“Depending on what you mean by “examined it without modifying it in any way” this could be construed as backward engineering, clearly a no-no in the US.”

Are you sure?
What about when Real adapted its software to work with the ipod recently?
They must have reversed-engeneered the format used for the DRM apple used.
That seemed fine, from a legal standpoint.
Or is it okay to do it when you’re a big company that can defend itself in court?

“I’m a bit rusty here, bear with me. Copyright law in terms of music in the US has multiple components.
1. Lyric and tune (what would be in a songbook/sheet music)
2. Recording of the lyric and tune, i.e. the physical recording, aka the masters (Mechanical Liscense)
3. Right to perform lyric and tune in public venue (Performance liscense)”

Actually, if you looked at a typical music contract, I think you would find that the record company is the one who ends up owing all three, and the artist only gets a residual payment at every use of the creation.
But I do not have facts backing this up, so moving along.

“The Mechanical liscense is not for the mechanical element, ie the tape, the record or the disc, but the information stored on the medium. This pertains to digital data.”

Actually, it is not the representation that is copyrighted, it is the performance and thus how this information is used that is the subject of copyright.
see Monolith for more thought on this:
http://monolith.sourceforge.net/

“Purchasing a disc does not give one ownership of the data, but a liscense to use it privately. I argue that sharing that data in a p2p violates the private aspect of the liscense and the RIAA probably thinks it’s tantamount to broadcasting the data, which then comes under #3.”

And yet some argues that the license allows you to share that music with friends as long as it’s not in a public place.

As for sharing the data over p2p, there is legal precedent in Canada that it is not illegal under certain circumstances.
See the ruling in the pdf provided in this story about the proceedings by honourable Justice Konrad von Finckenstein of the federal court of Canada in this case of CRIA vs John and Jane Doe:
http://p2pnet.net/story/1118

At page 13 it is stated that:
“[25] Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board of Canada, Private Copying 2003-2004 decision, 12 December 2003 at page 20.”

And without quoting the detail which you can go check for yourself, it later states on page 14:
“[28] The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of a shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.[…]”

Now that is not bullet proof protection, since CRIA failed in this case to present compelling evidence of wrongdoing or of the public interest in revealing the identity of the file sharers. Could it have done so? It is unclear at this point. Furthermore, the exclusive right to make available is included in the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty but it has not yet been implemented in Canada.

Still, it goes a long way into showing it is legally possible to share music on p2p for personal use.

“The theft is in the copying the exact digital duplicate of the waveform (or even a compressed but sonically similar waveform) and then distributing it publically. What one has paid to liscense, another now is given. Who loses? The artist, publisher and record company.”

I dispute this, since nothing was taken from any of them.
It is a loss of profits. Not stealing, not theft.
Also, it is not guaranteed that a file shared is a lost sale.
What indicates that a sale would have taken place instead?

“Would you still argue this if there were no record companies and the artist got 50% of the profit?”

About whether the word stealing is badly used? Yes.
I have not argued about whether it is MORAL or not.
It is not my point at all. Morality is for everyone to decide for themselves.

“What about other data? Is all data on the web free because we don’t “steal” it but make copies?”

I did not say data was free.
I did not say sharing data doesn’t cause loss of profits.
I did not say to share everything and never to buy.
What I did say is that sharing is not stealing.
Besides, ““Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.”
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

This is not property law we are talking about, rather it is copyright law.
As Estey J. stated in Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357 at 372-373 and included in the same ruling as above from Justice Konrad at page 12:
“…copyright law is neither tort law nor property law in classification, but is statutory law. It neither cuts across existing rights in property or conduct nor falls between rights and obligations heretofore existing in the common law. Copyright legislation simply creates rights and obligations upon the terms and in the circumstances set out in the statute. This creature of statute has been known to the law of England at least since the days of Queen Anne when the first copyright statute was passed. It does not assist the interpretive analysis to import tort concepts. The legislation speaks for itself and the actions of the appellant must be measured according to the terms of the statute.”
Of course, this is still Canadian law.

My feeling is that calling copyright infringement stealing does not reflect the reality of the situation.

“If only “property,” and by that I’m interpreting you to mean tangible property, can be stolen, this in essence will condemn artists to remain slaves, whether to the record companies or p2p networks who “share” them as soon as they come out.”

Wrong, they would be able to perform anywhere they want and sell what and when they want.
It is the contracts with the industry that removes their choice.

Consider free software like Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation.
They still sell CDs for those who want them.
In fact, you can sell any software under the GNU GPL license to anyone you want at any price you want.
If anything, not being in a monopoly gives more chances of selling a product.

“The times have changed, property is not simply land or a thing, not in the digital age. I cannot draw another conclusion.”

Ok, let’s close with an “authentic” (maybe) chinese proverb:
寧為太平狗﹐不做亂世人。
“I rather be a dog in peaceful times, then live as a man (woman) in turbulent times.”
(Source: http://www.openface.ca/~dstephen/chprov.htm#107)

Well put.

“Does p2p have a positive role to play in the artist’s living?”

I think so, in making the costs of distribution near zero$.

“Music has been made for millions of years before the record companies and will continue to be made. Don’t give them so much power.”

I don’t.
Their paper empires will soon be blown away.
(Word is not yet out as to how long ’soon’ will be though.)

Peace.
~wolphin

Cheers!

Sigh.

No more. Enjoy your universe.

peace, David

I have a point of view. You may not agree with it, but I can express it and other people can agree, not agree, slag it, whatever. But the fact is: none of this would be happening without the Net. And none of us would be communicating like we are.

P2p is a catalyst that’s already forced a huge amount of change on the way the members of the Big Four record cartel do business. It’s also forced them to more or less openly acknowledge that they see only ‘consumers’ with nary a customer among them.

The re-emergence of the ‘customer’ concept - a ‘customer’ being someone whose wants and needs have to be carefully considered - is very bad news for the music industry. They like ‘consumers’ who buy what they’re told to buy and who believe what they’re told to believe.

Apple is helping to keep drastically these outmoded business practises alive. It has no choice. The music business has dragged it from relative obscurity into the floodlight. It’s not about to give that up and every time it gets the mainstream media screaming about the latest Apple product release, by default, it bolsters the completely erroneous idea that the corporate music online business actually exists. It doesn’t.

This is a shining example of the application of a time-honoured commercial process which goes: if you repeat something often enough, sooner or later, it’ll become fact. Or at least, that’s what the corporate music companies are praying will happen. Again.

But the ‘fact’ is: that was the way thing worked before the Net came along, allowing people everywhere to talk to each other without having their thoughts spun, filtered and re-issued by corporate interests.

The labels as they’ve existed up until now are now are all-but dead. Soon, you’ll see the ‘new’ Big Music ‘adopting’ p2p and raving about it, saying it’s been all for it from the beginning.

The labels continue to be venal, but they’ll be forced to revise their business models.

The lawsuits will gradually stop, offline prices will fall, catalogues will be opened to ‘new’ corporate sites (backed and supplied by the industry, of course) and deals will be made with commercial p2p operators so they can offer music from the labels’ catalogues - not just the paltry 700,000 tracks they’re currently trying to re-sell over and over again.

And while that happens, in the real world of music, independent companies and artists will continue to build Big Music’s first competition - the genuinely alternative music businesses where customers are seen as people, not cash-cows.

Cheers!
5:45 am, Pacific (and that’s my excuse if this is just thoughts rather than a learned, carefully constructed ‘paper’ ; )

Music has been made for millions of years before the record companies and will continue to be made. Don’t give them so much power.

I’m tired, peace,
David

No time or energy to respond point by point, many of which are solid good points.

–If I came to see your car (assuming you have one) and examined it without modifying it in any way, then made a replica without ever taking anything from you and without knowing the way it was originally built, would I be stealing from you?
I think not. –

Depending on what you mean by “examined it without modifying it in any way” this could be construed as backward engineering, clearly a no-no in the US.

–So now replace car with song and car maker with music company.
Sharing a song doesn’t remove it from their catalog.
It doesn’t make a CD disappear from their storage.
To make a copy of the song you didn’t steal or used their equipment or their experience in recording and mastering a song.
You might have broken copyright laws, but you didn’t steal anything.
You might have caused them a loss of profits, but they would have to prove that.–

I’m a bit rusty here, bear with me. Copyright law in terms of music in the US has multiple components.
1. Lyric and tune (what would be in a songbook/sheet music)
2. Recording of the lyric and tune, i.e. the physical recording, aka the masters (Mechanical Liscense)
3. Right to perform lyric and tune in public venue (Performance liscense)

The artist and publisher control #1
The artist does #2 and the Record Company sells it, usually setting the contract to make themselves the owners of the “masters”
#3 has to do with concerts, radio and television performance

The Mechanical liscense is not for the mechanical element, ie the tape, the record or the disc, but the information stored on the medium. This pertains to digital data.
Purchasing a disc does not give one ownership of the data, but a liscense to use it privately. I argue that sharing that data in a p2p violates the private aspect of the liscense and the RIAA probably thinks it’s tantamount to broadcasting the data, which then comes under #3.

The theft is in the copying the exact digital duplicate of the waveform (or even a compressed but sonically similar waveform) and then distributing it publically. What one has paid to liscense, another now is given. Who loses? The artist, publisher and record company.

Would you still argue this if there were no record companies and the artist got 50% of the profit?
What about other data? Is all data on the web free because we don’t “steal” it but make copies?
If only “property,” and by that I’m interpreting you to mean tangible property, can be stolen, this in essence will condemn artists to remain slaves, whether to the record companies or p2p networks who “share” them as soon as they come out.
The times have changed, property is not simply land or a thing, not in the digital age. I cannot draw another conclusion.
David

Jon says albums are not worth money asked since the quality is not there.
You said the execs used the same reason to ask artists to “produce” more “hits”.
Yet, execs do not give the time to artists to create such “hits”.
Not to mention that you never know what is going to be a hit,
and that artistic endeavors cannot be forced.

Thus I was referring to the fact that artists do not decide to release inferior products, thus they are not the ones responsible for it.
The execs are since it is, right or wrong their decision.
They are also responsible of course if the album is a success.

If you were not saying that the artist was responsible for making incomplete or “cheap” albums then I did not in fact understand your point.

“I’d quote the rest, but the point can also be made that you get what you deserve getting in bed with the record companies under their contracts and with their rules. No one forces artists to sign.”

True.
But the studio emphasises very clearly that you cannot succeed if you are not in their contract.
They point out that they have the airwaves in their pocket and that only “music industry product” can get to the national resellers’ limited shelves space.
They do not tell you this to offer their help but rather to say they will use their bottomless pockets to bury you if you don’t agree to their terms.

And if you sign and later realise you’ve been had or you disagree with the record company on something you can’t back out.
They own everything you make and can decide not to release it.
It’s like you’re their slave.
That’s bad.

“Are the artists up to taking the “Big Risks” to break death grip the companies have on the music business? Many small indies are showing promise, but the rewards are not necessarily a pile of money.”

It is a big risk to make music your only job unless you’re already successful, just like it is for writers.

Some try it more or less part time though.
I know of one at least:
http://www.lamusic.com/velvetchain/

Peace.
~wolphin

Yes, I was actually agreeing with your post.
I was just pushing the thought further.

The answer to your question, from facts I’ve gathered,
is that fans will buy quality stuff from artists they like,
whether they be musicians, singers, webcomic artist, etc.

What matters is making a connection with your fans
(or letting them connect to you) and proposing fun stuff.

Also, if it’s easy and convenient to get said nifty stuff,
then that can’t hurt either.

Bottom line, if an artist I like sells music I like on their site
I’d buy it, although I would prefer a CD with booklets and stuff.
Actually, I have done so in the past.
http://www.lamusic.com/velvetchain/
Click store.

You can even take the songs you like and make your very own
“Custom Made, Full-Length, Personalized Velvet Chain Album”!
$17.95 is a bit pricey though.

I’m not so much into that music right now though, I find it a bit too sad.
Tempus fugit.

~wolphin

Fair enough, but the issue of legal permission is only employed in the context of “tak[ing] (another person’s property)”.
I was focusing on the taking part.

“[…]That is against the liscense agreement.
May I resale the software. Maybe, maybe not, many do not permit the liscense to be resold. If I don’t like the terms, I don’t have to buy or use.”

True.
The problem hits when companies create not exactly new formats that they then try to keep anyone else from working with.
Then they get enough people using it so that if you want to work with the documents you have to purchase their software…
Ex: word, acrobat…

Of course there are usually free alternative created eventually.
Point is, it can be from inconvenient to impossible to not use such software depending on your work.
So more power to free as in freedom software!

“[…]But I doubt Canadian law allow you to buy copies of recordings (DVD discs, VCRs tapes) and grant you ownership of said copies. I expect you have purchased a liscense to view them within restrictions.”

Well, it is my understanding that a copy is a property,
and that you can do what you want with your property
_in the privacy of your own home_.
Whether you can do so in a public place is usually less true.

As an example, you can buy a movie and invite 30 people to watch it in your home.
But you can’t do it in a public place like a school, since that would count as a “public performance”.

Of course I could be completely wrong…
I’m not a lawyer.

“Can you make a backup copy? I can’t imagine a court having trouble with that. Could one sell a backup copy while keeping the original. Not in the US. Could one share the copy via P2P, not legally within the US.”

Ah, but since the companies actively try to prevent you from making backups you might not be able to.
It is not unreasonable (to me) that you might download a backup someone else made since you can’t do it yourself. I’m not saying everyone who is sharing copyrighted works have an original copy, just that it is possible.
Reasonable doubt, right?

If you try to make money by offering “backups” for sale,
it is rather obvious that you are selling counterfeits.
But if you do not make money it is less obvious.
And you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right?

“Steal? I never said steal in response to you. I’m signing posts, I didn’t accuse you of stealing.”

I never said you did.
I said p2p sharing should not be equaled to stealing.
But it might not have been clear, I admit.
I was using the general “you”, as in “you shouldn’t use the passive form when…”
Did I mention english is not my first language?
There might be some grammer hiccups.

“Is P2P sharing of data that has been copyrighted without permission stealing? I would judge it so.”

But for stealing to take place you have to “take” something from someone.
When you share you are multiplying something.
It sure as hell can break the law, but is it stealing?

If I came to see your car (assuming you have one) and examined it without modifying it in any way, then made a replica without ever taking anything from you and without knowing the way it was originally built, would I be stealing from you?
I think not.

Even if I then selled the car I made, I would not be taking your car from you or from the car maker.
If I had stolen the plans to make the car then the car maker could accuse me of stealing the plans, but I didn’t.

Otherwise, the car company could then say I made unfair competition by using the car as a template and in so doing making a profit from their labor.
That can make sense.
But it that stealing? Rather it is unfair competition.

So now replace car with song and car maker with music company.
Sharing a song doesn’t remove it from their catalog.
It doesn’t make a CD disappear from their storage.
To make a copy of the song you didn’t steal or used their equipment or their experience in recording and mastering a song.
You might have broken copyright laws, but you didn’t steal anything.
You might have caused them a loss of profits, but they would have to prove that.

But saying that p2p is an unfair competitor (to their monopoly) doesn’t have the PR *bang* that “stealing” has.
So the music companies will probably continue saying copying is stealing, that sharers are pirates (?) and that if it’s free you stole it.
And I’m sure that those who have monopolies consider competition as stealing, but is it?

What it is is an insult to anyone that has worked in producing free software, used it or cherishes freedom in their software.

Ok, this is insanely long. Oh well.
Peace.
~wolphin

p.s. a fun webcomic for those who made it here:
http://www.frozenreality.co.uk/comic/bunny/
consider it a virtual cookie? ^^;

My question is: when Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, U2 or Peter Gabriel sell their music only off of their site and charge 1 dollar per song, will you all pay or use p2p and share?

David

Didn’t forget, this wasn’t the issue. Ian refers to “suits” who now are demanding more that one or two hits on the first album, with no 3-5 albums to build up. Jon was commenting on his dislike of buying an album for only a couple of good songs at a high price. I don’t understand your point. (Perhaps you don’t see mine?)

—I’m sorry, but if you want to invest in music but do not have the patience to wait for the work to be done, you get what you deserve.—

I’d quote the rest, but the point can also be made that you get what you deserve getting in bed with the record companies under their contracts and with their rules. No one forces artists to sign.

Are the artists up to taking the “Big Risks” to break death grip the companies have on the music business? Many small indies are showing promise, but the rewards are not necessarily a pile of money.

The dictionary definition did use it.

—-As for software, once you’ve paid for it, you are free to use it as you please.—

Perhaps in Canada this is true, I don’t know. In the USA my copy of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Digidesign Protools and many others all have very specific clauses limiting how the software may be used. May I use Photoshop on more than one computer, yes, typically a desktop and a laptop, with limits that it not be used at the same time on seperate computers. That is against the liscense agreement.
May I resale the software. Maybe, maybe not, many do not permit the liscense to be resold. If I don’t like the terms, I don’t have to buy or use.

–Further, regarding music, there is the notion of ‘fair use’ under which I am entitled under Canadian law to keep copies of recordings I own, timeshift TV programmings, etc. —

I don’t know Canadian Fair Use law. In the US it is largely vague, IMHO, and yet to be thoroughly tested. But I doubt Canadian law allow you to buy copies of recordings (DVD discs, VCRs tapes) and grant you ownership of said copies. I expect you have purchased a liscense to view them within restrictions. Can you make a backup copy? I can’t imagine a court having trouble with that. Could one sell a backup copy while keeping the original. Not in the US. Could one share the copy via P2P, not legally within the US.

Steal? I never said steal in response to you. I’m signing posts, I didn’t accuse you of stealing.

Is P2P sharing of data that has been copyrighted without permission stealing? I would judge it so.

You forget that it is the suits who decide when to release an album.

Instead they could release it “when it’s ready” but they want to recoup their money as fast as possible.

I’m sorry, but if you want to invest in music but do not have the patience to wait for the work to be done, you get what you deserve.

And giving contol of content to people other than the artist means that the art is going to suffer.
Especially if you don’t want to take chances and try to replicate an existing success.

Big risks can bring great rewards, they say.
But they never said small risks would work all the time though.

And that, my friend, is the big problem with the music industry:
THEY control your work, not you (the artist, be it composer, singer…).

People want to profit from their own creation,
not to mention deciding when and how to release them.

Instead, the suits decide what and when you must create to appeal to as many people as possible.
And they keep the lion’s share of the money of the sales.

And while the studios have to pay for equipment, crew and production
the whole marketing spending is a nightmare of epic proportion.
They spend much more on promoting the “product” than on making it.
They even call marketing “Research & Development” in their budgets.

Makes you wonder what they are researching.
How to maximise profits maybe?

Meanwhile, they have an agreement with media aggregators (radio, newspaper, television…) so that only their “products” get live time.

It used to be that you coudn’t “break out” without the big corps
(incidentally illegally) paying for airwave time.

With the internet the costs of advertising to a large audience is only the cost of the bandwidth and so is the cost of distribution. This undermines the vile monopoly that the music monopoly is desperately trying to keep alive on life support.

So are artists trying to become their own little music corporation?
Maybe.
But then lots of small providers is good for competition and ultimately for the customers.

I only objected to the use of the word stealing to describe p2p sharing.
For legal issues, please consult a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.

I do happen to have a Debian system that works fine thank you.

Also, when I buy a computer it is mine and I am hereafter entitled to use it in any and all manners which pleases me as described in property laws.

As for software, once you’ve paid for it, you are free to use it as you please.
A license which prohibits normal use of the software would not be enforceable because it woudn’t hold out in court.
To clarify, you could go in court to get your money back once you figure it’s useless.
And I do not see what running a particular operating system changes as for the legality of what else you do on your computer.
So, unless you buy useless software which is rather dumb, you CAN in fact use it as you like.

If you are meaning restrictions posed by legislations defined in the laws of your locale,
it is not in fact the license of software which determines the legality of your actions.
Rather it is your government which passes laws and the courts which enforce them.

Further, regarding music, there is the notion of ‘fair use’ under which I am entitled
under Canadian law to keep copies of recordings I own, timeshift TV programmings, etc.

Also, not to be a smart ass, but in my country we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
So, in closing, saying that if you are sharing you are stealing is pure defamatory speculation.
And you should probably keep that in satires.

Studio costs? Sure. But they were amortized long, long ago. —

So one objection is only 2 or 3 songs were decent by your standards? Isn’t this the same standard the record execs Ian lambasts use in demanding more hits from their artists on a single record?

Amortized costs only work if the studio succeeds, and at those prices they better, or else it’s their skin. And studios have to buy new equipment, maintain old equipment and rent what they can’t afford regularily. This ain’t cheap.

Check out www.mixonline.com or www.tapeop.com and see what reality is by the people who record the music for a living. Read the forums at Tapeop and listen to the studio owners who’ve lost everything. This isn’t pretty.

If the artists and the audience want to change the model, then do it!

David