Popular Post foodfiend Posted August 4, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 4, 2017 I find it rather amusing that people justify their right to piracy, based on the greed of the music industry. While I do agree that the music industry fleeces the consumer as well as many recording artistes, it does not mean that one can go consume the music that is published by the music industry. If one is so dissatisfied with the music industry, one has the choice to ignore the music industry totally (and not consume any of the music), or lobby for change and be part of it (set up a music label that is more equitable in one's eyes). gmgraves, Teresa and 4est 1 2 The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
Popular Post astrotoy Posted August 5, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 5, 2017 I think a more common example is that you lend your friend your CD and they (with or without your knowledge) make a rip of the CD or burn a copy of the CD. True of a library copy, although the library, to protect themselves, may state that unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. They have no means of enforcing that. Clearly, the law has not kept up with technology, particularly since you can make a digital copy that is identical to the original copy. I remember when my daughter was growing up, she had a cassette player which could copy cassettes (one playback mechanism and one record/playback mechanism) in one chassis. She almost never made copies of entire albums, but made mixed tapes of her favorite songs,, for herself or friends. I believe that the problem of illegal copies was solved by putting some license fee on blank cassettes - and the money was collected and distributed to the music copyright owners by some formula - not by the actual copies made. Obviously if you were recording live music, you were paying the license fee even though you were not copying. In the old days, book publishers didn't worry much about copying, since a "Xerox" copy of a book almost always cost more to make than buying a copy of the book. Today, one can scan in the book at very little cost, other than your labor. You can carry the book with you on your ipad to read. Obviously, you can sell the book on ebay and no one knows that you have a copy of the book. However, if you sell the scanned copy of the book on ebay (say for $5 for a $100 textbook) and sell 10,000 copies, that is clearly piracy. A major problem is that the vast majority of people do not make a living selling their intellectual property. If you were a musician, or author, or software developer or architect, or designer, or producer of pornographic videos, whose livelihood is impacted by piracy, you might have a different view. I worked with the late Winston Ma (First Impression Music. Golden Strings) for several years (particularly on my book about Decca Classical Records which he published, including 4 CD's of remastered Decca recordings). Since his albums were quite expensive, including very high quality packaging - little hard bound books with extensive liner notes and illustrations, they were subject to piracy. Often he found pirated copies in reputable music shops, selling for the same price as his genuine albums. So clearly customers and probably the retailers were fooled into thinking these were the real thing. He finally developed a holographic CD blank where the hologram - in the inner blank area of the CD could not be copied. At least the retailer and customer would know that they were buting a genuine FIM album. However, it still didn't prevent a person from ripping or a burning a copy of the CD, since the digital part of the CD was not affected. The copy protection of Bluray DVD's is one of the reasons that Universal Music has been interested in releasing music albums on that format (I had a discussion with some of their executives a few years ago in London about releasing bluray hirez music albums for their Decca classical label). BTW, the author of a book or the artist/composer on a CD may not be the owner of the copyright. They may have sold the rights to someone else, and they don't have the right to sell or give away copies of the book or CD without the permission of the copyright owner. Larry Teresa and MrMoM 1 1 Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105 Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files Link to comment
Audio_ELF Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 On 05/08/2017 at 6:24 PM, astrotoy said: BTW, the author of a book or the artist/composer on a CD may not be the owner of the copyright. They may have sold the rights to someone else, and they don't have the right to sell or give away copies of the book or CD without the permission of the copyright owner. As you say copyright and ownership of copyright is a very complicated situation. And even if an artist owns the copyright they may not have rights to distribution - often distribution rights are sold for a certain period to a record label and its then up to them to decide what to produce / sell. I’m sure it’s not the only case, but I know of one artist who was (in the late 90s: having been “famous” in the late 80s - early 90s) “bootlegging” their own recordings because their record label wasn’t selling their music but they couldn’t legally goto another distributor. Eloise --- ...in my opinion / experience... While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing. And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism. keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out. Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Audio_ELF said: As you say copyright and ownership of copyright is a very complicated situation. And even if an artist owns the copyright they may not have rights to distribution - often distribution rights are sold for a certain period to a record label and its then up to them to decide what to produce / sell. I’m sure it’s not the only case, but I know of one artist who was (in the late 90s: having been “famous” in the late 80s - early 90s) “bootlegging” their own recordings because their record label wasn’t selling their music but they couldn’t legally goto another distributor. Well, it depends on whether the recording artiste has signed over the rights to the record label (very common in the industry as part of their recording contracts). The record labels some times have used this to censure recording artistes who disagree with the "artistic direction" that the record label wants of them. While many would agree that many of the recording contracts are rather draconian, it is up to the recording artiste whether the artiste wants to sign it (there is no gun held to their temples). Perhaps distribution of music used to be much more difficult in the past, but things have become more accessible nowadays. SoundCloud, PledgeMusic and BandCamp are examples of different channels that can be used in place of traditional recording contracts with the traditional music labels. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
Jud Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 Careful... You can make a backup copy in the US and listen to it, except when you perhaps can’t. For example, making a personal backup copy of an SACD.... One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
loop7 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 After migrating to TIDAL, I sold all my non-classical compact discs about a year ago. There are some large used CD stores near me. Link to comment
Teresa Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 6:00 AM, Kal Rubinson said: On 7/31/2017 at 1:25 AM, Teresa said: I buy used DVDs for $1 to $2 each and Blu-rays for $3 to $5 at local pawn shops and thrift stores. On 7/31/2017 at 1:01 AM, Teresa said: Yes the artists only get paid for the new sale and that is why one is supposed to delete all copies of any disc they sell or give away, as the rights to listen to the music pass to the new owner. So, you are OK with this? On 7/31/2017 at 8:45 AM, joelha said: Kal, You're asking whether Teresa would be o.k. with deleting copies of discs before selling those discs? If that's your question, why wouldn't she be o.k. with this? It seems like the right thing to do. Joel Kal, Joe is correct for the reason I'm OK with this. One is supposed to delete all copies of a physical disc when they give away, sell or trade it in because the right to play the music from the disc travels with the disc. The royalties were paid once when the disc was new, the seller gives up all rights to listen to the music or play the movie as that right passes to the new owner who purchased the used disc. It is not up to the buyer to make sure the seller deletes their copies. However, if a seller volunteers that they copied the discs and they are keeping the copies I will not buy from them. The only legal reason to give away, sell or trade any music or movie disc is because one doesn't like it. If they keep any copies they made, it is both illegal and immoral IMHO. foodfiend 1 I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
Teresa Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 3:43 PM, kumakuma said: I think most of us here on CA are listening to a copy of the original CD, rather than the actual polycarbonate disc. Most yes, but not all. I prefer the sound of my CDs and even my Reference Recordings 24/176.4 HRx data discs on my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player using its internal DAC to the .wav music files I ripped of them played on my Mac Mini though my Teac DSD DAC. And my Teac DAC cost me three times as much as my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player, go figure. Some may say I need a better USB cable (I use a cheap Dynex), however since only 10% of my music is on my computer, it's not cost effective to spend more on a USB cable. 90% of my music is on SACDs, Blu-rays, 24/176.4 HRxs, 24/96 DVDs, HDCDs and CDs. On 8/3/2017 at 1:19 PM, DancingSea said: While you may be technically correct, in practice, this feels overly strict to me. If I'm at a garage sale and someone has a box of CD's for sale, I'm not going ask them if they deleted their digital copy and call the FBI if they haven't On 8/3/2017 at 1:31 PM, Speed Racer said: That is not your responsibility. When you buy the CDs, you get the right to listen to those CDs and make backups. The person that sold them gave up those rights and, by law, should delete all backup copies they may have. DancingSea, Speed Racer is correct. It's not your position to ask if they deleted their digital copies, that is their responsibility. However if they tell me they are keeping the copies they made I will not buy from them. On 8/7/2017 at 1:20 AM, Jud said: Careful... You can make a backup copy in the US and listen to it, except when you perhaps can’t. For example, making a personal backup copy of an SACD.... Jud, SACD, DVD and Blu-ray all have copy protection and it is currently illegal to defeat copy protection even for personal use. Some DVDs and Blu-ray discs include a digital copy disc or a download code for UltraViolet or iTunes, this is the only legal way to have a copy of a DVD or Blu-ray disc. However, if one gives away, sells or trades in the disc they must also delete the copy as it would now be an illegal copy. I understand with SACD people want to play the disc through a DSD DAC for better sound quality, however officially that is an illegal copy. The only legal way I know of to play an SACD through an eternal DAC is with one of the newer DACs that have an HDMI input. I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
stuck limo Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 On 7/29/2017 at 11:23 PM, sdolezalek said: Simple question: If you destroy or give away the CD's, how could you ever prove that you have a valid license to the digital copies you kept of those CD's? Even if you kept all your receipts for the purchases, how could you prove that you didn't sell the CD's? Simple question: who is asking for valid licenses for his music? Can you provide me some names or organizations who are planning on raiding his computer and his home, demanding to see proof before he's allowed to listen? OP, do whatever you want to do. If you want to keep them, go for it. If you want to get rid of them, go for it. No one in the real world cares [or knows], and no one in the real world has any authority to do anything even if they did [they don't]. Link to comment
stuck limo Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 On 8/3/2017 at 6:01 AM, Jud said: Quite clear in the UK. Different countries have different laws. Which country has the most "ethical" laws? Which country is the most "right" and which country is the most "wrong" on this topic? Anyone? On a side note, should buying used CDs be illegal? I've seen it claimed amongst music fans that the used market shouldn't exist because it's morally/ethically/financially wrong. Garth Brooks fought against the used market as well. Should one refrain from buying CDs as it enables possible illegal/unethical behavior [by the previous owners]? How far down this rabbit hole can we go? MrMoM 1 Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 57 minutes ago, stuck_limo said: Which country has the most "ethical" laws? Which country is the most "right" and which country is the most "wrong" on this topic? Anyone? I don't think we are debating which country has the "best" set of laws, judged by whatever standards, but to mention that the rule of law applies in whatever jurisdiction you choose to live in. If you choose to break the law, you stand the chance of being charged under the legal system. Yes, you may find some laws in your country to be unjust, or even without logical foundation. It is then up to you to either "live with it" and shut up (rather than complain about it and do absolute nothing about changing things), or to campaign for change. If one is so bothered about the laws about copyright in the jurisdiction of your residence, then do something about it! Lobby the people who can change the statutes and regulations. *I must say that campaigning for said change may involve multiple lawsuits in the process. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I don't understand people who talk about the law as if it were the restaurant, and pick and choose what they want to obey like picking items off an ala carte menu. I am sorry, but the law is a fixed course menu - take it, or leave it. Yes, you may discuss your dietary preferences/restrictions with the restaurant, but it is totally up to the restaurant whether they want to accommodate those requests. The same can be said about the law, where you can lobby the judiciary to change laws and statutes, or even repeal some. However, do not think that you are free from prosecution under the eyes of the law, just because you do not agree with a particular law or statute. Teresa 1 The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 34 minutes ago, foodfiend said: I don't understand people who talk about the law as if it were the restaurant, and pick and choose what they want to obey like picking items off an ala carte menu. I think we all to this every day. Ever drive 1 mph over the speed limit? Then you pick and choose which laws to obey. MrMoM 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I think we all to this every day. Ever drive 1 mph over the speed limit? Then you pick and choose which laws to obey. I don't drive , but I get what you are saying. However, I know that I am breaking the law in whatever fashion, and if I get caught by the authorities, will face whatever the legal system dictates. That is the rule of law. If I break it, I must be prepared to face the consequences. It is different from those who break the law, then complain that it is not fair once they get caught for the offense. I call them the free-riders, leeching off the system at the collective expense of everyone else. Worse are others who encourage others to do it, without pointing out any potential legal ramifications! Teresa 1 The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Let's look at it this way, if everyone believes that it is perfectly alright to rip the music off the CD, and then sell off said CD while retaining the rips, then the recording artiste, who depends on CD sales for income, could potentially only benefit from the sale of a single CD (the first owner buys the disc, rips and sells, and you repeat the process ad infinitum). Extreme example, I know. In this case, how much different is it, from someone who buys a CD, rips it, and puts it on a public torrent site? All those people are guilty of denying the artiste income, while enjoying the creative work. Is this not what the copyright laws are trying to protect? Would the recording artiste be able to survive based on this income (of sales of a single CD)? Obviously not. Which may lead the artiste to move away from recording music, or leaving the industry altogether. Teresa 1 The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I'm with you. If I get caught, I'm willing to take the punishment. If I think the law should be changed, I follow the correct procedure. MrMoM 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
lucretius Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I'm with you. If I get caught, I'm willing to take the punishment. If I think the law should be changed, I follow the correct procedure. Is that an admission of guilt? mQa is dead! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Yes. I speed all the time :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Just now, lucretius said: Is that an admission of guilt? I admit that I jaywalk. Yes. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
DancingSea Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I'm with you. If I get caught, I'm willing to take the punishment. If I think the law should be changed, I follow the correct procedure. And thus the OP ought to follow your advice. They need to decide for themselves if selling off old, used CD's without erasing the rips is a legal risk they are willing to take. The odds of any legal trouble coming from it are astronomically low. So low that the legal side of it really doesn't pertain. Which boils it down to a moral question. And the moral side of the equation is far more personal than law. With morality, there is nothing cast in stone, no tablets to refer to, nothing in actual writing that must be adhered to. Taking this CD situation, its up to each of us to decide if its morally right to sell used CD's and not delete the rips. For me, morally, its perfectly ok under the scenario presented by the OP. And of course, the CD rip Taliban are perfectly free to follow a more fundamentalist approach! In context of the OP, the law will never take any action. Never. So law, in this specific situation, is a red herring. To continue the speeding metaphor. Its like there being a stretch of road where, by topography, its physically impossible to create a speed trap. The road is very straight, with no other cars for miles and miles. If you speed, yes, its against the law. But its impossible to get caught. What would you do? The OP's scenario is like that. The law becomes irrelevant due to inability to enforce. Its all about one's personal morality and sense of safety. MrMoM 1 Link to comment
lucretius Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 4 hours ago, DancingSea said: And the moral side of the equation is far more personal than law. With morality, there is nothing cast in stone, no tablets to refer to, nothing in actual writing that must be adhered to. Taking this CD situation, its up to each of us to decide if its morally right to sell used CD's and not delete the rips.The OP's scenario is like that. The law becomes irrelevant due to inability to enforce. Its all about one's personal morality and sense of safety. This is moral relativism and clearly should be rejected. However, this is not the place for such arguments. Teresa 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post DancingSea Posted August 18, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 18, 2017 47 minutes ago, lucretius said: This is moral relativism and clearly should be rejected. However, this is not the place for such arguments. I respectfully disagree. I described reality. tmtomh and MrMoM 1 1 Link to comment
foodfiend Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 IMHO, one should be forthright about all the possible legal ramifications of any practice when offering advice for others to follow. I this case, I am fine if one were to point out that it is technically against the law, but very unlikely for any prosecution to occur. I would leave the morality out of the picture, and let the OP (or any such person) decide on which path to follow. After all, they are the ones who will bear any consequences, if they are found on the wrong side of the law (not the one offering the advice). Using the driving example, you can tell a driver that the road is straight and impossible for the authorities to erect a speed trap in that stretch of the road. However, you should mention the speed limit and the consequence of being caught. So that if the driver decides to speed on the stretch, he knows exactly what he is getting himself into. He will have no one to blame but himself if he is unlucky to find a patrol car who happened to be there with a mobile speed trap. Teresa 1 The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now