179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Adam J Weitzman
To:
g303
Cc:
IDM
Date:
Mon, 04 Mar 1996 18:48:18 -0500
Subject:
Re: (idm) The whole AFX bootleg issue...
Msg-Id:
<313B8142.7F06@individual.com>
Mbox:
idm.9603.gz
g303 wrote:
quoted 5 lines The point is that whatever the quality, be it DAT/CD/tape/or 0s and 1s> > The point is that whatever the quality, be it DAT/CD/tape/or 0s and 1s > scratched out on someones arse and no matter whether you are selling it > at a loss or profit - YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO > YOU.
Of course, it is perfectly legal to make mix tapes for people, in the US anyways, for non-commercial purposes. However you feel about ownership, those are the rules. I believe it also applies to mix CDs as well, were you to be in posession of a CDR. As long as it is not a commercial enterprise, I am within my legal rights to do this. That is the law. In terms of taking something which is not yours, what are you referring to? Surely you are not referring to royalties, because there is no way for the record company or the artist to receive any further financial renumeration for the transfer of ownership of a medium containing that artist's music once all media containing that artist's music are sold and the record company decides not to produce any more. Once it's out of print, no more money can be made unless the label decides to put it back in print. And the facts are, especially when referring to the crowd on this list, that pretty much everyone here, given the choice, would rather have the "real thing" over a copy, which is to say that even if someone decided to make a CD of the Joyrex tracks and give it away, and then later Rephlex were to print up legitimate ones and sell them, I can't imagine that we would not all purchase the legitimate one. Are you referring to the ownership of the "art?" Which is to say, the artist feels that his/her "art" consists of 500 slabs of vinyl with music s/he made engraved into it, to be sold by a licensee of his/her choice at standard commercial prices, rather than just the music itself? And once someone decides to press up 5 more for their friends, this constitutes a violation of the artist by changing his/her art without permission? This is an interesting philosophical question, but you would have to agree that, legally, there's no basis for this. Or are you referring to the concept that "only 500 people should hear this," which is easily violated simply by playing the music on the radio? In this picture, given that it is legal for me to record the music in any non-commercial manner I choose, on any medium I choose, what *exactly* am I taking that doesn't belong to me? -- Adam J Weitzman ----- Individual, Inc. ----- weitzman@individual.com "I love the music of the 20th century!" - Bruce Willis, "12 Monkeys"