It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[camiloochoa]

Carol Kay was totally justified. If you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.

+1000

 

[baalroo]

baalroo is just flat-out wrong, legally and morally. When one owns intelectual property (something protected by copyright or patent), one owns the IDEAS (the contents, the design). When you fix the IDEA into a tangible form (record, book, widget) you own both the IDEA and the tangible thing. When you sell the tangible thing, you give permission to the buyer to use the IDEA fixed into a tangible thing, but do not sell the right to place the IDEA into another tangible thing. The right to fix the IDEA into another tangible thing is a separate right--and it's much more expensive to buy.

And yes, I am a lawyer--20+ years.

Carol Kay was totally justified. If you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.

so, from your perspective my coffee table analogy would make me a thief? I am fine with that assessment, but I would certainly argue that as our ability to perfectly copy things continues to improve and become even easier these laws are simply going to HAVE to change to keep up with the evolution in how we distribute goods and services. THAT however, is probably a debate to be had in another thread at another time.

however, under your reasoning, talkbass.com is now also guilty of the same crime since there are now links within this thread to the site in question. what if CNN did a report about the website, would they also be liable? these are the issues we are actually discussing (minus the little tangent of a debate we had on the last page or so).

 

[Getaway Driver]

baalroo is just flat-out wrong, legally and morally. When one owns intelectual property (something protected by copyright or patent), one owns the IDEAS (the contents, the design). When you fix the IDEA into a tangible form (record, book, widget) you own both the IDEA and the tangible thing. When you sell the tangible thing, you give permission to the buyer to use the IDEA fixed into a tangible thing, but do not sell the right to place the IDEA into another tangible thing. The right to fix the IDEA into another tangible thing is a separate right--and it's much more expensive to buy.

And yes, I am a lawyer--20+ years.

If you're a lawyer, you should know the difference between "Theft" and this copyright issue we know today as "Piracy". Piracy cuts into profits, that's what's illegal about it. As was said before, morally, these two things are treated the same. You go to court, get labeled a thief and pay a fine or go to jail. In a literal sense, which I think is what is being debated here, they are two COMPLETELY different things. They are governed by DIFFERENT LAWS. Copyright law covers piracy, and a whole 'nother set of laws govern physical theft of material goods. You do not go to jail for being a thief when you pirate something; you go to jail for infringing on the copyright of intellectual property. If you were literally breaking into Carol Kaye's house and stealing money from her pocket, then we have a totally different issue, but all you're doing by pirating is preventing money that SHOULD be coming to her from getting to her.

 

[mister-o]

bIf you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.

Surely you must realize that the issue is not as black and white as that. If someone posts copyrighted material (or child pornography, or whatever) on their site and it is indexed by Google, thereby allowing a criminal to use Google to access the illegal material, is Google a middleman, as you imagine it? If you think so (and governments agree with you), then the entire internet as we know it would break down catastrophically as people begin suing YouTube because users post illegal material, as search engines begin having to vet every piece of content submitted to them (and continually monitor the sites in their databases in case illegal material shows up later!), and as all file sharing protocols are banned for providing access to copyrighted materials etc.

 

[Greevus]

where do we draw the line, especially in the US? as a metal fan, i've always taped/traded music with my friends. i taped the original Metallica demo quite a bit, so i was pissed when they went after Napster. if you buy a CD, then "loan" it to a friend, or copy it, then what's the difference? i can only see invading private lives of citizens and telling that what and who they can "share" with is criminal itself. FREEDOM to choose, think, etc, is being seriously threatened of late. michael moore said the same thing on a TV show i watched. i don't necessarily agree with everything about him, but he said something to the effect of "if you buy my movie at Wal-mart, then lend it to everyone in your family to watch for free, aren't they 'sharing illegally' in a way? i don't think so". he went on to say "get my movie and copy it all you want, i don't care. i would rather you see it than me worry about who got paid". amen. we all want to make money at something we love, but "sharing media" is here to stay, period.

who the F wants Carol Kaye's music OR sheet music/lessons/etc?? i mean, really? i'm all about artists writing and performing their own "real" compositions. i don't care much for studio cats, sorry. what's the difference in that and 'jam-synching' or Milli Vanilli, etc? Maybe that's why i've always loved metal and hard rock, even hardcore and punk. they are real and emotional and you don't have to be a separatist/elitist to participate.

 

[PhatBasstard]

The problem with the coffee table analogy is method.

If you are good enough to look at that coffee table (sight only, no measurements) and go home and build a perfect replica (analogous to writing out the CK materials here yourself without prior knowledge), great! More power to you and I don't consider that stealing.
If, however, you need either the plans or need to record measurements that are not willingly provided by the coffee table's maker (analogous to illegally downloading the CK materials here), then you are stealing.

And No, CK is not "totally justified" in her actions. What she is doing is trying to blame Dan Rather for the Kennedy assasination because CBS news has file footage of it in it's archives (if I'm understanding this whole mess correctly).

I do, however, agree that the world of technology is changing faster than the law is keeping up. We are dealing with technology situations that weren't even envisioned 10-20 years ago.

Also the "It's not stealing because we don't know if they would have actually bought it if unable to illegally download so no actual physical monies lost" is an irrelevent argument to the final action of taking it without permission.

 

[YL_Bass]

baalroo is just flat-out wrong, legally and morally. When one owns intelectual property (something protected by copyright or patent), one owns the IDEAS (the contents, the design). When you fix the IDEA into a tangible form (record, book, widget) you own both the IDEA and the tangible thing. When you sell the tangible thing, you give permission to the buyer to use the IDEA fixed into a tangible thing, but do not sell the right to place the IDEA into another tangible thing. The right to fix the IDEA into another tangible thing is a separate right--and it's much more expensive to buy.

And yes, I am a lawyer--20+ years.

Carol Kay was totally justified. If you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.

Well again if you read the thread shes going after a news site, not a torrent site, assuming they are a torrent site not a reporting blog.

So not justified.


Justified for going after pirates yes.

 

[standupright]

If you're a lawyer, you should know the difference between "Theft" and this copyright issue we know today as "Piracy". Piracy cuts into profits, that's what's illegal about it. As was said before, morally, these two things are treated the same. You go to court, get labeled a thief and pay a fine or go to jail. In a literal sense, which I think is what is being debated here, they are two COMPLETELY different things. They are governed by DIFFERENT LAWS. Copyright law covers piracy, and a whole 'nother set of laws govern physical theft of material goods. You do not go to jail for being a thief when you pirate something; you go to jail for infringing on the copyright of intellectual property. If you were literally breaking into Carol Kaye's house and stealing money from her pocket, then we have a totally different issue, but all you're doing by pirating is preventing money that SHOULD be coming to her from getting to her.

it's all still stealing.

 

[baalroo]

The problem with the coffee table analogy is method.

If you are good enough to look at that coffee table (sight only, no measurements) and go home and build a perfect replica (analogous to writing out the CK materials here yourself without prior knowledge), great! More power to you and I don't consider that stealing.
If, however, you need either the plans or need to record measurements that are not willingly provided by the coffee table's maker (analogous to illegally downloading the CK materials here), then you are stealing.

And No, CK is not "totally justified" in her actions. What she is doing is trying to blame Dan Rather for the Kennedy assasination because CBS news has file footage of it in it's archives (if I'm understanding this whole mess correctly).

I do, however, agree that the world of technology is changing faster than the law is keeping up. We are dealing with technology situations that weren't even envisioned 10-20 years ago.

ok, but what if the coffee table maker makes all of the information you need to have your machine make a perfect copy readily available, but they write at the bottom "do not copy this." would you still be a thief? (again, this is an actual question, not rhetorical) Where do we draw the line moving forward as this stuff becomes even more ubiquitous?

because as soon as you release a piece of media online (or to CD) you are making all the necessary information readily available to make a perfect copy on the little machine that everyone now has in their house, and hoping that people won't use this simple everyday machinery they have sitting around to make a copy of it rather than purchase it. Even if it IS technically an illegal activity, it's quite frankly horribly foolish to not expect it to happen. If you are creating a product that in all honestly can be exactly reproduced with NO quality loss with a single press of a button and NO resources being used, it's hard to justify charging for it, OR being upset when others don't find it necessary to pay for it.

at this point it is so easy to copy/acquire digital media that charging for it is kind of ridiculous, but again i digress and am beginning to wade further back into the pool of the "piracy debate."

 

[BuffaloBass]

I donnow. DO you need a coffee table to play bass?

 

[officialjlox]

Also the "It's not stealing because we don't know if they would have actually bought it if unable to illegally download so no actual physical monies lost" is an irrelevent argument to the final action of taking it without permission.

It is irrelevant in this particular situation, and in the "big picture" but it is interesting when you break it down to a case-by-case analysis.

For example, if someone were to link me to her website and on the homepage there was the instructional material in question for free and for anyone to view, I'd probably have a look and use it to some degree.

If however, you linked me to her site and it gave me a form to pay for the same video, I would immediately close the site and not think twice about it.

I wonder how many people that have downloaded this would have actually paid money for it if it wasn't available online.

Again, I know it's not relevant to this discussion, but it's interesting to think about.

 

[officialjlox]

I donnow. DO you need a coffee table to play bass?

If you had downloaded that Carol Kaye torrent, not only would you know the answer to this, but you'd know WHY.

 

[mister-o]

Also the "It's not stealing because we don't know if they would have actually bought it if unable to illegally download so no actual physical monies lost" is an irrelevent argument to the final action of taking it without permission.

It is highly relevant to the question of what the damages are. And since the illegality of the act is premised on there being damages, it is thereby also relevant to the discussion as a whole.

 

[YL_Bass]

I donnow. DO you need a coffee table to play bass?

thread over.

 

[YL_Bass]

Here's a question to those who play in cover bands:

Do you guys pay royalties to the bands whose songs you cover?

 

[SpamBot]

Here's a question to those who play in cover bands:

Do you guys pay royalties to the bands whose songs you cover?

There's actually been quite a bit of legal action on this front lately. Bars have been sued for hiring cover bands.

 

[YL_Bass]

There's actually been quite a bit of legal action on this front lately. Bars have been sued for hiring cover bands.

Well yeah I just thought of this conversation I had with a buddy in a cover band about piracy and he was all "bla bla bla stealing" and I asked if his band was paying royalties for their covering activities.

Edit: ps I didn't know this had become a legal issue yet, I just thought it was one of those things that flew under the radar still.

 

[baalroo]

There's actually been quite a bit of legal action on this front lately. Bars have been sued for hiring cover bands.

my favorite is the cover bands that make myspace pages that feature them covering famous tunes. i highly doubt they are paying royalties and not only are they "stealing" by many people here's definition, but they are actually attempting to PROFIT off of the "theft."

honestly though, it's really sort of irrelevant to the conversation... as amusing as it may be.

also, most bands try to make themselves feel better about this by simply claiming that the bars they play at pay the royalties, but I have never once heard a single band that does covers ask US (I work at a bar) whether or not we do any such thing... and that still doesn't remove them from the proverbial "hook" about using these supposedly "stolen" songs to sell themselves to others.

 

[mccartneyman]

I don't do bios and sessions. I dont do bios because i'm a real player. I play live and perform. I dont care to do a bio on myself. Name one bad ass, legendary player that sat down and wrote a bio about himself? That's for the birds dude.

As for sessions, I don't care to play songs I do not care for. That is a bit fake in my opinion.

Lucky is the person who can play only songs that he likes. And for the record (hee hee -- a pun!), session players also "play live" and "perform."

Whether you like her playing or not, Carol Kaye plays well, plays live and realizes that you can sometimes play songs you don't like, play them well and be paid for it. That's called professionalism. (OK -- you can proceed now to accusing her of "selling out.")

Her failure to understand the Internet, 21st century technology -- or even the internal combustion engine -- says nothing about her talent and body of work.

 

[baalroo]

Lucky is the person who can play only songs that he likes. And for the record (hee hee -- a pun!), session players also "play live" and "perform."

Whether you like her playing or not, Carol Kaye plays well, plays live and realizes that you can sometimes play songs you don't like, play them well and be paid for it. That's called professionalism. (OK -- you can proceed now to accusing her of "selling out.")

Her failure to understand the Internet, 21st century technology -- or even the internal combustion engine -- says nothing about her talent and body of work.

for the record: I completely 100% agree with this.