Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Copyright:
...it doesn't prevent personal use at all.
No you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices, if you bought 1 you can only use 1 at a time. A "Master" copy is not a performance copy. You can use your purchased copy solely for the purpose of producing your performance copy, which will wear out through time. The license to use, applies to the recorded material and not the media it is stored on and does not expire when the "disk wears out". To clarify, you cannot purchase 1 copy to use at home and duplicate it to have one in your car as well. Theoretically, you can't be in your house and car at the same time but twiddling bits is not always favorable.
Computer software differs slightly from music in that with recorded music, the delivery system is generally the same for all copyright holders whereas with software, the delivery system is an integral part of the work but potentially could also be considered a separate work. In software, some components may be sub-licensed from a third party, such as the MP3 format, whereas in music there is not similar arrangement for software operating on digital effects, for example. For the most part though, the copyright treatment is the same for music and software, save for determining who owns the rights to which parts.
Another difference between Music and Software, the general intention for the average listener is personal enjoyment with no gain other than their state of mind, whereas with software there is the intent to generate something. That is, a music recording does not produce any derivative work where as most software does produce some form of output, such as a printout, saved file that was not part of the original installation, etc. This then relates to the notion that, if my work creates a gain then I would be entitled to be compensated for that gain.
You're explaining that watching a movie with friends is illegal under copyright law.
Not exactly, it depends on whether it would be considered a "public performance". Prior to the Rentrax system for tracking movie rentals, the cost of a theater ticket and purchasing a movie from retail was about the same, renting a movie was about 20% of that cost whereas the cost to purchase a movie for rental service was about 5 times. i.e. If a theater ticket was $20, the retail purchase price was also $20, rental price was $4, where the rent-a-movie store paid $100. Other than titles produced by Disney, there was a period where the movie was only available to theaters, followed by a period where it was available only to rental stores, then it was released for retail purchase. Disney had a habit of releasing it to rental and retail at the same time, but generally the cost to rental stores was slightly less, but not by much.
I say that to qualify that, inviting your buddy over to watch a movie would not necessarily be considered a public performance, but playing the movie for your local service club meeting would be, in the same way that playing the movie for a school class or during a sporting event would constitute a public performance. It is reasonable to expect that your family members are likely to be present when you watch the movie, but not several acquaintances or even all your fraternity brothers/sisters.
Reverse engineering, deals with both Copyright and Patent protection and reflects the delivery mechanism I mentioned earlier. Most things in music "performance" are not completely original and cannot be covered by a patent, it is the specific arrangement that becomes the protected work as each one should be unique in some way. With software, again it's not so much the wording that is the unique creation but the specific system used to deliver it. Some of these systems are considered "technology" and can be patent protected, which is only a little bit different from copyright.
In music, there has been a growing shift to attribute ownership to the actual creator of the work, and to discourage some of the habit of forcing the transfer of ownership in exchange for other considerations. Specifically, if I have written a song, it may be unreasonable for a Record company to force me to say that they paid me to create it, in exchange for their producing a hard copy of my work for resale. This is further hampered by the fact that a performer is not able to sell their work through major distribution channels, example Walmart, as there are agreements that they will only purchase through the consortium that is all of the major record producers.
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy. The record companies have been lobbying for a substantial share of that revenue, whereas the Performing Rights groups that work on behalf of the artists have managed to have some of that attributable to the actual music that is likely to be copied on it.
I say this because, I think it is becoming questionable on what the record companies should be able to charge their performers when compared to who was doing the work. 30 years ago, a major portion of Label revenue was earned through "Artist Development" contracts. Simply, the major labels were able to expand our audience from our local friends and family, potentially millions of people all around the globe. Certainly the artist would be earning less of the proceeds from a single ticket but significantly more from the combined listener base. Consider, selling 1, 000 records at $10, compared to selling 1 million records at $1.
Justin Beiber is one example that makes us question how much work the Label must do to expand the market from several hundred thousand to a mere million. His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views whereas he has only sold 44 million actual records and only 10 million actual albums. I say "only" because it is a mere pittance compared to his hits on youtube for even 1 song. His share of the advertising revenue would be substantial and much of that viewership was gained long before the record companies noticed his work.
And do you think that leaving much power for making the rules with the recording industry is a good thing?
I think, so long as we live in a capitalistic society, the actual creator of the work should be entitled to at least share in the revenue earned from the use of their work. I think also that the writers and performers should be entitled to a larger voice than the record companies, and it should more reflect paying for the combination of the work and risk taken to produce it, as opposed to simply allowing the wealthy and affluent to continue to profit from something that is not originally theirs, without paying the creator for the product that is being sold.
I accept that is I work for a song writing company, any song I write there is owned by them because it was my duty as their employee to create that song. Any songs I have already written before being employed there, should remain my property and I should not be required to forfeit ownership in a proven property, in exchange for some contractual arrangement. Certainly they would be entitled to commission for expanding my market, but not at the rate of 90%++ commission.
To answer better then, I see the music industry as including the authors and performers, they are not all to be considered mere employees where the only result of that is to falsely shift ownership of the created work.
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement as opposed to gaining radio play points and increasing future residual revenue streams. I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.
...it doesn't prevent personal use at all.
No you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices, if you bought 1 you can only use 1 at a time. A "Master" copy is not a performance copy. You can use your purchased copy solely for the purpose of producing your performance copy, which will wear out through time. The license to use, applies to the recorded material and not the media it is stored on and does not expire when the "disk wears out". To clarify, you cannot purchase 1 copy to use at home and duplicate it to have one in your car as well. Theoretically, you can't be in your house and car at the same time but twiddling bits is not always favorable.
Computer software differs slightly from music in that with recorded music, the delivery system is generally the same for all copyright holders whereas with software, the delivery system is an integral part of the work but potentially could also be considered a separate work. In software, some components may be sub-licensed from a third party, such as the MP3 format, whereas in music there is not similar arrangement for software operating on digital effects, for example. For the most part though, the copyright treatment is the same for music and software, save for determining who owns the rights to which parts.
Another difference between Music and Software, the general intention for the average listener is personal enjoyment with no gain other than their state of mind, whereas with software there is the intent to generate something. That is, a music recording does not produce any derivative work where as most software does produce some form of output, such as a printout, saved file that was not part of the original installation, etc. This then relates to the notion that, if my work creates a gain then I would be entitled to be compensated for that gain.
You're explaining that watching a movie with friends is illegal under copyright law.
Not exactly, it depends on whether it would be considered a "public performance". Prior to the Rentrax system for tracking movie rentals, the cost of a theater ticket and purchasing a movie from retail was about the same, renting a movie was about 20% of that cost whereas the cost to purchase a movie for rental service was about 5 times. i.e. If a theater ticket was $20, the retail purchase price was also $20, rental price was $4, where the rent-a-movie store paid $100. Other than titles produced by Disney, there was a period where the movie was only available to theaters, followed by a period where it was available only to rental stores, then it was released for retail purchase. Disney had a habit of releasing it to rental and retail at the same time, but generally the cost to rental stores was slightly less, but not by much.
I say that to qualify that, inviting your buddy over to watch a movie would not necessarily be considered a public performance, but playing the movie for your local service club meeting would be, in the same way that playing the movie for a school class or during a sporting event would constitute a public performance. It is reasonable to expect that your family members are likely to be present when you watch the movie, but not several acquaintances or even all your fraternity brothers/sisters.
Reverse engineering, deals with both Copyright and Patent protection and reflects the delivery mechanism I mentioned earlier. Most things in music "performance" are not completely original and cannot be covered by a patent, it is the specific arrangement that becomes the protected work as each one should be unique in some way. With software, again it's not so much the wording that is the unique creation but the specific system used to deliver it. Some of these systems are considered "technology" and can be patent protected, which is only a little bit different from copyright.
In music, there has been a growing shift to attribute ownership to the actual creator of the work, and to discourage some of the habit of forcing the transfer of ownership in exchange for other considerations. Specifically, if I have written a song, it may be unreasonable for a Record company to force me to say that they paid me to create it, in exchange for their producing a hard copy of my work for resale. This is further hampered by the fact that a performer is not able to sell their work through major distribution channels, example Walmart, as there are agreements that they will only purchase through the consortium that is all of the major record producers.
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy. The record companies have been lobbying for a substantial share of that revenue, whereas the Performing Rights groups that work on behalf of the artists have managed to have some of that attributable to the actual music that is likely to be copied on it.
I say this because, I think it is becoming questionable on what the record companies should be able to charge their performers when compared to who was doing the work. 30 years ago, a major portion of Label revenue was earned through "Artist Development" contracts. Simply, the major labels were able to expand our audience from our local friends and family, potentially millions of people all around the globe. Certainly the artist would be earning less of the proceeds from a single ticket but significantly more from the combined listener base. Consider, selling 1, 000 records at $10, compared to selling 1 million records at $1.
Justin Beiber is one example that makes us question how much work the Label must do to expand the market from several hundred thousand to a mere million. His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views whereas he has only sold 44 million actual records and only 10 million actual albums. I say "only" because it is a mere pittance compared to his hits on youtube for even 1 song. His share of the advertising revenue would be substantial and much of that viewership was gained long before the record companies noticed his work.
And do you think that leaving much power for making the rules with the recording industry is a good thing?
I think, so long as we live in a capitalistic society, the actual creator of the work should be entitled to at least share in the revenue earned from the use of their work. I think also that the writers and performers should be entitled to a larger voice than the record companies, and it should more reflect paying for the combination of the work and risk taken to produce it, as opposed to simply allowing the wealthy and affluent to continue to profit from something that is not originally theirs, without paying the creator for the product that is being sold.
I accept that is I work for a song writing company, any song I write there is owned by them because it was my duty as their employee to create that song. Any songs I have already written before being employed there, should remain my property and I should not be required to forfeit ownership in a proven property, in exchange for some contractual arrangement. Certainly they would be entitled to commission for expanding my market, but not at the rate of 90%++ commission.
To answer better then, I see the music industry as including the authors and performers, they are not all to be considered mere employees where the only result of that is to falsely shift ownership of the created work.
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement as opposed to gaining radio play points and increasing future residual revenue streams. I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.
