Currency Converter. Hey Heidi in Pittsburgh, I hope you don't think I was being disrespectful. I was trying to explain very basic copyright law. People seem to get so off track talking about this issue. Lawyers anyone? OK, I'll give it a go. Being invited to sing a song with someone does not mean you have any legal interest in the song.
You were asked to perform a song written by Neil and that's cool, and many congrats about it! It was probably published by someone else some corporate entity or other. Neil and the publisher would get a royalty for the performance.
You wouldn't. Neither would the people playing in his band unless they co-wrote the song. As for the sound recording. Who owns that copyright? Whoever recorded it. Can they make money off it? Not legally. Because they do not have a licence to distribute the song they recorded. But yes, they own a copyright in the recording. None of this means that Neil doesn't want you to have a home made recording of you singing with him to amaze and stun your friends with.
Indeed, his interviews suggest that he is happy for fans to trade i. That doesn't mean he is speaking for his record company or his publisher.
They may have different views. But by no means should Neil's view about trading live shows be taken as a green light for trading commercially released recordings.
Moreover, Neil Finn's views do not change basic copyright and licencing law. Unless he's suddenly become a legislature with unilateral power to amend copyright law worldwide. As for Bach and Mozart. But if a recording company puts up gobs of money to record a world class orchestra performing those works, guess who owns the copyright in the recording? Not you. Do you have permission to copy that recording without paying a fee for it?
Is it helpful for you to preview songs? Is it legal? It depends whether the person letting you listen to it has a licence to let you listen to it. Do you want strangers rummaging around in your fridge eating food you have purchased? Probably not. From time to time you might invite someone to help themselves or make themselves at home.
Hey presto - a licence! Whether you charge them for it or not is neither here nor there. If they take that which is not theirs without permission it is immoral, wrong and illegal. The fact that they might die if they don't eat doesn't make it legal. It might, however, make it moral which is why the concept of equity was invented. So quite simply. When you are downloading an mp3 of a song that you didn't write, that you didn't create, that you didn't record, that you put no money towards the production of, that you put no money towards a licence for, that you did not contribute to in anyway, that you are getting for free without permission it.
It is theft. It is taking that which is not yours. There's a commandment about it. There are prohibitions on doing this in just about every religion and every moral code on the planet. Maybe you can reconcile what you are doing with a "but ultimately it benefits the artist" approach. But all I am saying is that such "ends justify the means" logic does not make the means legal.
But you still stole. That's it. Peace, happiness, merriment. Shakespeare public domain player. Two points upon which I'm still confused or just in disagreement. And yes, I loooooooove to debate, lol Re: a duet I sang with Neil HOWEVER, would I not, as the performer in said recording, own any rights to my own performance that would merely allow me to share it with people without it being considered illegal?
If the owner of the recording freely gave it to me for my personal use? So you still call it "stealing" if one DELETES files after hearing them without having shared, has since bought but not shared legal copies of the music or deleting without sharing and then not buying , and can prove having done so?
I never buy a pair of shoes without trying them on; if they fit, I buy them. But if they don't fit, and I don't like them, I don't take them out of the store with me I give them back to the store with a polite "no thank you.
Similarly, CD's To use your food analogy, my use of Kazaa is not as much stealing to eat as it is like going next door to borrow a cup of sugar and then returning the next morning with a whole bag of sugar in return.
If the sugar has been made available for me to borrow in the first place, but turns out to be someone else's sugar, how is that my fault or my problem? That's an issue between my neighbor and the person who owns the sugar The religious argument doesn't carry much weight with me, as I am an atheist As for morals It's a property question, simply put I believe my family is handling this both fairly and responsibly, and that there are other people like us who sample, delete, buy I'm also not someone who would ever remotely consider buying a CD and uploading it to a file-swapping service.
I believe there's a difference, and I further believe Neil understands this delineation. Others seem content to write us all off as thieves, and that is the part I have a problem with; I don't like being called names, especially when I disagree that something I've done is wrong. And re: the fridge Thanks, Heidi. Good points.
Glad you've entered the fray. First, the "religious" point. I wasn't clear, and apologise for any confusion. I wasn't asking you to subscribe to a belief system, but what I was trying to point out is that ancient moral codes religious or otherwise have dealt with the concept of theft for thousands of years and done so with a fairly succinct statement known to most people and even practiced by a few.
It's pretty straightforward. Without permission, it isn't yours. Don't take that which is not yours. I don't believe for what it's worth that an ethical belief system needs to believe in a deity or deities to have merit. My point was merely that the prohibition against taking that which is not yours is a basic tenet of most social structures - religious and otherwise - perhaps most succinctly stated in the prohibition known as the seventh commandment if you're Catholic, or the eighth Commandment if you're Protestent or Jewish, or one of the Commandments even if you're an atheist.
Whether you agree to be bound by that sentiment is another matter. If you think God will be pissed off, or it would undermine the social fabric of society, or it's not nice to do it, I don't care. The point is: there is a basic prohibition. The separation of church and state relates to governance, not powers of persuasion.
Having said that, I wouldn't need to make the point in court, because of the law surrounding copyright. I suppose what I was trying to say is: "thou shalt not steal" whether you're into guys with white beards in clouds, elephants with four arms, the random accident and meaninglessness of existence, or the transcendent oneness of "All Things" is such a basic proposition that few can dispute it unless you're a hedonistic anti-social misanthrope.
The shoe analogy doesn't really work. The shoe seller is saying to you "here, try these on. Someone with an illegally obtained copy of the work is offering it to you for no charge to do with it as you please. It is a perfect digital replica. Imagine if you tried on the shoes, returned them to the shoe seller but still had an identical pair of the shoes in your bag when you left. Would you throw them out when you got home? If you walk out of the store with the shoes without paying, it's stealing.
No one cares what you do with the shoes once you get home. They weren't yours for the taking. The sugar analogy is similarly flawed. You replace the sugar when you return to your friend's house. That is the deal. I will loan you the sugar. You will repay it in kind, or in trade. Presumably your friend is not giving you someone else's sugar that you can replicate perfectly and do with whatever you want.
Your friend doesn't retain the sugar he or she gives you. You don't both suddenly have perfect duplicates of someone else's sugar. It is your problem if your friend is giving you someone else's sugar and you either a have notice of that fact or b are wilfully blind to it. When you copy a Rolling Stones tune you are probably wilfully blind as to who owns the tune.
I return to the idea of not taking that which is not yours. Don't take it without paying for it. Don't take it from someone who doesn't own it or have rights to it. Is this an absolute rule or is it relative a different, larger and ultimately more important philosophical question. You delete the ones you buy and you delete the ones you don't buy. The one you didn't buy should have been paid for. Because you weren't trying it on. You copied it.
The act of copying that which is not yours is the offensive act. Without permission the licence you are stealing. I am not saying you are not honourable, or doing your best you can with the new technology.
I am saying that under current copyright laws, you are breaking the law. Yes, you own the copyright in your performance with Neil. However, you do not own the copyright in his performance with you. Bit of a problem unless you can separate your performances, wouldn't you say?
I was thinking of this issue on the way to work this morning. He is asking you to perform his music. You are agreeing. You have not discussed any other terms.
You could insist on a licencing arrangement then and there, you could insist for payment for your contribution, you could get your solicitor to contact his to negotiate the terms on which you will perform.
You're probably going to be asked to sit down and get booed off the stage. And so you should be. Everyone knows you are doing it for the thrill. You are compensated then and there with the satisfaction of performing with Neil Finn. An unspoken but understood term of the agreement is that you will do it for no fee, for no interest in the royalties generated from the performance, and for no interest in the work.
On these terms, how do you possibly acquire a legal interest in Neil's performance of his song? Look, Neil breaches copyright all the time. He regularly performs other people's works at his concerts at the drop of a hat.
Are they getting royalties for the performance of their works? I am guessing no. Does that mean it is illegal? Does that mean Neil is going to get sued? Does that mean it is an uncool part of the show? Does it mean Neil is immoral? Does it mean he has sinned before the eyes of God? Does it mean anything since we're all just a random accident desperate to find meaning by creating constructs such as copyright? I told you. Steal away.
Just don't say it isn't stealing. It is! If you get sued. S stepinmyshoes you'llseethatidon'tfiiiiit. Hey, just wanted to say, this is awesome that we're able to have this intelligent debate in All I Ask without anybody getting mad at each other or anything. Let's keep this up as long as possible!
Now, my opinion. I'm gonna have to slightly side with Shakespeare and say using Kazaa etc. A big part of the definition of stealing is the without permission thing. This is especially true if you look at it like this. It's quite easy to go into lots of stores and listen to CDs before buying them; or, you can buy the cd and return it if you don't like it, or you could go on Amazon and listen to samples. Between those three, it sort of makes downloading the songs to see if the cd's worth buying, seem like purposely breaking the law.
Which is ok, if you think the music should be free like that and you're making a statement. The bottom line, is directly below two other lines of equal length.
People will not stop downloading music illegally. Although whether they should is questionable, this fact is inarguable. The big record companies will not stop raising prices on CDs to compensate for the losses. Same thing. From then on it will be indie labels only, doing business on the Net. Let the illegal downloading commence! Step, I lost you on the bottom line of the bottom line bit. I think? Stealspeare P. I agree it is inarguable that people will continue to download music illegally.
I don't agree that it will bankrupt big record companies. It will hurt them, but it won't bankrupt them. If you wrote a song, or a novel, or painted a picture or took a photograph, or created some wonderful work or other and learned that millions of people had copied it for free would you consider what those million people did to be legal? What if it was just two people? Just wondered Shakespeare, if you owned the rights to the image of Shakespeare you use as an avatar?
That petty example I've used there is what the world would be like if these laws were enforced, I think EVERY web user has at some point breached somebodys copyright, from students using information for their studies, people using images to make covers for their CD's, or the good old MP3 crowd. Welcome to the internet! Of course it's a breach of copyright. Will I get sued? Just because something is actionable doesn't mean someone is going to take action.
Like I said, I don't care. Just don't claim that it is legal. It isn't. Yes, I stole it. Was it legal? Are there damages? Having said that, if I get sued I will third party you in so fast your head will spin. Shakespeare Comeandgetme! NitPic quote:. Originally posted by shakespeare: [qb]Someone with an illegally obtained copy of the work is offering it to you for no charge to do with it as you please. KK kia kaha Secret God.
I agree with step. This is one helluva good thread, and a fascinating argument to watch go back and forth. A sidebar here and hopefully not too off-topic In the case of students and reviewers, isn't there that little caveat that says "except for fair purposes of study and review" on the copyright law in that instance? I know that was the case with Australian copyright law, anyway. I spent a full semester studying the legal implications of stuff like this, back in university, for my journalism degree.
Of course my first passion was defamation law Just a thought Heidi: maybe you, as a writer and musician of some note, could use the defense of "for purposes of study and review" when downloading stuff from Kazaa and such? Okay yes, it's sneaky. Yes, it's twisting the spirit and intent of the law just a little. But isn't that what the practice of law is all about??? Cheers, Kia "so sue me" Kaha. Originally posted by shakespeare: [qb] Just don't claim that it is legal.
Originally posted by Neil: It begs the question do moderators moderate because the need to, or because they can? J Juddfinn Getting Somewhere. Attach yourself to a falling star The Burglars Song Medley Worms My Friend Nick Punch and Judy Track 9 live Phil Judd cover.
Track 10 Live Jam from which Instinct was born. Track 12 Live Buddy Holly cover. Track 13 Live Cure cover. Track Live improv song from radio show. Track 15 b-side to It's only Natural. Track Live original sung by Paul Hester. Track 19 live improv sung by Paul Hester. Vol VI 1. The only way to go is forward 2. Blue Hotel 4. Beautiful Life 5. Better Things 6.
Isolation live version 7. Charlie 9. Sunny Afternoon I Walk Away extended remix Suffer Never US mix Don't dream it's over Diana Tribute version People are like Suns piano version Bits Elevator music 1 Elevator music 3 Elevator music 4 Suffer never US mix edit Tracks unreleased songs live. Of varying quality recorded sometime between Time on Earth and the Intriguer. Track 8 Split Enz cover, originally sung by Tim Finn.
Track 9 improvisation followed by an Irish folk song. Track 10 Live Kinks song. Track 11 Extended remix from the 12" of I walk away. Track 12 US remix.
Track 13 from the Diana Tribute album. Different version. Track 14 b-side to She Called Up. Track tracks from nilfun. Prodigal Son 2. Mary of the South Seas with Andy White 3. Too Many People 4. Way Back Down 5. Sunset Swim 6. The land torments the sea 7. Everyday alright 8.
Tell me C'mon 9. In love with it all Strangness and Charm Faraway Children live Throw your arms around me Water Birth Sweet Dreams Whaling Six months in a leaky boat Dirty Creature How will you go History Never Repeats Won't give in You send me Song for Noel Motorcycle Song Track 1 b-side to Suffer Never.
Track 2 from Common Ground Compilation. Track 3 from Listen to what the man said. A Tribute to Paul McCartney. Track b-side to Nothings Wrong with you. Tracks 8 b-side to Edible Flowers. Track demos from original Finn Brothers album. Track 11 unreleased early version of Nothings Wrong with you.
Track 13 live out-take. Tracks 14, 16, 17 Live Split Enz cover. Track 15 live Dave Dobbyn cover. Track 18 live Crowded House cover. Track 20 acoustic version. Track 21 Sam Cooke Cover. Vol I. Track 1 try whistling this out-take. Track 1 the crossing soundtrack. Vol III. Tracks unreleased live original tracks. Track 26 rare instrumental track. Live Covers. Walking on the Spot the Mullanes demo. The only way to go is forward.
0コメント