Legal vs. Illegal music......Where is the line?

[sb47]

I have on several occasions had a friend come over with a CD and I liked it so much that I copied it. And yes maybe technically that copy is a boot leg or illegal copy. But in most cases I liked the artist so much that it lead me to go out a purchase more music from the same artiest. So by sharing the one, lead to the buying of many more, and if I was an artiest I would not be objecting to it, because it lead to more sales.
I do believe there is a difference between sharing on a mass scale with people you don’t actually know, like Napster.
But a one on one friendship should be able to share to some small degree because that music was not given out and shared by everyone including those I don’t know.

Take the artiest Leo Kottke, I was given a recording from a friend many, many years ago and now I have bought over 10 of his CD’s over the years. Including the original version of the one that I copied. So that one gift from a friend, lead to that artiest selling 10 new units of new music from that same artiest.

So that personal sharing from a personal friend (not from the web and from strangers) lead to bigger sales of his music. So it was to his benefit that my friend shared the music with another friend.

Is there a gray area here or is it black and white?

 

[BayouTiger]

Wayner.

Where are most of us wrong? Many have posted here that copying for something beyond what has been deemed "fair use" is wrong and illegal.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that "timeshifting" for personal use is legal. You can record TV or Radio programs for your own use.

transmaster,

I agree wholeheartedly with you on DRM, I personally have no moral issue with making a copy of a DVD for MY OWN USE. It is absolutely legal to make such a copy, but illegal to defeat DRM to do so. The passage of that law was stupid to say the least. Main issue with DRM is that like any copy protection scheme, it only hurts honest purchasers of the media.

sp47,

The fact that you them went out and bought more is great and if you purchased the title that you copies, then you would be in compliance in my book, but until you do own it, it is stolen, and to me making a copy is no different that shoplifting it off the shelf.


Some of the laws are definitely not right as far as I am concerned. Some (including me) sometimes choose what's right over what's legal.

 

[sb47]

Ok lets take the mass market out of the equation and put it on a personal scale with only friends you actually know, and not to be further distributed to the public and only kept for privet use only.

 

[yardanimal]

often when people share music it will generate more sales as people who wouldnt be exposed to an album or artist find they really like something and want a physical copy with the art and no quality depreciation. not always the case and not a judgement on whether this is right or wrong. I am within earshot of several radio shows that are worth recording and I do so for my own listening enjoyment. the quality is good. use both tape and digital. I've gotten into many artists this way or when seeing on you tube. I buy both cds and lps still. I dont share as no one I know would be interested anyway.

 

[GordonW]

Recording media-to-media has always been considered illegal, except for the "archival copy" you were allowed to make (ONE copy) of YOUR OWN media (a recording you had legally purchased).

OTOH- a radio broadcast, since it is broadcast, over the air, without your asking for it, was considered fair game, for each person to make ONE recording. The legal issue here was that the radio station VOLUNTEERED the signal to you, by broadcasting it to everyone. Hence, they gave up their copyright, within limits. You were NOT allowed to make further copies, though!

However- recording off of cable, satellite, or other subscription media has NEVER really been covered under the same part of the Fair Use act that covered over-the-air broadcasts. The commonly used legal argument was that these were services that were SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED and CONTRACTED FOR by the user, and were covered by any copyright agreements included in the contract for service (your cable agreement, etc).

AFAIK, those laws have not changed much, other than the "archival rights". That's been limited, due to the proliferation of "perfect" copy mechanisms available now. But, there's probably not a judge out there, that's going to find someone guilty of copying something they already legally own in another format, to a different format. Technically, it MAY be illegal under some interpretations of the law- but there's still a general sense of "once you've bought it, you own it", in many cases...

Naturally, I am NOT a lawyer... so this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[BayouTiger]

Ok lets take the mass market out of the equation and put it on a personal scale with only friends you actually know, and not to be further distributed to the public and only kept for privet use only.

What's the difference, they still got it and the owner of the product got nothing!

 

[transmaster]

How would like it if you spent 10 years doing an album, and a bunch of "hacks" stole everything and you ended up getting practically no money. What would be the sense of making music if you can't even pay for the recording time?

It is truly pathetic.

Wayner

You show your lack of knowledge of how it works you can spend 10 years doing an album but the hacks that are going to steal from you is the record label you have signed you life and property off to. Unless you are a big act that can dictate your contract you will get practically nothing for your work. The studio owns the publishing rights for the next 60 years, you are in the hock for the studio time and any money advanced, To make any money you have to do a live shows and even then your label will have their fingers in the take to pay back the cost of the studio time and the advance. And when you get cut loose from your contract and basically are out on the street you have nothing to show for it not even the music you recorded. If you are an independent act your can market your own through places like iTunes which get a flat 30% of the the sale which leaves you with fantastically more money they you would have made with a studio contract and you still own your music. Many of the independent bands use bit-torrent for marketing.
I have lived in the music world most of my life I know the reality of it. What is really pathetic is how these crooks are ripping off musicians, and this is what is changing, and that is what has the industry in a panic.

 

[BayouTiger]

Recording media-to-media has always been considered illegal, except for the "archival copy" you were allowed to make (ONE copy) of YOUR OWN media (a recording you had legally purchased).

OTOH- a radio broadcast, since it is broadcast, over the air, without your asking for it, was considered fair game, for each person to make ONE recording. The legal issue here was that the radio station VOLUNTEERED the signal to you, by broadcasting it to everyone. Hence, they gave up their copyright, within limits. You were NOT allowed to make further copies, though!

However- recording off of cable, satellite, or other subscription media has NEVER really been covered under the same part of the Fair Use act that covered over-the-air broadcasts. The commonly used legal argument was that these were services that were SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED and CONTRACTED FOR by the user, and were covered by any copyright agreements included in the contract for service (your cable agreement, etc).

AFAIK, those laws have not changed much, other than the "archival rights". That's been limited, due to the proliferation of "perfect" copy mechanisms available now. But, there's probably not a judge out there, that's going to find someone guilty of copying something they already legally own in another format, to a different format. Technically, it MAY be illegal under some interpretations of the law- but there's still a general sense of "once you've bought it, you own it", in many cases...

Naturally, I am NOT a lawyer... so this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it...

Regards,
Gordon.

see Sony vs Universal though some of that has been subsequently changes by the DMCA. Personally, i think there are parts of the DMCA that are absolutely absurd and as much of the implementation of it can only be decided through litigation, it is an example of horrendous lawmaking where congress tries to make multiple special interests happy and end up getting it completely wrong ( add the ADA legislation to that list as well!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

 

[sb47]

What's the difference, they still got it and the owner of the product got nothing!

Yes in the beginning and only for a short time, because I went out and bought an original version plus many more. So he did benefit ten fold in the end.

 

[BOUXY]

Still flogging a "Dead Horse" I see you all are?
I do what I have always done as far as Recording from whatever source and have done so for as long as I can remember!
Everyone I know has done the same!
Illegal or illegal,no one cares much these days and never have!Sorry but that's THEIR damn Luck and that's the way it is,and now for the end of the Story

P/S YES,I do and have and still buy through the proper Avenues from time to time so there!

 

[HeezDeadJim]

How would like it if you spent 10 years doing an album, and a bunch of "hacks" stole everything and you ended up getting practically no money. What would be the sense of making music if you can't even pay for the recording time?

It is truly pathetic.

Wayner

I'm with you all the way Wayner!

That's why musicians shouldn't rely on getting money through distributions like CDs or iTunes/Amazon MP3. Get the real money through concerts and charge $600 per ticket like the Rolling Stones. It's all about making the money. That's the biggest drive for creating music.....not the passion. It's no wonder "the performing arts" are the first thing to get axed when school funding starts going dry. These schools need to charge $50 for each person (even if it's parents/family members) for school band/choir recitals. To do this for free....

It is truly pathetic.

 

[Urizen]

The OP has had his questions answered. Inevitably, as has happened every time this topic has been discussed, politics and absurdities have raised their ugly heads.

Thread closed.