[Rick Ruskin]

Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Richard Crowley]

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on copyrights.
How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?

[Rick Ruskin]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on copyrights.
How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

2. One of the titles they mention is a "down-load only" release of
mine. There are no physical copies of this product for sale to the
public. This and others like it will have to be duplicated without
any authorization in order to be swapped between members.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Richard Crowley]

"Rick Ruskin" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on
copyrights.
How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

But it is the act of copying that is a possible copyright infringment,
not the act of selling the physical commercial disc. You could argue
that this service makes it *easier* for people to copy and sell, and
it would be hard to argue with that. But selling commercial pressings
(whether new or used) has never been an infringement of copyrights
because the right to possess a copy of the content is intrinsically part
of possession of the physical disc.

2. One of the titles they mention is a "down-load only" release of
mine. There are no physical copies of this product for sale to the
public. This and others like it will have to be duplicated without
any authorization in order to be swapped between members.

You should indeed go after them for that. They are not selling original,
physical, commercial copies. That is a very different situation than
#1 above.

[Geoff]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on
copyrights. How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

Yep.. They can effectively do that from Public Libraries too. Lets ban
them.

geoff

[Rick Ruskin]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:46 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on
copyrights. How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

Yep.. They can effectively do that from Public Libraries too. Lets ban
them.

geoff

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker. Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:28 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker. Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.

You feel there should be no trade in second-hand CDs? And no-one
should run a shop,or otherwise take a comission for facilitating such
trade?

[Rick Ruskin]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:01:19 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:28 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker. Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.

You feel there should be no trade in second-hand CDs? And no-one
should run a shop,or otherwise take a comission for facilitating such
trade?

This isn't selling 2nd hand CD's. It's piracy one copy at a time.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Geoff]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:01:19 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:28 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker. Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.

You feel there should be no trade in second-hand CDs? And no-one
should run a shop,or otherwise take a comission for facilitating such
trade?

This isn't selling 2nd hand CD's. It's piracy one copy at a time.


The business isn't. What some users may do could well be. Just like with
libraries, used-CD shops, private CD sales, etc.


geoff

[Rick Ruskin]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:42:15 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:01:19 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:28 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker. Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.

You feel there should be no trade in second-hand CDs? And no-one
should run a shop,or otherwise take a comission for facilitating such
trade?

This isn't selling 2nd hand CD's. It's piracy one copy at a time.


The business isn't. What some users may do could well be. Just like with
libraries, used-CD shops, private CD sales, etc.


geoff

What some users may do? Do you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa
Claus too?


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Mark]

.....
because the right to possess a copy of the content is intrinsically part
of possession of the physical disc.


Yes I like this part becasue ..

I interpret this to mean, that if I bought a recording at the store 15
years ago and I still own it but it has become worn and damaged, since
the ownership of that disc provides me the "right to possess a copy of
the content" I can go ahead and legally download a new undamaged copy
"of the content" from wherever...

or alternativly the record company should sell me with a new copy "of
the content" for a nominal fee that covers the cost of reproduction
but not make me repay the licenseing fee...

that does make sense to me...

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Nov 25, 5:05*pm, "geoff" wrote:


1. *Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

Yep.. They can effectively do that from Public Libraries too. *Lets ban
them.

geoff


You can knock on your neighbor's door and borrow his whole collection
and do it. Still doesn't make it legal. That's why you can still
borrow CDs from the library. Unfortunately (and my wife has been a
librarian for a decade, so I know), most of the good stuff gets
stolen. So it has nothing to do with anything but the fact that there
are a lot of people who feel life owes them something, and if it's
take-able they'll take it. That's the long, medium and short of it.
People who don't think there should be safeguards against people who
take things for free, if they can, which is not free, are not people
you can have have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:17:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You can knock on your neighbor's door and borrow his whole collection
and do it. Still doesn't make it legal. That's why you can still
borrow CDs from the library. Unfortunately (and my wife has been a
librarian for a decade, so I know), most of the good stuff gets
stolen. So it has nothing to do with anything but the fact that there
are a lot of people who feel life owes them something, and if it's
take-able they'll take it. That's the long, medium and short of it.
People who don't think there should be safeguards against people who
take things for free, if they can, which is not free, are not people
you can have have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

Today, on my way home from work, I stopped to visit a little
self defense oriented guns-n-ammo shop on the way. I'd never been
before, and have no real need for a new $800 firearm, (and wouldn't
harm a soul anyway).

I spoke with a guy who'd been drafted the same year as me, first
year of the lottery draft, who was intelligent, quiet spoken,
very knowledgable about his field, outspoken and transparent of
his personal technical prejudices - a totally interesting person.

With a .45 caliber gun (a 1911, natch) in a hip holster. Right there
in front of God and everybody. Not a Peace Officer, just a regular
civilian like you and me. Not CCW - in an open holster.

I was surprised both that it took me only about three seconds to get
used to the idea of a heavily armed civilian, and that the usual
gun-shop political bitching seems fairly muted lately. Weird.

"There's something happenin' here. What it is ain't exactly clear."
etc. Maybe the quality of conversation is about to take a drastically
needed uptake. Let us pray.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

Lord Above.

Can you not even give the *tiniest* precis as to what the subject matter
is ? How do I know this site doesn't contain a new virus that isn't yet
in my daily updated database for example ?

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Mark wrote:

I interpret this to mean, that if I bought a recording at the store 15
years ago and I still own it but it has become worn and damaged, since
the ownership of that disc provides me the "right to possess a copy of
the content" I can go ahead and legally download a new undamaged copy
"of the content" from wherever...

Sure you can. But the question is who has the right to legally provide
you with the copy that you can download? Nobody but the copyright owner
(or his representative). It would be a nice service for the record label
to provide but I doubt if any ever will. While the ocpyright might have
an unreasonably long life, the product - the phonograph record - is
subject to wear, damage, and loss. Nobody guarantees against that except
maybe (if they still do) Buck Knives.

How much wear depends on how much you play it and what you play it on. I
have 50 year old records that are still enjoyable and that I still have
equipment to play them on. What's the matter with your records?

or alternativly the record company should sell me with a new copy "of
the content" for a nominal fee that covers the cost of reproduction
but not make me repay the licenseing fee...

So ask them. Make your case, send in your old record with a receipt to
prove that you actually bought it and maybe the'll send you a new copy,
or the CD version. But unless they're already in the download business,
they probably won't give you a download. That's too easy for you to
share with others who have never bought the original product.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Misifus[_2_]]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:17:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You can knock on your neighbor's door and borrow his whole collection
and do it. Still doesn't make it legal. That's why you can still
borrow CDs from the library. Unfortunately (and my wife has been a
librarian for a decade, so I know), most of the good stuff gets
stolen. So it has nothing to do with anything but the fact that there
are a lot of people who feel life owes them something, and if it's
take-able they'll take it. That's the long, medium and short of it.
People who don't think there should be safeguards against people who
take things for free, if they can, which is not free, are not people
you can have have an intelligent conversation about the issue.

Today, on my way home from work, I stopped to visit a little
self defense oriented guns-n-ammo shop on the way. I'd never been
before, and have no real need for a new $800 firearm, (and wouldn't
harm a soul anyway).

I spoke with a guy who'd been drafted the same year as me, first
year of the lottery draft, who was intelligent, quiet spoken,
very knowledgable about his field, outspoken and transparent of
his personal technical prejudices - a totally interesting person.

With a .45 caliber gun (a 1911, natch) in a hip holster. Right there
in front of God and everybody. Not a Peace Officer, just a regular
civilian like you and me. Not CCW - in an open holster.

I was surprised both that it took me only about three seconds to get
used to the idea of a heavily armed civilian, and that the usual
gun-shop political bitching seems fairly muted lately. Weird.

"There's something happenin' here. What it is ain't exactly clear."
etc. Maybe the quality of conversation is about to take a drastically
needed uptake. Let us pray.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck


While I am a staunch supporter of RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, what has
this to do with Rick's concern about seeing his CD's offered for copying
on the internet?

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert

Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Mark" wrote ...
....
because the right to possess a copy of the content is intrinsically part
of possession of the physical disc.


Yes I like this part becasue ..

I interpret this to mean, that if I bought a recording at the store 15
years ago and I still own it but it has become worn and damaged, since
the ownership of that disc provides me the "right to possess a copy of
the content" I can go ahead and legally download a new undamaged copy
"of the content" from wherever...

And you correctly identify that as "your interperetation". While it
might be legally/technically accurate, there has never been any
expectation that any record company would ever provide that
service, so you are just dreaming in text.

Perhaps I should have said "the right to posses THAT copy of the
content is instrinsically part of possession of the physical disc."

or alternativly the record company should sell me with a new copy "of
the content" for a nominal fee that covers the cost of reproduction
but not make me repay the licenseing fee...

Actually, a FEW vendors of DVDs (and software CDs) WILL swap
new discs for old ones (for a nominal handling fee). But I've never seen
any vendors of audio CDs offer that service.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mark" wrote ...
or alternativly the record company should sell me with a new copy "of
the content" for a nominal fee that covers the cost of reproduction
but not make me repay the licenseing fee...

The licensing fee (at least the statutory rate for compulsory mechanical
license) is likely the smallest part of the cost of the disc. (Under 10
cents
per song.) You would spend more than that getting to the shop (or the
cost of shipping). Perhaps that is why your scheme is not implemented
in practical terms.

[Geoff]

Misifus wrote:
While I am a staunch supporter of RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, what has
this to do with Rick's concern about seeing his CD's offered for
copying on the internet?

Any CD for sale anywhere could be considered to be being "offered for
copying".

geoff

[hank alrich]

Eeyore wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

Lord Above.

Can you not even give the *tiniest* precis as to what the subject matter
is ? How do I know this site doesn't contain a new virus that isn't yet
in my daily updated database for example ?

Graham

What joy to drive this old Mac and not even think about a daily updated
viral update!

And if you knew Rick Ruskin's work you wouldn't be worrying about that
malarkey.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ben Bradley]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:41:51 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I've known about that since it started up. It's run by the same
people who run http://www.paperbackswap.com which I signed up for
about two years ago. and I've swapped a few books through the site. I
remember when the CD site started up, but I didn't bother signing up
for it. I even met the guys who run these sites (they're based in
Atlanta), they had a booth at the 2007 Decatur Book Festival.


I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on copyrights.
How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

As others said, what swap-a-cd does is just as legal as any library
or used CD store. If members choose to violate copyright laws with
CD's they swap through this site, well, I don't know what to say to
that in relation to the site.


2. One of the titles they mention is a "down-load only" release of
mine. There are no physical copies of this product for sale to the
public.

Now that's something you can do something about. I encourage you to
contact the people at swapacd.com and tell them of this. They have
every interest in running a legal-only business, and I have little
doubt when you explain the situation they'll remove the entry for your
download-only release really fast.

I searched your name and saw that none of the titles with your name
are actually available (all the buttons say "Post This CD" - "Eagles
Greatest Hits Vol. 2" however has a button named "Order This CD"
meaning someone has it listed as available for swapping). I presume
SwapaCD got all these album entries from some database service, and so
you may also have a problem with that service listing your
download-only album as a CD, so you might also ask SwapaCD where they
got their database entries.

Since none of your titles are currently available, it may be the
case that none of your titles have EVER been 'swapped' through this
service. While this is "suspicious," I wouldn't say it's hard evidence
that your music has been pirated and distributed through this service.

This and others like it will have to be duplicated without
any authorization in order to be swapped between members.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Ben Bradley]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:28 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:46 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I don't see anything about this that even remotely infringes on
copyrights. How is it any different from any used record or CD shop?


1. Members can burn copies of CD's to keep and swap originals for
more to copy 'n swap.

Yep.. They can effectively do that from Public Libraries too. Lets ban
them.

geoff

That's a provocative and dumb statement. There is a big difference
between a public lending library and a business. This entity gets
income from every trade they broker.

I just looked, and indeed they DO charge 49 cents for each 'swap'.
Paperbackswap doesn't charge anything for (standard) membership nor
for swapping. I've never paid paperbackswap one penny.

Artists, composers, and labels
get nothing as far as I can tell.

It's exact same deal when a pawn shop, thrift store or used CD
store buys and sells CD's.



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Mike Rivers]

Ben Bradley wrote:

It's exact same deal when a pawn shop, thrift store or used CD
store buys and sells CD's.

I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut down, but I know
that there have been several "name" artists who have voiced disapproval
of the second-hand sale of their products. Their understanding (while
this may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally undreasonable from a
performance perspective) is that when you buy their CD, you buy the
right and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that
you can listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your
friends. You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your
portable music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours
and yours alone.

When you sell or trade it to a used CD store and someone else buys it,
they get what you got for a fraction of what you paid, and you reduced
your initial cost. The artist, however, now has his performance in the
hands of someone who didn't pay him anything for it.

Does that seem fair to someone who is attempting to make his living from
the time he spent in the studio making that CD? There's no easy answer
to this other than that people should stop making recordings and only
perform live. Wouldn't that be nice?



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut down, but I know
that there have been several "name" artists who have voiced disapproval of
the second-hand sale of their products. Their understanding (while this
may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally undreasonable from a
performance perspective) is that when you buy their CD, you buy the right
and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that you can
listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your friends.
You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your portable
music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours and yours
alone.

That is simply absurd in the extreme. Should we apply that same theory
to other consumer goods? To big-ticket items? To real-estate?

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut down, but I know
that there have been several "name" artists who have voiced disapproval of
the second-hand sale of their products. Their understanding (while this
may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally undreasonable from a
performance perspective) is that when you buy their CD, you buy the right
and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that you can
listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your friends.
You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your portable
music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours and yours
alone.

That is simply absurd in the extreme. Should we apply that same theory
to other consumer goods? To big-ticket items? To real-estate?

Can you see no difference between recorded music and real estate? I
mean, other than the reality that in some cases the market value is
inflated grossly beyond any intrinsic value?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 9:42*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Mike Rivers" *wrote...
I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut down, but I know
that there have been several "name" artists who have voiced disapproval of
the second-hand sale of their products. Their understanding (while this
may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally undreasonable from a
performance perspective) is that when you buy their CD, you buy the right
and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that you can
listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your friends.
You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your portable
music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours and yours
alone.

That is simply absurd in the extreme. *Should we apply that same theory
to other consumer goods? To big-ticket items? To real-estate?


If you can give a good argument for how a toaster and a CD share
enough properties, but it's like applying the rules for soccer to a
game of Parcheesi.

The fact that it's clearly written on CDs that the money you spent on
it bought the right for this single disc to be in your hand and not to
spawn multiple offspring is enough for any sane person.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut down, but I know
that there have been several "name" artists who have voiced disapproval of
the second-hand sale of their products. Their understanding (while this
may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally undreasonable from a
performance perspective) is that when you buy their CD, you buy the right
and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that you can
listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your friends.
You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your portable
music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours and yours
alone.

That is simply absurd in the extreme. Should we apply that same theory
to other consumer goods? To big-ticket items? To real-estate?

The problem that we have is that CDs last nearly forever. The CD aftermarket
thus becomes a big deal compared with the aftermarket for used LPs. The only
solution for this problem is to make CDs that are so good that people want to
keep them rather than reselling them after a few listenings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:18:06 -0500, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:41:51 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I've known about that since it started up. It's run by the same
people who run http://www.paperbackswap.com which I signed up for
about two years ago. and I've swapped a few books through the site. I
remember when the CD site started up, but I didn't bother signing up
for it. I even met the guys who run these sites (they're based in
Atlanta), they had a booth at the 2007 Decatur Book Festival.



It is a reasonable assumption that a reader of a book is not going to
copy it before passing it on to another reader. There's just too much
work involved.

On the other hand, if only because it's so easy/cheap to do, it is
just as reasonable to assume that a CD will be copied before being
passed on. There is no way that SwapACD would not realize this.

BTW - I have contacted them and gotten no response to date.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


I don't know of any used CD stores that have been shut
down, but I know that there have been several "name"
artists who have voiced disapproval of the second-hand
sale of their products.

It's all about their egos, not their understanding of the law.

Their understanding (while this
may sound outrageous to some, isn't totally unreasonable
from a performance perspective) is that when you buy
their CD, you buy the right and means to listen to their
performance - once.

If that is true, then the CD should be labeled to self-destruct after that
one playing.

The bonus is that you can listen to
it as many times as you wish.

The law says that is what I bought.

You can play it for your
friends. You can make a copy to play from your computer,
to play on your portable music player, to play in your
car. But the performance is yours and yours alone.

Like I said - nice if you can actually convince people to surrender their
legal rights and make mo money for the performers.

When you sell or trade it to a used CD store and someone
else buys it, they get what you got for a fraction of
what you paid, and you reduced your initial cost.

The right to listen to the performance was also surrendered.

The artist, however, now has his performance in the hands of
someone who didn't pay him anything for it.

Nonsense. I didn't pay him for the performance the first time around. I paid
an organization who was acting as his agent. The deal was that the holder of
the media also has a license to the performance. The performer did his
performing thing one time way back when, and he got paid.

Does that seem fair to someone who is attempting to make
his living from the time he spent in the studio making
that CD?

Yes. He is completely free to do another performance, and if that new
performance is significantly different in the perceptions of the listener,
the listener might even want to own a license to the sequel performance.

For about 20 years it was even easier. Jillions of people bought licenses to
musical works that they had already licensed once. The second license was
attractive to these people because of the CD media that came with it, as
opposed to the LP media that came with their first license. Even more
amazing is the fact that they often paid far more for the second license
than the first. All this cash flowed into artist's pockets without them
lifting a pinkie finger.

There's no easy answer to this other than that
people should stop making recordings and only perform live.

Sure, there's an easy answer. A deal is a deal. If you give someone a
transferable license, and the license is transferred, then all is as was
agreed to. The transferability of the license is part of the original deal.


Wouldn't that be nice?

[John Phillips]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:

It's exact same deal when a pawn shop, thrift store or used CD
store buys and sells CD's.

.... when you buy their CD, you buy the
right and means to listen to their performance - once. The bonus is that
you can listen to it as many times as you wish. You can play it for your
friends. You can make a copy to play from your computer, to play on your
portable music player, to play in your car. But the performance is yours
and yours alone.


The RIAA disagrees with the notion that you can take your legally
purchased CD, convert to another format like mp3, and listen to it on
you iPod. Their position is that you must purchase another copy. They
can rot in hell...

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The performer did his
performing thing one time way back when, and he got paid.

You overlook that today many folks are putting out their own product,
not being paid to do so by record companies. Those people didn't get
paid to record; they paid to record.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

The performer did his
performing thing one time way back when, and he got paid.

You overlook that today many folks are putting out their
own product, not being paid to do so by record companies.
Those people didn't get paid to record; they paid to
record.

OK, a slightly different business model. Same copyright law. A deal is still
a deal.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 11:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

OK, a slightly different business model. Same copyright law. A deal is still
a deal.


Wait, you mean it's *not* "I can take anything that's not nailed down,
and even then if I can get the nail off?" : )

[Ben Bradley]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:00:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 27, 11:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

OK, a slightly different business model. Same copyright law. A deal is still
a deal.


Wait, you mean it's *not* "I can take anything that's not nailed down,
and even then if I can get the nail off?" : )

I'll grant the idea that the current technology of nail extractors
is remarkably cheap and easy to operate...

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

That is simply absurd in the extreme. Should we apply that same theory
to other consumer goods? To big-ticket items? To real-estate?

Only the intangible ones.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem that we have is that CDs last nearly forever. The CD aftermarket
thus becomes a big deal compared with the aftermarket for used LPs. The only
solution for this problem is to make CDs that are so good that people want to
keep them rather than reselling them after a few listenings.

Now that's a novel idea. I don't sell CDs, and I don't think I've ever
given any away other than ones that I've produced myself and have been
given copies to pass around. But the CDs that I haven't listened to in a
long time are still on the shelf. One of these days I'll enjoy those
again. No need to sell them. And if anyone wants to come over and
listen, they're welcome to do so.

But this begs the question of what would I do if I played you a CD that
was no longer available through legitimate channels and you wanted a
copy for yourself. Would I make you one? Probably. But that's because I
trust that you won't put it up for the rest of the world to download.
But would I respond to a post on a CD-sharing forum asking if anyone has
a copy of "Mississippi John Hurt Sings Bob Dylan"? Nope. I know that it
would do no real harm to share it, but it's just not the right thing to do.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Rick Ruskin wrote:

It is a reasonable assumption that a reader of a book is not going to
copy it before passing it on to another reader. There's just too much
work involved.

On the other hand, if only because it's so easy/cheap to do, it is
just as reasonable to assume that a CD will be copied before being
passed on.

It was this realization that brought us SCMS along with our DAT
recorders and some rather poor anti-copy technology on CDs and DVDs. It
didn't work worth a hoot so I guess the industry was smart not to
continue that approach. So I guess they'll just have to start sending
the record police around with search warrants and hard drive erasers.
Yes, there will be some innocent casualties. g





--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Ben Bradley]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:03:13 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:18:06 -0500, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:41:51 -0800, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Rick Ruskin" wrote...
Check this out: http://www.swapacd.com/index.php

I've known about that since it started up. It's run by the same
people who run http://www.paperbackswap.com which I signed up for
about two years ago. and I've swapped a few books through the site. I
remember when the CD site started up, but I didn't bother signing up
for it. I even met the guys who run these sites (they're based in
Atlanta), they had a booth at the 2007 Decatur Book Festival.



It is a reasonable assumption that a reader of a book is not going to
copy it before passing it on to another reader. There's just too much
work involved.

On the other hand, if only because it's so easy/cheap to do, it is
just as reasonable to assume that a CD will be copied before being
passed on. There is no way that SwapACD would not realize this.

So you're implying that SwapaCD is knowingly complicit in piracy?
Wouldn't that also be true of used CD stores and such?


BTW - I have contacted them and gotten no response to date.

I just might sign up there and poke around, they've got message
forums just like everyone else thesedays. Posting a Google usenet
archive link to this thread may get some attention.



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Nonsense. I didn't pay him for the performance the first time around. I paid
an organization who was acting as his agent. The deal was that the holder of
the media also has a license to the performance. The performer did his
performing thing one time way back when, and he got paid.

Oh, let's not be pedantic-silly here. I would be very happy with a
one-time payment to the artists and writers, but that's not the way the
record industry works. The artist is more often than not the writer and
expects a royalty payment for every record sold. He gets that, but what
he assumes is that everyone who has the record has paid for it through
the channel that will get him his royalty. That's not the case for
second-hand sales or unauthorized downloads.

For about 20 years it was even easier. Jillions of people bought licenses to
musical works that they had already licensed once. The second license was
attractive to these people because of the CD media that came with it, as
opposed to the LP media that came with their first license. Even more
amazing is the fact that they often paid far more for the second license
than the first. All this cash flowed into artist's pockets without them
lifting a pinkie finger.

Isn't that a good thing?

However, if, 20 years ago, it only cost a dime to make a CD copy of an
LP, how many people would have not bought the CD of LPs that they
already owned? Some even actually bought a cassette copy of the LP they
own so they could play it in their car. But that faded pretty quickly
with the advent of inexpensive cassette recorders in the home. Man, were
the record companies ****ed!

Some LP owners might spring for a CD version of the LP because they'll
get a fresh copy without pops and scratches (some people who wore out
their LPs actually bought new copies, too). Some might because they get
a couple of bonus tracks. Some might because they want to support the
artist and assure that he continues to produce new material. Today,
however, nobody thinks a second about

Sure, there's an easy answer. A deal is a deal. If you give someone a
transferable license, and the license is transferred, then all is as was
agreed to. The transferability of the license is part of the original deal.

And how much more would you pay for a transferable licnense? And if I
never plan to sell my CDs, could i get a cheaper version with a
single-user license?

How about if you bought a "key" that would program all of your CD
players with the same watermark. Put a reasonable limit on it, like
maybe 10 players, so you could have a little room for getting
replacements. The first time you played a CD, it would get branded with
your watermark, and would play in any of your players, but it wouldn't
play in anyone else's player. But you could bring the CD over to your
buddy's house along with your key, put your key in his player, and it
would play there.

Sound a little like iLok? You'd have to buy a key, and the cost of CD
players would go up, but maybe the cost of CDs would go down since
maybe, just maybe, there would be more copies sold.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

John Phillips wrote:

The RIAA disagrees with the notion that you can take your legally
purchased CD, convert to another format like mp3, and listen to it on
you iPod. Their position is that you must purchase another copy.

I don't keep up with these things as much as I used to, but the Home
Recording Act of somewhere around 1990 allowd for making copies on
alternate media. The Home Recording Rights Coalition considered that to
be a major victory. Has it been repealed? Or is it just that the RIAA is
just banging their shoe on the table saying "this is how we want it to
be." ?


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)