Is it naive to pay for music and books in 2013?

[blackfly]

Actually since it's virtually impossible to prevent unauthorized downloading, (which is considered taboo by the vast majority) shame can be a quite powerful and effective means to guide a societies’ civil compass of right and wrong.

Shame. Forgive me but that is the epitome of naive, in my view. If shame worked their would be honest politicians (they are right out in the open for all to see) and, not that I endorse it, but have you seen what constitutes as normal on the internet these days? I am 41 and what is classified as "hard core porn" nowadays is so beyond decency that it would of NEVER of materialized had the anonymity of the internet come about. Sorry, Shame is a thing of the past; sadly, the same as chivalry. Case in point: Toronto's mayor Rob Ford. Shame obviously doesn't work to turn him righteous, and I doubt he ever will. And he is not "anonymous".

 

[Uncle Paul]

So let me get this straight.

Most audiophiles here and abroad have had tape decks with record buttons, maybe a DAT player with a record button, or perhaps a DCC deck or MD deck that could make a digital recording of a source. Moreover, I suspect some have had the first gen CD-R machines, and most likely ALL have a computer with a CD or DVD burner in them. You incorrectly assume I am making recordings of my OWN music, neglecting to recall that there is NOTHING stopping me, physically or otherwise, from borrowing a friends CD for recording.

Here is another way of phrasing that statement:

Most gun owners here and abroad have had rifles, maybe a pistol, or perhaps shotgun that could be used to rob a bank. Moreover, I suspect some have had semi-automatic firearms, and most likely ALL have a knife. You incorrectly assume I am using these to protect my OWN money, neglecting to recall that there is NOTHING stopping me, physically or otherwise, from going into a bank and attempting to take someone else's money.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Shame. Forgive me but that is the epitome of naive, in my view. If shame worked their would be honest politicians (they are right out in the open for all to see) and, not that I endorse it, but have you seen what constitutes as normal on the internet these days? I am 41 and what is classified as "hard core porn" nowadays is so beyond decency that it would of NEVER of materialized had the anonymity of the internet come about. Sorry, Shame is a thing of the past; sadly, the same as chivalry. Case in point: Toronto's mayor Rob Ford. Shame obviously doesn't work to turn him righteous, and I doubt he ever will. And he is not "anonymous".

Great post - bears repeating

 

[RamblinE]

Who do you want to surrender the anonymity of the internet to exactly?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Paul]

Who do you want to surrender the anonymity of the internet to exactly?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

There is no anonymity on the Internet, only the belief that there is.

 

[RamblinE]

Right. But it seems blackfly wants to give power and authority on the internet over to somebody to curb illegal downloading. Which seems to me like the most I'll conceived idea I've yet seen in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blackfly]

Here is another way of phrasing that statement:

Most gun owners here and abroad have had rifles, maybe a pistol, or perhaps shotgun that could be used to rob a bank. Moreover, I suspect some have had semi-automatic firearms, and most likely ALL have a knife. You incorrectly assume I am using these to protect my OWN money, neglecting to recall that there is NOTHING stopping me, physically or otherwise, from going into a bank and attempting to take someone else's money.

Correct, but my point is that you cannot offer something and not expect it to be utilized to its fullest potential based on "morals". Guns are convenient, easy to use and effective for the task of intimidation and killing. You cannot offer guns for sale and not expect them to be used for illicit purposes. Ditto for audio gear: you cannot offer gear that allows for recording of sources identical to that source and expect people to not figure out that they can get something for free, moral or not. Downloading is no different, only in how it is done. Chastizing is irrelevant.

Has anyone picked up a discarded newspaper and read it after someone else has bought it? If so, you are stealing if the theory carries through. So what is the alternative? The original owner to burn it?

 

[Uncle Paul]

Right. But it seems blackfly wants to give power and authority on the internet over to somebody to curb illegal downloading. Which seems to me like the most I'll conceived idea I've yet seen in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Ahhhh, gotcha. I didn't read that in blackfly's post. I thought he was making the point that anonymity made it easier for people to misbehave.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Correct, but my point is that you cannot offer something and not expect it to be utilized to its fullest potential based on "morals". Guns are convenient, easy to use and effective for the task of intimidation and killing. You cannot offer guns for sale and not expect them to be used for illicit purposes. Ditto for audio gear: you cannot offer gear that allows for recording of sources identical to that source and expect people to not figure out that they can get something for free, moral or not. Downloading is no different, only in how it is done. Chastizing is irrelevant.

Has anyone picked up a discarded newspaper and read it after someone else has bought it? If so, you are stealing if the theory carries through. So what is the alternative? The original owner to burn it?

I think the point is that just because you can, does not mean that you should, even if nobody will ever know.

 

[blackfly]

Right. But it seems blackfly wants to give power and authority on the internet over to somebody to curb illegal downloading. Which seems to me like the most I'll conceived idea I've yet seen in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I don't endorse this, and I have no idea how it could be done anyway. Kind of like the atomic bomb. Once the secret is out there is no "putting the genie back into the bottle". All we can do is accept it is a fact of life and living with it. It is, however, up to each of us to make our own choice, since without choice, there would be no reason to live. I choose to not download and pay for my music simply because I am a perfectionist and I want the real deal and a backup for any errors. Moreover, I understand the artist will not be around or continue to make good music without support.

I wonder if there is any moral issue with any AKer here that has bought an item they KNEW was worth far higher than what they paid. Is that not wrong; to rob a granny of money for her estate simply because she didn't know that "black gear with green meters" sitting in the room had value? I don't see the difference really. Principle is the same. Don't get me wrong; I would love to get something for next to nothing, but it doesn't seem to happen.

 

[Markw]

Your moderator title doesnt allow you to insult me. Calling me a criminal is nothing short of an insult as i am not one by my country's laws.

With that said, I will follow the forum rules as stated. I am out of that discussion

Actually, even by canadian laws you are breaking the law and that DOES make you a criminal.

See this link

consider yourself schooled, eh?

 

[toups]

This discussion can be vast and extremely complex.

Not only music or videos, but any information as well can be "downloaded", too. And we won't even perceive it anymore. I'm not saying it is fair or not fair. But the reality is that the automation level of clicking here and there led most not to see much differences between what is free and what is not.

See the Service Manuals at HiFi Engine. They are free (PDF scans), but on eBay and other websites you pay for them (originals and scanned ones).

So, if something is free, would you pay for it somewhere else? The question may appear silly, but let's try to apply this to everything. This is just an example...<SNIP>...

Actually the service manuals brings up a topic that probably belongs in its own thread, the topic of orphan works. Sorry for the long winded post, but some context is required to understand the problem.

Not being a lawyer, here is my summary of the problem with orphan works. Service Manuals are a good example. To make a long story short, Service Manuals are copyrighted if published after March 1 1989 even without a copyright notice or if published prior that date with a copyright notice. (It is also possible that an item published between 1978 and 1989 is copyrighted if it was registered even though there was no copyright on the document. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf ) So in many cases these are copyrighted works but the copyright holder has no interest in legally protecting their copyright or no copyright holder can be found. However unless the items have been officially released into the public domain by the copyright holder then under current law the distribution of these items is probably in violation of copyright law.

Since many of the Service Manuals were published by companies that are no longer in business or whose ownership rights have been confused via various mergers and acquisitions. Some of these works have become true orphans where it may be impossible to secure copyright release to distribute such works. However one could claim that it is in the public interest to allow such distribution. Copyright law, as far as I know, does not make any such exemption. Now distribution of limited sections of a manual could be claimed to be within the fair use doctrine, again another murky (and disputed) area of copyright law.

Many manuals are available for free or for download for a fee. Regarding downloads of true orphan works whether free or for a fee, neither are probably compliant for orphan works which are copyrighted. Those who are offering downloads for a fee are performing a service that allows the repair of equipment beyond the normal supported service life. Again I would argue that is in the public interest.

Taking the above into account, if the Service Manuals are available for a fee from someone who currently holds the rights to the Copyright then legally one should buy it from them rather than downloading for free. HOWEVER, if the item is not copyrighted then there is no reason not to use the free service. The legal morass, which is probably the most common case, is if neither distributor has the legal rights to the item in question and the item is not available from the copyright holder either because it is a true orphan work or the copyright holder has no interest in distributing the work. What do you do?

At this time, the only legal method would be to acquire an original hard copy of the manual, however, that may be impractical since these items were quite rare and have generally been destroyed by service centers when the items reached the "end of life."

Not trying to be political, but copyright law needs updating, but for some reason, every update seems to create more problems than are fixed.

It would be nice if copyright protection came with an obligation to make the information available to the public in a reasonable manner and that the copyright protection would lapse should the item no longer be available. Of course that probably won't fly since that is counter to several movie or show copyright holders who use the withholding of certain titles for a period of time to increase the demand for a re-release. To reiterate, every attempted fix has unintended consequences.

My layman's understanding is the Copyright landscape changed dramatically with changes in 1976 and 1978 since all items are generally considered to be copyrighted upon publication, even without a copyright notice.

One can spend tons of time with the reading material that can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/circs

 

[winters860]

Has anyone picked up a discarded newspaper and read it after someone else has bought it? If so, you are stealing if the theory carries through. So what is the alternative? The original owner to burn it?

That hasn't been the case in the past, but people like Garth Brooks have repeatedly trotted out the idea, especially since the PC revolution, that purchasing physical media is equivalent to installing software and agreeing to a user license with narrow pre-agreed rights.

One reason to like physical media is that it plainly doesn't work that way.

As physical media goes away, we are increasingly herded into a corporate gatekeeper system in which you don't really own anything in the way of content, but merely buy rights to consume it à la carte or by the month. It will be so inexpensive as to be the real threat to large scale piracy. This is not an industry response to piracy as much as the industry taking more control from consumers (who seek convenience above all else), in order to extract every possible penny from them. Artists, of course, get almost nothing. From here on, if you can't get your movie into Netflix (or equivalent) or your music into iTunes (or equivalent), your best path to an audience is free distribution. This is not the future. This is the present. Large collections of pirated music taking up hard drive space will seem passé very soon.

Ironically, this system works, in a small way, against the trend of physical media devaluement, because the physical media represents a "deluxe license" that can never be changed or taken away from the consumer, and ensures a future for CDs among enthusiasts.

 

[Uncle Paul]

...My layman's understanding is the Copyright landscape changed dramatically with changes in 1976 and 1978 since all items are generally considered to be copyrighted upon publication, even without a copyright notice.

So, technically, when I quoted you just now I infringed on your Copyright? :scratch2:

 

[slow_jazz]

I honestly feel in the next 5-10 years many brick and mortar stores will be gone. ie. book stores....

 

[sKiZo]

Just to clear up (or muddy, depending on what side you're on) one aspect of the argument ...

(This IS the room for arguments?)

Resale of physical media is perfectly legal under current statute*, based on "redistribution rights". Only the copyright holder has "reproduction rights", unless said reproduction is for the personal use of the purchaser. Reselling a reproduction is illegal, as well as reselling an original that has been reproduced with copies kept or redistributed by the reseller.

Hope that helped ... <G>

I have fun with the local record shop ... first thing I do when I walk in is ask where the MP3 section is ... next up, I ask them if they can guarantee that any and all of their used media (records, cds, whatnot) meet all the legal requirements regarding resale ...

Ya ... it gets old, but they haven't pulled the shotgun out from under the counter yet.

Rather than trying to parse every little detail, I just go with, I bought it and I still got it, so I won't feel guilty listening to it. If there's a remaster I want, I buy that too. Everything I got is ripped to FLAC for easy playback, but I still got the originals. It's with those originals I've established ownership and/or license for personal use.

*****

*That's where it gets interesting ... "current statute" has a way of changing, which means there are different versions that apply to different media, depending on the date of production. What may be legal for an older vinyl or cd may not be legal for a remaster or re-release. Many gray areas there.

 

[dtreize]

Actually, even by canadian laws you are breaking the law and that DOES make you a criminal.

See this link

consider yourself schooled, eh?

Most cases goes thru civil court and there is penalties of up to 5k$ for non-commercial infringement. Youd have to be selling or mass sharing to go to criminal court.

Breaking the law does not mean commiting a crime. If not, that would mean were all criminals. Are you a criminal?

Consider yourself schooled.

 

[blackfly]

That hasn't been the case in the past, but people like Garth Brooks have repeatedly trotted out the idea, especially since the PC revolution, that purchasing physical media is equivalent to installing software and agreeing to a user license with narrow pre-agreed rights.

One reason to like physical media is that it plainly doesn't work that way.

As physical media goes away, we are increasingly herded into a corporate gatekeeper system in which you don't really own anything in the way of content, but merely buy rights to consume it à la carte or by the month. It will be so inexpensive as to be the real threat to large scale piracy. This is not an industry response to piracy as much as the industry taking more control from consumers (who seek convenience above all else), in order to extract every possible penny from them. Artists, of course, get almost nothing. From here on, if you can't get your movie into Netflix (or equivalent) or your music into iTunes (or equivalent), your best path to an audience is free distribution. This is not the future. This is the present. Large collections of pirated music taking up hard drive space will seem passé very soon.

Ironically, this system works, in a small way, against the trend of physical media devaluement, because the physical media represents a "deluxe license" that can never be changed or taken away from the consumer, and ensures a future for CDs among enthusiasts.

Good post. But cannot you see how wrong it is to have music "owned" by someone and you have an agreement to use it as you like, but NOT owning the music itself? I personally take HUGE offence to this when I have bought, outright, every one of my CDs that I have ripped to my harddrive. I will not, EVER, enter to any agreement where I have to repurchase music I have already bought simply because I was not able to keep a hard copy simply to save any losses. I point out you say PIRATED music but my collection, and I am sure most AKer's is NOT pirated, since I want the best quality file.

It could be that the removal of the physical medium itself could give the very control they are looking for. Perhaps it is all part of the plan......

 

[trhee]

With Borders gone and Barnes & Noble's financial woes and their plans to shut down at least 20 stores per year, I'd say that's pretty accurate regarding bookstores.

The only bookstores that will remain are specialty bookstores.

I honestly feel in the next 5-10 years many brick and mortar stores will be gone. ie. book stores....

 

[Karl vd Berg]

I honestly feel in the next 5-10 years many brick and mortar stores will be gone. ie. book stores....

Someone fail to put his long running records shop for sale: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/74064