December 2002 - zorn-list - mailman.xmission.com

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by CuneiWay＠aol.com 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

Skip wrote: >If I make someone a comp CD and it has a Stickmen song on it, and I do >this >with the intent that it will create a Stickmen consumer out of someone >who >has no other practical means of encountering the Stickmen, and I take no >money for this (and in fact have paid both for the Stickmen LP in the first >place long before it was ever reissued and for the CDR), how have I wronged >you? First of all, I wasn't talking about taking one song and giving it to a specific person/friend who you thought might enjoy it and enventually purchase it. I was talking about copying an album that one has no intention of buying. Or uploading a complete album to a ftp site so it is available to anyone who wants to take it. This is what I think most people are discussing. And there are other ways someone can hear the Stickmen; on our website, for one thing. On sampler CDs that we make and distribute in magazines at no charge for another. The argument here is definitely about hurting a label and artists in terms of sales, but the argument is also about having control of one's intellectual property or the intellectual property that I, for one, have paid money to the artist to have certain rights to in exchange for my ability to market this property. I don't need/want/have the time to get into this with you here. And, personally, I don't have a problem with you taking ONE track off of the Stickmen CD that you bought and making it for a specific friend who you think will like it, in the hopes that he too will become a fan of the band and buy the CD. But this scenario here that both you and I have described right here is quite a bit more 'controlled' and 'label friendly' than what generally goes on, wouldn't you agree? Don't you think what happens more frequently - or at least as frequently - is that someone downloads an entire album off of a site or peer to peer system somewhere? I certainly think so! ----------------------------------------- Craig just wrote the following which I am excerpting here, and basically I co nsider to be sound and I am in agreement with: >The sense I'm getting from some people here is that they don't consider it >stealing because you would never have made that sale in the first place >- >they wouldn't have shelled out the money anyway, so you can't lose what >you >would never have gotten in the first place. I happen to think this >argument is crap. If you aren't willing to invest your money in purchasing >the disc, what gives you the right to enjoy the disc? I would love to >have >a new car, but I won't get one because I can't afford one. But I really >want it anyway, so just taking one isn't wrong because I would never have >bought it in the first place, right? I realize there is a difference in >scope here, but where do you draw the line? The only real difference I >see >is that I can't easily make a copy of a car whereas copying CDs has become >ridiculously easy. >don't make excuses for your actions or blame your actions on the "evil >record companies". It's wrong, and that's all there is to it. -------thanks Craig - well put --------------------- If you have no moral qualms about stealing music, then all my arguments in the world won't change you and I won't even try. But, you *are* stealing from me if you copy one of my CD releases or upload it/make it available to others without compensating my label and my artists, and that's all there is to it. Steve Cuneiform Records

1 0

Copying Music etc.
by billashline＠netscape.net 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

Peter Gannuschkin wrote about the situation in Russia: When your per capita income is less than $500 a year, there a more important things to worry about than an artist or record company getting their cut. Go to India and hangout with the lepers for awhile in the train stations and debates like these will start to look obscene. the next time I go to Laos, I'm going to burn about 100 copies of Molam Dub by Jah Wobble and give them away for free. I don't care if he likes it or not. He owes something to that culture for that recording.

2 1

intellectual property
by Fritz Feger 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

>WC> Copying CDs is theft. It just is. >I am serious as hell. You are saying that copying CDs is theft, I'm >saying that it is not. You are not bringing any arguments. OK then but >give me the definition of the theft which you think is right, as mine >obviously doesn't work for you. To make explicit the underlying issue: Should one treat intellectual property like material property and consider unauthorised usage (where purchasing a CD means purchasing authorisation) theft? The question already implies that what you buy when you buy a CD is of course not that cheap slice of plastics. I think everyone would agree that it is decent to refer to the author if you quote, i.e. that there IS such a thing as intellectual property. And while there are areas where the payment of authors is handled otherwise (e.g. academics, as I said before) and thus quoting is the only required credit, there are many cases where royalities or license fees are requisite. Why should a profit-oriented car manufacturer bother to develop a new technology which costs him millions, when everyone can simply adopt the method and build it into his cars? The patent is the very reason why this new technology came into existence, and if you use the innovation without purchasing the license, you are stealing the intellectual property, it's that simple. With music, I think, it is on the middle of these two extremes (Concerts as an alternative source of income etc.). Which makes the case complicated. I think copying a (whole) CD and scanning the cover is certainly beyond the thin red line, but, as others have said before, there are cases where the benefits weight out moral objections. For example if you make a promo compilation for a friend. This amounts to a solution which resembles the legal solution for using samples on your record. There's a certain length up to which it is free, and beyond this you have to pay, both for legal and moral reasons. If you arrange, you share the royalities with the composer. But if you copy the style of someone, royalities are still yours... Well, these are practical problems, and what to consider an intellectual property is always arbitrary to some degree, but this doesn't contradict the basic point. Fritz. ############################################## Fritz Feger mail(a)fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.de Fon: 0177 - 6424 020 Fax: 0721 - 151 435 058 Rüttenscheider Str. 253 Eulenstraße 56 45131 Essen 22765 Hamburg 0201 - 455 4555 040 - 3980 4766 ##############################################

1 0

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by Fritz Feger 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

>FF> But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per >FF> listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there >the >FF> question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive >since >FF> the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a >FF> discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? >This is actually the strangest point of view I ever heard. I should have made the irony operator more visible... Peter, I am entirely of the same opinion as you. Seriously: the academic system works somehow better with respect to monetary aspects. You are paid on a regular basis and, in the optimal case, employed because some extremely objective jury found that you are the ablest candidate. You publish without directly getting paid for it, and there is a subtle feedback mechanism which, again in the optimal case, assures that those people who write good articles can make a living out of it because they enjoy the regular occupation. And this mechanism works by no means proportionally to the number of copies your articles sell, but also due to a subtle mechanism including reputation of the journal, citation of your work by whom, etc. This system in practice can be critisised, too, but it is far more efficient in guaranteeing quality of publications independent of broad economic success and a reasonable and reliable economic basis for authors. Plus it makes (via libraries which of course have to buy the expensive journals) the articles available at almost zero cost for everyone; making a Xerox copy for your use is perfectly all right with everyone. And who would deny that the primary goal in the whole money-and-arts issue is to give those artist who produce "good" work the opportunity to devote their energies to creating art without worrying too much about getting your rent paid? There's at least one good thing in the pre-MP3-CD-ROM times system of selling copies and passing a share of the price to the artist. It is the coupling of consumer's preferences and the supplier's profit which provides, like it or not, a strong incentive even for the artist, and a powerful coordination mechanism which is at the core of the market economy. Fritz "If something is printed, then it is the property of everyone forever" (Gotthold Ephraim Lessing) ############################################## Fritz Feger mail(a)fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.com ##############################################

2 1

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by Craig Rath 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

>CR> In copying a CD, did you purchase >CR> the ingredients that go into making the CD? Other than the blank >CR> CD, I'm assuming you didn't. This is the difference. > >What is in there except blank CD? If you honestly think that's all it takes to make a CD, I guess it's pointless to argue with you. If that were the case, we'd all be listening to blank CDs. I guess we should just get rid of all copyright and patent laws. Obviously you can't steal anything that you can't physically hold in your hand. Silly me. Peter, I feel sorry for you or anyone else in a place where you cannot always afford or find music that you want (though finding it is less of an issue these days thanks to the large number of places to buy obscure music online). If I were in your shoes I'd probably be more apt to get illegitimate copies as well. It is still wrong, regardless of the circumstances of your situation, but definitely more understandable than some kid in the suburbs who just doesn't want to shell out the dough for the latest release. Craig M. Rath H: fripp(a)attbi.com W: rathc(a)questarweb.com

4 4

Re: CD burning/smash the RIAA!
by Arthur Gadney 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

Hi. >Well, it is stealing. It's stealing the artist's royalty that otherwise >would have been paid if the burned-copy-recipient had bought a legit copy >instead. So it's only stealing if you would have bought a copy otherwise. I spend as much money buying official CDs now as I did before, but I have more music due to CDRs. Seems like a good deal to me. Cheers. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by Peter Gannushkin 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

Hello Bill, Sunday, December 1, 2002, you wrote: bnn> In places like Thailand, people make a living off illegal copies of bnn> music. Nothing you would find discussed on this list, but major label bnn> stuff. Again, the record business makes no allowances for what people bnn> can afford to pay. It is sad but true. Majors in Russia for example prefer to loose money than to do something to establish affordable prices. It used to be the same with movies and computer games, but slowly the situation changed. Now you can buy localized VHS tapes or computer games for very reasonable price. You can still find a cheaper pirated one, but in most cases customers would prefer the legal one, therefor the market of pirated copies in these businesses went down almost completely. Talking about the music, most Russian labels are making two different kinds of CDs: cheap ones printed in local plants with reduced low quality booklets and regular ones with digipacks extended fine pressed sleeves and so on. The customer can choose what to buy. I clearly understand that with international music it would be hard to prevent re-export of cheap CDs if they would be produced (it is not an issue with games and videos as they are translated into Russian and therefor not in a huge demand), but something like reduced priced releases should arrive in case the labels want to start making money on that market. In fact, several "For Russia Only" CDs were printed about five years ago. They were three times cheaper and were very popular. But this initiative ended almost immediately. bnn> In any case, the price of CDs was supposed to come down years bnn> ago. It never did. Now it will have to go up so that record bnn> companies can make up what they're losing on MP3 files. It is actually not true, that the record companies are losing money on MP3 files. Surveys say that people who are sharing music buy more CDs after all. It is both because they are becoming music addicts and because they are informed better. NP: Misha Mengelberg Quartett "Four In One" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin(a)shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/

1 0

Mmmm, burgers
by William Crump 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

>From: Peter Gannushkin <shkin(a)shkin.com> > Hello Steve, > > Saturday, November 30, 2002, you wrote: > > Cac> Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby > Cac> depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of > Cac> the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft? > > Pretty simple. Lets say I'm making hamburgers and selling them. You > bought one, tasted it and then made copies of it, invited friends and > you ate them. Did you steal something from me? No. Did I get less > money because you didn't buy hamburgers from me, but copied them > instead? Yes. Was it theft? Of course not. Now, tell me, what is the > difference? Christ, are you serious? Curlew has a particular hamburger that they own the rights to. They contract with Steve/Cuneiform to distribute that particular hamburger. Copies of an artwork are not like copies of a generic foodstuff like hamburgers. If you manage to duplicate Curlew's blend of eleven herbs and spices in your CD burner and can create exact copies of Curlew's hamburger, you are cutting into Curlew's rights as an artist and Steve's rights (agreed into by contract) as distributor of the Curlewburger. You are stealing Curlew's and Steve's right to profit from Curlewburgers. There are Britneyburgers and Curlewburgers and Burnt Weeny Sandwiches and Bingcrosbyburgers. We're not talking about "hamburgers" here. We're talking about aural artworks, and your "reductio ad absurdem" is heavy on the "absurdem." Are you saying there's no difference in the flavor between a Britneyburger and a Curlewburger? Because the flavor difference is what Curlew has contracted with Steve to market, and the special picquance of a Britneyburger (urgh, my stomach is rolling) is what she's contracted with whatever-the-fuck-her-label-is to market. Copying CDs is theft. It just is. Instead of that question, we need to be talking about when and where the theft is justified. And sorry Steve-at-Cuneiform, I think sometimes it is. Ah'm Hongry! William Crump

2 1

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by Ellery Eskelin 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

skip Heller <velaires(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Do these > laws benefit Jello Biafra? Ellery Eskelin? John Oswald? > > Do we see Jello or Ellery on the news pounding a pulpit about how > downloading is "robbing us of our livelihood"? No -- Hi Ya'll, Just for the record, I have posted on news groups that I prefer folks not make and trade CDRs of my recordings or live concerts. I understand the pros and cons and to sidestep all the moral or legal arguments I would just say that if it we're up to me I would prefer that folks not do this with my music. > They're making the bulk of their > cash going out and playing live to that clientele and collecting the money > directly, instead of having to wait up to a year to see if the recouped on > their last release. Of course the money I make from recording doesn't come anywhere close to what major label pop music generates but it's still money that I need to keep doing what I do. My advances, royalties and publishing money all add up to enough that I'd sure miss it if it weren't there. > Burn American Music discs for your friends. Give 'em a > disc with Tim Berne, Cecil Taylor, Uri Caine, Ellery Eskelin, Mark Feldman > and Chris Speed. I appreciate your zeal Skip, really I do. But no thanks, I'd prefer you didn't. If it were that easy I'd give it away myself. It costs money to make these things happen. I gotta pay my band and if it weren't for a record company with some cash to get the ball rolling I wouldn't be able to fund these things to begin with. And so I value the relationship I have with my small label and would like to see them continue. It's sometimes rather close to the bone for them. And if I do decide that I want to give something away I can. In fact, we just put a cut on a promo sampler for WIRE magazine of which 30,000 free discs were made. That's not to say that you're wrong in your ideas about promoting music, nor am I going to get self righteous about folks who make CDRs of my stuff (although I have had fans come up to me and ask me to sign bootleg CDRs of my recent discs. I thought that was audacious as hell!!) But I do value the fact that I can generally control the means and presentation of my work and I'd like to continue doing so as long as I can. It's not that I see what you're proposing to be a threat, just that it's a fine line and it gets crossed all the time. So just to keep it simple I just prefer that folks not duplicate my music onto CDRs for others. And for live shows as well, I really don't like folks to tape and trade them. I go to great lengths to document my music as best I can. A version of a show on someone's walkman from the 20th row is simply gonna sound terrible and I'd rather not have that out there as an example of our sound. In fact, the sound on 99% of the live tapes of my band that are made by festival engineers for live radio broadcasts on our European tours just suck...terribly. I can't imagine how anyone could listen to that and feel moved to wanna pursue it any further. But that's just me. I know there are other viewpoints and I'm not particularly interested in hashing those out. I just wanted to drop in since my name was mentioned and offer my 2 cents. For whatever it's worth... Respectfully yers, Ellery ================================= ELLeRY ESKELiN/MiCHELLE VAn NaTTA RaMiChElLeRy/PrImE SoUrCe PrOdUcTiOnS http://home.earthlink.net/~eskelin/ =================================

2 4

miles
by billashline＠netscape.net 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

Hey does anyone know when the Miles' Jack Johnson box is slated for release? I see it's been delayed on Sony's website. Oh and did anyone go for the 20 CD box of Miles at Montreux 1973-91? Lot's of that stuff is not high on my list of favorites, but I'd be curious about the live versions. What does the box goe for anyway?

1 0