Getting rid of CD's?

[foodfiend]

6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

The terms of "legal" and "illegal" here are bogus. What you are purchasing here is a copy of copy, (recording), and a copy of "artwork" or identification of such. How it SHOULD be thought of is "ownership" to with what you will, - except large scale re-duplication, and re-distribution. The terms of "legal" and "illegal" have yet to be determined.

I believe what you purchase is a single licence to listen to that particular work for personal use. Like I have mentioned before, the laws were developed before the advent of the easy duplication of the music without any deterioration. This has really changed this aspect of the law.

[foodfiend]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

To be clear, it is not piracy to give one's CD's away and retain digital copies. It may be illegal and/or immoral, at least in some contexts and some locations.

Yes, perhaps I have interpreted your statements incorrectly, and out of context. Like you said, it may not be piracy, but it is still illegal at this point.

[foodfiend]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

No, - I believe that that is incorrect. You have purchased a physical disc that is a copy of the recording and art work to do with what you will, - EXCEPT REDISTRIBUTE ON A MASS SCALE.

If you look at what they have printed on the CDs, it also prohibits duplication in a violation of applicable laws. While I agree that there is a lot of ass-covering in that statement.

[foodfiend]

19 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""The laws were developed before the advent of the easy duplication of the music without any deterioration.""

 

True

"This has really changed this aspect of the law."

No, sadly the law has not changed at all. But if you hear and believe the RIAA talk, - they think that it has.

I think you got me wrong. What I mean that the easy duplication of music without deterioration has impacted the distribution of music, and how the music industry seeks to control uncontrolled duplication and distribution of said music.

[foodfiend]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I don't mean to make this as emotional as I am, - but i think that everyone can benefit for looking deeper into this culture of greed and corruption, and the influence that it has; especially on the corrupted judicial system.

You get me wrong again. I am not saying that the music industry is not greedy or corrupt, in fact, I did say that many of the lawyers who go on the "copyright crusade" are immensely so. I also agree that the judicial system is not free of these issues. However, I also support the proper upholding of the law. Lobby to change things, if you are not happy, but all hell would break loose if everyone were to take the law into their own hands. Hence my statement on murder.

[foodfiend]

5 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I think that there is more debate surrounding the issues regarding court decisions on exactly what is, and what isn't the law.

Hmm... I do agree that there should be more debate surrounding this issue, but there has to be an objective (e.g. to change the law that is unfair, or to update it). Somehow, I feel that all the heated debate amongst non-legal-practitioners does not get to that objective.

 

On about the music labels, I do think that they are trying to change their financial model/monetisation model to that of streaming. I frankly would find that even worse for me, since I would hate to be chained to a subscription, for as long as I wanted to listen to music. Some others, of course, have said that they prefer the subscription model. One man's meat, is another man's poison...

[foodfiend]

17 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

Piracy is really about unauthorized reproduction of the license which occurs when an unauthorized person "uses" the music. And there are clearly cases where the unauthorized person is the original purchaser, because they have (temporarily or permanently) given their license away.

 

 

** caveat: I am not a lawyer. =^) This is my personal speculation **

Hence the statement on CDs, that says that any unauthorised duplication is in violation of applicable laws.

They also state: Unauthorised copying is punishable under federal law.

 

On older CDs, they state: Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this recording is prohibited.

[foodfiend]

28 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Might be overthinking that a little. I tried to give examples that were at the extremes.    Perhaps we could say that piracy requires one to prove an intent to defraud and to gain financial advantage.  If an action does not clearly meet those two tests, then I think it would be a very hard sell to get it labeled as piracy.

Actually, all major dictionaries put copyright infringement as a form of piracy, whether it leads to financial gain or not. I think they base it on the loss of income of the copyright holder.

[foodfiend]

US Copyright Laws - Infringement & Remedies

[foodfiend]

15 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

can you cite the statutes, regs or cases on this?

 

I'm getting curious

 

Did you read the link I provided? Those are the laws that have been updated, and are in force.

 

RIAA v. Tenenbaum

RIAA v. Thomas-Rasset

BMG Music v. Gonzalez

Elektra v. Barker

RIAA v. Nievelt, Peng, Sherman and Jordan

RIAA v. Howell

 

The list goes on...

[foodfiend]

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).

[foodfiend]

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.

[foodfiend]

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.

[foodfiend]

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.

[foodfiend]

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!

[foodfiend]

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.

[foodfiend]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

Is that an admission of guilt?

I admit that I jaywalk. Yes.

[foodfiend]

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.

[foodfiend]

18 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

Back to my hypothetical whale recordings.  Knowing its not likely to ever been a large commercial success.  I'd much rather it go viral for free and reach a huge audience, than be limited to a handful of tourists on Maui.  With it going viral, I could sell out basketball arenas and make money touring - a 14 night Madison Square Garden Whale Song Residency, yeah baby.

Talking about whale songs... If they get so popular, there will be a debate as to whether you have any claim to the copyright, since you did not "sing" the whale song. Kind of like the whole debacle over the picture of the monkey who used a photographer's camera to take itself...

[foodfiend]

17 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

Good idea.  Also need to figure in depreciation for the physical CD.  A 20 year old CD would be worth less than a 2 year old CD....

Then again, said CD could be very rare and out-of-print. In which case, the 20 year old CD would be worth much more.

[foodfiend]

@agladstone While I do agree that the music industry's financial model needs changing, you have to also agree that no one is forcing the recording artiste to sign with the label. There are no guns on the temples. Yes, the music label holds most of the power in the contract negotiations, but the recording artiste can always refuse to sign the contract and walk out of discussions. Unless there is a subsequent breech of that contract, I do not think that the artiste should then turn around and complain that the contract is not fair.

 

Anyway, whether the contract is fair, or not, is between said artiste and label. It does not justify any act of copyright infringement, by any member of the public.

 

Nowadays, there are many different ways and platforms to promote and distribute your music. Some web-based platforms are remarkably transparent on costs of distribution on their platform.

 

As to the statement on the discovery of new artistes by a purchase of used CDs at a garage sale, I do wonder if I am so different in anyway. While I have bought CDs from garage sale events, I have never bought recordings that were from an artiste unknown to me. I might be enticed to buy a recording that I know but was unwilling to pay the standard price for (let's say I only like 2 tracks out of 10 on the CD and cannot justify to myself to pay full-price for it). So, I do wonder if there is any real weight in your argument of added exposure for the artiste through garage sales that include said artiste's recordings.

[foodfiend]

5 hours ago, mjb said:

So if I continue to listen to a rip, long after selling the CD, but have a Tidal (or other) subscription, is it still wrong? Just a hypothetical question....

Tidal only pays a recording artiste (or music label) money when you actively stream their music. It does not pay any money if you are listening to the rips that you no longer officially have a right to have after selling your CD.

[foodfiend]

4 hours ago, agladstone said:

Sooner than later I fear we will all see "streaming only" become the wave of the future, thus, none of this thread matters nor will make any difference, the "system" (Physical CD sales) has been broken, re-invented, forever changed!!

And how I fear that day, when we are left without any choice but to stream any new music (we can still listen to the older music that are already in our collection though)! Perhaps it is even more frightening than the arrival of the Night King in Westoros! For the night is dark and full of terrors...

[foodfiend]

3 hours ago, stuck_limo said:

What if an item is completely out of print, and the rights holders aren't making any money off it, and the family/performer isn't either? And you can get the albums on torrent because you can't legally purchase a new copy? Should the torrent still be shut down? 

Like what esldude says, it is still illegal.

 

3 hours ago, stuck_limo said:

 

What about morally? 

Some may say that it is a grey area, especially if the original artiste is no longer in the business, and the label is defunct and was never bought by anyone. Else, there are some companies who specialise in re-issuing old music, if they see demand. As such, any torrent activity still deprives them of possible future income.

[foodfiend]

@agladstone I think there are two scenarios here:

 

1. You buy a full retail price CD, rip it, and then throw the CD away. You have paid for the music, and the loyalties have gone to the music label and the artistes respectively. I would go so far as to say, make sure you destroy the CD (eg. break it in half, so that it is no longer playable), so that the license that was given to you for replay stays and ends with you as a single license.

 

2. You buy a full retail price CD, rip it, and then sell it at a garage sale, while keeping your original rip. Again, you have paid the relevant royalties, but when you on-sell said CD, so goes your license to listen to its musical content. What you actually buy in a CD, is a license to play the music content of said CD. Once you on-sell, so goes that license. How does it benefit anyone that way, even though the music label/artiste does not get any money directly from the proceeds of the garage sale? Think about it, if the buyer at the garage sale did not buy that CD off you, that individual would probably listen to the music through streaming, or by buying another copy of said CD. If the former were the case, then the artiste still gains from the stream. If you have sold your CD, and no longer had a rip, but still want to listen to the music (that's the point of originally keeping the rip, isn't it?), then you probably would have to stream music, or buy another copy of said CD.

 

That is why I say the two scenarios are quite distinct.