Anyone actually pay for their music?

Disney wouldn't exist if authors and creators of old were treated like Disney. They wouldn't be able to do Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, Rapunzel, etc. Don't get me started on Simba/Kimba and Atlantis/Nadia. I like Disney, but their hypocrisy concerning intellectual property is pretty blatant.

Kill3r7 I understand varying compensation but it doesn't really apply to what Dmaul was saying. I guess you could argue that an auto worker doesn't work as hard as Katy Perry's stage worker, but honestly I wouldn't know without researching it more.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Disney wouldn't exist if authors and creators of old were treated like Disney. They wouldn't be able to do Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, Rapunzel, etc. Don't get me started on Simba/Kimba and Atlantis/Nadia. I like Disney, but their hypocrisy concerning intellectual property is pretty blatant.

Kill3r7 I understand varying compensation but it doesn't really apply to what Dmaul was saying. I guess you could argue that an auto worker doesn't work as hard as Katy Perry's stage worker, but honestly I wouldn't know without researching it more.[/QUOTE]

You missed my point. I was simply arguing that not all work is compensated equally. For example a teacher will never be paid the same amount as an athlete/ entertainer or musician. Thus, it's moot to compare different types of work to justify compensation or to show whose working harder. The entertainment industry is compensated more because they have created a marketplace that thrives and preys on our consumerism. Teachers on the other hand are under appreciated and under paid.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']You missed my point. I was simply arguing that not all work is compensated equally. For example a teacher will never be paid the same amount as an athlete/ entertainer or musician. Thus, it's moot to compare different types of work to justify compensation or to show whose working harder. The entertainment industry is compensated more because they have created a marketplace that thrives and preys on our consumerism. Teachers on the other hand are under appreciated and under paid.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I wasn't sure what you were getting at since your use of hence made me think you were claiming entertainers worked harder. I didn't bring up the entertainer/worker comparison, I was just pointing out how stupid it was.
 
If there is a way to obtain it through legal means, then I'll do it, whether it's through amazon or some import site.

Although I have run into occasions that no matter how hard I looked there just wasn't a way for me buy the album or song I wanted (obscure stuff namely), which is when I resort to "shadier" tactics.

As for copyright law here in the US, it needs some serious overhauling.
 
Yeah, some import Jazz stuff is hard to find. Amazon sells this http://www.amazon.com/Tribute-Hanni...IIT2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325787782&sr=8-1 for $47. Or you can find it on a jazz music blog if you search enough.


But what about Books? I havent bought a "new" book in over 10 years. (Except for the when Borders went out of business)

I go through about a book a week or so. I get most of my books from the library or the local used book store. None of the money I pay for books actually goes toward the author/artist.
Am I stealing?
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Yeah, some import Jazz stuff is hard to find. Amazon sells this http://www.amazon.com/Tribute-Hanni...IIT2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325787782&sr=8-1 for $47. Or you can find it on a jazz music blog if you search enough.


But what about Books? I havent bought a "new" book in over 10 years. (Except for the when Borders went out of business)

I go through about a book a week or so. I get most of my books from the library or the local used book store. None of the money I pay for books actually goes toward the author/artist.
Am I stealing?[/QUOTE]

Nope, there is an exception under copyright law that permits the use of copyrighted material for learning purposes. However, you may not copy and share this content without the permission of the copyright holder.

Thus you can go to your local library and borrow CDs, movies and games but you are not allowed to copy them.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Nope, there is an exception under copyright law that permits the use of copyrighted material for learning purposes. However, you may not copy and share this content without the permission of the copyright holder.

Thus you can go to your local library and borrow CDs, movies and games but you are not allowed to copy them.[/QUOTE]

And this is where logic flies out the window with respect to copyright law!
 
[quote name='Javery']And this is where logic flies out the window with respect to copyright law![/QUOTE]

Agreed. Ultimately legal fictions and legalese prevail from this point forward.
 
It isn't logical as it was just a concession made/forced by the government.

Copyright gives creators sole right to sell and profit from their creation, libraries are concession so even the poor have some access to the arts.

Things like used book stores are just a fair use concession. Hard to keep someone who buys a book or cd from being able to sell it as they own that copy of it.

Digital goods are trickier since one can make and give away infinite copies, where as if you give away/sell/trade a book your copy is gone (could have photo copied it I suppose, but then it's illegal to keep the copy if you sell the book I think). Hence why the pushed for DRM etc., at least music has realized that's futile and just limits fair use by legitimate owners and does nothing to top pirates. Book publishers and movie studies haven't reached that same realization unfortunately.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Copyright gives creators sole right to sell and profit from their creation, libraries are concession so even the poor have some access to the arts.[/QUOTE]

That's the idea I guess... but it's not really the rule. Copyright gives the holder (not the creator) a "bundle of rights" which are supposed to allow that person or entity to control reproduction, distribution, public performances, public display and the creation of derivative works. Copyrights are supposed to be original works and fixed in some tangible form but you don't need to file for a copyright in order to get protection under the law - it comes into being the instant you satisfy the two criteria although filing in the copyright office is always a good idea to show that you came up with it first. The theory behind the rules is monetary though since the thought is that people wouldn't have incentive to create if they couldn't make a living.

The exceptions (Fair Use, First Sale Doctrine, etc.) are where things get dicey and don't make a lot of sense in relation to the original purpose of copyright in the first place but have to be in place practically speaking. I don't like the rules but I don't have any better ideas...
 
Agreed. That's what I was trying to say. Fair use, First Sale doctrine, etc. don't make logical sense in copyright law terms as they were later changes that put some more restrictions on copyright.

Libraries were a big concession to appease those who think even people who can't afford books, cds, etc. should at least have publicly funded access to them. Then there's fair use for learning purposes--i.e. students can copy parts of books from the university library for learning purposes.

First sale was just a property rights concession. If someone buys a book or cd they own that copy of the content. They don't own the content and thus can't edit it or make copies to sell etc. But they own the book or cd and can sell or trade it. Making copies of it for anything other than personal use is illegal though, as is keeping a back up copy if you sell/trade the original.

I think it's a fine system for physical media as it's a fair balance IMO between the copyright holder's rights, giving even the poor some access to the arts, and allowing people who purchase copies of things to sell or trade them if they no longer want it.

The problem is those policies don't translate well to the digial arena where one can instantly make an unlimited number of permanent copies. Libraries aren't much different--library e-books just work by expiring after the lending period (they automatically get deleted from your device when your loan period is up). But you can't really apply first sale doctrine since there is no physical copy and it's so easy for people to sell multiple copies, keep a copy after giving one to a friend etc.
 
[quote name='Javery']That's the idea I guess... but it's not really the rule. Copyright gives the holder (not the creator) a "bundle of rights" which are supposed to allow that person or entity to control reproduction, distribution, public performances, public display and the creation of derivative works. Copyrights are supposed to be original works and fixed in some tangible form but you don't need to file for a copyright in order to get protection under the law - it comes into being the instant you satisfy the two criteria although filing in the copyright office is always a good idea to show that you came up with it first. The theory behind the rules is monetary though since the thought is that people wouldn't have incentive to create if they couldn't make a living.

The exceptions (Fair Use, First Sale Doctrine, etc.) are where things get dicey and don't make a lot of sense in relation to the original purpose of copyright in the first place but have to be in place practically speaking. I don't like the rules but I don't have any better ideas...[/QUOTE]


The Fair Use exception came about for academic purposes. Afterall, the main purpose of copyright law is/was to promote human innovation and knowledge.
 
Right. It started getting really messy when personal recorders (tape, VCR, etc.) and copy machines (paper) became prevalent. It's just too easy to make copies and as time goes on it is becoming easier and easier to even make perfect copies. I can envision a time in the not so distant future when 3D printers are the norm and we progress towards Star Trek like replicators. What then? I think there needs to be a complete revision of the laws but I have no idea how you keep everyone in line.

There is some early 20th century case that performing artists or singers or some group like that thought the player piano was going to be the end of their profession - who would ever pay them to perform if a machine can do it for free? Looking back it seems crazy but we've moved on just as I'm sure we will eventually get past the ease of downloads and internet distribution.

[quote name='kill3r7']The Fair Use exception came about for academic purposes. Afterall, the main purpose of copyright law is/was to promote human innovation and knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Fair Use is much broader than that. It applies to not only academic purposes like teaching and research but also to news reporting and public commentary/criticism (this last one is quite broad when you think about it and where I think Weird Al and stuff like that falls into) but it definitely all falls into promoting public knowledge/discourse (promoting innovation is more for patent law, I think). Art enriches life or something...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. That's what I was trying to say. Fair use, First Sale doctrine, etc. don't make logical sense in copyright law terms as they were later changes that put some more restrictions on copyright.

Libraries were a big concession to appease those who think even people who can't afford books, cds, etc. should at least have publicly funded access to them. Then there's fair use for learning purposes--i.e. students can copy parts of books from the university library for learning purposes.

First sale was just a property rights concession. If someone buys a book or cd they own that copy of the content. They don't own the content and thus can't edit it or make copies to sell etc. But they own the book or cd and can sell or trade it. Making copies of it for anything other than personal use is illegal though, as is keeping a back up copy if you sell/trade the original.

I think it's a fine system for physical media as it's a fair balance IMO between the copyright holder's rights, giving even the poor some access to the arts, and allowing people who purchase copies of things to sell or trade them if they no longer want it.

The problem is those policies don't translate well to the digial arena where one can instantly make an unlimited number of permanent copies. Libraries aren't much different--library e-books just work by expiring after the lending period (they automatically get deleted from your device when your loan period is up). But you can't really apply first sale doctrine since there is no physical copy and it's so easy for people to sell multiple copies, keep a copy after giving one to a friend etc.[/QUOTE]

With digital media today you are not actually purchasing the actual product. What you are doing is simply buying a license to use. This is the legal fiction I mentioned earlier. This in my opinion is where modern copyright law falls apart. People think that by purchasing a song on iTunes they have bought a copy of the song when in reality they have simply bought a license to play the song as per apple's licensing terms.

Edit: There was a very interesting case on this very topic recently involving autocad and multilicense application which is a real threat to First sale doctrine.
 
Well, I can afford books. Just not at the rate I go through them. Hard for me to justify spending $8 on a paperback a week. And I'm the kinda person who likes to have backup, so I feel the need to buy 3-4 books at once.

So it's cheaper and easier for me to buy used books for $3-4 a pop or checkout a few from the library.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']With digital media today you are not actually purchasing the actual product. What you are doing is simply buying a license to use. This is the legal fiction I mentioned earlier. This in my opinion is where modern copyright law falls apart. People think that by purchasing a song on iTunes they have bought a copy of the song when in reality they have simply bought a license to play the song as per apple's licensing terms.[/QUOTE]

Yep. That's the legal/technical difference.

I was just focusing more on the practical differences and why it's a license/why they tried DRM (and other media still do) which is easy of making identical copies and ease of distributing them online.

Far greater threat that used book stores or used cd shops were to the industry back before mp3s and ebooks since many more sales can be lost from people sharing and hosting digital files.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Well, I can afford books. Just not at the rate I go through them. Hard for me to justify spending $8 on a paperback a week. And I'm the kinda person who likes to have backup, so I feel the need to buy 3-4 books at once.

So it's cheaper and easier for me to buy used books for $3-4 a pop or checkout a few from the library.[/QUOTE]

And nothing wrong with that legally. I occasionally use the library, but I can afford the 2-4 books a month I read so I usually just by the e-books vs. hassling with the library's limited selection and wait times for anything popular.

In general I always make sure to buy my favorite authors, albums and games new to reward the creators. I'll buy used, or use the library, for stuff I'm not much into. Really only books and games though. Never checked out a cd or movie from the library. I guess movie rentals count as I do use Netflix--but I still buy my favorites new. Music I just buy albums. New bands I'll check out online with legal streams and buy if I like.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']With digital media today you are not actually purchasing the actual product. What you are doing is simply buying a license to use. This is the legal fiction I mentioned earlier. This in my opinion is where modern copyright law falls apart. People think that by purchasing a song on iTunes they have bought a copy of the song when in reality they have simply bought a license to play the song as per apple's licensing terms.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Same thing when you buy a physical copy of the song on CD. You own the CD and can sell it under the first sale doctrine but when you are listening to it you are exercising your rights as a licensee of the music, not an owner of it in any way.
 
I don't even know where to begin with clearing up some of these as they apply to music.

If I write a bunch of tunes they are mine and I own the copyright if they are indeed original compositions. There are various ways to get them under copyright but that's a different discussion.

If I then sell them to a distributor (this is part of your standard record contract) then I retain copyright, but they have distro rights.

If you buy my CD from Regain Records for instance, then I retain the composition copyright and you own that physical medium with which you can do as you please as long as you retain that physical medium. You cannot sell a copy of that, but you can sell it through Amazon or whatever.

The person that buys the CD from you now owns the physical copy and you relenquish your rights to doing whatever you wish with that physical medium. If you made a duplicate of that original and kept, you have profited off of my IP and therefore broke the law. No dupe and you're fine and dandy.

That's where the selling things as second hand is just fine, you the original buyer has sold your physical medium without making a profit from the item, as it relates to my original copyright.

You'll also notice that the library does not profit from lending, so that's kind of a moot point in this discussion. You can also lend a copy of my record to your buddy as long as you don't charge for lending. If your buddy makes a copy and keeps it for himself that is a violation as well.

DRM is pretty new and I've been out of the business since it came about. On the whole it's very similar based on what I understand, with no ability to sell it secondhand due to a lack of physical medium.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. That's the legal/technical difference.

I was just focusing more on the practical differences and why it's a license/why they tried DRM (and other media still do) which is easy of making identical copies and ease of distributing them online.

Far greater threat that used book stores or used cd shops were to the industry back before mp3s and ebooks since many more sales can be lost from people sharing and hosting digital files.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. I'm a big believer that these companies need to figure out a new business model to lessen the impact of piracy. You have to give the customer more incentive to chose you over piracy.
 
[quote name='Javery']Bingo. Same thing when you buy a physical copy of the song on CD. You own the CD and can sell it under the first sale doctrine but when you are listening to it you are exercising your rights as a licensee of the music, not an owner of it in any way.[/QUOTE]

Yep. The difference is with the CD the license is a physical object (the CD you bought) and you can transfer that to someone else by selling/trading/giving it away--as long as you didn't make any copies.

With digital goods, they're just isn't a feasible way to do that license transfer currently.

It can be done with DRM though. Like some Kindle books have a lending feature where you can loan it to another user once and you lose access to the file while the other person has it. They could use that type of system to allow permanent license transfers I suppose. But publishers would never go for it as they want to kill off the first sell doctrine--and most big publishers don't even allow the 1-time lending feature to be enabled on their e-books.
 
[quote name='nasum']I don't even know where to begin with clearing up some of these as they apply to music.

If I write a bunch of tunes they are mine and I own the copyright if they are indeed original compositions. There are various ways to get them under copyright but that's a different discussion.

If I then sell them to a distributor (this is part of your standard record contract) then I retain copyright, but they have distro rights.

If you buy my CD from Regain Records for instance, then I retain the composition copyright and you own that physical medium with which you can do as you please as long as you retain that physical medium. You cannot sell a copy of that, but you can sell it through Amazon or whatever.

The person that buys the CD from you now owns the physical copy and you relenquish your rights to doing whatever you wish with that physical medium. If you made a duplicate of that original and kept, you have profited off of my IP and therefore broke the law. No dupe and you're fine and dandy.

That's where the selling things as second hand is just fine, you the original buyer has sold your physical medium without making a profit from the item, as it relates to my original copyright.

You'll also notice that the library does not profit from lending, so that's kind of a moot point in this discussion. You can also lend a copy of my record to your buddy as long as you don't charge for lending. If your buddy makes a copy and keeps it for himself that is a violation as well.

DRM is pretty new and I've been out of the business since it came about. On the whole it's very similar based on what I understand, with no ability to sell it secondhand due to a lack of physical medium.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct. I just wanted to clarify that with DRM/digital copies you cannot resell at all since you would be violating the licensing agreement even if there was a way to transfer/sell the song to someone else.

P.S. to further clarify... when I mentioned ownership above I strictly meant owning a physical copy of the product (in this case a cd) not actual ownership over the songs or content itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='kill3r7']Ditto. I'm a big believer that these companies need to figure out a new business model to lessen the impact of piracy. You have to give the customer more incentive to chose you over piracy.[/QUOTE]

It just doesn't seem like there's a lot of options.

Musicians have touring and merchandise to fall back on. And can do things I've mentioned like include bonus songs or other extras if you buy the album through their fan club.

So they have options. But for authors/book publishers they don't have much options. No touring other than maybe some money from doing book signings--but those won't get the e-book fans who aren't buying paper books (nothing to sign). Merchandising is limited to very few books like Harry Potter, Twilight etc., where as every band can sell some crap at shows.

Movies just have box office, rentals/ppv and dvd/br sales. Merchandising again limited to the hit movies with big followings--particularly with things that can have toy tie ins.


So it really just comes down to coming up with user friendly file formats and marketing them and pricing them right. People are going to pirate and only music really has good alternative avenues to make money beyond simply selling content.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It just doesn't seem like there's a lot of options.

Musicians have touring and merchandise to fall back on. And can do things I've mentioned like include bonus songs or other extras if you buy the album through their fan club.

So they have options. But for authors/book publishers they don't have much options. No touring other than maybe some money from doing book signings--but those won't get the e-book fans who aren't buying paper books (nothing to sign). Merchandising is limited to very few books like Harry Potter, Twilight etc., where as every band can sell some crap at shows.

Movies just have box office, rentals/ppv and dvd/br sales. Merchandising again limited to the hit movies with big followings--particularly with things that can have toy tie ins.


So it really just comes down to coming up with user friendly file formats and marketing them and pricing them right. People are going to pirate and only music really has good alternative avenues to make money beyond simply selling content.[/QUOTE]

One idea that comes to mind with respect to ebooks is for them to offer additional features and content that you could only access by buying the book ala newer EA/ PC games and online play.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']You are absolutely correct. I just wanted to clarify that with DRM/digital copies you cannot resell at all since you would violating the licensing agreement even if there was a way to transfer/sell the song to someone else.

P.S. to further clarify... when I mentioned ownership above I strictly meant owning a physical copy of the product (in this case a cd) not actual ownership over the songs or content itself.[/QUOTE]

word, it just seems like it got a little obfuscated so I wanted to make it rather clear.

Also, my distro would own the publication rights, meaning even though I wrote the music, I can't make up my own CDs and sell them by myself. Clever monkeys, it's the 3 tier alcohol system in music form.
 
[quote name='nasum']word, it just seems like it got a little obfuscated so I wanted to make it rather clear.

Also, my distro would own the publication rights, meaning even though I wrote the music, I can't make up my own CDs and sell them by myself. Clever monkeys, it's the 3 tier alcohol system in music form.[/QUOTE]

I believe you can license distribution rights for a set period of time... Just don't hold me to that. My specialty is patent law so I'm by no means an expert on copyright law.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can license distribution rights for just a set amount of time and then get them back. Most record labels probably aren't willing to do that though. Imagine the only groups that could pull it off are the big ones who the labels need more than the artist needs the label.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']One idea that comes to mind with respect to ebooks is for them to offer additional features and content that you could only access by buying the book ala newer EA/ PC games and online play.[/QUOTE]

That's possible. But tough since most e-books are getting read on e-ink devices. And those don't really do much of anything be display text and gray scale photos.

For e-books meant for a Tablet like the iPad, the it's more feasible in terms of what extra they could include in terms of sound, videos, games or other interactive features.

I can say that's been discussed on some ebook forums, and people were very against it. But of course those are hardcore book worms and not the average book buyer. Most of those people don't do anything in their free time but read.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And nothing wrong with that legally. I occasionally use the library, but I can afford the 2-4 books a month I read so I usually just by the e-books vs. hassling with the library's limited selection and wait times for anything popular.

In general I always make sure to buy my favorite authors, albums and games new to reward the creators. I'll buy used, or use the library, for stuff I'm not much into. Really only books and games though. Never checked out a cd or movie from the library. I guess movie rentals count as I do use Netflix--but I still buy my favorites new. Music I just buy albums. New bands I'll check out online with legal streams and buy if I like.[/QUOTE]

And this is what I feel the slightest tinge of guilt over. (And then it passes) I'll read anything by Martin, Stross, Sanderson, others. But I don't "reward" them. I never buy their books new or pay full price for them.

Same with game companies. I like you Insomniac, Naughty Dog,, Bethseda, etc. But I rarely ever "buy" your games. (I get them through goozex or used). Only recently during black friday did I buy "new" games, but they were so heavily discounted I really doubt that helped or rewarded the publisher.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing stopping you from starting to buy at least stuff from your favorite authors etc. Assuming you can afford to do so. If budget is tight, nothing wrong with using the library, used book stores etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top