What about cassette tape and 8-track tapes? Same rules are vinyls? If I went to a garage sale and picked-up a 50 cent tape. Is it okay to go ahead and download the same songs instead of wasting time importing/cleaning up myself?
What about recording streaming audio (e.g., radio stations) cutting up the recorded streams into individual MP3's? Is this legal?
When a CD is purchased who owns the right to listen to those songs? For example, if I buy a CD, I am I legally the only person who can listen to it? Or can my wife listen to as well? Remember, I am speaking in strict legal terms.
Does the law prohibit playing the same song in two different places at the same time? For example, I buy a CD, rip it to my iPod and listen to it on the way to work; while my wife listens to the actual CD in her car on the way to work. Is this illegal?
Dave, your question is not much different from the old days when one would record a concert from the radio, or any radio program for that matter. This was done a lot and I don't remember if I ever heard of anybody making a fuss over it. I think I even remember DJ's telling you to start your recording...NOW. I do beleive there was concern in the early days of tape that such recordings would kill the record industry, but it didn't happen. I think it is all very analagous with todays issues, with the big difference being that you can now quickly share recordings with thousands of your "friends" online. The damage is much worse.
My guess, is that if you record a broadcast that is not meant to be taped with something like WireTap that this is problably going against your use license that you agreed to with Real Player for instance. But I haven't read it.
To quote a long article: "fair use, sometimes referred to as the Fair Use Doctrine, does not necessarily grant the user the right to copy material which he or she has purchased. Fair use is generally reserved for use as a defense to a copyright infringement action. The criteria set forth in the Act make it necessary for courts to decide copyright infringement issues and fair use defenses on a case-by-case basis, applying the four criteria set out in the Act to the particular infringement alleged in the case at bar."
Fair use would be copying the song that you already have. You have "fair use" of the copy of the song on the vinyl. You DID NOT buy the rights to the song. Only the musician/label has that degree of fair use!
Wrong. It's fair use for someone else to make a mix tape and give it to me even if I don't own the original albums.
I wonder what the RIAA's take would be on those who turned their old vinyl LPs into wall clocks and funky fruit bowls.
The thing with this digital music business is that there are really two plot lines unfolding. One is the legal/copyright issue and the other is about the value and worth of the music.
If you looked at what everybody did with all those vinyl records (remembering there was quite a gap between the arrival of CDs and the availability of music downloads) I think what you'd get is a wide variety of answers and that many individuals' answers would vary from record to record. It depended on whether it was worth going out and buying the CD.
Given it's almost 2004 and backing away slowly from any weird vinyl freaks, anybody with music only on vinyl lying around probably isn't prepared to pay money to replace it because it's not worth it to them. Maybe they've out grown it, maybe it was just a bit of a dud purchase in the first place. And yes this is kinda the subjective value of the music to that individual (yeah, so?) but there are (or should be) more objective values as well reflected in the pricing of music.
There's lots of things I admire about iTMS and if it were available in Oz I think I'd use it in a limited way but the fact that song after song is set at the same price is obscene.
A record company can go out, find five spotty 19 year olds who have never sung before except in the shower, primp and preen them, apply makeup to the spots, get a few songs written for them, stick 'em in a recording studio, computer enhance them, market them to within an inch of their lives BEFORE their music is available for sale and then release the CD, iTMS store download, whatever at a price equal to or even higher than veteran artists who have proved their worth in terms of both musicianship and sales over many years. It's f**king incredible when you think about it. Even the film industry would have a hard time pulling that one off!
To brush the P2P movement off (and no I don't illegally download music) as nothing more than a bunch of thieves is I think a potentially dangerous over-simplification of what's really going on.
I wonder how you feel about rare recordings, e.g. live recordings that may have been broadcast but are not for sale. I've seen such recordings online for my favorite band, but the band itself does not sell them or probably ever will. The recordings are almost certainly illegal, but there are no other options. Kind of like the bootleg collections I've seen some Dead Heads have. They want this stuff because they love every note Jerry ever played, but not every note is actually for sale.
Actually, and they are nearly unique in this respect, the Grateful Dead allow (and infact encouraged) bootlegging of live shows. i seem to remember that when napster became popular, that the Dead (memory seems to suggest that Bob Weir in particular) said that mp3s of live bootleg shows were ok. He (or they) mentioned that they had always allowed bootlegging of live shows, and that mp3s would be no different from tapes and whatnot from the past. They didn't have full rights over studio albums, so if you grab "Reckoning" (a live album) it would be illegal to throw that around. BUT, if you, or a close personal friend (ie, someone you don't know on the internet), was at that show, and bootlegged it, then that bootleg of the show is free to distribute. Back when people used tapes, the Dead actually hooked up their amps and equipment into a large number of gadgets, and put hookups all over the venue. so bootleggers would come in, and not have to just fly a mic in the air, but plug right in. If I recall correctly, phish has similar feelings on the distribution of live albums.
Comments
What about cassette tape and 8-track tapes? Same rules are vinyls? If I went to a garage sale and picked-up a 50 cent tape. Is it okay to go ahead and download the same songs instead of wasting time importing/cleaning up myself?
What about recording streaming audio (e.g., radio stations) cutting up the recorded streams into individual MP3's? Is this legal?
When a CD is purchased who owns the right to listen to those songs? For example, if I buy a CD, I am I legally the only person who can listen to it? Or can my wife listen to as well? Remember, I am speaking in strict legal terms.
Does the law prohibit playing the same song in two different places at the same time? For example, I buy a CD, rip it to my iPod and listen to it on the way to work; while my wife listens to the actual CD in her car on the way to work. Is this illegal?
Thanks
Dave
My guess, is that if you record a broadcast that is not meant to be taped with something like WireTap that this is problably going against your use license that you agreed to with Real Player for instance. But I haven't read it.
http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/...9_24/cdlaw.htm
To quote a long article: "fair use, sometimes referred to as the Fair Use Doctrine, does not necessarily grant the user the right to copy material which he or she has purchased. Fair use is generally reserved for use as a defense to a copyright infringement action. The criteria set forth in the Act make it necessary for courts to decide copyright infringement issues and fair use defenses on a case-by-case basis, applying the four criteria set out in the Act to the particular infringement alleged in the case at bar."
So no easy answers to anything.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Fair use would be copying the song that you already have. You have "fair use" of the copy of the song on the vinyl. You DID NOT buy the rights to the song. Only the musician/label has that degree of fair use!
Wrong. It's fair use for someone else to make a mix tape and give it to me even if I don't own the original albums.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Sure is.
Not if you live in Canada it isn't!!!
The thing with this digital music business is that there are really two plot lines unfolding. One is the legal/copyright issue and the other is about the value and worth of the music.
If you looked at what everybody did with all those vinyl records (remembering there was quite a gap between the arrival of CDs and the availability of music downloads) I think what you'd get is a wide variety of answers and that many individuals' answers would vary from record to record. It depended on whether it was worth going out and buying the CD.
Given it's almost 2004 and backing away slowly from any weird vinyl freaks, anybody with music only on vinyl lying around probably isn't prepared to pay money to replace it because it's not worth it to them. Maybe they've out grown it, maybe it was just a bit of a dud purchase in the first place. And yes this is kinda the subjective value of the music to that individual (yeah, so?) but there are (or should be) more objective values as well reflected in the pricing of music.
There's lots of things I admire about iTMS and if it were available in Oz I think I'd use it in a limited way but the fact that song after song is set at the same price is obscene.
A record company can go out, find five spotty 19 year olds who have never sung before except in the shower, primp and preen them, apply makeup to the spots, get a few songs written for them, stick 'em in a recording studio, computer enhance them, market them to within an inch of their lives BEFORE their music is available for sale and then release the CD, iTMS store download, whatever at a price equal to or even higher than veteran artists who have proved their worth in terms of both musicianship and sales over many years. It's f**king incredible when you think about it. Even the film industry would have a hard time pulling that one off!
To brush the P2P movement off (and no I don't illegally download music) as nothing more than a bunch of thieves is I think a potentially dangerous over-simplification of what's really going on.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I wonder how you feel about rare recordings, e.g. live recordings that may have been broadcast but are not for sale. I've seen such recordings online for my favorite band, but the band itself does not sell them or probably ever will. The recordings are almost certainly illegal, but there are no other options. Kind of like the bootleg collections I've seen some Dead Heads have. They want this stuff because they love every note Jerry ever played, but not every note is actually for sale.
Actually, and they are nearly unique in this respect, the Grateful Dead allow (and infact encouraged) bootlegging of live shows. i seem to remember that when napster became popular, that the Dead (memory seems to suggest that Bob Weir in particular) said that mp3s of live bootleg shows were ok. He (or they) mentioned that they had always allowed bootlegging of live shows, and that mp3s would be no different from tapes and whatnot from the past. They didn't have full rights over studio albums, so if you grab "Reckoning" (a live album) it would be illegal to throw that around. BUT, if you, or a close personal friend (ie, someone you don't know on the internet), was at that show, and bootlegged it, then that bootleg of the show is free to distribute. Back when people used tapes, the Dead actually hooked up their amps and equipment into a large number of gadgets, and put hookups all over the venue. so bootleggers would come in, and not have to just fly a mic in the air, but plug right in. If I recall correctly, phish has similar feelings on the distribution of live albums.