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

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.

"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! :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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