 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-07-18 04:52
As far as redhotjazz is concerned - I'm no lawyer and I presume that the provider of the service has done his homework and everything is above board. Who reads ALL of the fine print in any contract?
Some may see this as a cop-out, but one cannot check everything for it's legality or otherwise, at least in Australia I think that we are less inclined to litigation anyway, possibly, and given the disclaimer at this site, it appears to be above board and also given the nature of the content I would contend that having this material freely available is not going to prejudice the earning capacity of any individual - I imagine all the performers/writers are long since deceased.
Before I am taken to task on this point, one must consider the situation in modern times where such sites as RHJ exist purely as a result of the explosion of knowledge in electronic and digital communication.
At some point music publishers/record companies will come to terms with the above fact and whilst losses of royalties to some/many/most [pick the most appropriate term as you see it] performers is evident - further electronic development will find a way of surmounting this obstacle in the not too distant future. I can fully symphathise with the record companies though - I'm in textbook publishing and we in this business are fully used to students [in particular] ripping off our works - we don't like it, but we can do little about it. This is not a justification of piracy, by the way, it's a matter of facing reality.
And lastly - who of us has not set the VCR to catch a television programme which one would have otherwise missed? You have? - so have I - did you erase it after viewing? Forgot eh? tsk tsk...sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It's a grey area folks - the VCR manufacturers openly advertise the many features of a VCR to enable troublefree recording, do they not? Are they then a party to copyright infringment as it seems some of these site operators may well be?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-07-18 13:13
John Kelly - Australia wrote:
> As far as redhotjazz is concerned - I'm no lawyer and I presume
> that the provider of the service has done his homework and
> everything is above board.
If you read the site's print, you'll find thyey explicitly say they haven't done their homework and won't.
> Some may see this as a cop-out, but one cannot check everything
> for it's legality or otherwise, at least in Australia I think
> that we are less inclined to litigation anyway, possibly, and
> given the disclaimer at this site, it appears to be above board
> and also given the nature of the content I would contend that
> having this material freely available is not going to prejudice
> the earning capacity of any individual - I imagine all the
> performers/writers are long since deceased.
That's a cop-out for sure! "Gee, it's hard to find out if I'm breaking any law, so I'll just do what I d**n well please."
> Before I am taken to task on this point, one must consider the
> situation in modern times where such sites as RHJ exist purely
> as a result of the explosion of knowledge in electronic and
> digital communication.
And that has what to do with the price of tomatos? (A non-sequitur for sure).
> At some point music publishers/record companies will come to
> terms with the above fact and whilst losses of royalties to
> some/many/most [pick the most appropriate term as you see it]
> performers is evident - further electronic development will
> find a way of surmounting this obstacle in the not too distant
> future. I can fully symphathise with the record companies
> though - I'm in textbook publishing and we in this business are
> fully used to students [in particular] ripping off our works -
> we don't like it, but we can do little about it. This is not a
> justification of piracy, by the way, it's a matter of facing
> reality.
Oh? You don't have your solicitors write abusers letters? Sure you do. If they decided to re-publish them you'd have them in court in a flash.
> And lastly - who of us has not set the VCR to catch a
> television programme which one would have otherwise missed? You
> have? - so have I - did you erase it after viewing? Forgot eh?
> tsk tsk...sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. It's a grey area
> folks - the VCR manufacturers openly advertise the many
> features of a VCR to enable troublefree recording, do they not?
In the US personal recordings of TV shows (time-shifting) is not gray - it is legally permitted and keeping a copy is just fine. If you re-broadcast (including just showing them in a public area) it becomes a problem, but personal use is not - it was, in fact, a landmark case.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-07-18 22:45
This debate has been raging strongly in Australia over the past couple of weeks which is probably what prompted John to post. Music piracy is seen by record companies as eating into their profits and consequently they are taking some action. I was listening to the radio in the workshop the other day, 2BL or 702 ABC Local Radio, where an amount of air time was devoted to this subject over a fortnight. The problem as he record companies see it is not so much with people downloading MP3 files. Becuase of the poor quality of these files it often prompts people to buy a real copy. The bleating from the industry seemed to be more concerned with CD burning and piracy. One of the enlightened members of the industry was also claiming that to buy a CD and burn a copy for use, say, in the car is illegal. I was under the impression that you can make copies for personal use as long as you did not give them away, sell them or broadcast them, the record company spokesman possibly had this wrong. The issue of mechanical copyright in this country is vexed. The outrageous licence fees charged by the multi-national companies, lets face it in this case multi-national means American, for print and mechanical licences is eventually going to mean that we cannot even play music that is under copyright. The whole concept of copyright law needs an overhaul. It is a little rich that Sony for example makes the means of piracy whcih it sells for a profit and is also one of the music companies that complains about piracy and is threatening all and sundry with prosecution for copying CD's etc.. They have got to be joking, they are making money both ways. I am not in favour of stealing/ pirateing music if it costs the honest performer. Record companies and music publishers probably have the lowest level of ethics/ morality in the music industry and are definitely hypocritical. You cannot sell the means of piracy and then attempt to prosecute people for using them, this is entrapment. I am no lawyer and don't ever want to be but they will be sure to jump on the bandwagon on this one as their is money in it. To Mark Charette, lawyers in Australia do write threatening letters but they are just that. Another lawyer can write one back and they can have a lot of fun. The word of the lawyer is NOT law just an opinion and we are probably less scared of lawyers in this country. Just tell them to get f**cked is a common Australianism. The concept of a legal "profession" is interesting, although it is common knowledge that they are the second oldest profession after prostitution another concept that the record companies are familiar with.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-07-19 02:09
Mark Pinner wrote:
> One of the enlightened members of the industry was also
> claiming that to buy a CD and burn a copy for use, say, in the
> car is illegal. I was under the impression that you can make
> copies for personal use as long as you did not give them away,
> sell them or broadcast them, the record company spokesman
> possibly had this wrong.
Possibly not. It's not been settled definitively as a legal matter in the USA (using the Fair Use clause as the backing for the decisions) though the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.) would probably prevail. But you never know ...
Much of the rest of the argument is disingenous. What should I take as your meaning of "I am not in favour of stealing/ pirateing music if it costs the honest performer"? I'm sure you're not implying that most performers are not honest.
American copyright is now pretty much in line with the Berne (international) convention - it didn't used to be and was (I thought) better than the Berne convention rules. In this case internationalization may not be what we really wanted. I am in favor of reformation, too, but it would now need to start with the Berne (WTO) treaty to get the rest of the world back to where the US used to be!
One last quote:
Judge Leval observed in the American Geophysical magazine case (American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995) ) but apropos here, too, as it relates to the music industry and composers:
"It is not surprising that authors favor liberal photocopying; generally such authors have a far greater interest in the wide dissemination of their work than in royalties -- all the more so when they have assigned their royalties to the publisher. But the authors have not risked their capital to achieve dissemination. The publishers have. Once an author has assigned her copyright, her approval or disapproval of photocopying is of no further relevance." 802 F.Supp. at 27.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-07-19 02:23
I've been wondering about one aspect of copying that I have never seen addressed (perhaps this applies only in Canada).
Blank recordable CDs are, I understand, sold with an extra tax which is supposed to be used to somehow compensate artists for lost sales which result from copying.
It seems like a noble objective, but I saw an article recently which said that none of the tax had yet been distributed and the balance in the account was substantial. My question is, how can this tax money ever be distributed in a fair manner?
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-07-19 03:45
As I said I'm no lawyer and I tend to take quite a lot of facts of life for granted as does 99% of the population, more than likely.
I'll not be disputing those who quote legislation with which they may be familiar, all I'm saying is that I'm pretty much like the 99% who, I WOULD like to think, are honest law abiding citizens with a sense of fair play when it comes to paying taxes, paying bus fares etc..... and in general, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's.
" In the US personal recordings of TV shows (time-shifting) is not gray - it is legally permitted and keeping a copy is just fine. If you re-broadcast (including just showing them in a public area) it becomes a problem, but personal use is not - it was, in fact, a landmark case." (I PRESUME THEN THAT THIS US LEGISLATION ALSO ALLOWS MUSIC RECORDING AND ALLOWS IT FOR PERSONAL USE - WHICH IS MY POINT I THINK - I'M NOT ABOUT RE-USING ANY MATERIAL FOR PERSONAL GAIN EXCEPT PERHAPS THE IN THE ARTISTIC SENSE... blush..blush..).
"Oh? You don't have your solicitors write abusers letters? Sure you do. If they decided to re-publish them you'd have them in court in a flash." (I'M REFERRING TO THE RAMPANT PHOTOCOPYING OF PART OR ALL OF A TEXTBOOK, RATHER THAN WHOLESALE REPRODUCTION OF BOOKS WE DON'T TAKE STUDENTS TO COURT, THE PHOTOCOPIER EXISTS, AS DOES THE INTERNET NOW, AND WE IN PUBLISHING HAVE LEARNED TO COPE - PIRACY OF TEXTBOOKS IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY IN ASIA - PHOTOCOPYING PORTIONS OF A TEXTBOOK IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY IN AUSSIE STUDENT LIFE)
"That's a cop-out for sure! "Gee, it's hard to find out if I'm breaking any law, so I'll just do what I d**n well please." (YOU KNOW - IT JOLLY WELL IS HARD TO WORK OUT THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN MANY INSTANCES OF LIFE - JUST WHO READS EVERY PACKAGE LABEL, AIRLINE TICKET AND THE FINE PRINT IN JUST ABOUT EVERY DOCUMENT PLACED IN FRONT OF THEM? AUSTRALIANS SEEMS TO TAKE A MORE RELAXED APPROACH AND OUR CREDO IS TO "GIVE A BLOKE A FAIR GO" AND IF HE DOES NOT RECIPROCATE THEN OTHER MEASURES ARE WARRANTED, INCLUDING THE DREADED THREAT OF LITIGATION WHICH SEEMS TO CARRIED TO EXCESS IN THE USA. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL NOT BECOME A WAY OF LIFE DOWN UNDER)
"It is not surprising that authors favor liberal photocopying; generally such authors have a far greater interest in the wide dissemination of their work than in royalties -- all the more so when they have assigned their royalties to the publisher. But the authors have not risked their capital to achieve dissemination. The publishers have. Once an author has assigned her copyright, her approval or disapproval of photocopying is of no further relevance." 802 F.Supp. at 27." ( HOWEVER IT'S AUTHORS WHO ASSIGN COPYRIGHT TO PUBLISHERS AND PUBLISHERS WHO DISTRIBUTE ROYALTIES TO THE AUTHOR ON AN ON-GOING BASIS. AN ON-GOING BASIS ASSUMES ON-GOING SALES OF BOOKS. WERE I AN AUTHOR, I WOULD BE KEEN FOR MY PUBLISHER TO PROTECT BOTH MY COPYRIGHT AND MY INCOME! I'M NOT SURE I COULD FIND AN AUTHOR WHO "FAVOURS LIBERAL PHOTOCOPYING")
"And that has what to do with the price of tomatos? (A non-sequitur for sure)." (THESE SITES DO EXIST BECAUSE OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY AND IT IS ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY WHICH PUBLISHERS HAVE[ AND RECORD COMPANIES NEED TO] COME TO TERMS WITH. THERE'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE IN THE 1st Feb 2003 ISSUE OF "New Scientist" Pg 7 - ENTITLED "Movie pirates will have field day after DVD security lapse" RECORD COMPANIES NEED TO SPEND SOME MONEY IN COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AS EVIDENCED BY THE POOR DECISION MADE BY SOME ACCOUNTANT AT Macrovision, AS QUOTED IN THIS ARTICLE.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-07-19 03:54
A correction to my last paragraph please......I should have quoted Warner and Columbia Tristar not Macrovision as the offended companies.
Macrovision is the copyright protection system which should have been used in the Warner and Columbia DVDs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-07-19 05:25
If Macrovision does not work properly, then it may be easier for an unscrupulous person to copy a DVD; but of course that does not mean it has suddenly become legal. Just because the lock can be opened with a hairpin does not mean a store can be freely looted.
Legal "time shifting" applies to programming for which royalties to broadcast the material have been paid (directly or indirectly) to the copyright holders. It does NOT apply, for example, to renting a videotape and then deciding to watch it some other time, so you copy it. That is illegal. And, inconsistent with what seems to happen a lot, once that off-the-air recording has been made by you, to stay within the law you cannot in any way distribute it to anyone else.
The last time I checked -- laws may have changed -- it was okay to make your own working copy of copyrighted material, keeping the original licensed item stored as an archival copy. However, you could not have the working copy and the archival copy available for use at the same time, nor could you make more than a single working copy.
The only way to ensure your existence within the law on any topic this complex and fluid is to do two things: 1) Consult with excellent legal counsel, and 2) hope for the best. I used to deal with the head of an Intellectual Property law firm who said it was not uncommon to have two members of his firm being consulted on the same day by one client seeking to increase the protection of his property, and a potential client hoping to knock it off. Or vice versa. They would courteously tell the new guy to try elsewhere.
Regards,
John
law school dropout
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2003-07-19 15:22
It is amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same.
When radio became popular there were fights over playing music. Several record labels originally would not allow radio stations to play their recordings and the radio of the 1920's and 30's bore little resembalence to what we hear today because of that. There was a lot of live music productions until the record companies discovered they could increase sales via radio promotion. Twenty five years later, record companies were paying off DJ's to get radio airtime for their recordings.
These same issues were debated when Xerox came out with copy machines. Print publishers did their level best to block the technology through legislation which included schemes to charge a per copy tax.
When Sony introduced the consumer Betamax machines, there was another uproar from TV and movie concerns. I was involved in this peripherally as a consultant and unlike the vast majority of studio executives, I saw it as a new potential revenue stream. I remember vividly a meeting around 1976 in which a Universal Studio exec. vp stated, "we will never release movies on video tape!"
The studio's lobbied for chips to prevent the playing of copyrigted material, taxes on blank tapes, countdown counters that would allow tapes to only play X number of times. The list went on and on. In the end, it was agreed that movies would be released first to theaters, then on video then to cable tv and finally to broadcast tv. Everyone got their shot at the revenue stream which increased dramatically. Now video/dvd release is a planned and big part of a movie's revenue.
The music industry prior to this had a minor fit over MTV broadcasting music videos.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that when clay tablets replaced stone carvings that the stonecutters didn't do their level best to stop the production of clay!
I just read that the RIAA has filed some 871 federal lawsuits against music swappers, some of the suits claim that as few as five files have been shared! It is obvious that the recording industry is serious and I have no doubt that file swapping is costing them major dollars within an elite group of recording artists and hence those artists themselves are being deprived of their royalties. But at the same time I would ask, what about the other 99% of the artists that the record company is no longer willing to promote and at the same time has the artist owned lock stock and barrel? Could limited free access to some of their music not prove useful and generate sales to an audiance who has never heard of them?
One of the dangers I see was recently illustrated with a comment by the chairman of the US Judiciary Committee who said he would support legislation that would allow record companies to use software that would damage downloader's computers while giving the same companies immunity for those damages. It doesn't take an Einstein to imagine the havoc you could create by mislabeling links! The RIAA is using the legal rememdy it has at it's diposal which is namely to sue people sharing files. This I imagine will do the trick. But once again, like the VP at the movie studio, they are missing a potential good in their desire to kill a new technology.
At this point, I'd almost be willing to bet that in 5 years you will see entire catalogues avaialble online for downloading with free samples available. The reason I beleive this is simple, many record companies have huge catelogues of releases just sitting there making money for no one. The cost of production and distribution on marginal sales is prohibitive, but in releative terms, distributing recordings over the net is virtually nil. That has already been proven! Want a 1973 recording of the Checkmates "Jungle Music", no problem dowmload it for a 50 cents or whatever. Multiply that by the several million recordings just sitting around and it adds up to a significant chunk of change and royalities for artist who otherwise wouldn't be getting a dime!
Another reason I believe you'll see this is based on recent history. When recording companies made the push from LP's to CD's, there was a little repeated promise that went with this. Namely they stated that in addtion to CD's being better qualiy, more durable, etc. etc., they are also cheaper and you will see a decrease in the cost for CD's over LP's. It never happened. In fact there was an immediate increase in cost with the new technology and that cost stayed high as the actual cost of producing CD's decreased. In other words, the companies pocketed the difference. Once the industry assures itself of not losing revenues via infringement and realizes the potential profit margins of virtual distribution, they will flock to it like ducks to water!
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-07-19 15:34
Rick Williams wrote:
> is obvious that the recording
> industry is serious and I have no doubt that file swapping is
> costing them major dollars within an elite group of recording
> artists and hence those artists themselves are being deprived
> of their royalties. But at the same time I would ask, what
> about the other 99% of the artists that the record company is
> no longer willing to promote and at the same time has the
> artist owned lock stock and barrel?
Interestingly enough, even the top artists make very little on the CD recording sales - last I heard it was less than 10 cents/CD. However, the airplay and promotion of the music leads to tours - where the artists make the "real" money.
> Could limited free access
> to some of their music not prove useful and generate sales to
> an audiance who has never heard of them?
Sure, but again, that's up to whoever owns the music.
There are enough "Indies" out there who'll do that, but I think most people grossly underestimate the PR costs involved with a million-seller record. Even if you distribute via the internet and have basically no radio airplay you'll still have to have a nice website created (estimate $2000/page for a commercially attractive one) and pay to have your music listed on popular sites.
Just because the laws are difficult or stupid does not give one permission to break it, and does not absolve one from being charged and damages assessed.
This topic is almost as bad as religion and politics; I suggest that composers and artists who have similar views on how and where to distribute their recordings and compositions with lesser restrictions on copying/distributing band together. In the US you can explicitly "water down" your copyright and allow what you want (this is not true in some countries!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2003-07-19 15:58
Mark Charette wrote:
> Interestingly enough, even the top artists make very little on
> the CD recording sales - last I heard it was less than 10
> cents/CD. However, the airplay and promotion of the music leads
> to tours - where the artists make the "real" money.
True.
> There are enough "Indies" out there who'll do that, but I think
> most people grossly underestimate the PR costs involved with a
> million-seller record. Even if you distribute via the internet
> and have basically no radio airplay you'll still have to have a
> nice website created (estimate $2000/page for a commercially
> attractive one) and pay to have your music listed on popular
> sites.
No I wouldn't underestimate the cost at all, nor the margins nor am I suggesting that new releases be marketed exclusively on the net. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but my thoughts are for the 99% of contracted artists who are not being promoted, cannot even re-record their own music and therefore have no-options available.
I'm not sure where you get your figure of $2000/page for a web site but the figure I would suggest is meaningless. A web site that served a database of available music would not have a fixed number of pages, the iterations could be in the hundreds of millions of distinct pages generated, while the page templates couldbe on the order of a dozen. The cost of data entry would I suspect be fairly low since these catalogues are already in digital format, so the real costs would be servers, bandwidth and conversion of the music. The later would be a 1 time deal.
> Just because the laws are difficult or stupid does not give one
> permission to break it, and does not absolve one from being
> charged and damages assessed.
I didn't make an arguement contrary to that. Your preaching to the choir...g
> This topic is almost as bad as religion and politics; I suggest
> that composers and artists who have similar views on how and
> where to distribute their recordings and compositions with
> lesser restrictions on copying/distributing band together. In
> the US you can explicitly "water down" your copyright and allow
> what you want (this is not true in some countries!).
I would agree, however in the majority of cases of music curently recorded, the artists have no say in the matter. For future contracts though I agree completely.
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-07-19 16:18
Rick Williams wrote:
> I'm not sure where you get your figure of $2000/page for a web
> site but the figure I would suggest is meaningless. A web site
> that served a database of available music would not have a
> fixed number of pages, the iterations could be in the hundreds
> of millions of distinct pages generated, while the page
> templates couldbe on the order of a dozen.
There are already such "generic" sites (mp3.com for example) and very few people if any make any money at all from those. I am talking about a site specifically designed to promote a musician/musicians.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-07-20 14:14
Does this not boil down to whether you feel the writer should be paid?
Arguements including the "greedy corporate machine" are specious.
There are certainly items in any catalog that are in public domain, but anyone that has attempted to rehearse from a score like this comes to appreciate the work done by a publisher to make the typesetting legible.
It seems to me that the enduring legacy to a composer's family is ownership of the idea.
******
If you're talking about modern performers, the trend seems to be in producing within their own organization and growing slowly.
Bootleg taping of the Grateful Dead or Bela Fleck has not seemed to reduce the number of production copies either group sells, year to year.
The idea there, is that venue permitting, you may take home a souvenier.
******
If you really want to get activist about something that threatens your choice and options, break up the growing Clear Channel distribution monopoly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-07-20 18:49
Mark Charette wrote:
> John Kelly - Australia wrote:
>
> > As far as redhotjazz is concerned - I'm no lawyer and I
> presume
> > that the provider of the service has done his homework and
> > everything is above board.
>
> If you read the site's print, you'll find thyey explicitly say
> they haven't done their homework and won't.
>
> > Some may see this as a cop-out, but one cannot check
> everything
> > for it's legality or otherwise, at least in Australia I think
> > that we are less inclined to litigation anyway, possibly, and
> > given the disclaimer at this site, it appears to be above
> board
> > and also given the nature of the content I would contend that
> > having this material freely available is not going to
> prejudice
> > the earning capacity of any individual - I imagine all the
> > performers/writers are long since deceased.
>
> That's a cop-out for sure! "Gee, it's hard to find out if I'm
> breaking any law, so I'll just do what I d**n well please."
>
In the US, one is required to obey the laws whether they know what they are or not. It is the citizen's responsibility to check the laws beforehand. In our courts, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-07-20 22:12
Dee - good point, I think you'll probably find that ignorance of the law is no excuse - in most western countries.
Also, I find it interesting that such wonderful institutions as the London Symphony Orchestra (and now the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic - or was that the Leeds orchestra?) now has its own CD brand "LSO Live" all recorded live at the Barbican. All the profits from the sale of its CDs go to the LSO musicians and any other royalties that are predetermined at the time of recording. These are very fine performances from a very fine orchestra - complete with coughing and other bits that make live recordings so much more pleasureable than studio takes.
I wish more orchestras would have similar ventures (Boston Symphony Live or Philadelphia for example) then I'd be much happier buying thier CDs than via DG or other such labels. I'm all for performers getting a bigger slice of the recording cake.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
Post Edited (2003-07-20 22:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-07-21 03:22
I will make a point here. US law does not apply in Australia or anywhere else other than the US. Different precedents, common law as well as statute law apply here. US judgments are not automatically included in law here but are soemtimes considered only as are judges rulings from elsewhere. It would appear at least that fair use provisions do not apply here although the industry may be being "disingenious" here. There are plenty of "performers" in the recording industry that are not honest. DJ's and the like come to mind. They steal other peoples ideas and throw them around in some sort of electric never land and claim them as their own but they are protected by the record companies themselves. Why is it disingenious to point out that a company such as Sony produces recorded music and CD burners for copying CD's, MP3 players etc., it is just plain true. If truth is disingenious we may as well give up and all become members of the second oldest profession.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-07-21 06:50
" In the US, one is required to obey the laws whether they know what they are or not. It is the citizen's responsibility to check the laws beforehand. In our courts, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense."
I will say yet again, I am not a lawyer and I am NOT going to read the fine print of every document/contract which comes my way. How can one realistically "obey the laws whether they know what they are or not". One simply CANNOT have knowledge of all laws affecting everyday life.
On this assumption then, perhaps we should all read our airline tickets thoroughly before boarding in future [is an airline ticket a contract?], because the fine print can be amended can it not, by the airlines and are they bound to inform us of amendments? They are not. But are we not legally bound by their fine print?
Do we check the car parking signs every time at our regular daily carpark to ensure that some minor amendment to the parking rules have not changed overnight? Do our city administrators have to inform us of changes to parking regulations - certainly not - they just DO from time to time, by changing the signs which we should read EVERY time we park? We just don't do we?
At this point redhotjazz still operates and presumably those record companies, which specialise in jazz re-issues, know of it too - I'd be very surprised if they did not. I'm not about to contact them all to find out if they feel they are being subject to a breach of copyright - should I perhaps?- and if so, how would I know who has copyright over some obscure 1920s Gennett and OKeh recordings, for example? I presume that the record companies themselves will take action and have the site closed down if it prejudices sales - take the Napster situation for example. I think the jury is still out on this one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-07-21 12:01
John Kelly - Australia wrote:
> I will say yet again, I am not a lawyer and I am NOT going to
> read the fine print of every document/contract which comes my
> way.
You are, of course, free to do that. However, you can't use that as a defense later.
> On this assumption then, perhaps we should all read our airline
> tickets thoroughly before boarding in future [is an airline
> ticket a contract?],
Yes, it is a contract. Especially when it comes to replacing your luggage in international flights! (Warsaw convention).
> Do we check the car parking signs every time at our regular
> daily carpark ...
> We just don't do we?
Then we get a ticket, and we pay it.
> At this point redhotjazz still operates and presumably those
> record companies, which specialise in jazz re-issues, know of
> it too - I'd be very surprised if they did not.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but that doesn't change the legality one whit.
> I'm not about
> to contact them all to find out if they feel they are being
> subject to a breach of copyright - should I perhaps?- and if
> so, how would I know who has copyright over some obscure 1920s
> Gennett and OKeh recordings, for example?
John, in the US those things produced before 1923 aren't under copyright. Those produced during or after 1923 may be.
If you wish to break the law we're not going to stop you. If you think the laws are stupid we're not going to change your mind (and perhaps we agree with you).
If you think I'm going to condone breaking the law and perhaps depriving the rightful owners of their income just because you've decided it isn't worth it - well, you can figure that out. No amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that redhotjazz.com doesn't know which of their copies are legal or not, and if you download them knowing this then I think you're just as bad as they are. I'm not going to sue you, but that doesn't change anything - Laura's MIDI Heaven had to change their format completely after being caught and closed down in 1999. You and redhotjazz are probably breaking the copyright laws, and whether or not you get caught is irrelevant when it comes down to it. You can accept that - I can't. Let's stop the thread - the points are already out there:
It's hard to know what we can copy, so we'll copy what we damn well please, and they'll never arrest me.
You should find out who owns what and ask to copy; you might get permission, you might not, but at least you'll have legal copies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-07-21 23:15
" If you think I'm going to condone breaking the law and perhaps depriving the rightful owners of their income just because you've decided it isn't worth it - well, you can figure that out. No amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that redhotjazz.com doesn't know which of their copies are legal or not, and if you download them knowing this then I think you're just as bad as they are. I'm not going to sue you, but that doesn't change anything - Laura's MIDI Heaven had to change their format completely after being caught and closed down in 1999. You and redhotjazz are probably breaking the copyright laws, and whether or not you get caught is irrelevant when it comes down to it. You can accept that - I can't. Let's stop the thread - the points are already out there:"
Point taken - it's been an interesting conversation!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
