Openlaw.org has some good information on copyright law
and lots of links to other sources.
Sorry. I missed that. I am speaking of USA law, I know little of British law (or any other country outside of the USA for that matter). IANAL, just an information worker who has done a lot of reading on the subject in the last year.
I hereby retract my ‘nonsense’ and defer to you on all points of British law. [sub]which sounds positively scary to me[/sub].
Not the response I was looking for. This is Great Debates, not General Questions.
Oops, sorry, I posted that before I read your more substantive response. Fair enough.(I’m an Australian lawyer practicing in Hong Kong, btw)
RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia or Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios
From an Amicus Brief in the Napster case
IANAL, but I can handle cut and paste argument 
Also from the link
Well, for starters…
legal fees
recording studio rentals
Pre-production costs
Cost of a producer
studio musician fees
cartage
Artwork design
Post-production studio fees
Mastering fees
Pressing
Distribution of product
So, is your understanding that record companies sign a bunch of artists, pay to have them recorded (and all of the additional costs listed above), maybe even give them some up-front money to live during this process, and then shelf the product because it would be too expensive to promote? Why don’t they just not sign the artist? That seems a bit more cost-effective. Better yet, can you provide a cite that backs up your claims?
I have to say this is a great thread, and I’ve appreciated all the research that has been put into it.
I’ve always had an underlying question about the rights of the copyright holder vs. the rights of the owner of a copy. As I understand it, the (USA) 1976 act section 109 grants the owner of a copy of a work the rights to:[ul][li]sell, []display, or []dispose of the work as desired.[/ul]Copyright holders, of course, maintain the rights to copy or distribute their works.[/li]
So, if I buy a painting of your wife that you made and copyrighted; and then:
[list=1][li]…hang it on my wall: no problem there.[/li][li]…show it to my neighbor: I’m just displaying it, right?[/li][li]…invite all my neighbors to look: Still just displaying it.[/li][li]…post a photo of it on my website: I maintain that I’m still just displaying the picture for others to see.[/list=1]But the truth is, that last item seems to have crossed the line of legality, in practice. You may say it’s aiding and abetting to let others come in and copy it from my website… but they could have taken their own pictures when I invited them to my place to see it. So what’s the difference? (or by chance are numbers 2, 3, and 4 all illegal?!)[/li]
I think that in today’s world, the difference between display and distribution has been compromised. When the law was written, there really was a difference. But now it’s not as clear.
(incidentally, I thought I as a purchaser also had the right to alter your work if I purchased it… i.e. draw a moustache on your painting of your wife, but I can’t find a cite to that effect)
Fast-forward 20-30 years into the future.
Imagine that owning your own copy of a song is irrelevant, because you simply dial up the song that you want and your cable/internet/radio connection provides it to you. You didn’t have to purchase the copy, but someone played it for you on demand.
How different is that from calling your neighbor today and asking them to play your favorite song over the phone? Did you or your neighbor break any rules?
Also imagine that instead of picture frames on my wall I have computer monitors. And I’ve set up an agreement with a group of different people, so that we alternate pictures. We’ve purchased a picture from someone, and display it at alternating times in our respective houses, so that none of us is showing it at the same time. We maintain that we only require one copy of the product, since we will only be showing one copy at a time.
Frankly, I’d love to imagine a world in which copyrights don’t exist. But that would require throwing out the whole economic business model of incentives entirely. That will happen eventually, but not in my lifetime.
All great questions, thunderbunny.
I think for me it boils down to the fact that I am a composer and while I don’t do it solely for the money, it is how I make my living. If I can no longer make money at it, I have to come up with another way to pay my bills. Once I do that, I no longer can devote the majority of my time to songwriting. If we take the monetary “incentive” away, how many great artists will not be able to afford the opportunity to enlighten us all with their ability. We all suffer for that. The only protection that I have is copyright law. It ensures that my work is protected from being distributed or copied without my consent. To remove that, removes my ability and that of many other creative people from being able to make a living writing songs.
Remember, we don’t all tour. Some of us simply write the songs that others perform. Many great songs have been written by people behind the scenes whos name you wouldn’t recognize. The bands will make money from their performance and t-shirt sales but we need the royalty checks to survive. I wish people could see that side of it and not just focus on the big corporations involved.
I am a US Lawyer, but by no means a copyright expert. However, I think I can shed some light on some of the confusing legal issues under US law.
Almost all of the discussion is about what would be considered Fair Use of a copyrighted work. Fair Use is a limited exception to the copyright owner’s right to control distribution of his or her work. The key point here is that a copied work must be used in accordance with the Fair Use exception. Even if the original copying of a work is proper under Fair Use, using that work in a way that is not Fair Use would be a copyright violation.
Let’s use as an example the copying of a commercially purchased CD:
If the CD purchaser were to rip the CD and copy it onto a blank CD-R, would that implicate copyright law? Yes, and it would be illegal unless the copying can fall into an exception.
If the copying were done for the purpose of making a backup of the CD in case the original got damaged, would that fall into an exception? Yes, under the computer backup cases, that would likely be considered Fair Use.
If the purchaser decided to take the backup copy and use it in his car when he was not home and the original was not being used, would that fall into an exception. Probably, under computer backup cases, it probably would be considered Fair Use.
If another person were in the purchaser’s car, saw the copied CD and the purchaser loaned it to the other person, would that fall into an exception. No, there is no exception to the copyright laws that would permit such a distribution of a copyrighted work.
I think that thunderbunny’s questions, while interesting, all turn on the question of distribution. Calling your neighbor on the phone and asking him or her to play a song may or may not be a violation. (I would guess that it is, but is too minimal to worry about, but I could be wrong.) However were the neighbor to have a service by which anyone could call up and he or she would play a requested song if he or she had it, that would be distribution in violation of the copyright laws.
Similarly, where a group of people had the rotating artwork, it would be a violation because it is a distribution of copies of the artwork among multiple people. Although you and your friends can swap individual pieces of art to your heart’s content, distributing a copy to each of them, even if they show it on a schedule so that only one copy is displayed at a time is still a problem. Remember, the exception that allows copies to be made if they are not used simultaneously deals with backup copies made by the purchaser, not distribution.
Hope this helps.
Billdo,
Thanks for taking the time to post that
My pleasure, musicguy. I sort of burned out on copyright threads when the Napster issue was at its height.
It’s sort of tough repeatedly explaining to people subtle copyright issues when they delude themselves with self-justification at the level of: “I made a backup copy, that’s fair use, right. I then sold it on e-bay, and repeated this 500 times, but I was allowed to because it was made as a backup.” Um, no.
Good luck with the music.
Billdo has more knowledge on US fair use exceptions than I do: I can only add that in other countries its much more restricted.
This is another example of greater restrictions in other countries: moral rights of the author. I think somehow the US gets let off the hook on this one. Most countries say that you are not allowed to change or mutilate the work of art. So if you buy a picture, you can’t draw a moustache on it. But IIRC the US doesn’t have this - which is odd, because its a TRIPs requirement.
That is very different from my understanding of how record companies operate. When a record company signs an artist, the artist gets an advance (maybe), but they also bear all the costs of recording and promoting their work. Where did you get the idea that the record company pays to have the band recorded?
As I understand it, major label bands have to pay for recording themselves, and guess what? If the record company doesn’t like the way it turns out, they don’t have to release it or promote it! And they don’t buy the second round of recording or remixing, either. That’s still the artists’ responsibility, unless they (heh) want to buy out of their contract and shop the recorded album around to other labels.
Record companies fail to promote their own artists all the time. The reason they do this is because the way the contract is written, they have nothing to lose by not promoting their artists because they have not made any significant investment in the artists.
You ask for cites but you haven’t shown us any cites yet that show the record companies actually pay for all things you claim they pay for.
Record companies assume almost zero risk with today’s recording contracts. They’re laughing.
-fh
Well, the artist doesn’t write a check to cover these costs. The record company pays the costs and then
{hopefully} recoups the costs by selling the product. If the costs are not recouped, the artist doesn’t pay the record company back. The record company takes the hit. That sure sounds like a risk to me.
No money comes out of the artists pocket! And yes. if the product turns out to be shit, the record company takes the loss, figuring that they won’t make their money back anyway so why spend a shitload of money promoting what is crap. But unless the artist wants to pay back the investment so that they can market the product elsewhere, they still have paid nothing.
Here is the entire article click here
That wasn’t so hard. Now, provide a cite for your theory please.
Sorry, just not so.
Unscrupulous record companies can and often do insert a condition in the contract to say that recording costs are to be recovered as a debt from the artist. This is the sort of thing to expect from small-time sharks, not big players.
Which is why you should never sign a contract without having an attorney look it over first. Good point though!
I think it was suggested that this is the way that ALL companies conduct business however. It is the exception, not the norm.
Yep, that was my point too.
Billdo’s post was quite thorough and correct, but I have one thing to add concering, as the thread title says, “copyrights in the information age.”
In 1997, the Copyright Code was amended by the “No Electronic Theft Act”. The NET act made some pretty significant changes in the law; formerly, in a criminal proceeding, the government would have to show that the infringement was done willfully or for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Now, the government still must show willful infringement, but they need not show that anything was gained by the infringement if more than $1000 worth of stuff (retail) is copied within 180 days. In other words, they amended the law specifically to nail people who don’t make any actual profit from copying. But just to make sure, they also amended the definition of “financial gain” to “receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.”
The criminal penalties for copying music are stiff. If an infringer is caught and convicted, the government will seize all offending copies and all equipment used to make the copies and destroy or otherwise dispose of them. I said “will” on purpose; the statute says that the court “shall” order the forfeiture and disposition or destruction of the illegal copies and equipment used to create them. It’s not a matter of discretion, it will happen. In the meantime, the infringer goes to jail for 1-10 years, depending on the nature of the infringement, and the record companies get to go after him for civil damages.
By the way, a few wiseacres got the idea that, “If I get people to sign a disclaimer, I can create compilation CDs for them, start a little business with my CD burner!” Don’t do it. The disclaimers would be used against you as evidence that you knew what you were doing was wrong.
RIAA has some hella-scary lobbyists, eh?