Getting rid of CD's?

[foodfiend]

19 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

YouTube is a very interesting platform. It is true that there are copyright infringements in videos bla bla black but thats not important really. YouTube is the modern version of the TV in a sense. You can watch whatever you please, all for free. Artists publish their stuff and get paid for the views and at the same time they get direct publicity. There is no need to middlemen (other than Google) to get something published, but at the same time labels have their own channels. I find more music through YouTube nowadays rather than anywhere else, also all sorts of rarities can be found there - of course, quality is not great.

I do agree that Youtube is an interesting platform, and applaud the various creative efforts by people who have managed to monetize their works. From movie/television reviews and analyses, to mini-documentaries on travel, working abroad, etc.

 

I think you took my comment on Youtube, DRM and the need for control out of context. It was in response to the following statement by Teresa:

14 hours ago, Teresa said:

Right now there are people posting complete albums on YouTube with just a picture of the album cover. The artist didn't give them permission to do so. Music videos from record companies who have accounts with YouTube are legit though.

 

It is pointing to copyright infringement, of which, I am glad to note, Youtube has been tackling.

 

24 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

Looking at all that's happening in the world of music, it somehow makes me sad to see this obscure side of music where people have to keep their CDs in a safe fearing the copyright police. 

 

Ps. Nothing directed to you or anyone else, just some Monday night ranting

No offence taken, really! I keep the physical copies of my CDs, because I do like to take the out for a spin sometimes. I am not a complete computer audiophile, and also play vinyl on the side.

[foodfiend]

21 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

It is interesting to note that in the article quoted, they say that there is a greater amount of illegal proliferation of copyright by sheer distribution of copies to family and friends, than actually through peer-to-peer torrent sites.

 

So, the RIAA's lawyers are just picking easy targets.

 

It is a sad state of affairs, and partly due to the American legal system's use of "discovery". This can make the cost of legal proceedings very expensive.

 

In fact, the American legal system is also filled with unscrupulous lawyers who go after people, knowing that they have no way of launching a credible legal defence due to the costs involved. They threaten the party, who then asks to settle out-of-court. No wonder lawyers tend to have an awful reputation!

 

Another interesting point is that many of those who flout the copyright laws do it knowingly. I wonder who much of their "justification" to break the law stems in their belief that the music labels are over-pricing music to support their broken financial model?

[Albrecht]

On 7/29/2017 at 8:15 PM, Speed Racer said:

If you sell them, give them away, or donate them to a Library, you would need to delete or destroy any copies that you have. Just ask the Record Label if I am wrong......

Authorizations from criminals, who likely have "stolen" the content from the artist in the first place? The mentality of a corrupt culture....The Record Label, is always right?

[Ralf11]

Oh Hey!  Who wants to send me some CDs???

[unbalanced output]

1 hour ago, foodfiend said:

 

I think you took my comment on Youtube, DRM and the need for control out of context. It was in response to the following statement by Teresa:

 

Yes, I did. Sorry, I just used your post to  get a bit on the phylosophical side. 

[foodfiend]

9 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Authorizations from criminals, who likely have "stolen" the content from the artist in the first place? The mentality of a corrupt culture....The Record Label, is always right?

By your philosophy, is it then legal to kill someone (who is guilty of murder, say) by your own hands? Isn't society today, based on the rule of law?

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, foodfiend said:

By your philosophy, is it then legal to kill someone (who is guilty of murder, say) by your own hands? Isn't society today, based on the rule of law?

 

Wow - getting a little over the top here maybe...

 

We are talking about legally purchased CDs here, and whether the CD owner has the right to retain the music after he sells or gives away the CD.  In the US, it is pretty hard to argue that this is legal or moral in most cases.  In other parts of the world, doing that may be both legal and moral. Even admirable. 

 

It is not a matter of life or death. And the artists made whatever deal they made with their recording company. If it was a bad deal, it is still the deal they made. Same for writers or any other artistic or creative pursuit.

 

Not Klingon Puppies! (If you miss that reference, search for it on the system. That will tell you much more about this age old argument. 

 

 

[foodfiend]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Wow - getting a little over the top here maybe...

 

We are talking about legally purchased CDs here, and whether the CD owner has the right to retain the music after he sells or gives away the CD.  In the US, it is pretty hard to argue that this is legal or moral in most cases.  In other parts of the world, doing that may be both legal and moral. Even admirable. 

 

It is not a matter of life or death. And the artists made whatever deal they made with their recording company. If it was a bad deal, it is still the deal they made. Same for writers or any other artistic or creative pursuit.

 

Not Klingon Puppies! (If you miss that reference, search for it on the system. That will tell you much more about this age old argument. 

 

 

You mistake my point. I was referring to what Albrecht posted:

12 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Authorizations from criminals, who likely have "stolen" the content from the artist in the first place? The mentality of a corrupt culture....The Record Label, is always right?

I may be mistaken, but it seems that he is justifying the act of piracy, just because the music labels are corrupt and have "stolen" content from the artiste...

[Paul R]

25 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

You mistake my point. I was referring to what Albrecht posted:

I may be mistaken, but it seems that he is justifying the act of piracy, just because the music labels are corrupt and have "stolen" content from the artiste...

No, I understood your point. 

 

[firedog]

14 hours ago, unbalanced output said:

 

YouTube is a very interesting platform. It is true that there are copyright infringements in videos bla bla black but thats not important really. YouTube is the modern version of the TV in a sense. You can watch whatever you please, all for free. Artists publish their stuff and get paid for the views and at the same time they get direct publicity. There is no need to middlemen (other than Google) to get something published, but at the same time labels have their own channels. I find more music through YouTube nowadays rather than anywhere else, also all sorts of rarities can be found there - of course, quality is not great. 

 

Already years ago Monty Python published all their old sketches because they were fed up with sketchy (sic) versions of their videos! Such visionaries! Postmodern Jukebox was also propelled through YouTube, which in turn brought several talented artists to the spotlight. And so on.

 

Looking at all that's happening in the world of music, it somehow makes me sad to see this obscure side of music where people have to keep their CDs in a safe fearing the copyright police. 

 

Ps. Nothing directed to you or anyone else, just some Monday night ranting

But let's get some perspective, with some rough figures of what YouTube pays: unless you are a mega artist and can negotiate a special contract with YouTube, and get all sorts of ads to sponsor your channel, the going rate comes out to about $2000 for a million views of a song video. Very hard to make a living with that rate. Only the handful of megastars make a real living from YouTube streaming. Worst royalties in the industry. 

 

And AFAIR, songwriter royalties are almost non-existent: something like $30-$40  per million views. And if you aren't knowledgeable enough to know how to "claim" your songwriting royalties in advance of every version that gets put out, you may be paid nothing. In short, it's setup from the beginning not to pay artists. Only Google and other corporate interests actually benefit. 

 

Traditional CD buying pays the artist about $1 per disc, and songwriting royalties are significant enough that a successful songwriter makes a good living. 

Just another reason to buy disc (or at least paid digital download) of artists you like. 

[foodfiend]

Talking about earning your keep as a musician, there are better ways to publish your music, such as bandcamp. There are also the crowdfunding sites, like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and the music-focused PledgeMusic.

 

However, I fear we are moving off point, so let's get back to the topic of "getting rid of one's CDs"...

[unbalanced output]

52 minutes ago, firedog said:

But let's get some perspective, with some rough figures of what YouTube pays: unless you are a mega artist and can negotiate a special contract with YouTube, and get all sorts of ads to sponsor your channel, the going rate comes out to about $2000 for a million views of a song video. Very hard to make a living with that rate. Only the handful of megastars make a real living from YouTube streaming. Worst royalties in the industry. 

 

And AFAIR, songwriter royalties are almost non-existent: something like $30-$40  per million views. And if you aren't knowledgeable enough to know how to "claim" your songwriting royalties in advance of every version that gets put out, you may be paid nothing. In short, it's setup from the beginning not to pay artists. Only Google and other corporate interests actually benefit. 

 

Traditional CD buying pays the artist about $1 per disc, and songwriting royalties are significant enough that a successful songwriter makes a good living. 

Just another reason to buy disc (or at least paid digital download) of artists you like. 

 

It's a bit OT for sure and I apologise for that, but - artists don't get payed per views, but on the revenue made from videos. The payment per view is lower since the average quality of ads is lower than other services (e.g. other video streaming services don't allow skipping ads or using ad blockers so the pay ratio is higher). Youtube is not a good platform for listening to music, but when it comes to music clips - well, it displaced MTV out of the business. 

 

It's just another platform for music artists, but from the point of view of the consumer it's great (it's free and artists make money out of it!). The argument that artists make $1 per disc to me is broken, that's 10% of an USD 10 album. Youtube's revenue per view may be low, but creators average a take 55% of the revenue. Tell me which one is fairer?

[firedog]

29 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

 

It's a bit OT for sure and I apologise for that, but - artists don't get payed per views, but on the revenue made from videos. The payment per view is lower since the average quality of ads is lower than other services (e.g. other video streaming services don't allow skipping ads or using ad blockers so the pay ratio is higher). Youtube is not a good platform for listening to music, but when it comes to music clips - well, it displaced MTV out of the business. 

 

It's just another platform for music artists, but from the point of view of the consumer it's great (it's free and artists make money out of it!). The argument that artists make $1 per disc to me is broken, that's 10% of an USD 10 album. Youtube's revenue per view may be low, but creators average a take 55% of the revenue. Tell me which one is fairer?

You're blowing smoke. Look up what artists really make on youtube, it's similar to what I quoted. The point is that saying YT is great b/c "artists get paid" is highly misleading. They get paid a pittance. 

Don't kid yourself. The corporate interests involved used the changes in media to set up a new paradigm where almost all the money goes to them and almost none to the artist. It's really that simple, no matter how much you try and explain it away.

[unbalanced output]

Respectfully, we agree to disagree on revenue share x total revenue. Those are completely different things and you didn't get the point (neither I'm insisting). 

 

Back to topic, what happens if one loses the CD but still keeps the box? In most countries in Europe it seems it's perfectly legal to keep the rips under fair use (purchase receipts are more than enough if one keeps them). 

[Albrecht]

7 hours ago, foodfiend said:

By your philosophy, is it then legal to kill someone (who is guilty of murder, say) by your own hands? Isn't society today, based on the rule of law?

Besides your analogy being a stretch, - there is no law here. The courts have granted a "so called fair use" policy to personal duplication. It is an issue of re-distribution. Besides, Criminal Capitalists who purchase the court systems in the USA (in particular), create the rule of law.

Also, as a songwriter who collects royalties, and at one time, ran a record label; I may have a different perspective.

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

No, I understood your point. 

 

Piracy is a charged term: and frankly wrong. "Personal use" is not redistribution.

[Albrecht]

17 hours ago, foodfiend said:

It is interesting to note that in the article quoted, they say that there is a greater amount of illegal proliferation of copyright by sheer distribution of copies to family and friends, than actually through peer-to-peer torrent sites.

 

So, the RIAA's lawyers are just picking easy targets.

 

It is a sad state of affairs, and partly due to the American legal system's use of "discovery". This can make the cost of legal proceedings very expensive.

 

In fact, the American legal system is also filled with unscrupulous lawyers who go after people, knowing that they have no way of launching a credible legal defence due to the costs involved. They threaten the party, who then asks to settle out-of-court. No wonder lawyers tend to have an awful reputation!

 

Another interesting point is that many of those who flout the copyright laws do it knowingly. I wonder who much of their "justification" to break the law stems in their belief that the music labels are over-pricing music to support their broken financial model?

So the Record Label, who is an exploitative institution, should be allowed to garner even more profits, exploit artists AND CONSUMERS even more, on the basis of their ability to bend the law to their perspective by BUYING lawyers and judges? This corruption is playing out now in the "other" method of entertainment distribution with the Corrupt FCC granting favors to ISPs to form monopolies and collude against the consumer, homogenizing and reducing content and raising prices to ridiculousness and using the courts to attack the public.

[Jeremy Anderson]

As an aside, I always assumed that creating a "backup copy" under "fair use" was an ironclad right granted to the consumer. This article seems to assert otherwise -- and that all fair use (under US law) is truly a case-by-case decision:

 

https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

 

If that's correct, it opens up a huge can of legal worms and opportunity for (ab)use by the Copyright holder, as all they need is to win one case that bears a strong similarity to many other cases (that they haven't pursued) to gain a ruling which establishes a legal precedent for all future litigation. Then "the dominos fall" and their only real decision about whether to pursue the consumer is whether they feel the consumer has enough assets to pursue for a single payout of perceived damages.

 

Of course, the old adage "you can shear a sheep 1,000 times, by you can only skin him once" also applies:

 

If the RIAA sued you and won for making and using backup copies under fair use (assuming your motives were truly pure), would you ever buy their music again?

 

[foodfiend]

1 hour ago, unbalanced output said:

Respectfully, we agree to disagree on revenue share x total revenue. Those are completely different things and you didn't get the point (neither I'm insisting). 

 

Back to topic, what happens if one loses the CD but still keeps the box? In most countries in Europe it seems it's perfectly legal to keep the rips under fair use (purchase receipts are more than enough if one keeps them). 

I guess that it can be argued that you can't possibly own the CD case, without once owning the CD, so theoretically, it could be legal to keep the rip. However, I am not sure if there is a legal precedent for this.

[foodfiend]

24 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Besides your analogy being a stretch, - there is no law here. The courts have granted a "so called fair use" policy to personal duplication. It is an issue of re-distribution. Besides, Criminal Capitalists who purchase the court systems in the USA (in particular), create the rule of law.

Also, as a songwriter who collects royalties, and at one time, ran a record label; I may have a different perspective.

Whether the laws are rigged or unfair does not give you reason to break it - hence my extreme stretch on murder. If you believe the laws are bad, you could always lobby for a change, and even lead a coalition for change. However, before that happens, the rule of the law should prevail.

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

I guess that it can be argued that you can't possibly own the CD case, without once owning the CD, so theoretically, it could be legal to keep the rip. However, I am not sure if there is a legal precedent for this.

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.

[Paul R]

26 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Piracy is a charged term: and frankly wrong. "Personal use" is not redistribution.

I did not use the word "piracy" - and think you are conflating some other comment with this particular thread. 

 

And "murder" is also a charged term, and very inappropriate in this discussion. 

 

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. 

 

It could be construed as piracy to sell those same CDs and retain a digital copy. It would be a very hard sell with the judicial system, I think. 

 

It would be piracy if you made 5000 copies of a CD from your digital copy and then sold those CD copies. 

 

-Paul

 

 

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, foodfiend said:

Whether the laws are rigged or unfair does not give you reason to break it - hence my extreme stretch on murder. If you believe the laws are bad, you could always lobby for a change, and even lead a coalition for change. However, before that happens, the rule of the law should prevail.

The laws haven't yet been determined. There are precedents on each case. However, - the only ruling that has thus far "stuck" over any time period is that the purchaser has bought a product, - and become an owner of a copy: "fair use."

There is no "rule of law" in this case.  And, - in PRACTICE, - the courts often protect the violators of the rule of law, - hence the extra-judicial police murders & police terrorism.

[foodfiend]

9 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

As an aside, I always assumed that creating a "backup copy" under "fair use" was an ironclad right granted to the consumer. This article seems to assert otherwise -- and that all fair use (under US law) is truly a case-by-case decision:

 

https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

 

If that's correct, it opens up a huge can of legal worms and opportunity for (ab)use by the Copyright holder, as all they need is to win one case that bears a strong similarity to many other cases (that they haven't pursued) to gain a ruling which establishes a legal precedent for all future litigation. Then "the dominos fall" and their only real decision about whether to pursue the consumer is whether they feel the consumer has enough assets to pursue for a single payout of perceived damages.

 

Of course, the old adage "you can shear a sheep 1,000 times, by you can only skin him once" also applies:

 

If the RIAA sued you and won for making and using backup copies under fair use (assuming your motives were truly pure), would you ever buy their music again?

Could you give me an example of what particular use of my back-up copies under fair use are they supposed to come after me for? Sorry, but I am not exactly too imaginative of options.

[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.