Piracy?

rromeo923

Has anyone here copied a tape or burned a cd from another person? If you said yes than you may be part of a bigger problem than "online piracy"

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-online-music-piracy-pales-in-comparison-to-offline-swapping-120726/

bigaudiofanatic

Interesting.

tonyb

Seems to me what they are suggesting is in violation of personal privacy laws. Regardless, it will come in some form or another or downloaded music files are going to become alot more pricey. Wouldn't kick that cdp to the curb just yet.

mhardy6647

I like to start with a blank transcription lacquer disk, a needle and a jeweler's loupe, and painstakingly carve a replica groove from a commercial LP record into my own copy by hand, scofflaw that I am.

I'm probably in the minority.

Willow

So the mixed tapes we all made in highschool.....we are all in trouble

Syndil

Piracy is indeed a huge problem. With the offline piracy, however, I think the RIAA should concentrate on education. Many people simply do not understand what constitutes piracy, but might decide to do the right thing if they knew. If they aren't even aware that copying a friend's CD or tape or copying vinyl to reel-to-reel is committing a theft, then essentially they aren't even given the opportunity to do the right thing.

rromeo923

What do you think about the amount of music that gets known to people as a result of "piracy".
I know I have made purchases and have gone to concerts as a direct result of a download I made. Lots of music gets out there this way.

chumlie

I feel the same way you do Rick. Whats next, buy a cd and play it at a party. Oops copyrite infringement because your guests never paid to hear the music.

Syndil

rromeo923 wrote: »

What do you think about the amount of music that gets known to people as a result of "piracy".

How a musician decides to market their music is their choice, not yours. Some do indeed give away downloads of some of their tracks. Amazon offers hundreds to thousands of free MP3s every day. But taking an MP3 without the artist's (or label's) blessing is still theft. It's akin to taking a car off a lot for a test-drive without asking for permission first. If they let you take a test-drive, fine, but if not, you've just stolen a car.

dkg999

I think they are getting bunches in their shorts over copying or tranferring of media for personal use. If I copy a CD to my hard drive, or copy vinyl to digital, or make a mix-CD, etc. and it's not intended for commercial use, what is the issue? That won't stop with downloaded content.

DarqueKnight

rromeo923 wrote: »

Has anyone here copied a tape or burned a cd from another person? If you said yes than you may be part of a bigger problem than "online piracy"

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-online-music-piracy-pales-in-comparison-to-offline-swapping-120726/

rromeo923 wrote: »

What do you think about the amount of music that gets known to people as a result of "piracy".
I know I have made purchases and have gone to concerts as a direct result of a download I made. Lots of music gets out there this way.

Two ironic aspects of music piracy:

1. The biggest "pirates" are the music companies who often take advantage of artists through abusive contract terms. It is ironic how the record companies will vigorously go after teenagers swapping music files while they are asking artists to sign music contracts that provide a net royalty of 20 to 30 cents per album. Of course, "superstars" are able to negotiate favorable royalty treatment, but they are the exception.

2. The vast majority of recording artists receive very little money, and often no money, from recording sales. This is why you seldom, if ever, see a recording artist complaining about "lost revenue" due to piracy. Recording artists realize that their recording revenue was actually "lost" the moment they signed a recording contract. Ironically, most recording artists' income comes not from recording, but from live performances, endorsements and merchandising. Most of them view the actual recordings as "advertising" which gets them the name recognition to generate concert ticket sales, branding and other opportunities (books, movies, etc.).

Speaking of other opportunities, record companies are now asking artists to sign "360" contracts wherein the record company gets a piece of all an artist's revenue streams coming from non-record sale sources.

DarqueKnight

dkg999 wrote: »

I think they are getting bunches in their shorts over copying or tranferring of media for personal use. If I copy a CD to my hard drive, or copy vinyl to digital, or make a mix-CD, etc. and it's not intended for commercial use, what is the issue? That won't stop with downloaded content.

The record companies would like you to pay for each and every copy of a CD. If you need two copies, one each for home and work, they expect you to buy two copies rather than buy one copy and burn a copy. It's similar to the licensing model that software companies use wherein a single user with multiple computers is expected to buy a separate copy of the software for each computer.

Unfortunately, most record company software and most playback hardware is not able to contact a server over the Internet and report an "unauthorized" copy, so people get away with a lot of copying.

Syndil

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The record companies would like you to pay for each and every copy of a CD. If you need two copies, one each for home and work, they expect you to buy two copies rather than buy one copy and burn a copy.

Uh, not quite. I can see how this would be the perception with some forms of DRM, but this is also why DRM-free music has grown in popularity. All of the MP3s sold by Amazon are DRM-free. The industry has already acknowledged that a person is free to copy music for their own personal use, and since DRM restricts that right they had no choice but to yield on the subject of DRM. Some vendors of course still use DRM to protect their own income as distributors, but nowadays if you choose to purchase DRM-controlled music, then that is by your own choice, as there are alternatives. No one is forcing DRM down anyone's throats any more.

As for copying CDs for personal use, that has never been an issue. Music CD-Rs were intended for that very purpose from the beginning, with the blessing of the RIAA.

And the perceived unfairness of recording contracts does not somehow excuse piracy.

DarqueKnight

Syndil wrote: »

Uh, not quite. I can see how this would be the perception with some forms of DRM, but this is also why DRM-free music has grown in popularity. All of the MP3s sold by Amazon are DRM-free. The industry has already acknowledged that a person is free to copy music for their own personal use, and since DRM restricts that right they had no choice but to yield on the subject of DRM.

So, regardless of what the music industry has grudgingly acknowledged, would record companies prefer to sell multiple copies of albums or not? In other words, if record companies had a reliable way of preventing copies, what do you think they would do?

Syndil wrote: »

Some vendors of course still use DRM to protect their own income as distributors, but nowadays if you choose to purchase DRM-controlled music, then that is by your own choice, as there are alternatives. No one is forcing DRM down anyone's throats any more.

DRM, similar to software activation, has always been easily circumvented, so it was never really forced down anyone's throats.

Syndil wrote: »

As for copying CDs for personal use, that has never been an issue. Music CD-Rs were intended for that very purpose from the beginning, with the blessing of the RIAA.

Actually, I was not referring to the RIAA, I was referring to the mindset of record company executives. The RIAA does not offer recording contracts to artists and the RIAA does not lose any money due to piracy.

Syndil wrote: »

And the perceived unfairness of recording contracts does not somehow excuse piracy.

No excuse intended or implied. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of a thief complaining about being stolen from. Just as it would be wrong to excuse the burglary of a bank robber's home, it would be wrong to excuse the theft of merchandise from a dishonest manufacturer.

A common argument that record companies use against piracy is that it "robs" the artists of royalties. This is ironic and hypocritical because artists are most often "robbed" of royalties by the abusive contract provisions and "creative" accounting practices of the record companies.

jimbo1421

Some guy on the internet told me that if you memorize the melody and lyrics to a popular song, then you have made an illegal copy of it inside your head. And if you sing that song in the shower, well, that's a performance and you owe royalties to the holder of the rights.

If you have earworms and receive a cease and desist order, you will just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the courts. They may let you off with a simple lobotomy.

Jim

cnh

jimbo1421 wrote: »

Some guy on the internet told me that if you memorize the melody and lyrics to a popular song, then you have made an illegal copy of it inside your head. And if you sing that song in the shower, well, that's a performance and you owe royalties to the holder of the rights.

If you have earworms and receive a cease and desist order, you will just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the courts. They may let you off with a simple lobotomy.

Jim

That's funny!

I say we take the music peddlers/parasites, BIG record companies, out of the equation and let artists peddle their music over the internet. I think DKight has a number of valid points above!

As someone who does occasional "freelance" writing in addition to his day job. I can tell you, dealing with publishers is a nightmare I'd rather NOT bother with. Do you know how many "more" writers can actually make a decent wage in Japan than in the U.S. because they don't have to be #1 or "nothing"?

Thankfully, I do believe that a lot of artists are exploring non-traditional venues, net-based, that should put a holy scare into the big boys!

cnh

dkg999

DK - most software does allow you to have multiple copies installed on different machines. You have to own each of those machines, you cannot distribute to machines you don't own. MS doesn't even get concerned until you register it on a 4th machine. I don't think they advertise it to the public though. Commercial software apps have a different licensing structure.

dkg999

Cnh - we should start an Occupy the Music Industry movement! Is Arlo Guthrie still alive? He could be our spokesperson!

cnh

dkg999 wrote: »

Cnh - we should start an Occupy the Music Industry movement! Is Arlo Guthrie still alive? He could be our spokesperson!

I think Arlo would be happy to write a few bars in support of that! lol

cnh

tonyb

Syndil wrote: »

Piracy is indeed a huge problem. With the offline piracy, however, I think the RIAA should concentrate on education. Many people simply do not understand what constitutes piracy, but might decide to do the right thing if they knew. If they aren't even aware that copying a friend's CD or tape or copying vinyl to reel-to-reel is committing a theft, then essentially they aren't even given the opportunity to do the right thing.

Could be my friend, but I'm thinking....uh...no. People know......unless your I.Q. is below 40, they just don't care. Much like if a new 4g amp showed up in a white van for 300 bucks, most aren't going to give a hoot. Lack of education on lurking white vans ? Don't think so.

Bottomline is, people will steal. Only they steal what they can comfortably sleep with on their brain.....and that varies among all of us.

Strong Bad

I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend who knew someone that used to DJ in clubs, well this person used to purchase music CDs and make a copy for their own use and leave the original at home so it wouldn't get all scratched up due to daily use. When the copy became too scratched up and began skipping, they'd toss it and make another copy from the original.

Nowadays, DJ's simply tote a laptop around with virtual DJ software and a harddrive loaded with a copy of all their music. Just send an RIAA goon out to weddings if they want to find some dude commercially using a laptop loaded with 20k+ songs. I'm sure some bridezilla would have something to say about said RIAA goon **** up her wedding. WOW, thats odd...how did that body end up in the dumpster behind the wedding hall...

tonyb

Strong Bad wrote: »

WOW, thats odd...how did that body end up in the dumpster behind the wedding hall...

Bad soup....does it every time.:cheesygrin:

Syndil

tonyb wrote: »

Could be my friend, but I'm thinking....uh...no. People know......unless your I.Q. is below 40, they just don't care. Much like if a new 4g amp showed up in a white van for 300 bucks, most aren't going to give a hoot. Lack of education on lurking white vans ? Don't think so.

You'd be surprised. I had to educate my parents on piracy. They'd buy CDs and burn copies for family members that wanted them, and had no idea it was wrong. Many people think that they own the CD so they can do what they want with it, when in reality they are only purchasing the rights to listen what's on the CD. I don't think that is as common knowledge as you do, apparently.

tonyb

I hear ya man, but your parents aren't the likely culprit of sharing files to many others.

Syndil

Probably not, but like the article pointed out, offline sharing is a pretty big problem. I think perhaps if people were better educated on what constitutes piracy, the number of illegal offline sharing instances would at least decrease. I don't believe everyone out there doing it is doing so with the willful intention of stealing. No telling how many other cases like my parents are out there.

DarqueKnight

cnh wrote: »

I say we take the music peddlers/parasites, BIG record companies, out of the equation and let artists peddle their music over the internet.

That would work, if most artists knew anything about setting up and running a business.

cnh wrote: »

Thankfully, I do believe that a lot of artists are exploring non-traditional venues, net-based, that should put a holy scare into the big boys!

It did and does put a scare into the big boys. That is one reason they came up with the idea of the "360 degree" contract that seeks control of all an artist's creative and marketing activities.

dkg999 wrote: »

MS doesn't even get concerned until you register it on a 4th machine. I don't think they advertise it to the public though.

They don't...and they won't because that would contradict the license agreements which specify installation on a single PC.

dkg999 wrote: »

DK - most software does allow you to have multiple copies installed on different machines.

dkg999 wrote: »

Commercial software apps have a different licensing structure.

Most of the apps I have purchased in the last two years requires online activation and allows for installation on only one computer.

cfrizz

With my cd's, and my ebooks, if you are going to charge me the kind of high money to buy them, then I'm going to put them where I want them. Meaning on a mp3 player or copy to another cd to take to work or to put my books on any and all readers/tablets that I have at any given time. If you think I'm going to buy another copy you are CRAZY! I don't lend out my music or my books whether paper or ebooks, so I'm going to do what I have to to have total freedom of MY property for as long as I choose to keep it.