christopher3393 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 A good reminder for us all to go to our local music venue, buy a CD from the band and have them sign it. You take home something of value, get to hear the music LIVE and record a memory, and let the artist make a bit more than 50 cents. I live in Chicago and have heard the pitch from the aforementioned dealer. Its actually a fairly low-key pitch. Really the ethical scenario isn't even a close call [unethical], even though I otherwise hold said dealer in high regard. But here's the thing that ignites the passions: neither the recording industry position nor the all bits should be free crowd are defensible. Artists should be paid in some fashion for the ongoing intellectual property they have created. Consumers should have wide latitude to re-purpose (but not re-distribute) content they have licensed. A purchase of a download or a physical medium should convey broad usage rights for consistency. Practically speaking, the genie is out of the bottle: if there is an artist you love and constantly play, make it your responsibility to ensure they get something for their effort, even if you discovered it 30 years after it was produced. For me that means licensing Tidal to sample new music ayce, buying a mixture of new and used CD's and ripping them to ensure I have access to whatever legacy recording I want whether I'm on line or not, and occasionally paying up for a special vinyl or high resolution download for those life-changing recordings. And, seeing live music in small venues. Nice post. Thanks. And welcome to CA. Link to comment
kumakuma Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Not even books? They're similar to recordings... Intelectual property, royalties. How about movies and TV series? The discussion centered around whether or not it is legal to rip a CD, keep the ripped copy, and then sell or give the original to someone else. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
semente Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 The discussion centered around whether or not it is legal to rip a CD, keep the ripped copy, and then sell or give the original to someone else. I see... I was referring to selling a CD without keeping a digital copy, or buying a used one instead of a new one. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
kumakuma Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I see... I was referring to selling a CD without keeping a digital copy, or buying a used one instead of a new one. I think the first-sale doctrine makes this legal under U.S. copyright law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
wwaldmanfan Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Once again the loudness war does not give anyone the right to steal. Of course not, but as long as the music industry continues to shoot itself in the foot, they may be encouraging some people to do it, especially those who've been fooled into buying new CD's or expensive "hi-res" downloads, only to discover that the mastering is crushed and unpleasant to listen to on anything that passes for decent audio equipment. It's pretty easy to make the distinction between illegally uploading or seeding music to a bittorent site, as opposed to innocently downloading what's already been put "out there" by others. And, some people genuinely feel that "It's not a crime if I don't get caught". I'm talking about human nature, something that is pretty difficult to change. Remember "Give Peace a Chance"? That didn't work, either. Link to comment
semente Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I think the first-sale doctrine makes this legal under U.S. copyright law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Thanks for that. I wonder if there's a similar legal figure here in the UK "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
kumakuma Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Thanks for that. I wonder if there's a similar legal figure here in the UK The UK appears to have a similar concept (exhaustion of copyright): Exhaustion of copyright - Lexology The first paragraph of this article seems to be what you are looking for: The principle of exhaustion is an established international legal doctrine. It provides that a copyright owner’s right to control copies of their work “exhausts” on its first sale by the copyright owner or with their consent. The principle prevents the copyright owner’s right to control copies of their work from extending beyond the point at which they receive reasonable remuneration for the copy. Further, it allows the purchaser to have control over their copy, including the right to resell it free from interference by the copyright owner. In the UK we have codified this principle in national legislation. Sections 16(1)(b), 18(1) and 18(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the CDPA) establish the copyright holder’s exclusive right to issue (i.e. distribute) copies of their work to the public and provide that infringement shall occur where a third party encroaches on this right. Section 18(3)(a) sets out the principle of exhaustion by stating that the subsequent distribution of copies of a work (such as selling on a purchased copy second-hand) will not infringe the rightholder’s distribution right. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
realhifi Posted August 12, 2016 Author Share Posted August 12, 2016 A good reminder for us all to go to our local music venue, buy a CD from the band and have them sign it. You take home something of value, get to hear the music LIVE and record a memory, and let the artist make a bit more than 50 cents. I live in Chicago and have heard the pitch from the aforementioned dealer. Its actually a fairly low-key pitch. Really the ethical scenario isn't even a close call [unethical], even though I otherwise hold said dealer in high regard. But here's the thing that ignites the passions: neither the recording industry position nor the all bits should be free crowd are defensible. Artists should be paid in some fashion for the ongoing intellectual property they have created. Consumers should have wide latitude to re-purpose (but not re-distribute) content they have licensed. A purchase of a download or a physical medium should convey broad usage rights for consistency. Practically speaking, the genie is out of the bottle: if there is an artist you love and constantly play, make it your responsibility to ensure they get something for their effort, even if you discovered it 30 years after it was produced. For me that means licensing Tidal to sample new music ayce, buying a mixture of new and used CD's and ripping them to ensure I have access to whatever legacy recording I want whether I'm on line or not, and occasionally paying up for a special vinyl or high resolution download for those life-changing recordings. And, seeing live music in small venues. I agree with the points on this. The genie is definitely out of the bottle. David 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