Copyright <again>

[beowulf 1]

I don't know what you are reading. But what I read is that Lars wanted to see for himself how easy it was to download copyrighted music. Not that he routinely downloads copyrighted music as you imply.

I think everyone knows what Metallica's stance is on illegally downloading music.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I don't know what you are reading. But what I read is that Lars wanted to see for himself how easy it was to download copyrighted music. Not that he routinely downloads copyrighted music as you imply.

I think everyone knows what Metallica's stance is on illegally downloading music.

I didn't imply anything. I simply quoted his admission that he downloaded music from the internet for free (he obviously thought he was justified in doing so). Nonetheless, he broke the law. If you think that it's just a matter of degree, well that's fine. I have no problem with that

A DZ or vidiot who syncs legally obtained music to a student's DVD without permission is also breaking the law. I think that is a matter of degree too. There are many people, not representatives of the RIAA and/or the MPAA. who feel that is justifiable too - which is why I think a DZ or vidiot will probably never be taken to court for that either.

[beowulf 1]

I think because of people posting their tandem videos on YouTube and other such sights it makes it much more likely that a DZ or vidiot will be taken to court over copyright infringment.

Just because you don't think it will happen doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

BTW he only admitted to downloading one song which happened to be his own. You imply that he downloads music all of the time. It was clear to me that he was wanting to see how easy it was to break the law. That doesn't mean he does it all of the time. No where does he say or imply that it is okay to download copyrighted music.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I think because of people posting their tandem videos on YouTube and other such sights it makes it much more likely that a DZ or vidiot will be taken to court over copyright infringment.

Just because you don't think it will happen doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

When did I say that I thought it was a good idea to do it? What I think is a good idea for DZ's to do is to use Creative Commons By-Sa licensing.

Quote

BTW he only admitted to downloading one song which happened to be his own. You imply that he downloads music all of the time. It was clear to me that he was wanting to see how easy it was to break the law. That doesn't mean he does it all of the time. No where does he say or imply that it is okay to download copyrighted music.

Why do you insist on telling me that I am implying that he does it all the time??? I never said or implied that. You are the one making that implication, not me. I don't think he does it all the time. As far as I know he did it only that one time. What he did was illegal.

If I am an off-duty police officer driving my car, and I run a stop sign just to demonstrate to the passengers in my car how easy it is to break the law, does that mean that my action is more justifiable than if I were an average Joe running the stop sign because I felt the placement of the stop sign in that particular place is not justified and/or it didn't apply to me?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Why do you insist on telling me that I am implying that he does it all the time???

That is the way your posts come across to me.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

What he did was illegal.

That depends on what his record deal says regarding the songs Metallica sings. Depending on what rights the band themselves retained, he may still be a copyright owner and thus, downloading the song would not have been illegal.

[DSE 3]

He admitted to downloading HIS music.
A-not illegal (because no DRM was bypassed.
B-it bothered him that he COULD so easily download his own music.

You presented the point as though he was in favor of illegal downloads, or at least that's how I interpreted your point.

[danielcroft 2]

It's actually not illegal to download your own music? Doesn't that bypass the rights that the studio holds over your work?

I don't know, just asking.

[DSE 3]

Quote

It's actually not illegal to download your own music? Doesn't that bypass the rights that the studio holds over your work?

I don't know, just asking.

In the case of Metallica, they own 100% of their own publishing, they were one of the early bands to negotiate publishing.
A guy like me...I own 65% of my publishing, so it's a different story.
"Studios" don't hold rights over musicians or their songs, contrary to popular misunderstanding.
Publishers do.
Labels market, sell, and do A&R. Publishers collect payment for radio, sync, and specialzed licensing. Publishers get paid a royalty by the label for every mechanical object that contains the song, and constitutes a sale. (put as simply as I can think of to describe what is sometimes very complex)

[danielcroft 2]

Does that mean BMG is a publisher or studio?

Thanks for the info btw DSE.

[DSE 3]

Sony/BMG are a label.
Now...they also own publishing companies, but are different entities. For instance, I'm with Virgin Records, but published by a subsidiary of Virgin called 5Fingered Music, and also by another publisher called "Natural Visions." My personal publishing company is Tayazo Music and Human Touch Music.
Artists are rarely required to use a label-owned publishing company, but it's *usually* in their best interests to do so, as it provides incentive for the label and the publisher to work the product as hard as they can. Publishers always take a minimum of an admin fee ranging from 10% to 40%. I have a lower royalty rate and higher publishing rate because my music is pretty easy to place in film and television, and less easy to place on radio. Even iTunes only carries a small selection of my over 400 songs, simply because some of the catalog is for film vs play.

[danielcroft 2]

So, in terms of the breakdown of income from music sales, where does it go? I mean, we're talking about lost income for the most part right? I guess I'm just curious as to who stands to win/lose when it comes to tandem video music (for example) or someone other than Metallica illegally downloading their own tunes.

[hallux 0]

I believe DSE is in fact guilty of copyright infringement. I'm pretty sure someone else invented breaking their hip from a low turn, yet DSE copied them anyway. HAHAHA just messing with you DSE, Im sure you have a sense of humor about it. Hope your dusty bones are reconsolidating nicely

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

He admitted to downloading HIS music.
A-not illegal (because no DRM was bypassed.
B-it bothered him that he COULD so easily download his own music.

You presented the point as though he was in favor of illegal downloads, or at least that's how I interpreted your point.

OK. I stand corrected. I was wrong in assuming that he didn't totally own all of the copyrights to the the album that he downloaded.

Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

[DSE 3]

Quote

Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

In which case he'd probably be arrested for theft. I wonder if they could nail him for theft twice, since;
A-He'd be shoplifting
B-He'd already been paid for the recording since the record store would have bought it from the distributor.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

In which case he'd probably be arrested for theft. I wonder if they could nail him for theft twice, since;
A-He'd be shoplifting
B-He'd already been paid for the recording since the record store would have bought it from the distributor.

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but in case you aren't, I doubt it - he'd be arrested for stealing the actual CD - regardless of whose music it is.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

In which case he'd probably be arrested for theft. I wonder if they could nail him for theft twice, since;
A-He'd be shoplifting
B-He'd already been paid for the recording since the record store would have bought it from the distributor.

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but in case you aren't, I doubt it - he'd be arrested for stealing the actual CD - regardless of whose music it is.

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all.
He'd be arrested for shoplifing, regardless of whose name is on the CD. That was point "A" in my previous post.

Point "B" (and it's a curiosity) is that since he'd already have been paid for the wholesale distribution of a Metallica CD, I wonder if they could charge him with a second crime as well? It would definitely be interesting to at the least take to mock trial.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

In which case he'd probably be arrested for theft. I wonder if they could nail him for theft twice, since;
A-He'd be shoplifting
B-He'd already been paid for the recording since the record store would have bought it from the distributor.

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but in case you aren't, I doubt it - he'd be arrested for stealing the actual CD - regardless of whose music it is.

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all.
He'd be arrested for shoplifing, regardless of whose name is on the CD. That was point "A" in my previous post.

Point "B" (and it's a curiosity) is that since he'd already have been paid for the wholesale distribution of a Metallica CD, I wonder if they could charge him with a second crime as well? It would definitely be interesting to at the least take to mock trial.

I can't think of any crime that I feel would be applicable. Can you elaborate as to your thought process?

[DSE 3]

Walking out of a store with a Metallica CD is shoplifting. I think we agree on that, yes?

But what is more interesting to debate (for purposes of fun only) is that Metallica was paid for the copy that he stole. In other words, he is stealing something he sold. So in the most strict sense, he's stolen twice. It's semantics, and merely fun (I can't see Lars Ulrich stealing a CD) but it makes for an interesting debate. But it's probably more for SC than the Photoforum.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Walking out of a store with a Metallica CD is shoplifting. I think we agree on that, yes?

But what is more interesting to debate (for purposes of fun only) is that Metallica was paid for the copy that he stole. In other words, he is stealing something he sold. So in the most strict sense, he's stolen twice. It's semantics, and merely fun (I can't see Lars Ulrich stealing a CD) but it makes for an interesting debate. But it's probably more for SC than the Photoforum.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I think theft in the traditional sense doesn't really go into the realm of copyright, though I think I see where you're coming from.

I think an example of this is if you sold your car to someone and then stole it, you only stole it from the current owner, you're not also guilty of stealing it from yourself, and you're also not guilty of stealing Ford's patents.

Or, in another sense, if Lars stole a Green Day CD, he's not stealing from Green Day, just the store that owned the CD at the time.

I think it basically comes down to the value of the thing stolen and who you are hurting - you're stealing the copy of the CD, which is worth 15 bucks - not the IP which is worth milions. Also, as Metallica was also already paid for the music, you're not taking money from them by stealing, only money from the record store.

I see the debate that you're getting at.

[DSE 3]

Now we're on the same page. :-)

Theft from the record store only, AND the record store had already paid him for the CD. Would certainly be fun to try to argue the affirmative.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Now we're on the same page. :-)

Theft from the record store only, AND the record store had already paid him for the CD. Would certainly be fun to try to argue the affirmative.

That certainly would be a challenge! Of course, depending on one's point of view on Metallica's music, the argument could be made that the fact he was paid at all for recording it is theft in and of itself.....

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Making copies for your friends isn't personal use. It's theft.

I've never been comfortable with people describing copyright infringement as theft. There are actually rulings made on record which clearly state that this is an invalid comparison. For me, the main difference is that if you steal my truck, I cannot use it while it remains stolen, whereas if I am listening to an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted work, I'm not affecting the licensee's ability to enjoy the copy or the copyright holder's ability to license the work to anybody. Secondly, theft is a criminal offense. While under ccertain circumstances, copyright infringement may become criminal, Copyright infringement in and of itself, is a civil matter. Even where the infringement fulfills the criteria for one of the criminal copyright infringement acts, it's covered by an entirely separate set of laws to that for theft. I'm not saying that copyright infringement is right or good, but it's not theft and while copyright lobby continue trying to push that analogy, they're going to continue to alienate and/or confuse people.

Back to the I think I should be allowed to do ... arguments, if you don't like the terms of an agreement - in this case a license to limited use of a copyrighted work - you're not obliged to buy. If I rented you my car and in the rental agreement we specifically wrote that you were only permitted use of the car within the state of California, would you try to argue that you should be free to drive the car to Mexico even though we agreed up front that this use was not allowed?

That said, I think that record companies do a terrible job of identifying exactly what rights are being licensed to the purchaser of a CD. It seems to me that this would come under contract law. Software publishers go to somewhat ridiculous lengths to spell out the terms of the copyright licence when you buy software. All I ever seem to get on my CDs is a statement to the effect of All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction, copying or rental of this recording if prohibited by law. Nowhere does it actually state what rights were granted when I purchased the CD, however, I think it's clear to everyone involved in the transaction that I am purchasing at the very least, the right to private home listening, so then we are talking about an implied licence. I'll concede that in tandem videos you are still done on the unauthorized copying/reproduction, but many people keep talking about sync rights. If you think it's legal for me to sync a song from a CD with my skydiving videos for my own personal use, then it seems that I must have sync rights. It's the distribution rights that I would need in order to distribute that synced video to others that's lacking. Am I missing something here?

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

That certainly would be a challenge! Of course, depending on one's point of view on Metallica's music, the argument could be made that the fact he was paid at all for recording it is theft in and of itself.....

As much as I've enjoyed this entire discussion (being someone on the creative side who has a keen interest in IP law), this has to be my favorite post of the entire thread.

Signatures are the new black.