Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

Sounds to me like the artist should sell their product for $8.

And your murder analogy is a little far-fetched with regards to other viable options.

But the pirates will always sell it for cheaper than the artist! They have nothing to lose, they didn't have to spend their time creating it, their time recording it.

What makes you think in your system that musicians would ever make a single cent on recorded music? It hurts music. You can't make music for a living if you can't make a living at all.

Quote:

One thing I came across a little while ago is the subject of music tablature. Is that copyright infringement?

Music tablature is copyright infringement. The artists get paid when their music gets printed in one of those guitar or piano books, and if you are a songwriter and not a musician yourself, that can provide a good chunk of income.

The act of doing tabs yourself would be akin to taking a book, recording yourself reading it aloud, and then distributing it.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

I'm wondering if you feel this way because you've never worked in a field where your work, your labor, your time, can be stolen so easily. I worked for a company that made software that only corporations used and we had to put all these copy protections in.

You make some interesting assumptions.

Quote:

If we didn't, you know what would have happened? They wouldn't have made enough money to come up with more versions later, they would have had to fire all the programmers and close up shop.

Um, music and software have two vastly different purposes in the world, Mikey.

I would hope you can acknowledge that.

Quote:

Essentially, if a musician isn't allowed to live off his work, then it doesn't give him (or any artist) the freedom to do that as a job. If you can't get paid, then you have to work someway else and the art of music suffers.

I AGREE.

I am not arguing against major musicians. Hell, even Guru said there in his post (which references the article about Negativland) that U2 was into the work the band did. It's the labels that I have a problem with. I wish you would have watched the documentary to actually understand what people are saying here, in the shadow of it.

People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations. They'd likely be THRILLED to give the money to the band or artist, if they knew it was going to them and their costs.

You know as well as I do that major-label artists can go BROKE just from the fees the industry slams on them, no matter how big a star. The money DOES NOT GO directly into Jessica Simpson's pocket. These people pay exorbitant amounts for just getting on the label.

Quote:

I didn't watch the documentary and I don't really care why they did it. Some people make music because they like to. Some people do it to make money. Why shouldn't the market be set up so that both objectives can be met fairly?

Sigh.

Because this will just become a horrific quote war, I'll try to address only a few of these points, here.

Quote:

As it is now, the creator has the opportunity to own his work or to allow others to do with it as they will. Why are you so against the creator having control of his own work?

I AM NOT AGAINST IT. I want the artists to actually BE INVOLVED. I don't think anyone here likes giving the majority of their $15 CD purchase to a large label who makes fat cats more fat.

The only reason artists (like The Beatles, god bless McCartney's heart) go after guys like Danger Mouse (if you would watch the goddamned doc)) is because WOW, he used some beats and rhythms from a few of their songs. NOT THE WHOLE SONG! Just a few little blips and clips.

And they tried to sue the pants off the guy.

You ENDORSE this behavior?

Quote:

Let me ask you this: if a musician really only cared about the art and not getting paid and wanted all their fans to mash-up the music, why didn't they just create music and release it into the public domain rather than signing a record deal?

MOST OF THEM DO! There's this thing. I think it's called the internet? Really gets a fan base going if you're good. A lot of the guys out there do these cut-out, mash-ups for the hell of it.

Quote:

Adapting to what, piracy?

NO. You're just playing stupid now. C'mon, Mikey.

Quote:

I mean, you're basically saying that if I own a store and someone is stealing gum from me every day, that instead of putting a camera on the gum and throwing people out of the store, I should instead move the candy section outside and look the other way if people chose not to pay me.

THE INDUSTRY. IS BITCHING. about LOSING MONEY from piracy.

Instead of whining and bitching, they need to find a way to appeal to people who are NOT BUYING CDs (pirates, afterall, will be pirates). Parents of our parents, for instance.

I know if my father liked this ONE SONG, he'd buy it for $0.99 on the internet for his iPod instead of buying the whole goddamned Gwen Stefani CD which is mostly SHIT.

Presently, he buys NO CDs. Because....it's a hassle. A waste of money. He doesn't want to pop in a CD of 14 tracks just to hear one song he likes, and then have to put up with sub-par crap after he hears it.

You know what he does? He hesitantly asks me to download the songs he LIKES. He knows it's illegal, but it's just so much a hassle for him to buy all the CDs for those few songs he wants. So, I pirate for him. When he could be a little more comfortable paying money to get his favorite songs without the CRAP, you know?

People like you or I, well. We know we can get shit for free on the internet. But I assure you, most of the people out there aren't necessarily like you or I. People still buy albums at Best Buy, but they'll be a lot more likely to buy singles or favorite songs if they didn't have to put up with all the CRAP and the shitty prices.

Adaptability, Mikey. The market, if it wants to stay alive, will need to change. They'll lose the battle if they don't.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

But the pirates will always sell it for cheaper than the artist! They have nothing to lose, they didn't have to spend their time creating it, their time recording it.

What makes you think in your system that musicians would ever make a single cent on recorded music? It hurts music. You can't make music for a living if you can't make a living at all.

Maybe you should WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY AS IT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD and try seeing what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Music tablature is copyright infringement. The artists get paid when their music gets printed in one of those guitar or piano books, and if you are a songwriter and not a musician yourself, that can provide a good chunk of income.

The act of doing tabs yourself would be akin to taking a book, recording yourself reading it aloud, and then distributing it.

Yah, I guess that makes sense. I guess also in a round about way, even if noone is making money by sharing the tabs, the people learning from the tabs could possibly end up making money with their own music. Music that they learned through the exploitation of another's music. Possibly a stretch but I see your point.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

But the actual performance of the song is not the only copyrighted portion of it. The lyrics and the written music are as well. So even if you only take the original song in spirit, if you are using the same lyrics and/or musical progressions, it's still plagiarism.

There lies a problem though, how can you copyright lyrics? It's a bit like the HD-DVD fiasco, with the folks who make encryption for HD-DVD's suing sites that were posting the hex value that unlocked the HD-DVD, claiming that code was their intellectual property. Can a company copyright a random set of numbers, and likewise can a person copyright words strung together to form a song?

If this is the case, then shouldn't we all be required to pay royalties to the artists if we sing their song in a public avenue at say a Karaoke bar? It's the artists song, their written music, and you are blatantly parroting it.

If this is not the case, than how is taking the song you purchased and remixing the whole thing to a different tune, and handing this mix out freely any worse? Either way your distributing a different interpretation of the music to a public audience.

Quote:

The short and sweet of my counter-argument to what you just said is this: if you don't make any money off your work, then it probably wasn't good enough and people either didn't want to pay for it or they didn't want to pay so much for it.

See, that's the problem with cats like you - you don't understand the game as it is.

Why would you buy something when you can get it for free or as close to free as possible?

For every legitimate copy of a CD or MP3 downloaded, I can guarantee that at least three illegitimate copies are made by someone who also enjoys the product, they just aren't willing to pay for it.

Let's go back to 2000 when it was common to sell 2-3 million records off a minor hit record. Hell, the bigger acts managed to go platnium in a day.

Do you think that less people listen to music now than they do now in 2007?

Fuck no. It's just that with the proliferation of cheap CD recordable drives, the applicable media, high speed internet connections, P2P like Limewire, BitTorrent where you can find virtually every commercial release up to 3 weeks before it's retail release date PEOPLE CAN GET THE SHIT FOR FREE.

Remember when your favorite band or artist could literally ride an album for a full 18 months with touring and four or five singles that got a good three to four months radio rotation?

You can't do that anymore because people have the whole fucking album before you can even get it legitimately.

Quote:

People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations.

Consequently, without these big, faceless corporations, your favorite band wouldn't have the resources to put out a record.

Additional Spam:

Quote:

There lies a problem though, how can you copyright lyrics?

The same way you can copyright a book.

Quote:

Can a company copyright a random set of numbers, and likewise can a person copyright words strung together to form a song?

Because these numbers are generated via a proprietary process developed by the vendor.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

See, that's the problem with cats like you - you don't understand the game as it is.

Why would you buy something when you can get it for free or as close to free as possible?

For every legitimate copy of a CD or MP3 downloaded, I can guarantee that at least three illegitimate copies are made by someone who also enjoys the product, they just aren't willing to pay for it.

Let's go back to 2000 when it was common to sell 2-3 million records off a minor hit record. Hell, the bigger acts managed to go platnium in a day.

Do you think that less people listen to music now than they do now in 2007?

Fuck no. It's just that with the proliferation of cheap CD recordable drives, the applicable media, high speed internet connections, P2P like Limewire, BitTorrent where you can find virtually every commercial release up to 3 weeks before it's retail release date PEOPLE CAN GET THE SHIT FOR FREE.

Remember when your favorite band or artist could literally ride an album for a full 18 months with touring and four or five singles that got a good three to four months radio rotation?

You can't do that anymore because people have the whole fucking album before you can even get it legitimately.

Wouldn't the logical approach to this then be to adapt, instead of hanging on to the aging tactics and hope for the government and the legal system to catch up to all the violators? Or, like the President/CEO of the MPAA said in the documentary, would you simply accept that you can't stop piracy and just make it as difficult as possible?

Because, let me tell you, when a CD or movie gets leaked days/weeks in advance of its official release, it's more because the consumers and the market wanted it sooner than anything else. The market has CHANGED, despite what you or BlueMikey still believe, and iTunes is evidence of that.

(I take it you didn't watch the documentary either. For all the times people have told me on here that I don't know what the fuck I was talking about, at least now I can say it about someone else.)

(Plus, we're straying from the original argument.)

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

SConsequently, without these big, faceless corporations, your favorite band wouldn't have the resources to put out a record.

Completely untrue.

My favorite artists are pretty much freelance. I don't listen to much that I could buy in the record store. (With the exceptions of old, classic rock)

There's a revolution going on out there, hadn't you heard? People are using the internet to get a fan base. Aren't you listening?

I don't know too many people these days who actually like anything those big faceless corporations put out. They're out of touch, man.

I have actually made the most purchases in the past 12 months from CDBaby.com. I made it a point to buy when it directly profits the artist. I am not a stingey person. I just appreciate good music, and I will PAY for good music - when it rewards the artist.

Not to mention that bands can completely live off of live performances (where copyright gets tossed out the window). Bands like Phish made all their money in performance, as I hear it. And thats a nice way to go.

Yeah, they wanted it sooner - they just aren't willing to pay for it.

What happened to this 'It wasn't good enough' shit?

How do you adapt in this day in age when people expect to get your music for free? It's not cost effective to go strictly digital downloads because even with legitimate outlets like Itunes, there's still BitTorrent, Limewire, people posting up .rar and .zip links to albums on Rapidshare, etc.

I love the music, but a nigga has to eat, too.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You make some interesting assumptions.

Uh, have you? You talk about your job in your journal all the time.

Originally Posted by Sass

Um, music and software have two vastly different purposes in the world, Mikey.

Video games are software, and many people consider them art. So are you saying that code written for games shouldn't be protected, but Windows should be? Or the story and music and graphics in a game should be free for people to redistribute as they choose, but the game itself should be protected?

Originally Posted by Sass

People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations. They'd likely be THRILLED to give the money to the band or artist, if they knew it was going to them and their costs.

You know as well as I do that major-label artists can go BROKE just from the fees the industry slams on them, no matter how big a star. The money DOES NOT GO directly into Jessica Simpson's pocket. These people pay exorbitant amounts for just getting on the label.

The musician signed a contract. Do you not understand much behind contracts?

It's funny. I received my very first law assignment a few days ago, and its for my contracts class that begins a week from tomorrow. And the first few pages basically state that a contract is a way for two parties to create their own laws. I mean, that's the whole point of it. "You do this for me, I do this for you." And those contracts say, "You sell us your music and we will compensate you in this way for it." Artists don't just get drafted into the music industry, they volunteer to sign the contracts.

As I stated before: If someone wants their music to be available, free of charge, for anyone to use as they wish, why would they have signed the record label contract? Signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "My music will not be available in the public domain."

Originally Posted by Sass

You ENDORSE this behavior?

A person shouldn't be allowed to break the law simply because they call what they do "art".

And I think the RIAA's strategy could be better. But (other than any illegal tactics they employ), it is well within their right to ask the law be enforced.

But I don't endorse my own behavior either. Like Smel, have almost no non-pirated music. But I'm not going to complain if someone fights me on that. If I do some illegal shit to their work, pirate it, mash it up, whatever, I mean, I broke the law.

Are you the type of person who complains when you get pulled over for speeding, even though you know its against the law?

Originally Posted by Sass

Presently, he buys NO CDs. Because....it's a hassle. A waste of money.

I mean, it's your dad's choice not to buy CDs. And if the record companies don't want to adapt and, in turn, miss out on selling something to your dad, that is perfectly well up to them to do.

You don't get to justify breaking the law because the company you are stealing from is making poor business decisions. If the law worked that way, it would be anarchy.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Maybe you should WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY AS IT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD and try seeing what we're talking about.

Heh. So because I disagree with you, I need to watch something that's going to try and influence me another way? I obviously can't form an opinion on copyright infringement without someone telling me why he's breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Smelnick

I guess also in a round about way, even if noone is making money by sharing the tabs, the people learning from the tabs could possibly end up making money with their own music.

It isn't that as much as it's more that the original owner loses money because people can bypass buying the book by getting it for free from someone else's duplication.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

If this is the case, then shouldn't we all be required to pay royalties to the artists if we sing their song in a public avenue at say a Karaoke bar? It's the artists song, their written music, and you are blatantly parroting it.

The people who create karaoke CDs pay royalties.

There are rules for all this, see: the Copyright Royalty Board.

Originally Posted by Sass

There's a revolution going on out there, hadn't you heard? People are using the internet to get a fan base. Aren't you listening?

A lot of these people try to make a fan base to...wait for it...sign a big record deal!

Additional Spam:
I like how Dope and Sass's argument boils down to this: "Because it's easier to break the law, the law should be repealed."

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Completely untrue.

My favorite artists are pretty much freelance. I don't listen to much that I could buy in the record store. (With the exceptions of old, classic rock)

There's a revolution going on out there, hadn't you heard? People are using the internet to get a fan base. Aren't you listening?

I don't know too many people these days who actually like anything those big faceless corporations put out. They're out of touch, man.

I have actually made the most purchases in the past 12 months from CDBaby.com. I made it a point to buy when it directly profits the artist. I am not a stingey person. I just appreciate good music, and I will PAY for good music - when it rewards the artist.



Not to mention that bands can completely live off of live performances (where copyright gets tossed out the window). Bands like Phish made all their money in performance, as I hear it. And thats a nice way to go.

Yeah, but how known is Phish really?

Big corporations get you major exposure on all the major media outlets. They allow you to set up nationwide tours and get that massive exposure. Of course, it comes at a price, but what doesn't?

In the hip-hop scene, yeah, there's some underground independents that are cakin' up, sellin 50-100k and that's fine, but at the end of the day, your goal is to get on that nationwide and world stage with your shit.

You're not gonna see cats like Phish or Cunninlynguists even go Gold in this day in age ever again. It's just not possible. Even when Phish did go platnium, it took them 15 years to do it even in the apex of CD sales.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

As I stated before: If someone wants their music to be available, free of charge, for anyone to use as they wish, why would they have signed the record label contract? Signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "My music will not be available in the public domain."

No; signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "I will get paid big bucks whether or not my album sells well". It's the RIAA's fault for shelling out said big bucks, and, at that point, they've made an investment into the album's success. If it fails, it's because the artist sucks, not because people prefer to get the album for free.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Heh. So because I disagree with you, I need to watch something that's going to try and influence me another way? I obviously can't form an opinion on copyright infringement without someone telling me why he's breaking the law.

I guess hearing both sides of a well-presented argument is passé, especially when someone can't be bothered to think about the other side of an argument because of what the law says, regardless of whether or not it is fair or properly argued.

Quote:

I like how Dope and Sass's argument boils down to this: "Because it's easier to break the law, the law should be repealed."

I think the manner in which the RIAA continues to practice with regards to piracy and sales is short-sighted. The law isn't the issue; it's the manner in which the law is used that is.

Night Phoenix, answer this:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Can I ask you a question? Would you sue me if I made a remix of one of your awesome songs and distributed it over the internet - with the pertinent credit to you?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Yeah, they wanted it sooner - they just aren't willing to pay for it.

I already addressed this a few posts above.

There are people who don't use the internet like the majority of us GFFers do. There are people who would be a lot more likely to buy their music if it wasn't ridiculously produced. 17 tracks for one good song, paying $17. That's just bad marketing when you're competing against piracy.

A lot of people feel guilty about downloading illegally. If you give them a reasonable alternative, you'd be amazed at how well it would do. Like Guru said: iTunes is #3 worldwide (I think) for music providers. That speaks volumes about the market you're dealing with, here.

Quote:

What happened to this 'It wasn't good enough' shit?

How do you adapt in this day in age when people expect to get your music for free? It's not cost effective to go strictly digital downloads because even with legitimate outlets like Itunes, there's still BitTorrent, Limewire, people posting up .rar and .zip links to albums on Rapidshare, etc.

A LOT of people don't even KNOW about this shit, man. We're dealing with internet savvy people on these boards and probably in our social circles - because we identify with them.

There are a lot of folks out there who don't "expect it for free." A lot of folks who just don't fucking bother with buying CDs anymore and find a better alternative. People are fucking SCARED of "getting caught." Hell, some of my friends have asked me not to talk in public about piracy because they're AFRAID I'll get caught. Thats a load of shit, but I know plenty of people who need introduction to file sharing programs.

If there were incentives to PAY for your music to those of us who know how to get shit free, they