The Divine Comedy Forum Index The Divine Comedy

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups     
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

TDC Fans Unite In Denial
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Divine Comedy Forum Index -> Music archive
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you want to know about the album before it physically lands in your sweaty little paw?
Yes, tell me, tell me!
37%
 37%  [ 15 ]
No, this is not right!
62%
 62%  [ 25 ]
Total Votes : 40

Author Message
Black Sheep Boy



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 364
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cjmacs wrote:
does anyone remember "home taping is killing music"? 'twas an ad campaign in the 70's thought up by the record companies to help promote the extinction of the cassette. well golly gee, guess what.... it didn't work. why not? because of something built into copyright laws called "fair use". it was ruled that persons DO have the right to tape music from a record so long as they are not making more than the amount of copies that would constitute "un-fair use" whatever that number may be.


I brought this same point up earlier, but nobody seemed to address it. The only difference between now and then is people are making CDs instead of cassettes.

It's up the individual to decide if he's gonna be a thief and not buy the albums, by the artists they are trying out or what have you.

A while back cjmacs posted a song by The Dresden Dolls, I downloaded it and liked it. I checked out their website and downloaded a couple of more tunes. I liked them also, so I contacted the band and ordered both of their CDs. How is this wrong? I'm not against downloading as long as you buy it if you like it.

Why isn't anyone apart from Pip addressing my point about the "songs that we are sharing" thread? Quite a few people who are opposed to listening to Neil's new album have posted songs on that thread without permission. My question is then, what's the difference? Why is this any different really? Where is the line drawn? Is it only because it's Neil that we are having this debate in the first place?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sponge monkey



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1538
Location: Stubbornly refusing to use an avatar since 2000.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

black sheep boy wrote:
Why isn't anyone apart from Pip addressing my point about the "songs that we are sharing" thread? Quite a few people who are opposed to listening to Neil's new album have posted songs on that thread without permission. My question is then, what's the difference? Why is this any different really? Where is the line drawn? Is it only because it's Neil that we are having this debate in the first place?


I don't think it's that people are ignoring the point, I think it's because it asks difficult questions about your own views.

It might be because we all regard this BB as a big sitting room and the posting of tracks is akin to slapping something on for people to listen to, But obviously it isn't a sitting room and because the Internet is involved it becomes something very different.

I just don't know, mate. It's a toughie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Black Sheep Boy



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 364
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly Sponge. It just seems to me that everyone's being a little hypocritical about this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StickFigureNinja



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 3975
Location: on the corner.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

meh, no one cares about what i say anyway

Last edited by StickFigureNinja on Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>I get that from my suspension anyway...

Laughing

>Stuff like our Christmas singles. They're up on a site somewhere and I'd
>probably be really chuffed to stumble across them on Kazaa one day.

See! That's exactly it!! That's when the internet does good! If you make music that you just want people to hear, let it get out to as many people as possible.. The all important bit is the artists consent, and people owning it without paying for it doesn't mean you lose out financiallly.. essentially..it's not your livelihood being threatened. It's a hobby, in the same way that I wouldn't mind anyone photocopying a story I'd written, but I'd be pretty pissed off if I was an author - and someone was photocopying my books.

The funny thing is, I've heard so many people argue the virtues of free sharing, and why it's not wrong to download MP3's... and how music belongs to everyone yada yada yada.. only to visit their websites, to find copyright notices, and messages telling people not to steal their work!!!!!!!!!!!!

The internet, and P2P and all that goes with it is fantastic.. It's when you add greed and the 'something for nothing' mentality into the mix, that it all goes wrong.

>So it's a bit of a dilemma.

I find it less easy to argue the point with reasonable chaps such as yourself.. who really do work on a try before you buy basis... The sad reality is that most people who download a track from an artist, and find that they really like it - will log back on... and download the rest Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Absolute Power
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have lyrics if people want lyrics.
Back to top
Witch



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 2359
Location: contactable via mobile and email at all times - bah.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that's the key point, *anyone* who has uploaded music to, or downloaded music from, this BB is in a position of hypocrisy on this issue. I've already stated that I am well aware of the legal/ethical issues concerning downloading, why I am particularly concerned about an entire album being made available, and why I feel this BB is not the place for people to chase illegal files of Absent Friends.

However, I've also stated that I download individual songs rather a lot. I'm not claiming to do this to consistantly add to my CD collection. If I like the MP3s a lot, I'll buy a CD. Like Mr Scruff, I got MP3s of Trouser Jazz and absolutely loved them. So I bought the CD and became a 'fan'. If I think 'meh', then it'll stay as a download and go nowhere. This is going to sound rather callous, but I don't claim to have any great altruistic desire towards the general betterment of music. I care about the artists I like, I will support them financially, I will neither download, nor make available online, entire albums of their work, or indeed any of their officially released material via illegal means. Other artists can rely on the support of their own fans. That's what being a fan is about.

The argument that's been put forward of 'but fans are the people who want to hear the album after 3 years of quiet' rather falls down when it's evidently a stolen copy that's been illegally uploaded. Regardless of your fan status, that's just being impatient. I don't particularly give a s**t if Will Young's album is uploaded, in full, by 300 million people. I'm not a fan of Will Young and I don't care about his commercial success. I care about Neil's commercial success, I'm perturbed by the fact that his entire album is on Soulseek and floating around MSN Messenger prior to release and I'm surprised by the number of fans who are supporting these uploads by chasing after them like a pack of starving dogs.

Legal hypocrite - yes, I plead guilty, click on those handcuffs.But I stand by *my* reasons for not downloading these tracks. I'm not here to be the moral high ground for the music industry, I'm here to support the artists I like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
If...



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1206
Location: The Land Of Devil May Care

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

black sheep boy wrote:
Exactly Sponge. It just seems to me that everyone's being a little hypocritical about this.


Except that I have posted nothing on the sharing thread, nor downloaded anything.

The "fair use" thing is a toughie. I guess that we are all friends here, and it is a bit like the sitting room thing. I imagine that that is why Claire hasn't instantly ripped down all sharing threads, which she would be perfectly entitled to do. The trouble is: what constitutes "fair use"?

Now, if a movie is shown in a bus or on a plane, they are supposed to buy a copy that is allowed to be shown in a public place; a use which is specifically forbidden if you read the opening copyright license text on, say, a DVD. This, broadly speaking, applies to CDs too: witness the fact that CDs to be played in juke-boxes are higher-priced than normal (although there is money going directly into the player in that case). So, is this BB a public place, and does the relevent clause then apply here.

I would say that, in theory at least, it does. This forum is a public place where, should they wish to, anyone anywhere in the world (given the hardware, etc.) can listen to the tracks that are posted.

And, Sheepy, the fact that you think that it is OK to download the music if you are going to buy the CD anyway is fine: the trouble is that, like it or not, a large percentage of the people who download an album will not then spend the money. To say that they would not have bought the record anyway seems, to my mind, to be a slightly specious argument: if I like an album, I'll go and buy it: yes, even if I have to save up to get it. In this case, why should they bother? Many people don't give a monkey's about the artwork which is, in many cases, not particularly special anyway (ref: Regen. Contentious, I know, but...).

On the specific point of Neil's release, in my mind, it shows a fundamental lack of respect. Neil is a talented man whose warblings have given me a great deal of pleasure over the last decade, and I respect him for that. If I were to download and listen to the album before Neil thinks that it is ready, or before he really wants to release it, then it seems to me that I am failing to show the man the respect he deserves.

See, I'm very old-fashioned in some ways...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Black Sheep Boy



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 364
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sponge monkey wrote:
The Divine Comedy wrote:
The issue however, is one of stealing that artists music without permission - regardless of any good intention. Moreover, and if everyone was honest about it, I'd wager that a lot of these mix tapes/CD's will contain tracks that were downloaded in the first place!!


*has forthcoming swapathon CD at forefront of mind*


Another good point. Where do we draw the line then? Are mix-tapes/Cd swaps immoral? I personally don't think they are because hopefully everyone owns the CDs they are copying from.

EVERY song that I have on my computer apart from Neil's new ones, live concerts, radio broadcasts, and a few rarities like La Cigale have all been uploaded from my vast, and ever growing CD collection. When you own the CD I feel you can do with it, as you please. Whenever I make CDs for people I always tell them to make sure to buy the CDs if you like what I made you. Hopefully they do, maybe they don't, but it's ultimately up to them to decide if they want to support the artist or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sponge monkey



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1538
Location: Stubbornly refusing to use an avatar since 2000.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witch wrote:
I'm perturbed by the fact that his entire album is on Soulseek and floating around MSN Messenger prior to release and I'm surprised by the number of fans who are supporting these uploads by chasing after them like a pack of starving dogs.


If it's any consolation - and this is the most cowardly backpedalling because 'starving dog' I indeed was - I decided last night not to 'go there' and wait for the official version instead (well, the promo anyway), so my ears are still fresh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>I think that's the key point, *anyone* who has uploaded music to, or
>downloaded music from, this BB is in a position of hypocrisy on this issue.



>I'm here to support the artists I like.

Do you not see how it can damage the artists you like.. and how you can't be selective, and how it doesn't work like that though Witch? You downloading and/or distributing an A.N.Other band.MP3, tells someone else that it's ok to do exactly the same with a Divine Comedy MP3... etc etc..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sponge monkey



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1538
Location: Stubbornly refusing to use an avatar since 2000.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is turning into a fookin' Revivalist meeting... Exclamation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
If...



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1206
Location: The Land Of Devil May Care

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

black sheep boy wrote:
When you own the CD I feel you can do with it, as you please.


Within the bounds of copyright law - yes.

Which is why I had a rant on the copy protection thread about my Kosheen CD. All I want to do is put it onto my computer, and listen to it in the most convenient way: because of the protection, I can't do that.

And that, too, is the fault of illegal internet downloads. Whether they truly are a threat to the industry or not, the perceived threat has - fairly directly - curtailed my listening pleasure...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>This is turning into a fookin' Revivalist meeting... Exclamation



You have made the first step Brother Monkey, and accepted your previous path as evil! Rejoice in the goodliness of your new found non downloading ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Black Sheep Boy



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 364
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just for everyones information..

I don't have ONE downloading program installed on my computer. The only one I ever had/used was Napaster way back when. I don't use soulseek, kazaa or any of those sites. I only share music between friends, and download off boards or webpages and usually those songs have been made available by the bands themselves. The new songs I have from Neil were sent to me by another fan.

This is a good debate, but I have to go to work now. I'll be back later..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
If...



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1206
Location: The Land Of Devil May Care

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witch wrote:
Legal hypocrite - yes, I plead guilty, click on those handcuffs.But I stand by *my* reasons for not downloading these tracks. I'm not here to be the moral high ground for the music industry, I'm here to support the artists I like.


Remember the "Not In My Name" discussion that we had a while back, Witchy?

I hope that everyone understands that I am not trying to be Mr Righteous here; I am just explaining the reasons behind my beliefs. And, to a certain extent, shooting down the arguments in favour of downloading; part of that is because I do love a good debate, and we haven't had such a stimulating one in ages!


Last edited by If... on Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sponge monkey



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1538
Location: Stubbornly refusing to use an avatar since 2000.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Divine Comedy wrote:
You have made the first step Brother Monkey, and accepted your previous path as evil!


IIRC, my previous path was concrete...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cjmacs



Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 280
Location: danbury, connecticut, usa

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If... wrote:
...part of that is because I do love a good debate, and we haven't had such a stimulating one in ages!


yes!! i can find points in EVERYone's posts that i agree with! but i am STILL so fricking conflicted about the whole issue! Kopf tut weh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witch



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 2359
Location: contactable via mobile and email at all times - bah.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand that *any* participation in music downloading will, inevitably, have some sort of effect on everyone within the music industry. However, until I see the music industry itself encouraging diversity, I'm not terribly likely to become guilt-ridden about the downloading I do.

Quote:
Remember the "Not In My Name" discussion that we had a while back, Witchy?


I do indeed, and it's something I'm still struggling to resolve. I do not condone the current economic policies of first world nations towards third world nations, yet I benefit from those same policies. I'm not inclined to shift off to India for a year and help the poor, nor can I switch off my dislike and anger about how we treat so many nations in this world. Welcome to a conflicted life of being too scared to make the leap into martyrdom and too studenty to think 'well sod that, I've got a mortgage to worry about.'

Furthermore, If..., as someone who openly indulges in the purchase and consumption of recreational substances, you're on a dicey wicket when attempting to stand on an economic/social high ground. If the downloading of music onto my PC has implications for the rest of the music industry and every artist I care about (and I agree that it does), then what are the implications of the seemingly harmless transaction between you and your mate in a club on a Saturday night?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Absolute Power
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I very rarely personally download any material that I don't own or can't aquire easily enough (although my earlier post contradicts this). I downloaded There Is A Light That Never Goes Out a couple of years back because I couldn't find the CD it was on and still can't, although to be frank I haven't been looking very hard.

I believe all file 'sharing' (sorry that should be copying surely) is wrong and there is nothing that can justify it. Sometimes it's a means to an end. I was desperate to hear the new album so I downloaded it. I don't regret doing so as I've relieved my tortured anticipation of hearing the new tracks.

I know what I've done doesn't financially benefit anybody to do with The Divine Comedy or EMI and I will without question be buying the new album (along with all the singles) the very day it is released. I know what I'm doing is legally wrong but I don't feel any worse than I did when I used to record songs off the radio as a kid.

Companies make stereos with the capability to record off the radio, which you can't do without infringing copyright laws. They make video/DVD recorders that can record television programmes. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

The internet has opened a whole new way of obtaining this 'free' music, and surely it's up to the record companies to take preventative measures to protect their own interests. It's a bit of a vicious circle I guess. They lose money because their material is being copied, but if they put up CD prices to compensate more people are going to start filesharing.

I believe downloading music without the permission of the author is dishonest thing to do, but until they make it more difficult to do it I won't lose any sleep over doing it, which I do too rarely to get a complex over.
Back to top
Black Sheep Boy



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 364
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If... wrote:
black sheep boy wrote:
Exactly Sponge. It just seems to me that everyone's being a little hypocritical about this.


Except that I have posted nothing on the sharing thread, nor downloaded anything.


Sorry, I should have said some people, not everyone..

If... wrote:
And, Sheepy, the fact that you think that it is OK to download the music if you are going to buy the CD anyway is fine: the trouble is that, like it or not, a large percentage of the people who download an album will not then spend the money. To say that they would not have bought the record anyway seems, to my mind, to be a slightly specious argument: if I like an album, I'll go and buy it: yes, even if I have to save up to get it. In this case, why should they bother? Many people don't give a monkey's about the artwork which is, in many cases, not particularly special anyway (ref: Regen. Contentious, I know, but...).


I know all this, and I agree with you. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I work in a music shop and I've been selling CDs and records for 20 years. Let me tell you the music industry is in bad shape. This is exactly the reason why I've gone back to school because I know we won't be selling CDs in ten years time at this rate. What will happen in it's place is anyone's guess. I just don't think there is anything you can do about it. You can pass a million laws regarding file sharing but the bottom line is that it's a case of what's right and what's wrong for the downloader. Therein lies the problem, you can't legislate morality.

If... wrote:
On the specific point of Neil's release, in my mind, it shows a fundamental lack of respect. Neil is a talented man whose warblings have given me a great deal of pleasure over the last decade, and I respect him for that. If I were to download and listen to the album before Neil thinks that it is ready, or before he really wants to release it, then it seems to me that I am failing to show the man the respect he deserves.


I don't know, this seems a bit harsh to me. I've been supporting Neil Hannon and his career since 1995! I've bought all his CDs (even Regen which I love), merchandise, and I go see him in concert whenever he plays in town. I've personally turned countless people onto his music over the years, in and outside of my shop, and if this isn't showing respect for an artist I don't know what is.To be perfectly frank, he should be grateful to have such dedicated and hardcore fans such as ourselves that go out of our way to buy all his stuff and promote his music after all these years..

I think this is one of those debates where there are no clear answers. I'm pretty sure we all have dirty hands when it comes to sharing and downloading. Whether it's been music, computer programs, games, or whatever. I'm sure we've all done it at one time or another
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
If...



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1206
Location: The Land Of Devil May Care

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witch wrote:
Furthermore, If..., as someone who openly indulges in the purchase and consumption of recreational substances, you're on a dicey wicket when attempting to stand on an economic/social high ground.


Damn! My Achilles Heel! You have got me there, Mistress Witch, I cannot deny. All I can say is that I've not had anything dodgy for a while, but I cannot refute the truth of your observation...

I don't really think that I stand on "an economic/social high ground"; I just have particular beliefs about this issue. Which is why I did opine that people who download music are all **, full stop.

I think that the various issues need to be raised; the obvious one here is that there is no such thing as victimless crime... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lilypod



Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 1431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't believe in merely being against the downloading of the artists that you like and want to support. If you're against downloading, it should apply to all artists. Also, if you're against downloading because of its illegality, then how do you stand on the issue of taping from the radio or television (has anyone here got a VCR?), or making mix tapes for friends? In fact, you could also make a case for the closing of libraries - be they music or otherwise - given that you could argue that the nominal fees paid to artists there (however legal) are hurting potential real sales in record stores and bookshops. There really isn't a way for anyone to emerge from this debate pristine clean then.

The Divine Comedy wrote:
The issue however, is one of stealing that artists music without permission - regardless of any good intention.

I know where you're coming from though.. It's hard to see the boring legality/morality, when people are just trying to do a nice thing!

The Divine Comedy wrote:
I wouldn't personally however, on principle, so as not to be seen to be participating (and therefore encouraging) the illegal distribution of copyrighted music on the internet.

The Divine Comedy wrote:
>I think that's the key point, *anyone* who has uploaded music to, or
>downloaded music from, this BB is in a position of hypocrisy on this issue.



If I remember correctly, StickFigureNinja hosted the uploads of that tape that you acquired for black sheep boy on eBay, after you'd asked for someone to host them. Also, you thanked Phil Evans, Ste5131 and alphi on countless occasions for uploads that they had provided. Do you see a difference between these uploads and official tracks?

If... wrote:
black sheep boy wrote:
Exactly Sponge. It just seems to me that everyone's being a little hypocritical about this.


Except that I have posted nothing on the sharing thread, nor downloaded anything.


No, but you are participating on the CD Swapathon thread. What's the difference between you providing somebody with a song on a CD and somebody else providing a song via his/her webspace? Is the reason that you feel so strongly about this issue due to the fact that it has personal resonance, given that your brother is in the industry?

sponge monkey wrote:
Speaking for myself, I actually buy more stuff nowadays because I can 'preview' it.

agentcooper wrote:
I think that's fair enough up to a point - on the other hand there are legitimate ways to hear previews, such as the radio or even the preview facility on sites such as amazon.

At risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy, to hark back to pre-internet days again, people never used to have such a problem taking a chance on buying an album they had never heard.

To take a very apposite example, I bought Promenade simply on the strength of the review in Select, having never heard a single note of it


I buy far more music since the advent of the internet than I ever bought before its existence, simply because the existing media do not exactly promote the music that I've been introduced to - via various bulletin boards - over the past few years. I took a chance on records on the basis of print reviews in the past, but never more so than when I started surfing music sites on the net and heard people talking about their musical loves.

I don't download very much, and will happily admit that this is due to a dial-up connection as opposed to moral qualms about trying out new songs. Even if there was/is/will be a fee-per-song service available (a legal way of acquiring downloads, which I would fully support, particularly for those songs whereby you know that you never will want the whole album), it would still not take away the need (and, yes, I do say need) for a BB like this, and others like it, where people talk about music; discuss, praise and criticise it; recommend bands; and, yes, share music. Common sense comes into play and I think that musicians themselves already take this into account: You need to distinguish between promoting an artist and profiting from the artist via piracy. Any time I've seen uploads on here from people, it's always been with a view to encouraging people to go out and buy the album or listen to more songs from the artist in question. People are promoting the artist, not profiting from them. If you're downloading from a site that is profiting from its uploads, that's a different matter. I think the moderation of this board has plenty of common sense with what it allows.

cjmacs wrote:
does anyone remember "home taping is killing music"? 'twas an ad campaign in the 70's thought up by the record companies to help promote the extinction of the cassette. well golly gee, guess what.... it didn't work. why not? because of something built into copyright laws called "fair use". it was ruled that persons DO have the right to tape music from a record so long as they are not making more than the amount of copies that would constitute "un-fair use" whatever that number may be.


I think that this concept is going to have to be applied to the internet. There is a difference between a person playing a song for somebody on an internet site, at no personal profit (often instead at the cost of hosting the song on webspace) and promoting an artist's work (and what musician doesn't want his or her music to be given exposure?) and a site which makes its income from piracy. I've seen how The Divine Comedy itself has benefited from being promoted elsewhere, and to stamp that out would be akin to shooting the band's fan-based, amateur publicity machine in the foot. It's where the "fair use" clause should come into play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ginsoakedboy



Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 42
Location: Bradford, Oop North

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:51 pm    Post subject: Rant... Reply with quote

If... wrote:
black sheep boy wrote:
When you own the CD I feel you can do with it, as you please.


Within the bounds of copyright law - yes.




Theres no such thing. Every time you tape, rip or copy a song, it's illegal. This compilation thing we're doing on the board is illegal. Make your own moral judgement by all means, but don't look to the law for help. Cos you know that tape you made for your car? Illegal.

I see it as a game. I try to download stuff, record companies try to stop me. Imesh & Kazaa are awash with fake versions of the new DC album to throw downloaders off the scent, but there by someone from the record company, I assume. I don't buy as many CDs as I used to, not nearly. But then, when I bought most of the 600 odd CDs in my flat, I lived at home. Now I have a flat,a girlfriend, bills...and the same income.

Thing is, if I taped songs off the radio, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Right, rant over.

GSB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cjmacs



Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 280
Location: danbury, connecticut, usa

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Rant... Reply with quote

Ginsoakedboy wrote:
If... wrote:
black sheep boy wrote:
When you own the CD I feel you can do with it, as you please.


Within the bounds of copyright law - yes.




Theres no such thing. Every time you tape, rip or copy a song, it's illegal. This compilation thing we're doing on the board is illegal. Make your own moral judgement by all means, but don't look to the law for help. Cos you know that tape you made for your car? Illegal.

I see it as a game. I try to download stuff, record companies try to stop me. Imesh & Kazaa are awash with fake versions of the new DC album to throw downloaders off the scent, but there by someone from the record company, I assume. I don't buy as many CDs as I used to, not nearly. But then, when I bought most of the 600 odd CDs in my flat, I lived at home. Now I have a flat,a girlfriend, bills...and the same income.

Thing is, if I taped songs off the radio, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Right, rant over.

GSB


here's a little excerpt on "fair use" that i found...

this is from-
Jeff Johns
CTI Centre for the Built Environment


Consider the following situations:

You buy a piece of software and e-mail it to five friends.
You download an article from a newspaper's Web page and post it on an electronic bulletin board.
You take a post from one news group and forward it to another news group.
You respond to someone's discussion list post, and quote part of his post in yours.

Each of these examples implicates copyright law. In each of them, there is at least a possibility that you could be violating the law.
Copyright law usually gives a copyright owner the exclusive right to control copying of a writing (or recording, picture or electronic transcription). However, through the "fair use" doctrine, pertaining to non-commercial use, you may be allowed to copy the work.

The fair use doctrine asks several questions:


Is your use noncommercial?
Is your use for purposes of criticism, comment, parody, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?
Is the original work mostly fact (as opposed to mostly fiction or opinion)?
Has the original work been published (as opposed to being sent out only to one or a few people)?
Are you copying only a small part of the original work?
Are you copying only a relatively insignificant part of the original work (as opposed to the most important part)?
Are you adding a lot of new material to the work (as opposed to just quoting parts of the original)?

Does your conduct leave unaffected any profits that the copyright owner can make (as opposed to displacing some potential sales OR potential licenses of reprint rights)?

The more YES answers there are to the above questions, the more likely it is that your use is legal. The more NO answers there are, the more likely it is that your use is illegal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
If...



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1206
Location: The Land Of Devil May Care

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Rant... Reply with quote

Ginsoakedboy wrote:
Theres no such thing. Every time you tape, rip or copy a song, it's illegal.


The license agreement when you buy software allows you to make one copy, for personal use, as a back up. This does not apply to CDs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
blue circles



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is true, if... but it doesn't extend to making a CD of various artists and then posting it to someone else, you ** hypocrite !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Magnus



Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Posts: 37
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As usual, I agree with Lilypod.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>If I remember correctly, StickFigureNinja hosted the uploads of that tape
>that you acquired for black sheep boy on eBay, after you'd asked for
>someone to host them. Also, you thanked Phil Evans, Ste5131 and alphi
>on countless occasions for uploads that they had provided. Do you see a
>difference between these uploads and official tracks?

I was waiting for that to come up..

First and foremost with the demo tape example, the blatantly obvious point, and the artists intention, is that a demo tape is distributed free of charge - to be heard by as many people of possible... That's why they exist.... The artist forfeits any potential royalties on those recordings in favour of exposure...so that's a bit of a poor example.. but anyway.

I will never and have never requested or uploaded a track that is otherwise available by any other means. Live shows (and the demo tape) are not commercial recordings - and as such - no copyright is held on either, in specific relation to those recordings. Neil Hannon individually holds copyright to the songs contained within each recording, but there is no way to commercially obtain them otherwise, and reward the artist/finance the production. I, along with many other people I'm sure, own the commercially available version of all the songs possible - and I would never dream of making them available online or anywhere else.

Live recordings / Royalty free tapes are a genuine example, of where you can't do any commercial damage - because what's downloaded is it! You can't go off and get the rest of the album or whatever.. because there isn't one! You want more, or better/studio quality - you buy it!.. or not, as the case may be.

>At risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy, to hark back to pre-internet days
>again, people never used to have such a problem taking a chance on
>buying an album they had never heard.

Spot on..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benny J



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 3310

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Divine Comedy wrote:
I, along with many other people I'm sure, own the commercially available version of all the songs possible


Crikey, you own Need Your Love So Bad? I haven't even heard it and I refuse to download it on the basis that every boarder proclaims it to be pants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>I refuse to download it on the basis that every boarder proclaims it to be
>pants.



Refusing to download it because it's so bad!! Heh hee... No.. I meant any song performed at a live gig that I've listened to, that is commercially available..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benny J



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 3310

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So do you have the Gangster No 1 soundtrack?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>So do you have the Gangster No 1 soundtrack?

Of course! Don't you?!? Wink

Incidentally (I was meaning to ask you this for ages) - Did you get that thing, from that place I told you about?.. And could you do me a huge favour, and PM me it back again! I've lost what I sent you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
L



Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 394
Location: Chatelet, Belgium

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Divine Comedy wrote:
>If I remember correctly, StickFigureNinja hosted the uploads of that tape
>that you acquired for black sheep boy on eBay, after you'd asked for
>someone to host them. Also, you thanked Phil Evans, Ste5131 and alphi
>on countless occasions for uploads that they had provided. Do you see a
>difference between these uploads and official tracks?

I was waiting for that to come up..

First and foremost with the demo tape example, the blatantly obvious point, and the artists intention, is that a demo tape is distributed free of charge - to be heard by as many people of possible... That's why they exist.... The artist forfeits any potential royalties on those recordings in favour of exposure...so that's a bit of a poor example.. but anyway.



"Soul Destroyer" from said demo tape is on the Secret History bonus disc, and therefore constitutes copyrighted material.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Flip



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1048
Location: The Emerald City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>"Soul Destroyer" from said demo tape is on the Secret History bonus disc,
>and therefore constitutes copyrighted material

There's the other lot off Fanfare too!... But those recordings I uploaded, are from a DEMO tape.. with the soul intention of being distributed.. to as many people as possible... royalty free... to promote the band!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Absolute Power
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With regard to the recordings of live gigs, I could be wrong but the copyright is in the performance rather than the songs. My brother is an organist and he reckons he's well within his rights to refuse to allow a wedding videographer to sell a recording of his music without first paying my brother a royalty.

Mind you he is a bit weird.
Back to top
L



Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 394
Location: Chatelet, Belgium

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Divine Comedy wrote:
>"Soul Destroyer" from said demo tape is on the Secret History bonus disc,
>and therefore constitutes copyrighted material

There's the other lot off Fanfare too!... But those recordings I uploaded, are from a DEMO tape.. with the soul intention of being distributed.. to as many people as possible... royalty free... to promote the band!



If u want to be picky, the version of SD on the ASH bonus disc is exactly the same as on the demo tape, while the fanfare songs on it are not.
U acquired the tape AFTER ash came out, thus I think the copyright applies for that one single track Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Absolute Power
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely the copyright is always there whether the recording is commercially available or not? If I stumbled across a copy of Fanfare I couldn't just record it and distribute it surely.
Back to top
luvly horse



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 6209
Location: wondering what the hell she did wrong

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolute Power wrote:
With regard to the recordings of live gigs, I could be wrong but the copyright is in the performance rather than the songs. My brother is an organist and he reckons he's well within his rights to refuse to allow a wedding videographer to sell a recording of his music without first paying my brother a royalty.

Mind you he is a bit weird.


he may be weird but hes right
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Absolute Power
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

luvly horse wrote:
Absolute Power wrote:
With regard to the recordings of live gigs, I could be wrong but the copyright is in the performance rather than the songs. My brother is an organist and he reckons he's well within his rights to refuse to allow a wedding videographer to sell a recording of his music without first paying my brother a royalty.

Mind you he is a bit weird.


he may be weird but hes right


I thought he had a point. Still a git though.


Last edited by Absolute Power on Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Divine Comedy Forum Index -> Music archive All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group