Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.

Walter Traprock wrote:

Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

According to Sony ( whose recent anti-piracy software resembled a computer
virus ) if you are burgled and have any Sony CDs stolen you are obliged to
destroy any backup copies you may have made.

It's their view you see that the rights to the title have now transferred
to the thief !

Record companies who think like that don't deserve to exist. The are
treating the customer as scum.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

According to Sony ( whose recent anti-piracy software resembled a
computer virus ) if you are burgled and have any Sony CDs stolen you
are obliged to destroy any backup copies you may have made.

Sure. I'm going to do that. Right.

-Ehtue

But I don't make back-up copies of my CDs anyway. Does anyone?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?

^^indifference^^ a écrit :
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...

Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.




He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?

Or book, sculpture, painting...
Here's a famous hideout of pirates :
http://www.christies.com/home_page/home_page.asp

;-)



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message


Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy,
and how the record labels are dying from internet file
sharing?

Somehow I don't think that music will cease to ever be recorded again, even
if all of the current record labels die.

Aren't owning and trading used recordings a
form of piracy, as it steals sales from the artists?

Not at all. When you buy a recording you get a license to certain uses of
that recording, defined by the specific piece of media that the recording
was sold on. When you sell or give away the media, you transfer your rights
to the recording. When someone receives the particular piece of recorded
media from from, they receive the rights you had.

In some sense, every recording you bought to give as a gift was a used
recording.

Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as
possessing such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft
of potential cd sales?

You're kidding, right?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, "^^indifference^^"
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?

Because in the case of a used album or CD, you are selling the license
as well as the item. The license travels with the item and is
transferrable. This is NOT the case with most promo albums or CDs
though. Technically it's illegal to sell most of them. It depends if
they're marked "Property of Record Company/Not For Sale. The record
company retains the license in those cases.

File sharing is different because you are distributing an item by
duplication and you don't own a license for that. If you were to press
your own vinyl copies of an album, it would be equally illegal.

I'd take this a step further:

If you buy a CD, you should not be allowed to play it if someone else
is in the room listening. Because technically, you are the owner and
you have illegally shared it.

wrote in message
ups.com
I'd take this a step further:

If you buy a CD, you should not be allowed to play it if
someone else is in the room listening. Because
technically, you are the owner and you have illegally
shared it.

Yup, reduction to absurdity can be an effective argument.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, ^^indifference^^ wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:



"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?


file sharing isn't a transfer of property. It is an unlicensed duplication.
If it involved destruction of your original copy, then you might have a
valid point.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, ^^indifference^^
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:



"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning
and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?


file sharing isn't a transfer of property. It is an unlicensed
duplication.
If it involved destruction of your original copy, then you might have a
valid point.

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, "^^indifference^^"
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, ^^indifference^^
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:



"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning
and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?


file sharing isn't a transfer of property. It is an unlicensed
duplication.
If it involved destruction of your original copy, then you might have a
valid point.

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

Because they're exempted due to the fact that there are other
potential uses for such blank media other than the duplication of
copyrighted material. In the case of CDs, they actually tried to
address this by manufacturing data *and* music (?) discs. In some
countries, there's a licensing fee already tacked on to the price of
the disc which covers the royalties (although I don't think that's the
case in this country). In those countries, you are expected not to
use the data discs for music, although enforcement is obviously
non-existent.

Think about it this way. If you are found to be selling burned copies
of the new Kronus Quartet CD out of the back of your car, you are just
as liable as if you distributed the same item through file sharing,
even though you're using "legal discs". However, if you sell your
actual copy of the same CD, as long as you didn't keep a burned copy
of it, it's quite legal for you to sell it because you own both the
physical and the non-physical license, and, in most licensing
agreements, that license is transferrable as long as you don't retain
a copy of it.

it all stems, IIRC, from the old Betamax decision in the 60s. The
courts allowed the sale of recorders and blank media to allow for
personal "time-shifting" of TV programming, and this time-shifting was
extended to cassettes so that people could "time-shift" to listening
in their autos. Later decisions firmed up the rights of people to make
personal copies on various media, as long as they weren't given away
or sold to others. Now, you find all sorts of restrictions in
licensing here in the digital age, far more than in previous years.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, "^^indifference^^"
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, ^^indifference^^
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:



"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning
and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from
the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as
possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd
sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via
file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?


file sharing isn't a transfer of property. It is an unlicensed
duplication.
If it involved destruction of your original copy, then you might have a
valid point.

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

Because they're exempted due to the fact that there are other
potential uses for such blank media other than the duplication of
copyrighted material. In the case of CDs, they actually tried to
address this by manufacturing data *and* music (?) discs. In some
countries, there's a licensing fee already tacked on to the price of
the disc which covers the royalties (although I don't think that's the
case in this country). In those countries, you are expected not to
use the data discs for music, although enforcement is obviously
non-existent.

Think about it this way. If you are found to be selling burned copies
of the new Kronus Quartet CD out of the back of your car, you are just
as liable as if you distributed the same item through file sharing,
even though you're using "legal discs". However, if you sell your
actual copy of the same CD, as long as you didn't keep a burned copy
of it, it's quite legal for you to sell it because you own both the
physical and the non-physical license, and, in most licensing
agreements, that license is transferrable as long as you don't retain
a copy of it.

it all stems, IIRC, from the old Betamax decision in the 60s. The
courts allowed the sale of recorders and blank media to allow for
personal "time-shifting" of TV programming, and this time-shifting was
extended to cassettes so that people could "time-shift" to listening
in their autos. Later decisions firmed up the rights of people to make
personal copies on various media, as long as they weren't given away
or sold to others. Now, you find all sorts of restrictions in
licensing here in the digital age, far more than in previous years.

Oh well, **** the record companies anyway.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

Because they're exempted due to the fact that there are other
potential uses for such blank media other than the duplication of
copyrighted material. In the case of CDs, they actually tried to
address this by manufacturing data *and* music (?) discs. In some
countries, there's a licensing fee already tacked on to the price of
the disc which covers the royalties (although I don't think that's the
case in this country). In those countries, you are expected not to
use the data discs for music, although enforcement is obviously
non-existent.

Think about it this way. If you are found to be selling burned copies
of the new Kronus Quartet CD out of the back of your car, you are just
as liable as if you distributed the same item through file sharing,
even though you're using "legal discs". However, if you sell your
actual copy of the same CD, as long as you didn't keep a burned copy
of it, it's quite legal for you to sell it because you own both the
physical and the non-physical license, and, in most licensing
agreements, that license is transferrable as long as you don't retain
a copy of it.

it all stems, IIRC, from the old Betamax decision in the 60s. The
courts allowed the sale of recorders and blank media to allow for
personal "time-shifting" of TV programming, and this time-shifting was
extended to cassettes so that people could "time-shift" to listening
in their autos. Later decisions firmed up the rights of people to make
personal copies on various media, as long as they weren't given away
or sold to others. Now, you find all sorts of restrictions in
licensing here in the digital age, far more than in previous years.

Great explanation. That makes far clearer sense than much of the legalese
tossed back and forth. Thanks.

"^^indifference^^" wrote :

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

For private use and backup purpose.

In France you pay a tax (EUR 0.56/CD) on the blank medias. This tax is
redistributed to the SACEM.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

wrote in message
ups.com...
I'd take this a step further:

If you buy a CD, you should not be allowed to play it if
someone else
is in the room listening. Because technically, you are
the owner and
you have illegally shared it.


Research has shown that most human life is but a thin cover
for a filthy
commie plot to deprive corporations of what is rightfully
theirs.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as
possessing such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft
of potential cd sales?

You're kidding, right?

there's a serious side: In the world of "perfect DRM (Digital Rights
Management)", when a recording is flagged as "out-of-print", or
"unavailable", no one in the entire world will be able to listen to it
again!

Why do fools presume that copyright holders actually want compensation,
when they don't, they want control. They are guilty of "Where There's
Demand, Restrict Supply" method of marketing.

An analog with the brave new world of perfect DRM, is to destroy all
out-of-print, used, or otherwise unavailable recordings everyone has,
because collectors are greedy thieves that want to "own what the
copyright holders do not want you to own".

--
edit for effect

Walter Traprock wrote:
....snipped, some sections I cannot tell whether they are ironic
reductions to absurdity or serious points made in anger... they do not
alter the point I wish to answer below...

Why do fools presume that copyright holders actually want compensation,
when they don't, they want control. They are guilty of "Where There's
Demand, Restrict Supply" method of marketing.

They own those copyrights. Copyright is property, just like real
estate. The owners of copyrights have an inalienable right to control
access, just like the owners of real estate. The protection of
ownership rights in property is a fundamental guarantee of
civilization. Without lies chaos and brutality.

HTH.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

They own those copyrights. Copyright is property, just like real
estate.

No, real estate is real property.
Copyright property is intellectual property.
the nature of the two properties, in
law, is different, and the rights associated with
them are different.

For instance, within the Code of Maryland,
Real Property has its own unique Title.

This is a factual statement, and is not
intended to belittle the rights of intellectual property,
but, in fact, copyright property is different than real property.

"Clyde Slick" wrote

They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate.

No, real estate is real property.

Well, yes and no. Copyright and ownership in
real estate, under the law, are very similar.
Both are actually a *bundle of rights*.

By definition, real property/real estate are
used to differentiate the land and all its
permeant attachments as opposed to
personal property. This has nothing to
do with ownership.

The highest level of real estate ownership
is Fee Simple Absolute. This describes a
particular bundle of rights afforded the
property holder. We cannot own real estate,
in the truest sense in the USA, unlike
personal property.


Copyright property is intellectual property.
the nature of the two properties, in
law, is different, and the rights associated with
them are different.

Only in that if one seek relief in the courts
different laws (Federal, State, local) govern
protections of those bundles of rights.


For instance, within the Code of Maryland,
Real Property has its own unique Title.

"Title"... please define.


This is a factual statement, and is not
intended to belittle the rights of intellectual
property, but, in fact, copyright property is
different than real property.

In what way? I think you are hung-up on
the meaning/use of "property."

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote

They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate.

No, real estate is real property.

Well, yes and no. Copyright and ownership in
real estate, under the law, are very similar.
Both are actually a *bundle of rights*.




but different bundles of different
types of rights, with under different
sets of legal parameters.


By definition, real property/real estate are
used to differentiate the land and all its
permeant attachments as opposed to
personal property. This has nothing to
do with ownership.


But it has to do with the way those particular
rights are treated by law, and the differences thereto.


The highest level of real estate ownership
is Fee Simple Absolute. This describes a
particular bundle of rights afforded the
property holder.

Yes, that is the underlying, or residual right,
within the bundle of rights.

We cannot own real estate,
in the truest sense in the USA, unlike
personal property.


Yes, it is not absolute, it is owned subject to a number of
superior rights still resident in local/state
and Federal government, such as police power,
escheat and eminent domain. Plus, it is also
subject to the rights of others, should
any of the bundle of rights been previously conveyed
(such as lease, life estate, or easement)



Copyright property is intellectual property.
the nature of the two properties, in
law, is different, and the rights associated with
them are different.

Only in that if one seek relief in the courts
different laws (Federal, State, local) govern
protections of those bundles of rights.


For instance, within the Code of Maryland,
Real Property has its own unique Title.

"Title"... please define.


Its own unique section of the Code, spelling out
rights and obligations peculiar to real estate, as
opposed to other types of property.




This is a factual statement, and is not
intended to belittle the rights of intellectual
property, but, in fact, copyright property is
different than real property.

In what way? I think you are hung-up on
the meaning/use of "property."


no!

" They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate."

It is not "just like" real estate.


"

"Clyde Slick" wrote

They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate.

No, real estate is real property.

Well, yes and no. Copyright and ownership in
real estate, under the law, are very similar.
Both are actually a *bundle of rights*.

but different bundles of different
types of rights, with under different
sets of legal parameters.


By definition, real property/real estate are
used to differentiate the land and all its
permeant attachments as opposed to
personal property. This has nothing to
do with ownership.

But it has to do with the way those particular
rights are treated by law, and the differences
thereto.


The highest level of real estate ownership
is Fee Simple Absolute. This describes a
particular bundle of rights afforded the
property holder.

Yes, that is the underlying, or residual right,
within the bundle of rights.

We cannot own real estate,
in the truest sense in the USA, unlike
personal property.

Yes, it is not absolute, it is owned subject to a number
of superior rights still resident in local/state and
Federal government, such as police power,
escheat and eminent domain. Plus, it is also
subject to the rights of others, should
any of the bundle of rights been previously conveyed
(such as lease, life estate, or easement)


Copyright property is intellectual property.
the nature of the two properties, in
law, is different, and the rights associated with
them are different.

Only in that if one seek relief in the courts
different laws (Federal, State, local) govern
protections of those bundles of rights.


For instance, within the Code of Maryland,
Real Property has its own unique Title.

"Title"... please define.

Its own unique section of the Code, spelling out
rights and obligations peculiar to real estate, as
opposed to other types of property.


This is a factual statement, and is not
intended to belittle the rights of intellectual
property, but, in fact, copyright property is
different than real property.

In what way? I think you are hung-up on
the meaning/use of "property."


no!

" They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate."

It is not "just like" real estate.

Well, we know what we’re talking about
anyway.

When Jute wrote "Without lies chaos and
brutality"/troll bait) it was seemed as he was
using the term "property" figuratively. As we
know many real estate transactions are "lies
chaos and brutality" and often aren’t at
arms-length by design. If he had substituted
*controllable asset* for "property" we wouldn’t
have had the opportunity to enriched the
board with this thread.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote

They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate.

No, real estate is real property.

Well, yes and no. Copyright and ownership in
real estate, under the law, are very similar.
Both are actually a *bundle of rights*.

but different bundles of different
types of rights, with under different
sets of legal parameters.


By definition, real property/real estate are
used to differentiate the land and all its
permeant attachments as opposed to
personal property. This has nothing to
do with ownership.

But it has to do with the way those particular
rights are treated by law, and the differences
thereto.


The highest level of real estate ownership
is Fee Simple Absolute. This describes a
particular bundle of rights afforded the
property holder.

Yes, that is the underlying, or residual right,
within the bundle of rights.

We cannot own real estate,
in the truest sense in the USA, unlike
personal property.

Yes, it is not absolute, it is owned subject to a number
of superior rights still resident in local/state and
Federal government, such as police power,
escheat and eminent domain. Plus, it is also
subject to the rights of others, should
any of the bundle of rights been previously conveyed
(such as lease, life estate, or easement)


Copyright property is intellectual property.
the nature of the two properties, in
law, is different, and the rights associated with
them are different.

Only in that if one seek relief in the courts
different laws (Federal, State, local) govern
protections of those bundles of rights.


For instance, within the Code of Maryland,
Real Property has its own unique Title.

"Title"... please define.

Its own unique section of the Code, spelling out
rights and obligations peculiar to real estate, as
opposed to other types of property.


This is a factual statement, and is not
intended to belittle the rights of intellectual
property, but, in fact, copyright property is
different than real property.

In what way? I think you are hung-up on
the meaning/use of "property."


no!

" They own those copyrights. Copyright
is property, just like real estate."

It is not "just like" real estate.

Well, we know what we're talking about
anyway.

When Jute wrote "Without lies chaos and
brutality"/troll bait) it was seemed as he was
using the term "property" figuratively. As we
know many real estate transactions are "lies
chaos and brutality" and often aren't at
arms-length by design. If he had substituted
*controllable asset* for "property" we wouldn't
have had the opportunity to enriched the
board with this thread.




I'm just preparing for tomorrow.
Trying to get into the holiday spirit.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, ^^indifference^^ wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:
Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?
Because they're blank. You can play blank tapes to your heart's
content and you won't be stealing anything.

The same goes for paper. You can buy it. Really, you can... try it some time.

Copy somebody's copyrighted material and sell it and you can then you can learn
the difference between blank media and an illegal copy. One will get you in
jail. It's your job to try and figure out which one.

[eyg2181]

Originally Posted by AZ Nomad

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, ^^indifference^^ wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:
Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?
Because they're blank. You can play blank tapes to your heart's
content and you won't be stealing anything.

The same goes for paper. You can buy it. Really, you can... try it some time.

Copy somebody's copyrighted material and sell it and you can then you can learn
the difference between blank media and an illegal copy. One will get you in
jail. It's your job to try and figure out which one.

no 1 really gives 2 ****s if people illegally download music! its stupid that people actually agree that it should be illegal. i know a lot of people that do it and i dont give a ****. they can download as much as they want! the artists that they say people who download are so called "stealing from" are filthy ****ing rich n e way so what does it matter if a few people "download" a few!

REPLY!

In article ,
eyg2181 wrote:


REPLY!

Just this much, thief.

eyg2181 wrote:
AZ Nomad Wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, ^^indifference^^
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:
Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?
Because they're blank. You can play blank tapes to your heart's
content and you won't be stealing anything.

The same goes for paper. You can buy it. Really, you can... try it
some time.

Copy somebody's copyrighted material and sell it and you can then you
can learn
the difference between blank media and an illegal copy. One will get
you in
jail. It's your job to try and figure out which one.


no 1 really gives 2 ****s if people illegally download music! its
stupid that people actually agree that it should be illegal. i know a
lot of people that do it and i dont give a ****. they can download as
much as they want! the artists that they say people who download are so
called "stealing from" are filthy ****ing rich n e way so what does it
matter if a few people "download" a few!

REPLY!


--
eyg2181

With that ethic I'm sure it wouldn't bother you if someone 'jacked your
ride or harvested a kidney cause your so privileged to own them.
You need a real reality check on how affluent the average recording
artist is. The ones you see on MTV pimpin' their rides, and cribs, are
the exception, and will be as poor as the average lottery winner in a
few
years, more likely than not.