179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

Re: Mixed media copying (Delete if you've already read too much!)

2 messages · 2 participants · spans 2 days · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: mixed media copying (delete if you've already read too much!) · noncommercial use
1994-03-25 21:20Phil Z Re: Mixed media copying (Delete if you've already read too much!)
└─ 1994-03-28 00:25djkc Re: noncommercial use
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1994-03-25 21:20Phil ZAt 10:34 AM 3/24/94 -0600, Michael King wrote: >>From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z >> >> On th
From:
Phil Z
To:
Michael King , IDM List
Date:
Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:20:56 -0500
Subject:
Re: Mixed media copying (Delete if you've already read too much!)
permalink · <199403252120.AA09346@panix.com>
At 10:34 AM 3/24/94 -0600, Michael King wrote:
quoted 24 lines From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z>>From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z >> >> On the other hand, if you charge Chris money for recording the latest >> Biosphere cd on a tape, outside of the cost of the actual media and the >> shipping cost, then not only would you be breaking copyright law, but I'd >> think you were a real asshole. There's no legitimate service in your >> receiving money to sell music that you didn't create; that money belongs to >> the musicians and the label that went to the trouble to create and produce >> it. >> >> Phil Z > >OK, phil, what about the service he would be providing me, say, if I wanted >a copy of the Biosphere CD on a deck of punch cards. I don't think the >musicians nor the label will *ever* create and produce a version of their >work in that media. So, *then* would he be able to charge for his >"conversion" services? Is Biosphere available in cassete format? If yes, >then why doesn't Chris just get it in that format? Since he hasn't, I'd >guess that the conversion services are important to Chris, and if he's >willing to pay for them, and the label can't or *won't* provide media in >that format, then why wouldn't he be able to charge Chris for those >services? How does this affect the IDM "library"? Well, lets see, the label >gives the WWW site permissions to have .au files. Well, I like .wav files. >Am I in copyright violation if I convert the .au file to a .wav?
If Chris bought the original copy of the release in some format, say cd or cassette, and then payed someone to convert it to another format, then he's in keeping with the copyright laws. The point is that the original artist and/or label deserves the royalty money from Chris at some point, and neither djkc nor anyone else has the right trying to make a profit by acting as a pirate distribution point. If Chris wants a format conversion then he should pay for the music first. There are plenty of businesses that convert Eurpean format video to US standard, but they require that you provide them the tape to convert. Now if a label has given permission to the WWW site for any format of their music then clearly they're not going to care what kinds of conversions occur to it. The issue here isn't format, but whether or not a label has given permission for their music to be on the WWW site.
quoted 2 lines Also, is there a parallel to a photographer taking a picture of a painting?>Also, is there a parallel to a photographer taking a picture of a painting? >Does that violate the painter's copyright to his/her work?
Yes and no: if the photographer decides to make a print of the photograph and sell it, then a royalty fee must be payed to the creator of the picture, assuming that the painting is still copyrighted. If the picture is for the photographer's personal collection, then there's no copyright issue. A better example, and one that might be easier to picture (no pun intented), is to analogize with software. Let's say that our WWW site had commercial software on it for anyone to download, and that none of the software companies had given permission for the site to carry that software. I don't think anyone here would think it justified for us to do that, and we'd expect some kind of lawsuit to follow. Music isn't any different, even if most of us think that someone's cd is pretty trivial compared to a copy of, let's say, Photoshop. However, both music and software are copyrighted and protected by the same laws.
quoted 7 lines Perhaps any such agreement should include something like "the WWW site shall>Perhaps any such agreement should include something like "the WWW site shall >have a license to distribute media in any digital form as long as there is >no equal distribution media form currently offered by the label or any of >its other non-exclusive licensing arrangements, including those that may not >exist at the time of this agreement. In addition the WWW site shall be >prohibited from offering for sale any license to the work contained on any >media it distributes that differs from the terms of this license."
This doesn't really make any sense to me- your whole issue of conversion will make less and less sense as more digital mediums become available. The point is not the media, but the material. You can't distribute a copyrighted, marketed piece of music in any format, for profit or not, without permission of the owner of the copyright. If you have that permission then you're in the clear. If you don't have that permission then you're breaking the law.
quoted 8 lines That pretty much lets WWW off the hook for anything on it, downloaded from>That pretty much lets WWW off the hook for anything on it, downloaded from >it or whatever as long as anybody who downloads can't get the real deal from >the label. So, if in the future, the label decides to "sell" .wav files, >then they would have to be taken off the WWW site. The other problem it >doesn't solve is somebody downloading a .au file and converting it to a >wav when the label offers for sale a .wav version of the work. This is a >direct parallel to Chris's case if the label does offer a cassette version >of the Biosphere CD.
The more I read this the more bizarre it seems to me: you're looking for loopholes to do something that should be intuitively wrong to you. I'll restate it one more time: the artists and the labels involved in making music are the only ones entitled to distribute and/or make a profit on that music. Every copy of their music sold should put some amount of money, however small, in their pocket, and not in yours or anyone else's. Copyright laws were created in part to ensure this, and are observed almost uniformally around the planet. If the artists or labels involved give permission to distribute their music free of charge then it's legal. If they don't, then it's not. Phil Z
1994-03-28 00:25djkcFrom the cyberdesk of: Phil Z > > The point is not the media, but the material. You can't
From:
djkc
To:
Phil Z
Cc:
Date:
Sun, 27 Mar 1994 18:25:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
Re: noncommercial use
Reply to:
Re: Mixed media copying (Delete if you've already read too much!)
permalink · <9403271826.aa08855@blkbox.COM>
From the cyberdesk of: Phil Z
quoted 7 lines The point is not the media, but the material. You can't distribute a> > The point is not the media, but the material. You can't distribute a > copyrighted, marketed piece of music in any format, for profit or not, > without permission of the owner of the copyright. If you have that > permission then you're in the clear. If you don't have that permission > then you're breaking the law. >
OK, now I'm confused. Does not this revision of Copyright Law say that we may copy for noncommercial use?
quoted 11 lines No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement> > No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement > of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or > distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital > audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an > analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a > consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical > recordings or analog musical recordings. > > 17 U.S.C. 1008. >
Cutting out the parts on "devices", it reveals: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." First, you must define *WHAT* is being referred to when it says "copyright." That is, *WHAT* is being copyrighted? By the wording in this code, it could be referring to the devices and mediums instead of the (p)+(c)'d audio recordings of other artist's material sold on 12", CD, cassette, etc...but these semantics don't make sense. So, we must assume it is indeed about artist&label's copyrighted material. Thus, I now interpret this code as follows (in regards to the consumer): "Just because a consumer owns and uses digital recording devices, analog recording devices, digital recording mediums, and/or analog recording mediums does not imply that copyright is being infringed -- that is, the consumer owns a 'weapon' (device&medium), but this does not necessarily mean that he or she is a 'murderer' (copyright violator); thus, having one of these devices or mediums is not 'probable cause' enough to allege the consumer with a copyright violation. One must be caught in the act of using the device&medium for COMMERCIAL use before one can be alleged with violation. However, NONcommercial use is permitted." But then we come to the problem of defining "noncommercial use". Chris Hilker interprets this as "We can copy as much CDs, cassettes, or records and give them out (FREE) to our friends or whoever." Is this noncommercial? It appears to fit the definition. But is this what our copyright law-makers had in mind? As Phil Z says, this seems intuitively wrong...which I would have to agree. Well, it's frustrating that we have to try to interpret THEIR words for what THEY had in mind, rather than interpreting it in our own way...this is making loopholes and could get one into trouble. This is my interpretation so far. But I'm confused over what they mean by "noncommercial". Anyone? -DJKC Furthur thoughts: Sure one may copy an original CD onto cassette for personal use, but may one sell the original and keep the cassette copy? Would one have to destroy the copies? FAX label only puts out 500 copies of each track. When they sell out, would they be damaged by bootleggers or other copyright violators who copy these tracks? (commercially or noncommercially) They may be entitled to certain royalties, but they've made the core profit by selling-out already.