Napster's Downfall....

Great Debates
61

It may be only my opinion, but I think the courts ruling to have Napster filter songs from being shared after the record companies meet the requirements of proof is a step in the right direction.

But for those that want to have their music out there - let them. It’s a great medium for new artists to put their material out on, and for existing artists to release material on.

On a personal note - I don’t feel one bit sorry for the record companies. They should have known this would come sooner or later and took actions alot sooner. And I also feel that the artists themselves should make the decision wether or not to allow their music to be shared, not the recod companies.

62

Keep in mind that shutting up napster is only a bandaid. The floodgates are open, and there is likely no way to stop digital copying of music. Whatever copy scheme is done, there’s always a way around it, and people are resourceful enough that it will happen and it will spread.

The only real solution to the problem is for the record companies to stop ripping off a) the consumers, and b) the artists.

As long as artists are getting the shit end of the stick, there will always be big (and small) name artists fighting the system and giving their music away (Ala Public Enemy).

As long as consumers have to pay $18-$20 or even more, for a cd that costs about 50 cents to manufacture, for 9 or 10 crappy or mediocre songs and one or two good ones (effectively about $15 per good song, on average), there will always be circumvention of the system. What everybody is ignoring is that if it can be played back, it can be copied. Even if the method involves making several audio recordings and merging them to eliminate background noise. But there are always better ways than a “brute force” attack like that. Encryption will always fall. Copy protection (even in hardware) will always be overcome.

We WANT to give our money to the artists we like. I personally have purchased over 400 cd’s in my lifetime, and currently possess over 300 (that’s an investment of thousands of dollars). But I am reluctant to give another dollar to a record company because of the actions they are taking against me, the consumer. All it would take to end this conflict would be for record companies to compensate artists fairly, and to treat their customers fairly.

Is it illegal? Yes. But are the laws that are in place right? Probably not. The laws are practically written by the RIAA lawyers and designed specifically to protect their interests with little or no regard for the interests of the artist or consumer. Do a web search for the SDMI and the DMCA and read all about it for yourself. In particular, lots of good info can be found at Slashdot. As I stated before, I see this not as mass theft, but as widespread civil disobedience.

Record companies did raise hell about radio, cassettes, recordable cd’s, etc. Every time a new technology arrives, they are the first to fight it rather than embracing it. The market is changing, and they need to recognize that fact rather than trying to pass laws forcing it to stay the same. As with any other industry, they need to change with the times, or else get buried.

63

So a buddy and I were talking about the same issue, and I realised that I don’t even know the details of what’s legal and what’s not. So here’s a couple of scenarios (assuming American copyright law):

  1. I tape a movie on HBO and watch it repeatedly over the next few months. Legal or no (I seem to remember a case a year or so ago that declared this legal)?

  2. I tape a song on the radio and listen to the cassette repeatedly over the next few months. Legal or no?

  3. I rip a song off a CD that I own and copy the MP3 to my laptop and home desktop, and listen to it often. Legal or no?

  4. I make a mix tape for myself from CDs I own. Legal? I give it to my girlfriend. Legal (probably not)?

  5. I download the MP3 of a song that I owned on a cassette or CD that broke or got scratched. Legal or no?

I’m not interested in which are ethical or not (for instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if 5 is illegal, but to me it’s completely ethical); I’m wondering what the law says. Links to sites appreciated (most of the stuff I’ve been able to find is related to quoting stuff in articles, rather than personal use).

I’ve also gotten into the habit (which perhaps is useful for other free-use boosters) of emailing groups or labels when I buy a CD based on previewing songs on MP3. Never hurts.

Cheers,
dersk

64

Yes. The courts have ruled that this is legal, and the concept is called “Timeshifting”. Any over the air broadcast is legal for recording and viewing, provided it is not rebroadcast or shown for profit.

Yes. See above.

Yes. Recently the courts ruled that this is “Space shifting” and legal, provided it is not rebroadcast or distributed. This is coming under fire from record companies, which will not be happy with ANY solution until you pay each time you listen to even a prerecorded, purchased cd. See DIVX. The problem is they want total control over content, without regard for even “fair use”.

No. You would be in violation of copyright law. Is it ethically wrong? I personally don’t think so. As I said in my earlier post, if I have to buy a new copy when mine is damaged, then I have bought an object, not a license to a recording, and am free to do with it as I please.

If music were treated consistently as a licensed recording of a performance, then yes, this would be fair use, and should be legal. However, it is not. Under copyright law, I believe you are required to purchase a new copy if yours becomes unusable. Now I believe this is completely unethical behavior on the part of the record industry, as it is infringing on the rights of the consumer. If you purchased a license to listen to a performance, then the medium it’s recorded on is incidental, and should be replaced for cost of materials. This is not the case, however.