Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime

An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Orlando Sentinel reports on a poll done by the LA Times and Bloomberg. The informal study looked at teenager attitudes towards copying media. Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it. Attitudes about ill-gotten media were less clear, and the article admits than even the legal system is slightly fuzzy on this issue." From the article: "Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased. Those figures are a big problem for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of which have spent millions of dollars to deter copying of any kind. The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA."

Comments

Your education tax dollars...

[Fyre2012]

... hard at work!

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[DJ Rubbie]

Education tax dollars, hard at work. Funny how you got modded off-topic with this statement. Those are the very cash RIAA will be seeking, and if their past behaviors are any indication, those are the funds they would like use to convince government and school board to use to counter 'school-yard piracy'. I won't be surprised if they strong arm their way into schools to make music copying via this method as severe as dealing drugs on school property. At the very least, we will likely be seeing more education campaigns against copyright infringement and equating that with theft in the near future.

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[stunt_penguin]

"Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."

Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft. However it's the theft of a tiny amount of money from someone who can ususally easily afford the loss (or in the case of something you wouldn't/couldn't buy anyway, the non-loss). Copyright infringement is illegal, and should be illegal; it's how it is defined and punished that should be reexamined and changd.

People should be allowed to make their own perosnal copies of the movies, music and games they purchase without greedy, stupid DRM restrictins. They shouldn't be allowed to freely distribute someone else's hard work to anyone they see fit. They'll do it anyway, and I do it; I just don't pull the wool over my own eyes by trying to claim that it's morally or legally okay.

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[mapkinase]

You know, for 30 years I lived in a country that did not consider it a crime to steal from the rich. In 1991 it collapsed because its economy could not compete. What started as "expropriate the expropriaters" ended with widespread corruption and theft of everything that does not have an immediate victim.

I think every dumb American commie like yourself should spend the time I spent in a country like Russia. And then we will talk.

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[cliffski]

yes, because everyone who suffers from copyright infringement is a highly paid executive. the employees who get laid off dont count right?

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate, that is just pure demagogy. Look up the word "theft" in any dictionary. Deprivation of profit is not theft! As i look at it patent laws, copyrights are waaaaaaaay too strict. Large majority of the world's population can't afford our culture, nor our patented pharmacopeia. Copyright is hampering the development of culture and science. In it's present form it is a crime against information, and since information is what defines a modern society it is also a crime against humanity and should be treated equally with other similarly despicable crimes of the same kind. 15% of south Africa is infected with HIV. Remember when Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb "couldn't" release the AIDS drug patent for south Africa? Little more than 8100 people died in Srebrenica and the culprits have been hunted down and trailed. How many die in Africa because of drug patents? What is happening to those that are responsible? If you think it has nothing to do with copying of CD's, you are mistaken. The same patent of thinking is at work here- Copyright above all. If you say, drugs, ok, i agree with that, but not the music, not the books. Culture is as important for the world's well being and development as health is. In conclusion, I'm not saying there should be no patents or copyright, but the law that we now have is absurd.

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[jcr]

Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.

No, it's infringment. That's why it has a different word, and why it's covered by a different law.

-jcr

Re:Your education tax dollars...

[sm62704]

Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.

No, if I shoplift a CD, the store no longer has that CD. If you steal my car, I no longer have that car. If I infringe your copyright you still have copyright. You have lost nothing.

Copyright isn't even property: it is a "limited time" (har har "limited") monopoly. When I write a song or a web page, I don't OWN that song or web page. What I posess is a limited time monopoly on its distribution.

You want to know what is a crime?

[abscissa]

You want to know what is a crime? I'll tell you what is a crime. It's a crime that these large organisations reap the profits from pressed pieces of plastic onto which are recorded hideous noises that sound like gang-warfare in Harlem and Watts, and then use this money to harass families and children for every last red cent so they can line their pockets.

So yeah, copying a CD is not a crime.

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Heh, the old "It sucks, therefore copying is not a crime" argument. If it sucks, why are you stealing it?

Actually, I find these numbers kind of refreshing. The kids are essentially admitting that copying music/movies off the net is a crime. They feel a little justified in 'borrowing' it when they personally know someone who payed for it.

Bottom line - even 12 - 17 year olds know in their heart of hearts that they are stealing.

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[kfg]

You want to know what is a crime?

It would certainly be a help, given the topic.

A crime is what you can be prosecuted for by the state and do jail time for. Something found in the criminal code.

What if copying a CD were a civil violation, between private interested parties? Something could be illegal and yet not be a crime. What a crazy world that would be, huh? If only.

KFG

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[Rix]

Stealing is always illegal, but not everything that is illegal is stealing.

Don't like that we pass around cultural artifacts freely? Tough shit. You're on the wrong side of history, and you can't stop us. Society adapts to new technology, not the other way around.

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[novus ordo]

Heh, the old "If it sucks, why are you stealing it" argument. Not to beat a dead horse, but you can hardly call it stealing. You can call it curiosity. I think pretty much everyone has long ago figured out the scheme where they hype one single good song on a CD and you buy it only to find out the rest is crap. People are just protecting their investments. How else do you explain this:

69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased

Call it "American Capitalist" where you vote(buy) for products(music/movies) that you like. If only you could allocate your individual tax dollars that way instead of trusting it to the "lockbox" you would have more faith in people's choices.

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[Rix]

Respect for the law? Fuck that. Bad laws, by and large, only get changed because people start ignoring them. I'll continue to smoke pot and download whatever I please.

Re:You want to know what is a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if copying a CD were a civil violation, between private interested parties? Something could be illegal and yet not be a crime. What a crazy world that would be, huh? If only.

For fuck's sake. Were you slapped with the moron-bat when you were born, or are you just totally amoral? "Crime" and "Theft" have strict legal meanings which vary around the world. Who cares? That's lawyers' weasel words.

Normal people understand that crime and theft have a broader, real-world, meaning. In fact, that's what the legal language is supposed to be to codifying; law flows from morality, not the other way around. If it becomes legal to own slaves I suppose you're the sort of person who would shrug their shoulders and say "oh, well, it's not a crime now. Go ahead."

Denying a person payment by copying their work without permission is immoral, criminal, and theft regardless of and without any recource to legalistic evasions.

so sad..

[Anonymous Coward]

The numbers should be 100% 'legal/OK' for copying a bought CD/DVD.

What happend to Fair Use

[siuengr]

I thought it was ok to copy CD's and VHS, didn't they decided that was legal in the 80's? As far as I know that hasn't been overturned. The only thing that makes copying DVD's illegal is the encryption. Regular CD's are still fair game, right?

What's funny

[misey]

What's funny is that we suddenly have 10 year olds with a criminal record because they took advantage of a service available on pretty much every computer. I'm not putting a dent in studio sales by downloading a movie. They hardly make anything on the DVD sales compared to ticket sales. Didn't they teach us on Sesame Street to share?

No wonder the RIAA is pissed

[NexFlamma]

The teenage demographic is their prime target. They want these kids to continue to consume the music they put out without questioning it, thusly creating a pattern for them to follow their entire lives.

Thankfully, these kids have decided that it's more reasonable to think that sharing music with friends of yours isn't a crime. This creates panic in the RIAA because if enough people come to think that way, it suddenly won't be illegal. As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?

These kids are just exhibiting common sense, and common sense is the enemy of the **AA's.

Re:No wonder the RIAA is pissed

[budgenator]

with music getting played on the radio for "free" it's hard for me to get excited about a bootlegged copy of a cd or a party cd of MP3's; even thoe I know it;'s technically wrong. If these guys at the 'AAs think the schoolyards are a nest of pirates, they should visit a few factories arround here.

Re:No wonder the RIAA is pissed

[meringuoid]

As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?

Ask anyone who's been sent to prison for growing and selling plants.

The pure and simple truth

[IlliniECE]

The RIAA brought this on themselves with an aging business model where media sells for far more than its worth to many consumers.

Interesting

[TheSpoom]

I wonder if on the grand scheme of things whether the RIAA et al's resistance to free copying will end up being an endnote in history books because later generations will simply ignore them, thinking (and rightly so) that they are living in the past?

Why should they have to limit themselves simply because the recording companies refuse to adapt?

If they need more money, play more concerts

[CrazyJim1]

I personally don't go to any concerts because the price of a ticket is inflated. I'd pay 10$ for a show of musician I wanted to see, but not $50 and upwards per seat. At $10 a seat, the musicians and everyone involved would still get paid. I think the problem comes in that if they add in additional supply(extra days playing concert), the demand would be satisfied too much, and they'd be unable to charge the inflated price for the tickets. So instead of playing a $50 concert one day, and a $10 one the next, they'd be playing maybe two concerts for $20 a piece for a loss of $20 per ticket and extra work involved(theoretically). I know they're aiming for the profit mark on the supply/demand curve and not caring about the public's greater interest. I guess this is where fanboys come in. They buy the tickets for the inflated price, never knowing its inflated, while the people who have some demand, but less are left to skip the concert and listen to the CD. Even if mega musicians in today's age never sell an album because of piracy, they could technically just start playing more concerts and still make way more money than your average man.

Re:If they need more money, play more concerts

[Professor_UNIX]

I personally don't go to any concerts because the price of a ticket is inflated. I'd pay 10$ for a show of musician I wanted to see, but not $50 and upwards per seat.

Oh for crying out loud, just admit you guys are cheap and be done with it. I've heard this over and over and over again. Even if songs were 10 cents each and released in a completely lossless open format with no DRM people would STILL pirate music. Concerts are one of the few places where the vast majority of the money goes to the artists so give them a break if they're trying to recoup potential income they lost from bogus record contracts.

Re:Another misleading poll...

[Prof. Pi]

Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...

IABAL, but I thought that under the default definition of copyright, you can't legally make a copy. That's why the GPL has to spell it out. So, your statement would be more properly stated as "No, it is not legal, unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD explicitly permits it."

Of COURSE it's not theft

[Prof. Pi]

At the very least, we will likely be seeing more education campaigns against copyright infringement and equating that with theft in the near future.

Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!

Last night I went to see a movie I've been looking forward to all summer. And the cool part was, it was free! You see, the guy who takes the tickets at the theater is kind of old and it's easy to sneak by him. Geez, they're not even going to try to protect their rights! Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. And besides, everything Hollywood produces is crap.

Then I took the subway home. It didn't cost me anything because I jumped the turnstile. One of my friends said I was committing "theft" -- obviously he can't think for himself. I mean, the city was running the train anyway, and there were empty seats. Besides, the subway sucks, and they fill the route with lots of stops I'm not interested in (I only want to pay for the stop next to the theater and the one near my apartment).

There used to be a bus line that was more convenient, but the city shut it down, with some lame excuae about not making enough money to justify the expense. That just shows that they suck and don't deserve my money anyway! Fight the Man! Transportation wants to be free!

I probably won't go to that theater any more. I heard they're installing some new "security system" to prevent people from getting in without paying. That really pisses me off! How dare they! It just goes to show how evil they are. And besides, it serves them right if they lose money -- watching movies in a big theater with other people is an outdated business model!

Re:Of COURSE it's not theft

[1u3hr]

Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!

Yes, you're right! I don't have time now to read the rest of your excellent comment, but it's good to see that some people at least understand the difference betwen "theft" and "infringement".

Re:Of COURSE it's not theft

[rinkjustice]

Please don't confuse copyright infringement with theft. It's annoying and you sound brainwashed.

Re:Of COURSE it's not theft

[rts008]

I'm sure from the tone of your post that it was meant as sarcasm, but...it's all pretty true. Congrat's for sinking your own argument with shoddy sarcasm. As a side note: "Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. " ...this is not theft, as you watching the movie did not deprive anyone else the chance to watch the movie.

Get a clue on what theft actually is. Pick up a dictionary before you start spouting your hyperbole.

There is a big difference between copyright infringement and theft. Get a clue, and get over it. Otherwise, you sound like any other random idiot with their inane analogies.

The level of civil disobedience( (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary):"Main Entry: civil disobedience
Function: noun
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.") should help clue you in where the majority of the PEOPLE (not the various corp.'s) see the issue.

Feel free to disagree (I'm sure you will), but do so in a physically public place- if you have the balls and don't mind losing them.

Now if you want to change your "theft" to infringing on copyrights, we can debate this further, if not- get bent, and get lost.

Re:Of COURSE it's not theft

[elgatozorbas]

Is is sad to see that this insightful post is even considered troll by some.

Indeed there is a difference between theft and infringement. But you don't need to be brainwashed to understand that this difference is of no real importance in case you are depriving someone of income by 'taking' their product. As it is, some products (e.g. a chair) are material whereas others (e.g. music) are content-related. A CD store is not selling plastic/alu discs, they are selling content and the plastic is only a bearer.

Would you feel embarrassed to go to your favourite artist (assuming she/he is with a major label) and tell you copied their latest CD? If so, you know something is not ok, regardless of the difference between infringement and theft.

Re:Of COURSE it's not theft

[IamTheRealMike]

Please don't confuse copyright infringement with theft. It's annoying and you sound brainwashed.

Please don't confuse the debate by playing word games. It's annoying and helps nobody.

Econ 101: The point of copyright is to force something that isn't physical property to be treated as physical property. This is not rocket science, it's a requirement allowing content creators to be actors in the free market.

So in fact copyright infringement is theft, simply because we define it to be so. Why do we try and square the circle? Because nobody has any better ideas for how to let people get paid for making content.

There are alternatives to this regime, in which content is not hackily cludged to be like property by legislation, but unfortunately the most obvious is for all music/video/books/software .... anything that is "protected by copyright today .... to be funded by the state via taxes. In such a setup it doesn't matter that anybody can duplicate the content because the content creators get paid anyway. However I suspect such a scheme would go down like a ton of bricks amongst the Slashdot crowd.

The choice is simple: either we define copyrighted works to be property and so copyright infringement is theft ... or we can use some alternative system in which it's not property and therefore cannot be traded on the open market. Nobody uses the second, so for now, regardless of what people might like copyright infringement is theft

basic question

[Cally]

sample size?

Is this the same RIAA . . .

[cadeon]

. . . that said P2P file sharing was a silver bullet that was going to destroy their whole business? Now they are saying that 'Schoolyard Piracy' is more of a threat? Schoolyard Piracy has been around Forever. Ever since cassette recorders hit wal-mart shelves, people have been copying each other's purchased music. And it was probably going on before then, but I wasn't around so I wouldn't know. Even though people were copying music from each other in this physical, sneakernet, manner, the recording industry (and, comparatively, software industry) flurrished. And aside from the occational 'copying is bad' print ad, the music industry never cared. What changed? People also used to record songs off the radio all the time. Now XM is in trouble for simply providing a device capable of it. What changed? Personally, I buy music if I think it's good enough to buy, which is actually quite often. I like owning the physical cd, and I don't like getting music that is DRM protected because I don't like the lack of trust I'm being given. So if I buy music online it's from emusic.com. Just last week a friend of mine copied an album for me- it's awesome, I decided after listening to two songs I wanted to buy it- but it's not available on emusic, so I've been spending the week trying to physically find it so I can give the artist and record label money for it. The only reason they don't have my money yet is because they refuse to make it available in a reasonable format online. Who's fault is the lack of this sale? You know what happened when software companies started acting like this? Open source software started showing up. . .

Cut. Try another scene.

[ScentCone]

Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."

You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte."

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[QuantumG]

99% of artists would say "yeah man, our record company is a drag, don't give em a dime" and if they didn't I wouldn't fuckin' listen to em in the first place, because that's the rock and roll attitude. Of course, if you're into rap music they probably wouldn't have let you back stage without paying $899 already. In *any* case, you're not going to see musicians who are actually *hurt* by copyright infringement because *none of them are*.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Blain]

Yeah, except for the part where they're already getting paid for their perceived losses due to the copying of CDs. Remember the Home Recording Act? The one that says that record companies get paid a "tax" on all recordable media that's sold as compensation for those perceived loses due to copying on that media? The one that, strangely enough, doesn't list computers as a recording device?

If it did, then a kid copying his CD for his friend would be legal, so long as the one doing the copying wasn't getting paid for it. If the copying is done with a cd copier, then it's legal already, paid for by you and me and everybody else who backs up their data using cdr/dvdr.

I'll grant, it might break the flow of your stream of stereotypes.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Mr. Freeman]

More like "Yeah, I love your music, just not enough to buy the album of which over 80% of the revenue you don't even see because it all goes to the recording companies. But here, I'll give you $10 to make up for pirating it later. It's more than you'll make if I actually go out and BUY it".

Now, we just need a way to let everyone see their favorite band in person so this conversation can actually happen.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[QuantumG]

The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that. The goal is to "make it big" and every artist who can hold a tune thinks they have a god given right to it, if only they could get "discovered". Who puts this nonsense into their heads? Why, the labels of course.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[ladoga]

Isn't it alarming that probably over half of all teenagers are criminals according to your legistlation? What do you want to do, lock em up? Make them pay for RIAA? Laws are ought to be made to serve the public (not few select individuals) so situation where such share of citizens would be criminals is absurd.

Im pretty sure that the percentage who copy CDs and DVDs from they friends is much higher than 58% who consider it legal. Here in finland it's prolly something like 99.9%. Back in my school days everyone copied cassettes and CDs. Most of kids bought music of bands they really liked and copied the rest. Have to wonder why the music industry didn't die in 80s or 90s. ;)

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[PopeRatzo]

QuantumG, I wish I was a moderator so I could have given you the highest rating for this most insightful post. I wouldn't accuse "the labels" as much as the entertainment industry generally. Since "Entertainment" is now one of the nation's top exports, we will probably only see more and more pressure put on artists to be "huge" in order to keep our trade balance favorable.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[arevos]

But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song.

Then clearly that market rates having coffee with friends as a more desirable produce than a three minute song on their iPods. However, since music nowadays costs virtually nothing to distribute, you should be making a far greater profit per item sold than the local Starbucks.

Well, at least you would be making a far greater profit, if the record labels and distributers didn't take a 90% cut from your work (the average for iTunes). Unless copyright infringement is responsible for more than a 90% revenue loss, then teenage immorality is not your biggest problem.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[ScentCone]

But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.

Yes, artists now have all sorts of options about how to distribute what they produce. And even so, many new and very talented people survey the situation and make the choice to sign up with a recording company so that they (the label) can handle the countless business-related things that would otherwise just be a total distraction from being creative. It's an economic decision. The people who sell their music directly are being the record label, and that means that while they're netting more of the money, they're also doing much, much more work that doesn't involve making music/movies/images/books whatever. Doing the job of the publisher (accounting, marketing, legal work, distribution, taxes - all of that crap) involves time, which is worth something - usually worth a lot. What's your time worth, per hour? If you spend hundreds of hours a year (at least) being your own record label and not producing your art instead, the difference in your finances had better reflect it.

Oh - and what if you suck at all of those other things, even though you're a really good artist? Isn't it better to let a professional take care of what they're good at, and let you be creative in the way your audience actually wants? That's why there are record labels of every shape, size, and percentage-off-the-top. That's why many artists form their own labels - to offer those services to other artists. And guess what: even those that form their own labels quickly realize that there are somethings they in turn would rather hand over to a trade association so that some things can be done collectively by the whole industry... like, trying to stamp out rampant piracy by entire Asian nations, etc.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[sm62704]

Excellent reply, and I'll add that when you get out of school you're very likely to buy shitloads of Green Day CDs. Your "ripping them off" will make money for them.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[rbochan]

The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that.

Apparently you've never had to split "$50 + a case of beer" or "$100 against the door" between 6 people before.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song."

Whew, no resentment there. I feel the same way, sick to death of a tiny minority demanding draconian controls on the majority's use of information to support the lifestyle they choose. Don't kid yourself. CDs are just the current, most popular means of holding music. The concepts the RIAA espouse are universal and if adopted have ramifications far beyond Scentcone's ability to eat his sandwich and latte too. Frankly, yes I'ld rather see you and your family on the street than see the RIAA win. Society may be a balance of rights but you're absolutists who don't give a damn about the larger consequences of 'getting your due'.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except instead of trying to stamp out rampant asian piracy, they're spending their time harassing their own customers.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[LaughingCoder]

In the case of agents, recording companies, etc., they take on (and spend money on) vastly more artists that get nowhere than they do those that ever develop a large enough fan base to make in the investment worth it.

It's interesting ... this reminds me of the big pharma industry which spends billions developing drugs, hoping for the occasional blockbuster. Or the oil companies, that spend billions drilling, hoping for the one big oil field. Coincidentally, big pharma and big oil may be the only industries more reviled than the labels. (well, excluding Microsoft of course, but that is a special religious thing mostly). So what is it that makes people resent (revile) companies that successfully "prospect"? Near as I can tell, it's jealousy and envy. These companies "strike it rich", which means they just "got lucky". Why can't we be lucky like that? We hate them!

I know, let's pass laws to regulate and tax them into oblivious! ... [5 years later] ... Hey, how come oil is so expensive? How come there aren't any new medicines?

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Maxo-Texas]

He's not completely off topic.

Artists deserve compensation for their work just like anyone else.

However, they do not deserve compensation for their work for 50 years past their bloody death.

I get paid for the work I do every day. Just because they use my work to do business, they are not going to pay me again every day until I die for each for the 100,000 people that use my software every day.

Pick any high but ordinary salary ($120k-- even $150k) and I'll support it.

The current model *invites* abuse. The current model is based on changing the rules *after the fact* the extend copyright on songs that were long ago paid for.

But taking new songs (anything made in the last 28 years) without giving compensation to the artists (and yea- eveb the evil Riaa) is not right either.

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[Pofy]

>ZZZT! Wrong! The artist does not get paid their royalty
>on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It
>doesn't get any simpler than that.

Nor does he get any if I borrow it to listen or if he gives me it when he no longer wants it or if I go over to his house to listen to it and so on (in all cases, add "as oposed to buy my own copy). But then, I don't think you argue that I should not be allowed to play my CD when a friend comes visit unless he first goes out and buys one too so that he has paid royalties, right?

Re:Cut. Try another scene.

[shmlco]

"Following an artistic creative passion didn't always used to imply fame&fortune..."

The music industry (along with most of the others) is a pyramid, with 1-2% at the top of the "fame&fortune" win-the-lotto pile, and everyone else underneath. Like a lot of people, you've been conditioned to see the "extreme" end of the spectrum, when the vast majority don't live there, and most would just like to be able to pay the rent.

Re:They don't value other people's effort

[Surt]

I would guess that:
1. Is just wrong. Surely a good fraction of people have tried to market their artistic work at some point. And in slashdot, I would expect that proportion to be nearly 100% given the nature of the audience.

2. With or without any experience trying to sell an artistic work, surely an even larger proportion of the population has at least created an artistic work and can appreciate the effort involved. And surely many can appreciate the joy of seeing their materials being copied, rather than feeling wretched. Not everyone is a control freak, and real artists want their works to be appreciated by as wide an audience as possible, regardless of recompense.

3. Would obviously need to be settled by experiment, but I think the experiment is doomed due to the definitional difficulties (just how much selling of their own materials is required?)

hah!

[Phil Urich]

I have no mod points, so I will simply reply with a "lol!"

Because yes, indeed, I did laugh out loud. Parent, that was the perfect response to Grandparent, bravo!

You don't value other people's interest...

[patrixmyth]

Let me stake out a consumer viewpoint...

Perhaps you've got some talent that is vaguely interesting to me...

I don't owe you anything, but I choose to SUPPORT your expression by listening/reading/watching and sharing the news with others...

At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...

Soon your art is broadcast over airwaves onto my property, into my car, on commercials between my kids cartoons, on my elevator and your excerpts are slipped into the pages between jumk mail that's dropped in my mailbox uninvited. You sell your services to advertisers/promoters who are trying to take my money. Your clothes line is produced by third world sweatshops and sells for 3X more than the generic brand. You are trying to sell me a perfume with your name on it (and some pimple cream too) and you have a commercial on the air urging me to imbibe addictive substances so I can get a "free" mp3. You sell pictures of your frigging baby to the news media.

Do I protect your financial interests when my friend asks to copy a song? Probably not...

Wait, you're not THAT artist? You're struggling, selling CDs at your show and living at home waiting for your big break? Ah, then, nevermind, because nobody is copying your damn CD!

ART is not some magic invisible soul cream. If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts. Good luck to you on that, but don't cry about how people are stealing your thoughts. That's just crazy talk. Unless someone steals the plastic you bought and put your thoughts on, then they didn't steal anything from you. A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.

Well in Germany 1943

[MemoryDragon]

Being a jew also was a crime, ad even punished by death penalty...

who doesn't value other people's effort?

[enjahova]

1. Get everyone to produce their own content
2. Find out the world of hell distribution is.
3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work.
4. The world is a better, more culture rich place
5. Profit???

"teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled"

[l3v1]

Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original.

Man, I just love these kids. Wait a sec, I'll tel you while.

As a quick intro, I'm not even 30 yet, but I still remember the good old days when we used to record dozens of casette tapes with songs from the radio, play it for ourselves, play them on parties, copy it to other friends. Then, if someone managed to get an original tape from somewhere (where I grew up these things were really not that easy to get) we just were just exstatic, everybody copied it and we listened to it till the tape rotted away. We never ever felt we were doing anything that could be labelled as s crime, crime is when you kill someone, not when you listen to music.

These days I buy CDs. I have CDs from most of the bands that we were listening to when we were kids too. If I weren't listening to them on those tapes, I probably wouldn't have bought these disks. If one of my friends would ask me to borrow him a disk, I would do it with no second thought, they would do the same. I know some associations would label us as criminals, still, while I rarely would download music these days, I would still like to know what I'm buying before I'm buying it. I make oggs and mp3s of them to listen to on my portable and on my laptop. If somebody would label me a criminal, I'd smack'em. Still, if I couldn't make a copy or I couldn't lend it to a friend, I'd rather not even buy it.

So, why I love these kids ? Because they are not that brainwashed yet to forget what fair use should mean. In time, they will be, they have no escape. Still, I hope someday someone will realise that drming everything and dog, constraining people up to their necks [well, ears in this case], closing down everything and trying to control and watch everything and everybody is not a solution to anything. Instead of trying to establish even more harder lockdowns, they should just sit down, use their brains and figure out a bussinness model that suits every side - artists, listeners, studios. Yes, I didn't include associations in that list.

Personalisation is Misleading

[Morosoph]

Copyright infringement is one issue where personalising it is actually misleading. The biggest reson that copyright infringement is not theft isn't connected to bad analogies with car theft, but with the fact that infringements also act as advertising, and often the infringer wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Strangely enough, the displacement of sales and the advertising effect appear to counter each other almost exactly. However, copyright infringement remains an abuse of trust, so it is still wrong; it is simply mistaken to believe that it leaves the artist out of pocket.

I will say here, to make my position clear, selling pirated goods is theft. What is different? People appear to have a certain sum of money that they spend on music/videos etc; if pirated goods are bought, that money is redirected from the artist or his/her representative, since that cash is no longer in the hands of the purchaser. Accordingly, I would have profiting from piracy be a crime with a fine proportional to the money made, rather than the degree of infringement.

If I cared about legal...

[sm62704]

I'd stop jaywalking and driving over the speed limit. Prostitution is illegal in Illinois, but if I could afford a hooker I'd hire one. The fucking President of the United States doesn't care about "legal", why in the hell should I?

When did they outlaw taping, anyway? And what country are we talking about here; legal WHERE? I understand they collect a tax on blank media in Canada. And what happened to the Home Recording Act of 1976 in the US?

Does somebody have a link to the actual law against taping? Because if it's against the law, I've been breaking it a lot longer than any teenager has been alive, and will CONTINUE to do so. I'll also continue to vote against asshats who want to outlaw NONCOMMERCIAL copying.

In a real democracy ...

[DoktorTomoe]

... a crime would be what the majority of the people believes to be a crime.

Giving money direct to the artists

[Sapphon]

I actually tried this, and got knocked back!

I'm a huge fan of a Melbourne (Australia) 3-piece punk/rock/rockabilly band, and I copied their CDs several times to give them to friends overseas. When I met the lead singer/guitarist of this band at a pub, I told him about it and offered to give him $20 AUD, or at least buy him a drink. He politely declined, and told me he was happier that I was spreading good word-of-mouth for the band.

I've bought enough merch and been to enough concerts that my conscience is fine with giving my mates copies of this band's music - and, having spoken to the other band members of several occasions, they don't mind either - but I got the impression that small-scale copying of CDs isn't a huge deal for relatively-sucessful artists.

Maybe these guys are unusually generous, or maybe they get more dosh from tours than from CD sales, so I can't condone my course of action for _all_ artists... but, hell, if illegally copying one CD leads to one new fan (who would otherwhise not exist, such as in the case of my international friends), isn't that a net win for the band/artist?

Not a crime

[IGnatius T Foobar]

You know why teens don't think CD copying is a crime?

Because it isn't.

Not inherently, anyway. The natural state of information is free. The pigopolists have made up (read: bought) laws that create an artificial crime out of duplicating otherwise freely available bits. It's all in their imagination, of course, but they've managed to make their farce a reality. Teens see right through that farce and are just ignoring it. Good for them.

Re:Don't copy...Don't copy that floppy!

[LordSnooty]

Re: the clip: Funny that they should mention Tetris as one game which might disappear if it were copied, since that was subject to its own copyright infringement by various software houses back in the late 80s. An infringement which ultimately led to its mainstream exposure, perhaps? It's OK for them but not for us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris#History

History

[hisstory student]

There will ALWAYS be music and musicians. One cannot say with any certainty that there will always be a music industry.
Just a thought.

Re:Article is ironic, because it IS legal to copy

[cpt kangarooski]

Holy shit! Someone actually bothered to read more of the AHRA than section 1008! And who is almost entirely right!

The one problem is that the AHRA really does not apply to computers:

As for computers themselves:

(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.

Computers as a whole don't fall within subsection (3) because their digital recording function is not "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of ... making a digital audio copied recording for private use."

There was a court case about all this some years back. The RIAA was arguing that computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players did fall within AHRA. They wanted this to be the case so that they could 1) get royalties, 2) require computer and peripheral manufacturers to implement the SCMS system of DRM that is mandated by the AHRA. In the case, RIAA v. Diamond, both the district and circuit courts found that computers were outside of the AHRA. The cases are worth reading. They even look at the legislative history in which Congress, in debating the law, also said that this law wouldn't apply to computers.

What the AHRA does apply to are Audio CDRs, whether or not you use them in computers or in standalone Audio CDR burners.

Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!

Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed. The AHRA only protects you against infringement suits with regards to fixation in the AHRA-compliant media. Fixation in other media wouldn't qualify unless you had a sympathetic court that isn't fond of the MAI v. Peak line of cases. The 4th Cir. maybe?

Oh, and jZnat is correct re: how to cite the USC.

Priorities

[gettingbraver]

Think about it--what is more important--the questions about the 2004 vote or copying a CD?