the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.

I can sum it up in 2 words: Slick Willie. First he approved PL 105-147 [H.R.2265] known as the No Electronic Theft Act in 1997 and then signed PL 105-304 [H.R.2281] known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in early 1998. These neo-socialists furtively undermine the US Constitution all the time! I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I?

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I?

As opposed to oil companies & 'security' contractors? But that's a discussion for another website.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

As opposed to oil companies & 'security' contractors? But that's a discussion for another website.

They're fueling the RIAA too?

Seriously, if you're going to side with a political party, you fully deserve what you get.

Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.
-- Simon and Garfunkle (1967): Mrs. Robinson

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

They're fueling the RIAA too?

Seriously, if you're going to side with a political party, you fully deserve what you get.

I side with whatever is closest to green first, then libertarian.
And just to bring it back around, if they still used much vinyl, oil & music could be a cabal.

[VAXman(Admin)]

[quote=MrMagoo;28723]I side with whatever is closest to green first, then libertarian. {/quote]
They're both green.... with envy for power and the almighty dollar -- my dollar and yours.

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

And just to bring it back around, if they still used much vinyl, oil & music could be a cabal.

Ethylene and acetic acid with palladium catalyst yields vinyl acetate, the building block of poly-vinyl chloride. Ethylene can be derived from many substances. It's a fractional distillate by-product from cat-cracking of crude to make gasoline. However, it can be easily derived from natural gas or plant material. Still, the biggest oil consumer is the automobile driver. This level is nowhere near the LP listener's consumption levels.

[dinosaur]

I have trouble understanding the Big Record Company Establishment vs. Artist argument. Do the artists not sign a contract transferring copyrights and distribution (read advertising) rights? Do they not wish to benefit from this? Become a big rock star?
My only point is this: If I were to write a book, or obtain a patent on a novel device of some kind, I would expect the laws of society to protect my intellectual property and my right to market (read profit) by it as I choose. If someone claims the right to copy my book and sell, or even give it away to a million people, it is infringing on my ability to make a living from my talents--whether I choose to get into bed with the RIAA or not.
From a simple logical standpoint, people don't have the right to choose to distribute my work and declare they're doing me a favor by giving me 'free advertising'. If I wished to advertise that way, I would make express statements to that effect.
In the case of books, people can purchase them, read them and pass them on to friends (or in my case to libraries). They don't have the right to make multiple copies and distribute them.

[Rick and Roll]

Dino,

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. Most artists want to sell and be known then decry the "establishment".

As for the second, what I'm trying to say is that if someone wants to hear something, I'll let them hear it. It's not for the distribution except for the person that hears it.

My kids and millions of people share files and trade music. I don't do that personally. But even musicians share their music amongst friends. If there was an enforceable law that says you can never reproduce a disc, then I'll gladly not. I have plenty of music. But let's get rid of these unauthorized net people who sell music illegally.

[dinosaur]

Rick,
I think you and I agree totally. The book example, i.e., passing a book on to friends and relatives, is the same as sharing music with a small group. My family is always sharing books they've read. Last year I gave more than fifty books to my school's library with the idea that many others will have a chance to read them.
It's true that single copy of a book could be read by dozens of individuals--with only the one initial sale, and only the single royalty check going to the author. But it is clearly a different ball game when thousands or millions have immediate access to digital and near perfect copies.

[Michael]

EMI seems to like file sharing

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...c-industry-rip

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

I have trouble understanding the Big Record Company Establishment vs. Artist argument. Do the artists not sign a contract transferring copyrights and distribution (read advertising) rights? Do they not wish to benefit from this? Become a big rock star?

Those with the money tend to write very lopsided contracts. In this case, the record companies tend to reap far greater rewards from the efforts of the artists they sign and these artists are not fairly compensated. Legal as the contact may be, they are seldom drawn up to the benefit of the artist. Look at any typical employment agreement penned by the employer. Where is your fair say in the deal?

Originally Posted by dinosaur

My only point is this: If I were to write a book, or obtain a patent on a novel device of some kind, I would expect the laws of society to protect my intellectual property and my right to market (read profit) by it as I choose.

First, there is a HUGE difference between copyright and patent! And there are substantive laws governing each. Copyright USC title 18; Patent: USC Title 35. However, you can sign your rights to either away even though you may have created the copyrighted work or patented the idea.

Originally Posted by dinosaur

If someone claims the right to copy my book and sell, or even give it away to a million people, it is infringing on my ability to make a living from my talents--whether I choose to get into bed with the RIAA or not.

You are absolutely correct; however, I doubt that you have your own remunerated 'goon squad' of enforcers to see to it that your rights and money are not unfettered by some infringer.

Originally Posted by dinosaur

From a simple logical standpoint, people don't have the right to choose to distribute my work and declare they're doing me a favor by giving me 'free advertising'. If I wished to advertise that way, I would make express statements to that effect.
In the case of books, people can purchase them, read them and pass them on to friends (or in my case to libraries). They don't have the right to make multiple copies and distribute them.

Not only logical; it's the law.

When you buy a book or a recording, you do not own the 'art' or the 'idea' in the work. You are purchasing a 'license' to use it. Fair use... I can go to the town library and check out a book. As a resident, I don't pay for a library card. I can take out a book free of charge for a period of time and read it. That is perfectly legal fair use. I cannot copy it (it would probably be cheaper to buy the book anyway) nor can I sell that copy. Doing so would deprive the copyright holder of money -- the money I gained by selling the copy. That money is rightfully a profit for the copyright holder.