Naturally the damaged media would be proof, I was thinking a receipt or credit card statement could also qualify.
Half price is too much, IMO. The warehouse price of a disc is roughly 2/3 of the RRP, and that includes the record company's take and artist's payment. While I think covering costs is fair, I don't think they* should be allowed to profit twice for what is effectively one sale, otherwise the average life expectancy of CDs could decline dramatically.
What's always stick in my throat is that you've purchased the rights to posses a copy in addition to the physical media
It's more accurate to say that you've purchased the rights to a copy on the physical media, not in addition to. It's arguable in court that backups and format shifting are fair use exemptions to restrictions on copying, but it's not explicitly guaranteed by either license or law (I'd rather it was, to be honest).
That's why I agree with you about replacement media, but logically it would have to be tied to some kind of proof of purchase.
I don't really have any strong views about obsolete media being replaced, and I'm yet to see MPAA members do this, but I'm inclined to think that if a title is still being commercially exploited it probably should be.
To clarify, my position is that distortions inherent in imperfect reproduction methods don't change the copyrightable elements of a song enough for it to be considered anything but a copy. I base this on the fact that poor quality copies, including MP3s, are routinely accepted as copies for the purposes of litigation.
Psychoacoustics refers to the qualities of sound on or below the threshold of conscious human perception. I think it's fairly predictable that any court being asked to make a determination based on that which is barely perceptible would find the differences so minute as to be inconsequential (especially when they're a direct result of the copying process). Besides, the use of psychoacoustic techniques in MP3 is designed to minimise the noticeable compression artefacts, so the (usual) purpose of making an MP3 is to create a reproduction as close as possible to the original within the constraints imposed by a limited data rate; I really don't see how anyone could successfully argue to a court that this isn't copying either in intent or result, but they're welcome to try if they haven't got a problem with losing.
I wasn't trying to comment on the legality of making or possessing MP3s, since that's not really relevant to the original point, and old territory besides. The distribution question will be answered by the current round of the RIAA's drive-by self-pedicures, and though I claim a working knowledge of copyright I don't pretend to be psychic.
If you did not say this, then we have no quarrel, as I've found you to be pretty damn informed and eloquent regarding copyright law
I maintain that it is copyright infringement, so I don't think we do have a quarrel (other than with the way I've said it, perhaps).
Thanks for the kind words; I try to share what I've learned as a published songwriter, audio engineer and television producer. I also try to keep it specific to a particular question rather than attempt to describe the complete workings of copyright in a single post, which is why I get short with people who read things into my comments that I'm not saying on topics I'm not discussing.
You are forgetting that Fair Use allows you to make a backup.
No, I'm simply omitting it as irrelevant to what I was saying.
As I recall, copyright law in the US says nothing about how the backup has to be made - getting it from a different master seems valid.
I'd agree that appears to be true, provided you have proof you owned a legitimate copy in the first place (and that could include an old second hand vinyl LP as far as I can see). Where it's hazy, and this is where the RIAA thinks it has an argument, is someone providing copies for other people. Unless you count the odd imibillic statement about ripping CDs to portable players, which isn't so much "fair use" as "the industry's lifeblood".
If I buy an audio tape and make a copy of it at twice the speed, is this a derivative work or a copy?
Serious answer: Couldn't say which. See below.
Silly answer: if it's a blank audio tape, it's infringing on the works of John Cage at any speed.
I don't see how performing a mathematical or mechanical algorithm to compress audio data is any different than performing a mathematical or mechanical algorithm to make a song play at twice the speed.
When you play a song at twice normal speed you alter the pitch, tempo and harmonic content; it's musical characteristics. It is no longer the exact original, but since it couldn't exist except fot the original, it could be a derivative work. A court may decide it isn't different enough to qualify, though.
If the song plays back at the correct speed, it has the recognisable musical characteristics of the original, so it's a copy.
In either case, the method used to play back the sound is irrelevant. That's the part needs to be understood: these decisions are made by humans, in courts, using their ears.
That sure as hell implies that what I bought was (a copy of) the song as performed, not some particular media reproduction of it.[Emphasis mine]
Precisely: a copy of, that's what you keep adding. I did not say that; I said a song, meaning a musical work and all rights pertaining to it. Everyone else understood the usage of the word in this context, so clearly the failing here isn't on my part.
And since it's obvious that we both know how it really works, you're still being a dick.
That's an interesting point: if the record companies could claim that a digital master of an analog mix is a derivative work, and so cut down the royalties they have to pay the artists, they probably would have been doing it for years. But on the other hand, since doing that would allow others to circumvent copyright in the same manner and deny the possibility of exclusive distribution (which would actually benefit the artists, as it would force the record companies to bid for rights), it's probably territory they didn't want to explore.
I've always regarded exclusive distribution rights as one of the millstones of the current copyright regime, and you've given me some food for thought. Tasty, too:)
Then, if I've purchased a copy on vinyl, or otherwise legally obtained a copy (perhaps through taping from the radio), I'm legally entitled to replace it with another copy, of whatever format?
Nothing I said implied that. If you purchased a song on vinyl, you are entitled to one copy of that song: the one you bought on vinyl. Buying one copy does not entitle you to make more copies, except under certain conditions specified by the doctrine of fair use.
After all, that's the same copy as far as copyright is concerned.
It's the same song, but not the same copy of the song. The distinction is actually very easy to comprehend, but if you need help it's spelled out in the list of definitions which you will find here (you might need to substitute the word "song" for "work").
Over my life I've owned a lot of tracks that I no longer have. I don't think I have transferred ownership, so I still own them, even if that vinyl or CD or tape has deteriorated or disappeared or been destroyed.
No, you destroyed/lost/failed to adequately care for the one copy you paid for. If you wanted to keep those tracks you should have taken better care of the physical media. Nobody owes you anything for your carelessness.
But it's reassuring to know that they're still mine, I can replace them by download without hindrance.
Did I say that? No, it's a strawman. If you can point to an error in anything that I wrote, as opposed to what you made up, please do.
Oh, wait,the CopyCartel says it doesn't work that way.
And they're right, which means you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote in order to prove absolutely nothing with a sarcastic bitching session. And in that spirit, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself, since you're being both a dick and a twat.
Regarding an MP3 as a derivative work, see my reply to stinerman.Otherwise, you'd be absolutely correct.
The real point here I suppose is that trying to get around the accepted, well tested legal definitions is a quick and easy way to convince a judge that you're a time-wasting idiot...a strategy that rarely turns out well.
Sorry, no. In order to qualify as a "derivative work" according to the accepted definition it must be significantly different from the original, but still contain recognisable elements.
Example: the theme for Men In Black is a derivative work because it used a portion of K.C & the Sunshine Band's "Forget Me Nots". An MP3 of "Forget Me Nots" is still "Forget Me Nots", it just sounds a little worse than an uncompressed PCM file.
Yep, the difference is demand, unit production costs, and in the case of radio bulk licensing. None of that changes the fact that copyright still exists on a given piece of music regardless of what format it's copied to.
but it could be argued that the torrents on the site because they are MP3s and not the original CDs, are different.
No, it couldn't. Regardless of the format, be it MP3, CD, cassette, 8 track cartridge, vinyl LP or Edison phonograph, if the order of notes and chords, lyrics, style, and performance are the same, it's the same as far as copyright is concerned.
Or, to put it another way, if the listener can identify it as the same song, it's the same song. The actual order of 1s and 0s is irrelevant, because they're only a storage medium that has to be translated back to something you can hear. CD and MP3 differ only in the accuracy of reproduction; if encoding to MP3 changed the fundamental nature of the music it would be an utterly useless format.
Slashdot Mirror
Handcuff them to the table, and when they want to leave, you can escort them out.
I used to work for you, didn't I?
Aren't complete blithering idiots.
Must...resist...bait...
...more a grotesquesheet.
how the fuck do you "accidentally" spend 1000 goddamn dollars?
I don't know, but I'm happy to do the research if you provide the funding.
Naturally the damaged media would be proof, I was thinking a receipt or credit card statement could also qualify.
Half price is too much, IMO. The warehouse price of a disc is roughly 2/3 of the RRP, and that includes the record company's take and artist's payment. While I think covering costs is fair, I don't think they* should be allowed to profit twice for what is effectively one sale, otherwise the average life expectancy of CDs could decline dramatically.
*that should be "we", if I'm being honest.
We should be watching to see if the dolphins leave the Earth by their own means.
Because if they don't it will prove that they're just big, dumb cute fish*. Or were, in 5...4...3...
*Yes, I know they're not fish.
What's always stick in my throat is that you've purchased the rights to posses a copy in addition to the physical media
It's more accurate to say that you've purchased the rights to a copy on the physical media, not in addition to. It's arguable in court that backups and format shifting are fair use exemptions to restrictions on copying, but it's not explicitly guaranteed by either license or law (I'd rather it was, to be honest).
That's why I agree with you about replacement media, but logically it would have to be tied to some kind of proof of purchase.
I don't really have any strong views about obsolete media being replaced, and I'm yet to see MPAA members do this, but I'm inclined to think that if a title is still being commercially exploited it probably should be.
To clarify, my position is that distortions inherent in imperfect reproduction methods don't change the copyrightable elements of a song enough for it to be considered anything but a copy. I base this on the fact that poor quality copies, including MP3s, are routinely accepted as copies for the purposes of litigation.
Psychoacoustics refers to the qualities of sound on or below the threshold of conscious human perception. I think it's fairly predictable that any court being asked to make a determination based on that which is barely perceptible would find the differences so minute as to be inconsequential (especially when they're a direct result of the copying process). Besides, the use of psychoacoustic techniques in MP3 is designed to minimise the noticeable compression artefacts, so the (usual) purpose of making an MP3 is to create a reproduction as close as possible to the original within the constraints imposed by a limited data rate; I really don't see how anyone could successfully argue to a court that this isn't copying either in intent or result, but they're welcome to try if they haven't got a problem with losing.
I wasn't trying to comment on the legality of making or possessing MP3s, since that's not really relevant to the original point, and old territory besides. The distribution question will be answered by the current round of the RIAA's drive-by self-pedicures, and though I claim a working knowledge of copyright I don't pretend to be psychic.
If you did not say this, then we have no quarrel, as I've found you to be pretty damn informed and eloquent regarding copyright law
I maintain that it is copyright infringement, so I don't think we do have a quarrel (other than with the way I've said it, perhaps).
Thanks for the kind words; I try to share what I've learned as a published songwriter, audio engineer and television producer. I also try to keep it specific to a particular question rather than attempt to describe the complete workings of copyright in a single post, which is why I get short with people who read things into my comments that I'm not saying on topics I'm not discussing.
You are forgetting that Fair Use allows you to make a backup.
No, I'm simply omitting it as irrelevant to what I was saying.
As I recall, copyright law in the US says nothing about how the backup has to be made - getting it from a different master seems valid.
I'd agree that appears to be true, provided you have proof you owned a legitimate copy in the first place (and that could include an old second hand vinyl LP as far as I can see). Where it's hazy, and this is where the RIAA thinks it has an argument, is someone providing copies for other people. Unless you count the odd imibillic statement about ripping CDs to portable players, which isn't so much "fair use" as "the industry's lifeblood".
If I buy an audio tape and make a copy of it at twice the speed, is this a derivative work or a copy?
Serious answer: Couldn't say which. See below.
Silly answer: if it's a blank audio tape, it's infringing on the works of John Cage at any speed.
I don't see how performing a mathematical or mechanical algorithm to compress audio data is any different than performing a mathematical or mechanical algorithm to make a song play at twice the speed.
When you play a song at twice normal speed you alter the pitch, tempo and harmonic content; it's musical characteristics. It is no longer the exact original, but since it couldn't exist except fot the original, it could be a derivative work. A court may decide it isn't different enough to qualify, though.
If the song plays back at the correct speed, it has the recognisable musical characteristics of the original, so it's a copy.
In either case, the method used to play back the sound is irrelevant. That's the part needs to be understood: these decisions are made by humans, in courts, using their ears.
Hammer time.
No thanks, never touch the stuff.
That sure as hell implies that what I bought was (a copy of) the song as performed, not some particular media reproduction of it.[Emphasis mine]
Precisely: a copy of, that's what you keep adding. I did not say that; I said a song, meaning a musical work and all rights pertaining to it. Everyone else understood the usage of the word in this context, so clearly the failing here isn't on my part.
And since it's obvious that we both know how it really works, you're still being a dick.
That's an interesting point: if the record companies could claim that a digital master of an analog mix is a derivative work, and so cut down the royalties they have to pay the artists, they probably would have been doing it for years. But on the other hand, since doing that would allow others to circumvent copyright in the same manner and deny the possibility of exclusive distribution (which would actually benefit the artists, as it would force the record companies to bid for rights), it's probably territory they didn't want to explore.
I've always regarded exclusive distribution rights as one of the millstones of the current copyright regime, and you've given me some food for thought. Tasty, too :)
Then, if I've purchased a copy on vinyl, or otherwise legally obtained a copy (perhaps through taping from the radio), I'm legally entitled to replace it with another copy, of whatever format?
Nothing I said implied that. If you purchased a song on vinyl, you are entitled to one copy of that song: the one you bought on vinyl. Buying one copy does not entitle you to make more copies, except under certain conditions specified by the doctrine of fair use.
After all, that's the same copy as far as copyright is concerned.
It's the same song, but not the same copy of the song. The distinction is actually very easy to comprehend, but if you need help it's spelled out in the list of definitions which you will find here (you might need to substitute the word "song" for "work").
Over my life I've owned a lot of tracks that I no longer have. I don't think I have transferred ownership, so I still own them, even if that vinyl or CD or tape has deteriorated or disappeared or been destroyed.
No, you destroyed/lost/failed to adequately care for the one copy you paid for. If you wanted to keep those tracks you should have taken better care of the physical media. Nobody owes you anything for your carelessness.
But it's reassuring to know that they're still mine, I can replace them by download without hindrance.
Did I say that? No, it's a strawman. If you can point to an error in anything that I wrote, as opposed to what you made up, please do.
Oh, wait,the CopyCartel says it doesn't work that way.
And they're right, which means you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote in order to prove absolutely nothing with a sarcastic bitching session. And in that spirit, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself, since you're being both a dick and a twat.
Regarding an MP3 as a derivative work, see my reply to stinerman.Otherwise, you'd be absolutely correct.
The real point here I suppose is that trying to get around the accepted, well tested legal definitions is a quick and easy way to convince a judge that you're a time-wasting idiot...a strategy that rarely turns out well.
Sorry, no. In order to qualify as a "derivative work" according to the accepted definition it must be significantly different from the original, but still contain recognisable elements.
Example: the theme for Men In Black is a derivative work because it used a portion of K.C & the Sunshine Band's "Forget Me Nots". An MP3 of "Forget Me Nots" is still "Forget Me Nots", it just sounds a little worse than an uncompressed PCM file.
Correct.
Yep, the difference is demand, unit production costs, and in the case of radio bulk licensing. None of that changes the fact that copyright still exists on a given piece of music regardless of what format it's copied to.
but it could be argued that the torrents on the site because they are MP3s and not the original CDs, are different.
No, it couldn't. Regardless of the format, be it MP3, CD, cassette, 8 track cartridge, vinyl LP or Edison phonograph, if the order of notes and chords, lyrics, style, and performance are the same, it's the same as far as copyright is concerned.
Or, to put it another way, if the listener can identify it as the same song, it's the same song. The actual order of 1s and 0s is irrelevant, because they're only a storage medium that has to be translated back to something you can hear. CD and MP3 differ only in the accuracy of reproduction; if encoding to MP3 changed the fundamental nature of the music it would be an utterly useless format.
Why did it occur in the month following 9/11?
It was the style at the time?
Even a duck-tape-on-the-mouth kid makes a lot of noise.
Cover the nostrils too. Then the noise stops after a minute or so.
You want to take the crap before you come back from the bathroom.
Yes, I know, I was remarking on the spurious capitalization, in a self deprecating way.
I've since found out that ASS is the American Spelunking Society, and apparently they do know themselves from a hole in the ground.
Answer their questions within the realms of possibility then ban their ASS when they start bad mouthing people.
I tried searching for the acronym ASS: nothing. So I asked a friend, and he said I couldn't find it with a road map. Am I missing something here?
Just like a stethescope for a telephone. And for some phone users I can think of, silence probably does indicate death.