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