noticed :-),
I do support the idea of copyright, I find the idea that the income from
royalties should not just survive the authors death, but do so for so long,
to be utterly unacceptable. I was amazed and saddened that the most recent
change to copyright law *increased* the term from 50 years after the authors
death, to 70 years. Assuming the author lives to a normal old age that 70
years will probably see out their children, so it could well be the
grandchildren picking up the royalty cheques.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit. The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.


The BPI get mentioned here from time to time but no-one seems aware of
IFPI...??

http://www.ifpi.org/


I spent a slice of my life with someone who worked there as an
'international secretary' and tales of the IFPI 'hit squad' hunting down the
likes of Chilean cafe owners with 'illegal' jukeboxes were both amusing and
quite scary at the same time! :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by...
John Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

What if the *people* who are legally his "estate" worked to help bring the
work to publication?

As before, the general question is why *you* should assume you can take
without payment what others have offered only on the basis that you should
pay them the price (and conditions) they specify? Why should your wishs
overrule theirs? You have a free choice to buy or not. So far what you
claim as your "moral" position simply seems to be "I'll do what I like
regardless of the stated wishes of others I then affect." Can't say that
seems very "moral" to me.

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 m, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it.
They and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to
give the info might not cause the court to look kindly on your
behaviour.


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit.

The only way they can tell it is outwith their remit is to know which CD is
was. Does it not occur to you that a UK civil court could (AIUI):

A) Require you to answer a question, and take into account a refusal.
Particularly as you confess the answer is "crucial".

B) Examine the *physical* evidence. i.e. look at what you have at home -
computers, etc - and see they can find any copies of music where you don't
have the CD or some other legal source you can establish for what they
identify.

In the UK civil court decisions are 'on balance'. There would be a burden
on you to satisfy the court that any such copies they found or you admitted
were ones you had with permission under copyright.

Note also what I said to Keith. That usenet is an open place and archived.
What they can find from the archives could be presented as evidence as part
of a case, or as a reason to do the above. They only have to pursuade the
judge that this gives reasonable grounds for the above.

The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.

OK. Since you are so certain you "know the legal position" put that to the
test. Contact them and tell them what you have done. Then tell the rest of
us what they say and do.


But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people
who do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.


Yes, I will given the opportunity.

Again, put that to the test if you are so confident. Ask the BPI to help
you identify the artists, etc, on each of the copies you have made if you
don't know who they are or what labels market their music.

ahem Let me predict in advance that you would probably find contacting
the BPI "inconvenient" or "unnecessary". :-)

Would you be happy for me to contact the BPI on your behalf, and perhaps
point them at this thread?... or is what you "know" less than 100 percent
absolutely certain in your mind?

Note that there are recent examples where a UK civil court has made an ISP
give the details of the person who has an account with them. I recall a
discussion about this on BBC radio a short while ago.

As with Keith, if you know tell me what you have described is entirely
'hypothetical' and that you have *not* in reality ever copied a CD and kept
the copy when you no longer have the CD, I'm happy to believe you. I
appreciate that you may feel your individual "morality" would think this OK
even if you haven't done it.

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 29/03/2011 09:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by...
John Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

What if the *people* who are legally his "estate" worked to help bring the
work to publication?


This becomes circular again - how can ascribing money value to
contributions of this kind ever be fair? To answer your question
directly, they should sort all that out at the time of 'creation'. If
they don't, it all goes to the state. I have a series of lectures on
this very thing - I rarely come out unscathed :-)

As before, the general question is why *you* should assume you can take
without payment what others have offered only on the basis that you should
pay them the price (and conditions) they specify? Why should your wishs
overrule theirs? You have a free choice to buy or not. So far what you
claim as your "moral" position simply seems to be "I'll do what I like
regardless of the stated wishes of others I then affect." Can't say that
seems very "moral" to me.


I've tried to explain that. I could quite happily sleep, having made a
considered decision on the basis of information I have to hand. I think
you underestimate. Anyways, you clearly know something I don't to have
reached such a conclusion.

I'd agree that I don't know fully how it all works. A student once
showed me a cheque for 40p (I think, a very small amount) as payment for
work she did in the 1970s on 'I Claudius'. People who 'rip off' pirate
DVDs would doubtless affect her royalty cheque. Now, if I was to obtain
a pirate copy of that, I'd guess I'm affecting her cheque. And if you
multiply that out, I'd guess it runs to maybe 2, perhaps 3p, not sure.

But I wasn't talking about that type of thing in any case. I was
thinking of generating money for charity, and spitefully adding to land
fill. You've cut out that potential act very conveniently so it fits
your view of 'complete' morality. I doubt you remember the original
context in any case - I can happily restate.

Perhaps if people like you who have this rounded view could spell out
how much hurt is done and to who your position might make more sense.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 20:02, David Looser wrote:
wrote

And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.


Well of course under present law royalties do go to the estate - for 70
years after the authors death. Whilst, as you must by now have noticed :-),
I do support the idea of copyright, I find the idea that the income from
royalties should not just survive the authors death, but do so for so long,
to be utterly unacceptable. I was amazed and saddened that the most recent
change to copyright law *increased* the term from 50 years after the authors
death, to 70 years. Assuming the author lives to a normal old age that 70
years will probably see out their children, so it could well be the
grandchildren picking up the royalty cheques.


Yes, and as you may have noticed, I don't subscribe to this wealth
begets wealth type of thing :-)

Society is stratified enough thanks very much, and property ownership is
going to shape and divide the next generation more than any other
variable thanks to inheritance.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 29/03/2011 09:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by...
John Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

What if the *people* who are legally his "estate" worked to help bring
the work to publication?


This becomes circular again - how can ascribing money value to
contributions of this kind ever be fair?

Who said you have to think it "fair"? That's a decision for those who do
the work and those who want the results.


Perhaps if people like you who have this rounded view could spell out
how much hurt is done and to who your position might make more sense.

Erm.. I don't have to. Nor do you have to fall into using terms like
"people like you". :-)

I just point out that the society we live in *already* has a set of laws
and rules about this. You are welcome to compaign for them to be changed.
But that doesn't given you automatic permission from all other people to
ignore any rules you disagree with. If you believe otherwise then in due
course consequences may come to you as a result of your behaviour. Society
isn't based on the rule "we can only do what Rob likes". :-)

Note that I deliberately gave a 'hard case that can make bad law" here.
Society does form views about what limits and requirements may be set to
bound the field of indivual choices. To change that you can engage in
political activity. I agree that there are things that I think should be
changed.

However if an author/performer *chooses* to make their output only
available in exchange for specific payment under specific terms within what
the society bounds, that's *their* choice, not yours to make. Their terms
specify what *they* decide will not "harm" them. Their work, their choice.
If you work for nothing, that's your choice.

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, Rob
wrote:


Yes, and as you may have noticed, I don't subscribe to this wealth
begets wealth type of thing :-)

Have you never been paid or received money for any work you have done? Do
you think it would be moral for everyone to get you to work for them and
then not pay you?

Society is stratified enough thanks very much, and property ownership is
going to shape and divide the next generation more than any other
variable thanks to inheritance.

I appreciate your sweeping rhetoric. But I have my doubts about what you
regard as either moral or right and any presumption that you can simply
decide for *others* what will 'harm' them in disregard of their own
expressed wishes to the contrary.

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 29/03/2011 09:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it.
They and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to
give the info might not cause the court to look kindly on your
behaviour.


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit.

The only way they can tell it is outwith their remit is to know which CD is
was. Does it not occur to you that a UK civil court could (AIUI):


The origin of the CD. Just think about it for two tics. Where the CD
came from, and what's recorded on it. This really isn't difficult.

A) Require you to answer a question, and take into account a refusal.
Particularly as you confess the answer is "crucial".

B) Examine the *physical* evidence. i.e. look at what you have at home -
computers, etc - and see they can find any copies of music where you don't
have the CD or some other legal source you can establish for what they
identify.

In the UK civil court decisions are 'on balance'. There would be a burden
on you to satisfy the court that any such copies they found or you admitted
were ones you had with permission under copyright.

Note also what I said to Keith. That usenet is an open place and archived.
What they can find from the archives could be presented as evidence as part
of a case, or as a reason to do the above. They only have to pursuade the
judge that this gives reasonable grounds for the above.

The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.

OK. Since you are so certain you "know the legal position" put that to the
test. Contact them and tell them what you have done. Then tell the rest of
us what they say and do.


But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people
who do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.


Yes, I will given the opportunity.

Again, put that to the test if you are so confident. Ask the BPI to help
you identify the artists, etc, on each of the copies you have made if you
don't know who they are or what labels market their music.

ahem Let me predict in advance that you would probably find contacting
the BPI "inconvenient" or "unnecessary". :-)

Would you be happy for me to contact the BPI on your behalf, and perhaps
point them at this thread?... or is what you "know" less than 100 percent
absolutely certain in your mind?

Note that there are recent examples where a UK civil court has made an ISP
give the details of the person who has an account with them. I recall a
discussion about this on BBC radio a short while ago.

As with Keith, if you know tell me what you have described is entirely
'hypothetical' and that you have *not* in reality ever copied a CD and kept
the copy when you no longer have the CD, I'm happy to believe you. I
appreciate that you may feel your individual "morality" would think this OK
even if you haven't done it.


More or less utterly bonkers.

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.

And of course the situation is hypothetical. Blimey. I'm hardly going to
do something illegal and then publicly declare. Just to be clear. I have
never ripped a CD and then given the physical copy to a charity shop,
having retained the ripped copy. I can't comment on the extrapolated
examples you give ("the copies you have made") - is this some sort of
guilt thing manifesting itself? :-)

And if it wasn't hypothetical, do you really think I'd follow the
guidance you're at such pains to set out?

And you really think I'm going to ask the BPI alone about the morality
of copyright? And where the proceeds of music production end up,
morally? Do you even know who the BPI represents? You follow the notion
of vested interest? Do you understand what morality is? You do
understand that it is not a '100% matter'? Do you know even the
slightest thing about internet music dissemination?

Low opinion of me noted :-)

Gosh.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/03/2011 20:02, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Society is stratified enough thanks very much, and property ownership is
going to shape and divide the next generation more than any other variable
thanks to inheritance.


Well that's the society we live in. Attempts have been made in the past to
come up with a system where "all men are equal", but they've always
degenerated into corrupt dictatorships, so I'm not holding out much hope of
a successful one coming along any time soon.

What I don't think you can do is to separate out creators of intellectual
property: writers, musicians, artists , film-makers, etc., and say that
different rules apply to them. Either we impose "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need" on the whole of society, or we allow
these creative types to benefit financially from their talent.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 29/03/2011 09:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
[big snip]



I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.

Afraid I don't know. My guess is that the copyright owners have decided to
simply not object to people making a 'convenience' copy of a CD they have
bought and keep. That would give them elbow room if something occurred that
did bother them. But the reason I suggest asking them is to find out what
they say if you have any doubts.

And of course the situation is hypothetical. Blimey. I'm hardly going to
do something illegal and then publicly declare. Just to be clear. I
have never ripped a CD and then given the physical copy to a charity
shop, having retained the ripped copy. I can't comment on the
extrapolated examples you give ("the copies you have made") - is this
some sort of guilt thing manifesting itself? :-)

My "you" came from examples like your


On 28 Mar in uk.rec.audio, Rob wrote:
Well, as I suggested elsewhere - do you know the origin of the CD I
copied, who I gave it to, why, and what they did with it?

where you used "I".

So I was speaking as hypothetically as you were, as defined by what you
meant. :-) Ditto for all unstated circumstances.


And you really think I'm going to ask the BPI alone about the morality
of copyright?

I was suggesting that you could ask them if they accepted that it was OK
with them for people (or "you") to copy a CD they'd bought and then given
away or sold again, keeping and using the copy. Up to you and them to
discuss any "morality" if you wished to object to the views they gave.


And where the proceeds of music production end up, morally? Do you even
know who the BPI represents? You follow the notion of vested interest?
Do you understand what morality is? You do understand that it is not a
'100% matter'? Do you know even the slightest thing about internet music
dissemination?

Low opinion of me noted :-)

Misunderstanding and sweeping rhetoric noted. You'd make a good politician.
:-)

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 29/03/2011 09:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it.
They and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to
give the info might not cause the court to look kindly on your
behaviour.


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit.

The only way they can tell it is outwith their remit is to know which CD
is
was. Does it not occur to you that a UK civil court could (AIUI):


The origin of the CD. Just think about it for two tics. Where the CD came
from, and what's recorded on it. This really isn't difficult.

A) Require you to answer a question, and take into account a refusal.
Particularly as you confess the answer is "crucial".

B) Examine the *physical* evidence. i.e. look at what you have at home -
computers, etc - and see they can find any copies of music where you
don't
have the CD or some other legal source you can establish for what they
identify.

In the UK civil court decisions are 'on balance'. There would be a burden
on you to satisfy the court that any such copies they found or you
admitted
were ones you had with permission under copyright.

Note also what I said to Keith. That usenet is an open place and
archived.
What they can find from the archives could be presented as evidence as
part
of a case, or as a reason to do the above. They only have to pursuade the
judge that this gives reasonable grounds for the above.

The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.

OK. Since you are so certain you "know the legal position" put that to
the
test. Contact them and tell them what you have done. Then tell the rest
of
us what they say and do.


But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people
who do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.


Yes, I will given the opportunity.

Again, put that to the test if you are so confident. Ask the BPI to help
you identify the artists, etc, on each of the copies you have made if you
don't know who they are or what labels market their music.

ahem Let me predict in advance that you would probably find contacting
the BPI "inconvenient" or "unnecessary". :-)

Would you be happy for me to contact the BPI on your behalf, and perhaps
point them at this thread?... or is what you "know" less than 100 percent
absolutely certain in your mind?

Note that there are recent examples where a UK civil court has made an
ISP
give the details of the person who has an account with them. I recall a
discussion about this on BBC radio a short while ago.

As with Keith, if you know tell me what you have described is entirely
'hypothetical' and that you have *not* in reality ever copied a CD and
kept
the copy when you no longer have the CD, I'm happy to believe you. I
appreciate that you may feel your individual "morality" would think this
OK
even if you haven't done it.


More or less utterly bonkers.


You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot. I find it best
to simply disregard his posts pretty much as with that other raving loony
Allinson.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

More or less utterly bonkers.

Err.... no it wasn't. It may conflict with your POV, but that doesn't make
it "utterly bonkers"..

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.


Did you not just now state that you "know the legal position", it seems that
you don't. So just to make it clear under UK law (and in most other
jurisdictions) the "right to copy" belongs exclusively to the copyright
owner, who can decide who, if anyone, may make copies and under what
conditions. Until recently the standard position of the bodies who
administer recorded music copyright on behalf of the owners was that no
copying was allowed at all without specific, written permission (that is
still the position of the film industry with regard to DVD/Bluray). Because
of the advent of mp3 players and the like the industry now permits copying
to such a device, as long as you have a paid-for copy (either physical or
download). That is the industry's decision, using a right that copyright law
gives them.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(

Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".

I find it best to simply disregard his posts

Or is this simply revenge for the fact that he's said that he largely
disregards your posts?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(


Sorry, your opinion is of no interest to me.




Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".


Possibly not, but the way he behaves in this newsgroup does.



I find it best to simply disregard his posts

Or is this simply revenge for the fact that he's said that he largely
disregards your posts?


I can see it would suit your twisty 'invertopia' to think that....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 29/03/2011 16:16, David Looser wrote:
wrote

More or less utterly bonkers.

Err.... no it wasn't. It may conflict with your POV, but that doesn't make
it "utterly bonkers"..


No, there's rather more to it than that. Disagreeing with me is a mark
of a clear and agile mind.

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.


Did you not just now state that you "know the legal position", it seems that
you don't. So just to make it clear under UK law (and in most other
jurisdictions) the "right to copy" belongs exclusively to the copyright
owner, who can decide who, if anyone, may make copies and under what
conditions. Until recently the standard position of the bodies who
administer recorded music copyright on behalf of the owners was that no
copying was allowed at all without specific, written permission (that is
still the position of the film industry with regard to DVD/Bluray). Because
of the advent of mp3 players and the like the industry now permits copying
to such a device, as long as you have a paid-for copy (either physical or
download). That is the industry's decision, using a right that copyright law
gives them.


Yes, I know the spirit, although not admittedly as well versed as you.
As I say, I didn't know about the need to keep the paid for copy in
physical form - I came clean on that at about line three of this thread.
There's no need to keep restating it! But you can if you like, obviously.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:06:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.

Afraid I don't know. My guess is that the copyright owners have decided to
simply not object to people making a 'convenience' copy of a CD they have
bought and keep. That would give them elbow room if something occurred that
did bother them. But the reason I suggest asking them is to find out what
they say if you have any doubts.

I think it is simpler than that. Not only is copyright law
unenforceable for this, the "crime" is essentially undetectable, so it
would be pointless to pursue.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(

Keith has repeatedly said he doesn't read what I write. So you can judge
the accuracy of his assertions on that basis. :-)

Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".

Strictly speaking,what I'm defending is that it is a matter for each artist
or creator to choose the terms under which other people are permitted to
access and use their work. Their work, their choice.

Just as is the choice of others to either pay for that, or decide it isn't
worth the asked price and go without. Their choice.

However as I explained, I think it is excellent if someone who is able to
do so is happy to 'give away' what they create. I like the idea that things
may be made openly or freely available. More power to those who *choose* to
do this. Their work, their choice.

But in the real world as it exists I'm also quite happy for those who wish
to make a living from permitting copies of their work to be sold. Their
work, their choice. If someone devotes all their time and energy to
creating something that others think good enough to pay for, their choice.

In neither case do I assume the audience is being forced at gunpoint to
accept what is offerred. Free doesn't just mean "no payment".

My concern is less with law than with individuals being allowed a choice.
And not having that overuled by others who disregard the clear wishes of
the person who produced the work. But as a matter of practical reality the
law *does* impinge on this topic even if some wished it did not. Seems wise
to me for people to be aware of that even if they wish for something else.
:-)

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 Presumably that's written in statute, or
maybe contract/case law.


As I say, I didn't know about the need to keep the paid for copy in
physical form - I came clean on that at about line three of this thread.
There's no need to keep restating it! But you can if you like, obviously.


Yes I restated it, because my explanation would not have made sense if I'd
missed out the very few words that actually constituted the restatement. The
point of my post, BTW, was to explain that the rule comes from the industry,
and is not written in statute or contract/case law, something you clearly
did not already know.

David.