fair use. Someone paid for it. You don't own it, you borrowed it. And returned it.
Used falls under fair use as it was paid for when it was originally produced.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
File sharing doesn't hurt musicians
- Thread starter AaronVonRock
- Start date
fair use. Someone paid for it. You don't own it, you borrowed it. And returned it.
Used falls under fair use as it was paid for when it was originally produced.
So what is the difference between file sharing and loaning someone a physical book? Someone is getting something for free. One is legal and accepted, one is not. We have a bin of books at work that have literally passed through 100's of people. Is that not theft? The author is making no money off it, yet people are still reading the book. I bought the latest AIC mp3 album from Amazon, it came with a free CD. I gave it to a friend. Should I be arrested? IMO anyone who has loaned a CD out so a friend can burn it, or has loaned out a Stephen King book to a friend so they can read it is just as guilty as file-sharers. I know people have made the argument that those things are ok because it's just some friends instead of the whole internet. That's just a rationalization. It's the same thing, just on a different scale.
For the record, I buy my music, usually off Amazon.
For the record, I buy my music, usually off Amazon.
this is the problem with the old concept of fair use and the internet and digital copying and distribution of today.
For physical objects like books, records, CDs, etc there are only a finite number of those particular objects made by the copyright holder. Pretty much all of those were paid for by consumers. Under fair use it was expected there was a finite lifespan for profitability for the copyright holder from those objects, so selling them used, loaning, and back in the day of cassette recording, only so much copying (and of poor quality) was possible. There were numerous court cases over the years to define and refine the laws.
Now enter the digital and internet era. You can make good sounding copies of those CDs AND instantly distribute said copies for free around the world with relative impunity. So instead of your favorite band selling a million hard copies of their latest and greatest album, only 10 or 100 thousand are sold because a small but sizeable enough percentage of folks will buy them, or borrow them, and share digitally.
Yes, you can belly-ache about how unfair the record companies are to artists (because they are
) but in the long run it's the artist who suffers and now has to make an income stream selling tickets to live shows (which always was part and parcel anyway for most bands unless you're Steely Dan back in the day) and swag. That's more time away from making good music.
So now what are professional musicians to do when it's easy and in fact expected for their music to be free for the downloading?
Edit: for the record, the record companies aren't fair to the consumer either at many levels, there's no excuse for CD prices given how cheap it is to burn one. So I get the frustration and people saying "the hell with it, I'm downloading and burning for free". Music and entertainment business makes venture capitalists look like altruistic choir boys
And I don't download, the sound quality sucks (though I admire the convenience), I like CDs and vinyl and pay for it new unless it's out of print.
For physical objects like books, records, CDs, etc there are only a finite number of those particular objects made by the copyright holder. Pretty much all of those were paid for by consumers. Under fair use it was expected there was a finite lifespan for profitability for the copyright holder from those objects, so selling them used, loaning, and back in the day of cassette recording, only so much copying (and of poor quality) was possible. There were numerous court cases over the years to define and refine the laws.
Now enter the digital and internet era. You can make good sounding copies of those CDs AND instantly distribute said copies for free around the world with relative impunity. So instead of your favorite band selling a million hard copies of their latest and greatest album, only 10 or 100 thousand are sold because a small but sizeable enough percentage of folks will buy them, or borrow them, and share digitally.
Yes, you can belly-ache about how unfair the record companies are to artists (because they are
) but in the long run it's the artist who suffers and now has to make an income stream selling tickets to live shows (which always was part and parcel anyway for most bands unless you're Steely Dan back in the day) and swag. That's more time away from making good music. So now what are professional musicians to do when it's easy and in fact expected for their music to be free for the downloading?
Edit: for the record, the record companies aren't fair to the consumer either at many levels, there's no excuse for CD prices given how cheap it is to burn one. So I get the frustration and people saying "the hell with it, I'm downloading and burning for free". Music and entertainment business makes venture capitalists look like altruistic choir boys
And I don't download, the sound quality sucks (though I admire the convenience), I like CDs and vinyl and pay for it new unless it's out of print.
So someone buys a CD and puts it on a file sharing website. I download it, give it a listen, decide I don't like it, and then delete the file. Is that fair use? If so, that's great because I delete much more music than I keep.
I did. According to you, it sounds like if I delete the downloaded file, it falls under fair use. If I keep the downloaded file for my personal use, it's copyright infringement.
Well there's always this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll
how about someone like a Peter Grant (Led Zep's late manager) running around enforcing it instead, that'd put the fear of God into infringers
Here's the key phrase from your link:
"While many other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use".
I don't live in the US.
which is why we have WTO conferences trying harmonize the concepts. Remember, at the end of the day, it's the talent getting screwed, not the biz guys so much. They can always find another way to exploit those who have "the goods". Always been that way. IP laws and fair use are some of the first real efforts to recognize and monetize what the idea people do. They can't all be entrepreneurs, different skill set some have, and many creative types don't.
Edit: so it's safe to assume you're an American expat?
I'm done, enjoy the rest of your rationalization for theft. Works for millions, obviously.
This is the real point and part of why I and many others are so passionate on the issue. IP laws are the only legal mechanisms available that attempt to proved protection to artists and other content creators.
Artists a software producers are in the 'hey it's just digital, it should free' boat right now, but with 3D printing rapidly developing, artisans, industrial designers and engineers will join us.
Finally, the fact that you're not in the US doesn't give you a free pass in my book. It is awfully arrogant of you to declare a moral right to steal the work of a fellow human being simply because a law hasn't been passed to remind you that it's wrong.
Enjoy sticking it to the man, and just pray that one day everyone in the world doesn't decide that whatever value you add to society should be a "right", available to everyone for free. I'm done giving this thread any more of my time.
Rather, the idea that it's stealing is an artificial construct, and a law is passed to enforce that construct. If there really are millions pirating, perhaps enough for a majority, swat that hornet's nest a few times too many and they may just vote away that law...
If a band decides to promote their own material by offering free downloads, that is their right to do so. To do so without the permission of the producer is against the law. I do not think it can be reasonably shown that anyone other than the producer has the greatest right to withhold the product, rather than have it be downloaded. If anyone can show me otherwise please do so. After all, we do still adhere to these higher principles, don't we?
The case still remains to be shown that the numbers work out favorably for the artist as to the effect downloads have on promotion and subsequent recording sales and gig earnings. This is especially important to smaller outfits. When the cost of the recording can not be recouped then the expenses of further promotion and touring can not be met. Therefore, you have the beginning of the act going out of business. No money for a further pressing. No money for an oil change for their tour-mobile, or hotels etc.
Then, you just might not be able to see that cool little band because they could not afford to make it to your town. And that is the bummer for me. Again, if you can prove otherwise, please do.
Joe Porter
The case still remains to be shown that the numbers work out favorably for the artist as to the effect downloads have on promotion and subsequent recording sales and gig earnings. This is especially important to smaller outfits. When the cost of the recording can not be recouped then the expenses of further promotion and touring can not be met. Therefore, you have the beginning of the act going out of business. No money for a further pressing. No money for an oil change for their tour-mobile, or hotels etc.
Then, you just might not be able to see that cool little band because they could not afford to make it to your town. And that is the bummer for me. Again, if you can prove otherwise, please do.
Joe Porter
Therefore what is right is defined by the behavior of the majority? That's the second time this bit of illogic has come up in this thread.
Following this reasoning, if "enough for a majority" vote away the legal restriction on beating your kids, this is perfectly justifiable as that law too was an "artificial construct"?
Do away with (c) protection if you like, but using mob rule as a definition of what is and isn't right is dubious at best.
GT
The thing about proponents of free file sharing is that they usually just want to share someone else's work ... that kind of freeloading doesn't sit well with me. By all means share your own labour, skills and investments in time and money, you're fully in your right to choose to do that, but by what right do you demand to share mine against my will?
I have the same issue when it comes to my photography business - the pictures are mine but it doesn't seem to stop people using them on their own web pages, sports team pages etc. Unless you have an OK from me, maybe after payment, all you have is the option to try and create the pictures yourself. Maybe that would get the point across that there is significant money and effort involved.
Perhaps this is somehow oldfashioned thinking, but I was taught to respect others and their belongings, and not take or copy other people's work without permission. This is as much a moral or ethical issue for me as it is a legal one.
I have the same issue when it comes to my photography business - the pictures are mine but it doesn't seem to stop people using them on their own web pages, sports team pages etc. Unless you have an OK from me, maybe after payment, all you have is the option to try and create the pictures yourself. Maybe that would get the point across that there is significant money and effort involved.
Perhaps this is somehow oldfashioned thinking, but I was taught to respect others and their belongings, and not take or copy other people's work without permission. This is as much a moral or ethical issue for me as it is a legal one.
Among the most obvious? Volume. Allowing a friend or two to listen to a CD is in no way comparable to putting that file on the WWW, and immediately distributing it to millions of people.
I've never done it(I've never downloaded anything illegally)but I don't have a problem with doing this.
This may be the biggest load of BS so far in this thread. "artificial construct?"
It is embarrassing to read the twisted, tortured, attempt at logic that some people use to try to justify stealing someone else's work.
Just man up and admit you are stealing it because you don't care.
I doubt that the people who are losing money on this care whether you dress up stealing by calling it 'copyright infringement.' The net result is the same.
