HomeRoast Digest


Topic: OT: RE: +Re: Newb Dives In! (23 msgs / 471 lines)
1) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
One man's blatent theft is another man's fair use.  You beg the argument.
Personally, I have no moral qualms about ripping my out-of-print vinyl into
MP3s, burning them onto CDs, and sharing them with my kids, despite the
objections of the Fortune 100 companies who own the underlying works.

2) From: John Blumel
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:25 pm, David B. Westebbe wrote:
<Snip>
This is not even remotely fair use. You're clearly in violation of  
the law, and you ought at least write a check to the artists, or  
their estates, for the money you're stealing from them, on moral  
grounds at least, if you choose to ignore the law.

3) From: jthompso
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:25 pm, David B. Westebbe wrote:
<Snip>
This is not even remotely fair use. You're clearly in violation of
the law, and you ought at least write a check to the artists, or
their estates, for the money you're stealing from them, on moral
grounds at least, if you choose to ignore the law.
I AGREE!  NOT FAIR!  Much easier to download the songs from a P2P File
share then go through all that work of ripping a vinyl........

4) From: Kevin
I also speed when I drive as well.  Should I voluntarily write a check to
the NY State Police??
On 11/2/06, John Blumel  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Kevin

5) From: John Blumel
On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:27 pm, Kevin wrote:
<Snip>
The moral principle involved is, obviously, not the same at all

6) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
No money is being stolen.  That is a fallacy. 
And in the cited example, the law is far from clear. IMO, significant law
exists to justify conversion of works from one medium to another by
individuals, and the private production of archival copies.  Unlike you and
Time Warner, I do not consider lending the works to my kids to be
distribution.
Again, if you would like, I can recommend a good basic treatise if you are
interested. 
And as I've said before, your sympathies are misplaced. Artists typically
see no gains from marginal sales of their works.

7) From: David B. Westebbe
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

8) From: Tim Wat
David B. Westebbe wrote:
<Snip>
As a professional musician, not so sure I agree with the premise 
"artists typically see no gains from marginal sales of their works".  At 
what point does the incremental sale leave the domain of "marginal"?  
Perhaps what you're saying is under the current market structure with 
the big labels?  Not sure what you mean there.
I do know that as an independent artist, I'm VERY concerned about the 
"lending" of my work supplanting the individual purchase.  I take 
copyright seriously, I want to make sure my distribution partners are 
protecting unlicensed use and illegal duplication, and I want to be 
compensated for my creative effort.  And music isn't my day gig, either, 
which is software publishing (where there are similar copyright and 
illegal duplication issues).
I'm not interested in bashing, but am interested in intelligent dialogue 
on this issue, as it's near and dear to my heart.  But David, I'm not 
seeing the foundation for your justification, either on legal or ethical 
grounds.  Would appreciate being enlightened.
Tim

9) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
Only if one has insufficient imagination to understand the analogy.  The
point is that in neither case is any value being lost, despite value being
gained.

10) From: John Blumel
On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:39 pm, David B. Westebbe wrote:
<Snip>
Well, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

11) From: Brett Mason
Come on John, the argument is misplaced!   If writing the check is
indeed voluntary, then you need not offer an opinion regarding whether Kevin
should or should not write teh check.
On a more helpful note, this could be of use to Kevin:
New York State Police
1220 Washington Avenue
Building 22
Albany, NY 12226-2252
Regards,
Brett
On 11/2/06, John Blumel  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

12) From: Brett Mason
Perhaps you take your children to the archive section in order to share the
stolen works?
Brett
On 11/2/06, David B. Westebbe  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

13) From: Kevin
My point was that based on what was stated,"...You are in clear violation of
the law and you ought to at least write a check to the artist or their
estates for the money I'm stealing from them..."
I'm in clear violation of the law when I do 75 mph down the Garden State
Parkway every mourning (speed limit varies between 65 mphand 55 mph) and
therefore I am stealing money from the State of New Jersey or the
municipality, which ever one of the many I pass through, since the law
states those speeds are finable offenses.  Should I then, "write a check" to
the NJ or the municipality "on moral grounds...if [I] chose to ignore the
law?"
How is this different?  BTW I'm doing this at work, should I reimburse my
employer for the lost productivity since I'm knowingly not working?
On 11/2/06, John Blumel  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Kevin

14) From: Brett Mason
OK Kevin, now you're an inter-state violator...
Add this to your check writing practise:
New Jersey State Police
P.O. Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Regards,
Brett
On 11/2/06, Kevin  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

15) From: Vince Doss
OH this is good....I have to go home now...but do carry on. =)
It is a beautiful day here, going to go play my new Taylor 714ce...sorry
"everyone" has a case of cranial rectumitis today.
{{{hugs}}}
Vince
On 11/2/06, Brett Mason  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
At some point between French and fire, it really doesn't matter much what
the "origin character" of the coffee was...
Tom Owens - Sweet Marias

16) From: Kevin
Brett...Ah, I take ...ah mass transit...yeah, that's the ticket!
Please tell me they don't time payments between consecutive EZ-Pass
Tolls......if they do...my friend borrowed my car...every day...for the last
four years...
On 11/2/06, Brett Mason  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Kevin

17) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
Yes.  Under the current market structure with big labels, artists =
typically
see no gains from the sale of one more CD.  You understood me correctly.
This explains, in large part, why CDs are seldom for sale at concerts.  =
One
can buy T shirts, keychains, posters, and every other piece of crap one =
can
imagine, but typically, no CDs. The reason lies in the contract terms =
and
accounting methods of big labels, who are the beneficiaries of such =
sales.
<Snip>
Yes.  But your concerns and the law are two different things. The first =
sale
doctrine protects those who buy your works. Libraries are not illegal,
despite past efforts by copyright holders.    
  I take 
<Snip>
Bingo.  Therein lies the question.  What use is unlicensed? What =
duplication
is illegal?
and I want to be 
<Snip>
The Betamax case states:
---
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of
material broadcast over the
public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not =
constitute
copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public =
at
large, the noncommercial
character of the use, and the private character of the activity =
conducted
entirely within the home.
Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public
interest in increasing access to
television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First
Amendment policy of providing the
fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. =
Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. n8 Even =
when
an entire copyrighted work
was recorded, [p.426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair =
use
"because there is no
accompanying reduction in the market for 'plaintiff's original work.'" =
Ibid.
--- 
IMO, ripping out-of-print vinyl is analogous, and does not constitute
infringement: it is noncommercial in character, it is a private activity
conducted within the home, it is in the public interest in that it =
increases
access to the works, and there is no accompanying reduction in the =
market
for the original work.  I realize that this is a poorly developed =
argument
on my part.  One could write a lengthy article justifying my example =
under
current law. All I have intended to do here is to give some flavor.  
And to add another poorly justified point:  No court has ever found
infringement where one copies an album onto a cassette tape for personal
use. If I were asked to cite chapter and verse some case law which =
justifies
the making of archival copies, I'd have to look it up - I don't have any
particular cite in mind.
This topic is both interesting and complex.  It has played out many =
times in
the past, often as new technologies are introduced. 
The common theme, throughout the ages, is that the big content owners =
have
consistently tried to extend their monopolies to the detriment of the
public.

18) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
I tell myself the truth.  At least in this case.  The facts regarding =
the
music industry's treatment of artists are not terribly esoteric, but =
rather,
are well known.

19) From: lynnebiz
[I speak as someone who brings up more than her own fair share of OT subjects, including today...]
Since we have some really, generous, kind hosts, who established this list for homeroasted discussions - maybe you guys could take the argument offline - and we can get back to coffee discussions?
Just a thought.

20) From: Leo Zick
im pretty sure its legal to create backups of material which you  
purchased and have in your possession.
Quoting John Blumel :
<Snip>
to
<Snip>

21) From: Leo Zick
its people like you that forced the govt to create laws, and then  
signs to enforce the laws, and people to make the signs, and people to  
hang the signs, and people to enforce the laws quoted on these signs,  
and people to judge and admin and collect money and....
all b/c cars were created.
just think, if we didnt have the speed limit signs, how many people  
would be out of work?
Quoting "David B. Westebbe" :
<Snip>
st
<Snip>
d
<Snip>

22) From: Angelo
I think you're relatively new to this list, so you may not be 
familiar with the OT phenomenon. The best thing you can do is to stay 
out of it. This only adds to the thread.
  It's clearly marked OT so it should take less than ten seconds to 
sort by subject and delete the posts.
We really don't need hall monitors policing the list. The Thread will 
eventually die, or Tom will request that we end it.
We have many interesting and expressive people on this list and, 
mixed with caffeine, this leads to these coffeehouse discussions.. 
Remember, i is said that the French Revolution started in the 
coffeehouses of Paris :-)
Another way to end the thread is to bring up a more interesting one....
Thank you,
Angelo
<Snip>

23) From: Brett Mason
Consider these posts as similar to the "Social" section of you newspaper.
It isn't news, but can be somewhat interesting while you are drinking your
coffee...  It's not irrelevant, it is just way out of step from "News", or
in our case, "Coffee"...
Except this one was a post of coffee terms carefully crafted by someone
else, somewhere else, and then somewhat legally/illegally taken and posted
on our hosted list.  It's coffee, but more of a stolen coffee thingy.
No it wasn't.  Yes it was.  No, and I can prove it.  Yes, and I have
evidence. But yours isn't satisfactory.  Yes it is.
Consider snails, if a snail slimed up to a mushroom...  But the example
doesn't apply...  Yes it does.
Well in the case of hardware, specifically polymer tubing...  And so it
goes.
It's the new "Accent" Section...
Brett
On 11/2/06, Angelo  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com


HomeRoast Digest