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

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.

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 :-)

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

"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?