HomeRoast Digest


Topic: OT: RE: copyright issues was Newb Dives In! (7 msgs / 312 lines)
1) From: Maryann & Dave Schellenberg
John Blumel wrote:
<Snip>
I wouldn't know about your law, or technical terms created in your 
courts (fair use) since I don't live in the USA, but perhaps you could 
explain your moral high ground for those of us who don't get it.
If the work on vinyl is out of print, how is the artist or estate 
suffering a loss?
Even if it wasn't out of print, copying to a different media for use 
when you no longer find the turntable convenient also doesn't seem like 
a moral issue - the original is no longer in use, but the royalty has 
been paid, and the performance is the same one, just on another media.
Dave S.

2) From: Sandy Andina
--Apple-Mail-326--493791084
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
If you are using "Audio" CD-R blanks, there is already a royalty fee  
built into their purchase price.  (However, everyone can now burn  
using cheap data CD-R blanks).
At any rate, if all you're doing is sharing them with your kids and  
it is impossible to buy any but a previously owned copy of the vinyl,  
the songs are still subject to copyright and still not in the public  
domain--but in practicality the copyright holders would be hard- 
pressed (no pun intended) to argue that they are losing money when no  
alternative exists that would result in royalty payments to them.  
Technically, I suppose, you'd have to buy a mechanical license to the  
Harry Fox Agency for every copy of a copyrighted recording you burn-- 
a minimum of 500 copies at 8.2 cents, or $41--but I think that unless  
you are distributing copies on as large a scale as filesharing, you  
are within the Fair Use Doctrine. (If your kids then fileshare them,  
they'd be the ones in violation).
Unfortunately, the law does not distinguish between still-newly- 
commercially-available and out-of-print recordings. It's unfair, and  
IMHO there ought to be an exception for out-of-print recordings as  
long as you do not distribute copies outside your household. But  
ASCAP, BMI and the labels will never let that happen. (And I speak as  
someone with a song on an out-of-print limited release LP).
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy
www.sandyandina.com
--Apple-Mail-326--493791084
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
If you are using "Audio" CD-R =
blanks, there is already a royalty fee built into their purchase price. =
 (However, everyone can now burn using cheap data CD-R blanks).
At any rate, if all you're = doing is sharing them with your kids and it is impossible to buy any but = a previously owned copy of the vinyl, the songs are still subject to = copyright and still not in the public domain--but in practicality the = copyright holders would be hard-pressed (no pun intended) to argue that = they are losing money when no alternative exists that would result in = royalty payments to them. Technically, I suppose, you'd have to buy a = mechanical license to the Harry Fox Agency for every copy of a = copyrighted recording you burn--a minimum of 500 copies at 8.2 cents, or = $41--but I think that unless you are distributing copies on as large a = scale as filesharing, you are within the Fair Use Doctrine. (If your = kids then fileshare them, they'd be the ones in violation).
Unfortunately, the law does = not distinguish between still-newly-commercially-available and = out-of-print recordings. It's unfair, and IMHO there ought to be an = exception for out-of-print recordings as long as you do not distribute = copies outside your household. But ASCAP, BMI and the labels will never = let that happen. (And I speak as someone with a song on an out-of-print = limited release LP). On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Maryann = & Dave Schellenberg wrote:
John Blumel wrote: On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:25 pm, = David B. Westebbe wrote: 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 intoMP3s, burning = them onto CDs, and sharing them with my kids, despite theobjections of the Fortune 100 companies who own the = underlying works. 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 wouldn't know about your = law, or technical terms created in your courts (fair use) since I don't = live in the USA, but perhaps you could explain your moral high ground = for those of us who don't get it. If the work on vinyl is out of = print, how is the artist or estate suffering a loss? Even if = it wasn't out of print, copying to a different media for use when you no = longer find the turntable convenient also doesn't seem like a moral = issue - the original is no longer in use, but the royalty has been paid, = and the performance is the same one, just on another media. Dave = S.homeroast mailing listhttp://li=sts.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroastTo change your personal list settings (digest = options, vacations, unsvbscribes) go to http://=sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings = = = --Apple-Mail-326--493791084--

3) From: John Blumel
On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:36 pm, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg wrote:
<Snip>
Well, first of all, Mr. Westebbe decried corporate greed and  
attempted to use it as justification for breaking the law. (Not that  
I don't think corporate greed is usually a negative thing.) Then he  
uses that argument to justify stealing from the artists who created  
the works he's so busy copying. Seems to me that what's really at  
stake is greed of another sort. Just pointing at recording companies  
and washing your hands doesn't in any way change the fact that the  
artists in question aren't getting paid for the multiple copies he  
admits to making. And it's exactly this attitude and the behavior it  
leads to that results in more and more unfair copyright law that  
hurts both creators and consumers. It's easy to blame someone else  
for laws you don't like but not so comfortable to admit your own part  
in their creation.
And, it's not about copying to another medium at all. It's about  
setting yourself up as an illegal distributor of the works in  
question. Just because a recording company has decided not to  
continue distributing an artists works, doesn't grant one license to  
distribute copies of those works without compensating the artist.  
Think of it like income tax. Just because your income is from illegal  
sources, doesn't absolve you of the obligation to pay taxes on it.  
Similarly, the artists in question are still entitled to compensation  
and although one may pretend to only be taking money out of the  
pockets of a big corporation that doesn't need it, you're still  
effectively stealing from people who may need it.
John Blumel

4) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
Wrong again, John.  I decried corporate greed as the reason why your
sympathies are misplaced.  I said I was NOT breaking the law, and used =
that
to justify my lack of qualms concerning my actions.
(Not that  
<Snip>
Wrong again.  When there is no theft, there is no need for =
justification,
and the point has been made that the artists see no change in their
fortunes.
Seems to me that what's really at  
<Snip>
In the example I cited, they are entitled to no payment, and even if I =
were
to have bought new copies of the works I already own, they would receive =
no
payments.
 And it's exactly this attitude and the behavior it  
<Snip>
You posit a cause/effect relationship where none exists.  One need only
perform a cursory historic examination of copyright law to determine the
fallacious nature of your argument.
 It's easy to blame someone else  
<Snip>
The first sale doctrine protects consumers against these claims of
infringing distribution.
Just because a recording company has decided not to  
<Snip>
Artists are not compensated for such distribution, despite attempts to =
make
libraries and video stores illegal. (And of course, in the example I =
cited,
no distribution existed - your entire argument is a red herring.)
  
<Snip>
That is irrelevant, and even if it were, it is not an apt analogy.
  
<Snip>
Not in the example I cited. And the reality is that they seldom would
receive compensation in other examples, due to the policies of the =
entities
who make the fallacious arguments you have adopted.
<Snip>
Nope.  There is no loss to any artist when one engages in the actions I
cited.
Think of it this way:  If I photocopied a chapter of a book I own to =
read at
the beach, so I would not damage my expensive first edition, does the =
author
lose money?
Your arguments are badly thought out.

5) From: John Blumel
On Nov 2, 2006, at 4:07 pm, David B. Westebbe wrote:
<Snip>
Well, you SAID you aren't breaking the law but the actions you  
describe are clearly a violation.
<Snip>
Sorry, Dave, but your arguments are nothing but rationalizations to  
soothe your conscience. You're a criminal, just admit it, and stop  
trying to justify it.

6) From: David B. Westebbe
<Snip>
Not only did I say it, but I gave arguments to back up my position, citing
case law and doctrines.
but the actions you  
<Snip>
Many things are clear to those who do not fully understand the issues.  I'd
like to see your reasoning behind the statement that I am clearly violating
the law.  At worst, the law on the topic is unclear.  At best, my reasoning
is spot-on.
Please tell me why I am clearly violating the law in the example I gave.

7) From: Leo Zick
yes, i removed some text.  dont chastise me for falsification now.
so, using your thinking, illegal immigrants should pay taxes, right?   
that would also mean that they should be entitled to ss, medicare, etc.
hmm, this sounds vaguely familiar.
Quoting John Blumel :
....Think of it like
<Snip>


HomeRoast Digest