That's where fair use comes incandleMay 24 2007, 04:16:05 UTC
So if I have some piece of music that I didn't pay for, it's only morally wrong if it's convenient to play?
Again, if you go with the idea that copyright exists to preserve the financial incentive to continue to create works rather than serving as an absolute grant of exclusive power to the copyright owner (as the RIAA etc. seems to think it does), some leeway exists on what the general public can do with it. The entire thing is a social contract, and I don't think that the public's right to reasonable use should be taken lightly.
There are four main criteria commonly used in determining fair use in the US
( ... )
Re: That's where fair use comes inrbandrewsMay 24 2007, 05:01:40 UTC
Well, you seemed to be saying that giving people something in a convenient format is worse than in an inconvenient format, which led me to the thought that what I do with something (import it into iTunes vs. listen to a cassette tape) affects how moral it is to pirate it.
I don't think anyone advocates selling copies on a street corner. If I have to pay for it either way, I'd much prefer to pay the artist than some random person selling their work.
Re: That's where fair use comes incandleMay 24 2007, 21:44:16 UTC
The morality comes in with the intent and use, and specifically whether the intent and usability of the shared format moves it from a method of sharing an experience and acting as free advertising to something that provides an incentive to never purchase the product.
Take for example, iTune's music sharing feature. (The one that when enabled allows people on my subnet to listen to my library in streamed format.) This may _technically_ violate copyright but I don't view it as problematic and thus far the rightsholders have allowed it (they did cause Apple to clamp it down from the entire internet to just the subnet though). Sure, if you're dedicated you can extract the digital stream, but someone who's that into getting music without paying for it will do it one way or the other.
If I had a way to enable it for specific remote IPs it would be a nice option for sharing playlists with friends. If it's ethical to do so with strangers down the hall, I don't have a problem doing it with a select number of people across the globe.
I wcan agree with the "mix(es)are a form of art" point.
Probably more than two-thirds of the time i spend mixing a cd(or tape) is spent to make sure the transition between songs isn't jarring (musically or thematically). Unless, of course the mental jar was what i was going for in the overall message of the mix.
A corollary: The ease of data transference these days i think encourages artists to be more personable. I am much more likely to actually purchase art from an artist that i have met and had conversation with. (e.g. Voltaire) Some of the downloading attitude (IMHO) comes from backlash against the "overpriced rock god" image of some artists combined with a sens of entitled "stealing something back from the commecial/corporate machine" (who is assumed to be out to fleece the un-savvy consumer)
I'm curious what other people percieve as the reasoning behind downloading vs. purchasing music.
I've seen others use the "mix cd as 1 track" concept to good effect, mostly warren_ellis.
I do agree that making a mix is an artform. Derivitive art to be sure, but it's basically what a lot of house DJ's are making their money at (and I'm not refering to selling said mix CD's as some do, but just making the mix for the dancefloor). There's one mix tape I compiled that I hoped would be appreciated not just for the music, but for the sound bites I put on it and how they played with the tunes. Unfortuneately, it's also the one that I managed to distribute least.
There is a difference between the mix cd and the mix tape, for all of the above mentioned reasons and more.
I'm curious... how do you feel about fan produced videos (things like this for example)?
They mostly don't bother me. They don't particularly undermine the chances of selling the music or the anime and it's done without commercial interest. I've also seen some interesting actually filmed fan videos like this for example. In this case, it's obvious that the people who made it actually spent a fair amount of their own money to make it (16mm film and development is expensive for hobbyists
( ... )
That song is damn near impossible to find in the US. I had to order the Australian soundtrack release, and what eventually arrived in my mailbox turned out to be a burned CD. A relatively high quality counterfeit, but a counterfeit nonetheless.
I occasionally download music, listen to it once or twice, then erase it. If it's something I like enough to listen to again, I buy the CD. I don't listen to the radio much, and I refuse to buy a popular CD just to find out if it I like the stuff or not. But I admit that's still stealing, even if it's only a few MP3s and for a short time; I don't believe in lying to myself about my own sins.
That said, I own a good number of CDs because I listened to the music online and decided it was worth shelling out the music industry's highway-robbery prices, so it's probably a win for the RIAA in the long run.
The only copyrighted-but-not-legally-purchased MP3s in my huge collection (all ripped from my own CDs) are bootleg mixes, which are sometimes impossible to buy legally. A good example is Tiësto's "Children of the Sandstorm," which simply is not commercially available. I don't mean it's rare or hard to find; no licensed CD is available, period.
Comments 12
Where you lose me is in the idea that how I use something I own affects whether it's all right for me to own it. Down that road lies DRM...
Reply
Again, if you go with the idea that copyright exists to preserve the financial incentive to continue to create works rather than serving as an absolute grant of exclusive power to the copyright owner (as the RIAA etc. seems to think it does), some leeway exists on what the general public can do with it. The entire thing is a social contract, and I don't think that the public's right to reasonable use should be taken lightly.
There are four main criteria commonly used in determining fair use in the US ( ... )
Reply
I don't think anyone advocates selling copies on a street corner. If I have to pay for it either way, I'd much prefer to pay the artist than some random person selling their work.
Reply
Take for example, iTune's music sharing feature. (The one that when enabled allows people on my subnet to listen to my library in streamed format.) This may _technically_ violate copyright but I don't view it as problematic and thus far the rightsholders have allowed it (they did cause Apple to clamp it down from the entire internet to just the subnet though). Sure, if you're dedicated you can extract the digital stream, but someone who's that into getting music without paying for it will do it one way or the other.
If I had a way to enable it for specific remote IPs it would be a nice option for sharing playlists with friends. If it's ethical to do so with strangers down the hall, I don't have a problem doing it with a select number of people across the globe.
Reply
Probably more than two-thirds of the time i spend mixing a cd(or tape) is spent to make sure the transition between songs isn't jarring (musically or thematically). Unless, of course the mental jar was what i was going for in the overall message of the mix.
A corollary: The ease of data transference these days i think encourages artists to be more personable. I am much more likely to actually purchase art from an artist that i have met and had conversation with. (e.g. Voltaire)
Some of the downloading attitude (IMHO) comes from backlash against the "overpriced rock god" image of some artists combined with a sens of entitled "stealing something back from the commecial/corporate machine" (who is assumed to be out to fleece the un-savvy consumer)
I'm curious what other people percieve as the reasoning behind downloading vs. purchasing music.
Reply
I do agree that making a mix is an artform. Derivitive art to be sure, but it's basically what a lot of house DJ's are making their money at (and I'm not refering to selling said mix CD's as some do, but just making the mix for the dancefloor). There's one mix tape I compiled that I hoped would be appreciated not just for the music, but for the sound bites I put on it and how they played with the tunes. Unfortuneately, it's also the one that I managed to distribute least.
There is a difference between the mix cd and the mix tape, for all of the above mentioned reasons and more.
I'm curious... how do you feel about fan produced videos (things like this for example)?
Reply
Reply
They mostly don't bother me. They don't particularly undermine the chances of selling the music or the anime and it's done without commercial interest. I've also seen some interesting actually filmed fan videos like this for example. In this case, it's obvious that the people who made it actually spent a fair amount of their own money to make it (16mm film and development is expensive for hobbyists ( ... )
Reply
Sometimes it's hard to stay honest.
Reply
That said, I own a good number of CDs because I listened to the music online and decided it was worth shelling out the music industry's highway-robbery prices, so it's probably a win for the RIAA in the long run.
The only copyrighted-but-not-legally-purchased MP3s in my huge collection (all ripped from my own CDs) are bootleg mixes, which are sometimes impossible to buy legally. A good example is Tiësto's "Children of the Sandstorm," which simply is not commercially available. I don't mean it's rare or hard to find; no licensed CD is available, period.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment