There is no “fair use agreement”. Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner: it is a limitation on the right of the copyright owner to prohibit certain forms of copying. Making a single photocopy of a short story for personal use is not a copyright infringement because it (probably) falls within fair use and is therefore an act for which no authorization from the owner of the copyright is required. Simply put, the owner of the copyright has no legal right to prohibit fair use copying. (Which is why the copyright owners have turned to approaches that make it technically difficult or impossible to make copies, and furthermore lobbied for laws which make it illegal to attempt to circumvent such technologies. They’ve also lobbied to eliminate fair use directly, but Congress won’t go for that.)
You will if the artist allows you to! And as musicguy sez, most artists have no problem at all with copies being made from eg. CD to mp3 if you have paid for the CD in the first place! The same applies to the bed-time story example given earlier.
I can quote a preceeding message on this board because I have entered into an agreement with the Chicago Reader such that whatever I post becomes their property, and they can thus allow others to re-post it freely.
If I object to my ideas being quoted I am free to remove myself from the boards. On the other hand, I am not free to reproduce any of the posts in another publication - if a poster thinks this unfair then they are again free to leave the boards. That ain’t unfair as I see it…
KellyM - you seem to be arguing that an individual should have the right to make copies of CDs (or whatever) without having paid for it at all…?
Is that a fair representation of your position?
– Quirm
KellyM - I posted the above before I read your reply…
Same question stands though - if I produce a CD or book or whatever, is it really the case (in the US at least) that any individual has a constitutionally protected right to copy that work (for personal use) without giving me a penny?
Or have I misinterpreted what you’ve been saying?
– Quirm
The songs I didn’t like, I deleted. The ones I did, I bought the record or the CD if it had good reviews.
About my Taliban comment: I was being nice to the record industry.
I don’t condemn the people, or the artists who struggle mightily with the system at all. I condemn the system that thinks it can take over the Internet and dictate everything from what format of media we can buy or use to the very way we are to use our computer. If they have their way, the computer would be exclusively like a TV or Radio: a device that we can interact only on their terms. That is antithetical to what a computer is. The record companies want to totally control the way we use all our media devices, including the computer. As I am a very extensive computer user, I find their naked grab at total control intolerable. Not even the Chinese government have as much control over media devices as the intent of the record industry.
This is false. My comments do NOT become the property of the Chicago Reader when I post them. They remain my property. What I give the Chicago Reader is a license to republish my comments. I don’t give such a license to YOU, though, and as far as I can tell, neither does the Chicago Reader. You can’t republish them unless I say you can, the Chicago Reader says you can (in writing), or such republication falls outside the scope of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights (presumably, by being fair use).
No, it is not. I have no idea how you’ve come to this conclusion, either. (Although it is true that I believe that individuals should be permitted to make copies, for their own personal use, of CDs which they come to possess by whatever means, whether paid for or otherwise. This is, as far as I know, the law of the land.)
Rather, my position is that the publishers should be prohibited from utilizing technological device to prevent people from making copies which they are permitted to make by law. This is a consumer-rights issue, not a intellectual-property issue.
Nope. See, there are a few things a court would look at to determine if your use was “fair”. One factor is, how much of the copyrighted work did you copy? If you copied the entire book, song, sculpture, whatever, well, that’s a point against you. If you’re, say, copying a few lines because they contain quotes you find charming, that’s a point in your favor, because you didn’t copy much.
Other factors are the purpose of the use (education? criticism? turning a profit? having the benefit of owning a book without paying for it?), the nature of the copyrighted work (historical correspondence? nonfiction? Stephen King’s latest work of fiction?), and the effect of your use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (trying to sell it yourself and thus deprive the copyright owner of sales? trying to write a free pamphlet on a public health issue?). This is all right out of section 107 of the copyright code. The “market effect” factor is certainly the most compelling, and that one factor will frequently win or lose a case.
From here, there are all kinds of wacky stuff we can talk about. But, to bring it back on subject: copying even an entire song (or, indeed, an entire CD) so that I, the purchaser of the CD, can listen to the music more conveniently, is a fair use, even though I’m making a duplicate of the entire work; I’m not depriving the copyright owner of sales. If you go to a library and photocopy an entire book so that you don’t have to buy it, that is NOT a fair use. Hope the difference is clear.
And don’t everyone jump all over me, I know I’m simplifying.
Under the law of the land, I DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE ARTIST to make a copy of a work which I lawfully possess for personal use. Nor do I need the permission of the author to read a book I lawfully possess out loud to a family member.
What you are suggesting is a CONTRACTION of rights currently existing under law: you are proposing to take away fair use.
It doesn’t matter if the artist says I can make a copy for personal use or not: the law says I can. (I just can’t give those copies away.) Similiarly, it doesn’t matter whether the author says I can read his book aloud or not: the law says I can. (I just can’t read it “publicly”: that would be a “public performance”). Making copies for personal use and private readings are activities which fall outside the scope of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner: copyright owners simply have NO RIGHT under law to restrict those activities.
Let’s try those links again…
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
Incredulity is not allowed in GD? Mr. Ryan, I would suggest that you take a nice, long look in a mirror before you talk about someone being “rude”. :rolleyes:
And, what, exactly, does “freedom” mean? Let’s take a look…
Now, how many of those deal with physical restraint, and how many of those deal with “rights”?
You’re right, and I apologize. This topic had been discussed before, and in those other threads it was made abundantly clear that “rights” were the issue, and not "physical restraint.
Yup. You see the word “freedom” and think that they’re talking about physical restraint? Do you really think a new CD format that makes ripping difficult will really result in people being incapable of movement? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Yes, and so was I. Please note, for future reference, Mr. Ryan, that there is more than one definition for “freedom”.
Again with your belief that words have only one definition. I suggest you purchase yourself a dictionary.
You stated that if Napster were truly responsible for a drop in sales, then we should have seen it as soon as Napster was started up. As others have pointed out, this is not so. Napster would only cause a significant impact on the market after a large number of people started using it. As has been pointed out to you - and you’ve ignored, since it proved you to be wrong - this popularity of Napster didn’t come about until late '99 - early 2000, coinciding with the significant dip in sales.
So let me get this straight: Because PLD did not formulate his comments to your exact specifications and requirements, he is incorrect?
WAM’s stated time period was “since Napster began”. PLD pointed out that, yes, there WAS a slump in sales “since Napster began”. It was then added onto by other posters that the slump in sales coincided with the rising popularity of Napster.
Feel better now, honey?
'Twasn’t an argument, sweet cheeks. It was a simple statement of fact. Or are you claiming that the record companies DIDN’T try to get Napster shut down?
Just pointing out that the Chicago Reader has just republished KellyM’s comments, as per the agreement between them.
No fair use necessary.
Just my 2sense
Where did I EVER say that I wanted fair use to go away? I thought I had been clear about that when I stated I had **no problem ** with fair usage. I especially feel this way where it relates to educational material. That is not what I was talking about. But, your “I’ll take whatever I damn well want to” attitude (or perhaps perceived attitude) is what I have a problem with. As an artist, I have protection under the law that says that you can’t do whatever you want with my material. You can make a personal copy from a legally owned CD. But you cannot distribute that material or obtain it illegally and that is exactly what I want protection from. Downloading something so you don’t have to pay for it infringes on my rights and it has to stop somehow. Now you say this new CD protection is not the way. I pose this question to you then. What do we do to protect the artist from being ripped off? Nothing? You are worried about your rights. What about mine?
ya know after reading through this post I realise something.
they are not denying fair use of copied material, they are saying that if you want to listen to your music on a pc you WILL use widows media player.
that is utter bs.
because a minority is useing mp3 technology illegaly Noone gets to use it? what the fuck is that crap? I mean (yeah its a reach) a minority uses guns illeagaly but we havent taken those away yet.
why even bother with something that will cost so much to impliment and has such a slight impact? does bill gates really give head THAT good ?
Nice one - that’s clarified a few things for me.
Cheers for sortin’ that all out people 
– Quirm
I did not say that your incredulity was inappropiate. I said that your attitude was inappropiate. There is much more than your incredulity that is rude in the statement I quoted, and there are many more statements than the one I quoted which are rude.
I’ve bolded those that deal with physical restraint, and italicized those that deal with rights (for those that deal with both I have done both). My count: 9 to 4, respectively.
I’m not clear on your reason for sting this. Are you saying that previous threads made you mistake this thread for one that was about rights, or that previous threads show that this one is about rights, regardless of whether they are actually mentioned?
Of course. That’s what fredom means (at least, that is, according to your own cite, 70% of what freedom means).
What is dizzying here is how you get from “physical restraint” to “incapable of movement”. If people are prevented from ripping CD’s, then clearly there is a physical action (ripping CD’s) that they are being restrained from doing. Of course that does not mean that they are now incapable of movement.
Okay, let me spell this out even more clearly. Critical1 made it clear that he was talking about freedom in the sense of physical restraint rather than loss of rights.
And BTW, you should note for future reference that if someone says that “X will result in a loss of Y” and Y has two meanings, it is an insufficient rebuttal to show that X does not result in the loss of one type of Y. If you think that freedom has two meanings, and you don’t think that this takes away freedom, then you need to show that it takes away neither type of freedom.
Since I doubt that any of them will explain how any form of the word “anus” applies to a valid criticism of an attempted rebuttal, perhaps yopu should explain it to me.
Cite?
I never said that. I said that what he said was irrelevant to the issue at hand, and that if he were stating it because it was relevant to some other issue, he should have made it explicit what that issue was. The word “incorrect” never appeared in this discussion.
My reading of “slump since Napster began” is “sales are now lower than they were when Napster began”. “There was some period in which sales decreased that occurred ofter Napster began” is such a weak statement that I would not consider it a legitimate interpretation. The word “since” implies that all time following the event is being considered, as opposed to “after” which implies that a particular time following the event is being considered. WAM said that there hasn’t been a slump since, and pldennison showed that there was a slump after. There’s a big difference. For instance, “I’ve earned $500 after graduating from college” means something completely different from “I’ve earned $500 since graduating from college”.
The time of the rise of popularity of Napster and the beginning of the drop in record sales are both sufficiently inexact that a statement regarding their coincidence is more an opinion than a fact. Regardless of the nature of the statements, however, they were given in support of a particular point of view and so are an argument.
Musicguy, you seem to be working on the assumption that all the people who download your music will do so instead of buying your CD. This just isn’t so.
When I read about songs in various places on the net, often I am curious to hear the song, either to participate in a discussion of it, or just to hear it and know what it’s like. I download it, listen to it… if I like it, I’ll buy the CD. If I dislike it, I delete it. I would never buy a CD without hearing at least one song first, and since I don’t listen to the radio or watch a lot of TV, downloading MP3’s is the only way I get to hear current music. I don’t download and keep, I download, play and delete or buy. That’s all. I’m not the only one. Yes, lots of people will never again buy a CD because of MP3’s, but there are plenty who use MP3’s as a sort of “radio station” where they pick the songs. Just because I can hear Kylie Minogue singing Outta My Head a couple of times a day on the radio doesn’t mean I’m not going to buy the single if I like it, and I see MP3s as a similar concept.
The other thing I use MP3 trading for is to get digital copies of songs I have on cassette, or to replace CDs and tapes that have been destroyed over the years. This had better not be illegal, since I’ve already paid my money for the right to listen to the songs, and I’m not going to do it twice. Sometimes, it’s nearly impossible to find the CD’s in stores too, since they’re so old. Also, I don’t know where else to go to get copies of B-Sides that were on cassette and cd singles that have been destroyed. When I say “trading”, I don’t distribute MP3s. I just download them.
Die hard fans aren’t going to use MP3s instead of buying the CD. An example of the abuse of the willingness of die hard fans to own every release by their heros is Metallica, who release, what, 4 different versions of every single they put out. As a former Metallica fan, I’ve become increasingly disgusted with their money-grubbing over the last few years, fueled by the multi-releases of their singles, and culminating in their anti-Napster crusade. I will never buy another Metallica recording as long as I live, and I won’t be downloading their MP3’s either. As far as I’m concerned, any band that is so disrespectful to their fans and so greedy deserves to sink into obscurity.
Record companies claim that because of Napster and other programs like them, sales went down.
How about these factors:
–Record companies releasing about 12% fewer new CDs than last year.
–Record companies releasing so few singles that Billboard magazine for the first time allow airplay-only songs in the Hot 100 chart.
–The quality of CDs released, for the most part, are awful.
–Then the record companies claim that the recession as a factor, notwithstanding the fact that the movie industry made more money at a rate higher than inflation.
Bad business practices, plus the poor self-promotion on the internet, are what plagues the record industry. In contrast, the movie industry integrated Internet interaction with the traditional ad campaign very well. Witness the success of The Blair Witch Project. Then, the DVDs of movies are now priced reasonably, as opposed to the CDs, which, except at discount stores, are still as high as four years ago.
What’s an airplay-only song? Is that a song that is not available for purchase?
Of course, now’s the right time to post a link to a great short story, The Right to Read.
It is a song only available on CD, not as a separate single. The current #1 song in Billboard Hot 100, “Fallin” by Alicia Keys, is a song you can only get from her CD, or from old school Napster–taping what’s playing on the radio.