Copyright

[Nick1911]

You can download them more than once if you still have your AMZ file from Amazon.  Load that into your Amazon MP3 Downloader tool and it will download again.

Ah, I don't use the application.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hmm, ok.  I've been told by folks that you can replace lost files, but I've never used these services myself so I don't have any experience with it.  After a bit of digging, it seems that many of the major providers don't let you replace lost files.

[280plus]

 

don't know the specific rights associated with downloading a song from Itunes or somesuch, but I think it's a safe bet that record companies aren't handing out permission for end consumers to obtain their copyrighted work from any ol' internet site that feels like making it available.  More likely, they're simply selling you the rights to obtain that specific music file from that particular website, and to play that song for your own personal enjoyment.

Nope, I, the publisher, pay royalties to either ASCAP or BMI for every copy of a previously copyrighted tune I sell. This cost is of course incorporated into the final selling price. It IS, however, up to me to maintain records and make sure that as I sell copies I pay the royalties. It's 9.7 cents for a song under five minutes long and ~17 cents if it goes over five minutes.

[Doggy Daddy]

Nope, I, the publisher, pay royalties to either ASCAP or BMI for every copy of a previously copyrighted tune I sell.

but... but... but...

Sharing MP3s is a VICTIMLESS crime.  Why, it's not even a crime at all.  There's no such thing as intellectual property.

Everything belongs to the state.  Or at least it should.  Except for MY stuff.

[280plus]

It ain't victimless when I sink 20 G into a project and then can't break even on it because it's out there being passed around for free. 

Although, that is a bit different than someone trying to replace a lost file so not really applicable here.

[Hawkmoon]

Nick's analogy is like that $100 college textbook that you bought and then lost or had stolen.  So, you borrow a friend's textbook and photocopy it.

Which is completely, unquestionably illegal copyright violation.

Computer software is the better analogy. Back when software actually came on "media" instead of downloading it, the fine print typically said that you had bought the right to load the software on your computer and to make ONE backup copy.

If you failed to make the one backup copy you were allowed to make, and lost or trashed your original install disc -- you were screwed. I'm absolutely certain that innumerable people solved such dilemmas by making a copy of a friend's copy, but that only means a lot of people were breaking the law, it doesn't mean it was legal.

No loss of property from Borders.  No loss of revenue from Borders.

Of course there is loss of revenue from Borders. If he didn't copy the pages, he'd have to buy the book. Borders is (or was) in the business of selling books. If you go in, copy or photograph the contents and walk out -- they have obviously lost revenue.

[Scout26]

Nick, I'll burn you another copy of A Fistful of Oboes.....anyone else want a copy ??   If I'm making one I might as well make 200,000.


 

[zahc]

Of course there is loss of revenue from Borders

I lost $34,000 in revenue yesterday  because nobody bought my screen door off craigslist.
 

[Nick1911]

Another thought:

I buy a CD.  I later sell it in a garage sale.

Who holds rights to enjoy said media?

[Hawkmoon]

Another thought:

I buy a CD.  I later sell it in a garage sale.

Who holds rights to enjoy said media?

Are you asking about a commercially recorded music CD, or a blank CD?

If you're asking about a commercial music CD, the answer is whoever buys it from you at the garage sale.

[280plus]

There isn't any copyright police out there btw. Generally unless it is a massive quantity of copies that you've bootlegged you will not be caught unless the artists themselves stumble across you. BMI and ASCAP don't really worry about peanuts like one lost copy someone tries to replace. It's kind of like winning the lottery. There's a slight chance but it's not likely anything will ever happen.

BTW, I've heard one of those nootleg "Fistful Of Oboes", the sound quality sucks compared to the original. 

[Nick1911]

There isn't any copyright police out there btw. Generally unless it is a massive quantity of copies that you've bootlegged you will not be caught unless the artists themselves stumble across you. BMI and ASCAP don't really worry about peanuts like one lost copy someone tries to replace. It's kind of like winning the lottery. There's a slight chance but it's not likely anything will ever happen.

Thought:  Is copyright violation a criminal offense in the US?  Is it a civil matter - ie breech of contract or something?

Even if someone was running a massive copyright infringement ring, could they be arrested for it, or just sued?

[280plus]

I'm not sure wo I wiki-ed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

See if you can make heads or tails out of it.  

[roo_ster]

I lost $34,000 in revenue yesterday  because nobody bought my screen door off craigslist.
 

Heh.

[De Selby]

The position of the RIAA is a lot trickier than you'd think: you don't actually own a copy of the music.  What you buy is a license to listen to it on their terms.  The copyright, or the right to reproduce the material (on whatever terms), always remains with them.

Nick, it is both a criminal and a civil matter.

Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice.  It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources. 

Morally, I think the only legitimate purpose of copyright is to promote development.  If some law can't, in hard numbers, demonstrably improve development of new works, it should be discarded.

Legally, however, the current state is pretty clear on this point.  It's illegal and tortious (with junk penalties attached to promote junk lawsuits) to replace music files from an unauthorised source.

[Hawkmoon]

Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice.  It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources. 

So you think that if you spend a year or two or three writing a book that turns out to be very popular, it should be perfectly okay for any printer who wants to get in on the action to roll the presses and start producing and selling copies of YOUR book without paying you any royalties?

[280plus]

"nootleg"?   

What it boils down to is there are numerous ways to infringe on copyrights and good luck to the person trying to collect on the infringement. Especially when places like Asia are involved. They are the kings of bootleg everything.

However, there are those out there who truly respect the rights of others in terms of their needing to make a living too and therefore support them by purchasing legitimate copies. Don't ask me how few and far between these people are.

[De Selby]

So you think that if you spend a year or two or three writing a book that turns out to be very popular, it should be perfectly okay for any printer who wants to get in on the action to roll the presses and start producing and selling copies of YOUR book without paying you any royalties?

Actually, after a certain amount of time, yes - if copyright law were 500 years ago what it is today we might not have shakespeare or any number of classics of our language.  

The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture.  

The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial.  If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.

Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property.  It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands.   It ought to be treated as such.

[French G.]

Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice.  It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources. 

So my wife writes an article and gets paid of course. The magazine publishing is granted FNASR and non-exclusive re-use. Some website copies the text whole cloth and sticks it on their page. So hey, they've got content to get people on their site, my wife already got paid, everything is cool right? Not quite. Somebody didn't get paid to develop content for that website. They stole from somebody by not contracting that job out. My wife in particular by "borrowing" her work.  Happens all the time.

Next up, Google books.

Theft is theft, no matter the property.

[De Selby]

Next up, Google books.

Theft is theft, no matter the property.

No one is saying your wife shouldn't get paid.  Imagine, though, twenty years from now someone wants to use that article in a history of these times.  That's a useful product which under current law, your wife could interrupt by demanding fees she never would have foreseen at the time of writing.  That makes copyright law potentially inhibiting to development and innovation.


Copyright is not property like any other.  It was invented by statute for a specific purpose; its reach should be limited by that purpose.

[makattak]

Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property.  It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands.   It ought to be treated as such.

Although it may not have frozen over, it did snow in DC last night. I suppose that's close enough since, for once, I find myself in complete agreement with SnS.

[French G.]

No one is saying your wife shouldn't get paid.  Imagine, though, twenty years from now someone wants to use that article in a history of these times.  That's a useful product which under current law, your wife could interrupt by demanding fees she never would have foreseen at the time of writing.  That makes copyright law potentially inhibiting to development and innovation.


Copyright is not property like any other.  It was invented by statute for a specific purpose; its reach should be limited by that purpose.

Fail. They either cite it like a properly scholarly work, quote it under fair use or they call her up and buy rights to it in whole. If you build a mud fence that you're right proud of and I stop by one day 20 years later and take it are you going to be mad? I just committed theft. Creators of intellectual property put real work into creating it and often backed it with very real capital risks to make their job happen.  Abuses like DRM in music and such do not warrant the removal of all copyright protection.

[makattak]

Fail. They either cite it like a properly scholarly work, quote it under fair use or they call her up and buy rights to it in whole. If you build a mud fence that you're right proud of and I stop by one day 20 years later and take it are you going to be mad? I just committed theft. Creators of intellectual property put real work into creating it and often backed it with very real capital risks to make their job happen.  Abuses like DRM in music and such do not warrant the removal of all copyright protection.

Copyright should not be removed, simply limited.

Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?

[Hawkmoon]

The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture.  

The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial.  If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.

Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property.  It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands.   It ought to be treated as such.

Fail. Copyright law existed LONG before Disney, Mate. Maybe not 500 years, but it IS written into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Granted, the time limits have changed, but they are still limited.

Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?

Your information is flawed. 120 years applies only to corporate authorship. For individuals it's the author's life plus 70 years -- and that's to protect the heirs of an author who may die soon after the work is created.

[De Selby]

Hawkmoon,

Patent and copyright were relatively new when included in the Constitution, and they were included because of the same theory behind Government monopolies - to encourage development.  That's what copyright is, a Government-backed monopoly.  For example, French's mud fence analogy isn't really the case with copyright.  Copyright is more like saying that if someone else built a mud fence on his own land, you get to force him to pay you for it because the government gave you a special licence to profit from every mud fence out there.  That's what copyright is; it's not property the same way that your car is your property.  It's a monopoly that allows you to deprive other people of the fruits of their own labor, because you thought of doing that same work first.

Neither Mak nor I are saying that's entirely inappropriate.  The point is that it should be limited to relate strictly to incentives.  If a copyright law can't be demonstrated to promote further innovation, it shouldn't be on the books. 

Mak brings up a good starting point for comparison - patents.  Government monopolies of this sort ought to be handed out lightly.