|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.231.10.91
In Reply to: RE: Hmmm . . . posted by Tony Lauck on July 07, 2012 at 10:25:24
You "could" care less? What a faux pas. Your entire argument avoids the issue, which is that bit perfect reproduction exists.
That sort of changes the parameters of copyright, as I'm sure you'll agree.
It is very easy to say that Eric will sell Tony his music collection.
But what if Eric has a bit perfect representation of that collection in reserve? Has he sold the collection or has he merely sold a physical manifestation of it?
That would be the question I'd like an answer to.
Follow Ups:
I will pass on your violation of netiquette in correcting my usage, but only if you agree that "Bits ain't just bits". :-)
What if Eric has an eidetic memory and can hear his entire collection from memory anytime he wants. Does he have to drink the cool-aid before parting with his disks? BTW, there are people with this ability, or close to it. My late wife listened three times to a recording of a Schubert sonata that I had purchased and a few months later sat down and played it all the way through from memory, nearly note perfect. BTW, there are people who say that foreign intelligence services have mind-erasing cool-aid, but please let's not go there.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, I don't have an eidetic memory, at least not for certain performances. But my devices do. That's my point.Sorry for correcting your usage, that particular phrase is a sore point for me.
When does the artist get paid if I make a bit perfect copy and sell it.
Never.
That should be obvious.
Edits: 07/07/12
How I implement my memory is my business. Or should be. :-)
The artist probably got ripped off by the record company. Whether the copy is bit perfect or not, whatever that means, is irrelevant. Most of the people who pirate music don't even know what bit perfect means.
It's only a tiny minority of artists who make big bucks off of recordings. The effect of the present system is to produce mass culture. I detest mass culture and would be delighted to see it disappear by a change in law. Artists should get paid other ways, e.g. by live performances or through patrons. Most of these "artists" should get a day job.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So it is OK to say that everybody rips off artists so it is fine for Tony and Eric to rip off artists?
I really think I'm not going to be on that particular train.
Bit perfect or not, making a copy of a music library and selling it (while retaining the original at least) is illegal. Are you now saying that's not true, or that you just don't care because our society is rotten to the core?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12
I said it was wrong and that it's not something that I do. If you knew what I do, you would know that I help artists and do it out of love of music and don't take a penny for my time, equipment or materials.
But the law is obsolete. Copyright came into existence after the invention of the printing press. It's long past time to replace it with a different system that compensates artists and cuts out all the middlemen who prey on them.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think Tony is agreeing that, in your scenario, Eric would have to delete his original after selling a copy to Tony. Or destroy his copy if he sold the original. If Eric sold a copy and kept the original, or sold the original and kept the copy, then he's not under the fist sale doctrine anymore and is violating copyright.Anyway, that's how the law would work to my understanding, and I think Tony confirmed that he agrees from an ethical and moral standpoint in his response to me.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 07/07/12 07/07/12
Ah, so you would put the burden on the seller to destroy the copy?That is unenforceable. That is why this isn't as simple as it looks.
Edits: 07/07/12
Here, in a nutshell, is what I said
1. An owner can make a copy for personal use only. The law permits that.
2. An owner can sell an origininal. The law permits that.
3. An owner may not make a copy and then sell either the copy or the original.
That's what I said, and nothing more.
If a buyer has reason to believe that the seller is selling a copy or an original and keeping the other, then the buyer has a duty to avoid the transaction, just like he would have a duty to avoid buying a car he knew was stolen. I figured that was obvious, but it's not what Tony and I were discussing.
Feel better?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
No, because you left the basic question open.
If I sell you the original but keep my fair use backup am I obliged to delete it? I would argue yes, but I am not the music police.
But I'm not the music police either.
A friend of mine seriously asked if me if he could copy my iTunes library comprising 30 days of music in apple lossless files and I told him no way. First of all, it would be theft from the labels and artists whether he paid me or not, and second of all I'm not giving away music that took me weeks to rip to my hard drive. I though he was nuts to even ask - he was nonplused that I said no. Sigh.
I buy a lot of music, mostly on CDs, then LPs, and lastly a few random downloads. But I do occasionally rip library CDs and CDs my friends lend me. Of course my friend reminded me of that as though there wasn't any difference between what he was asking to do versus an occasional library rip or borrowed CD rip. I don't know, maybe he's right, but degrees matter to me. Of course I shouldn't do it at all, but then no one's perfect. What this guy on Audiogon is doing is pretty obviously criminal, and I wouldn't buy from him "assuming" he isn't keeping a copy, regardless of the price.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: