copy protection schemes

[David Andrews]

Dragging this back on topic (well trying too  )

Copy protection schemes suck. If I've bought the LP/Tape/CD/DVD then its mine to do with as I please!

cheers

MikeC

But the material on it isn't.... legally speaking.

Your money pays for the work involved, true, but it doesn't entitle you to copy it.  There's a notice to that effect on the labels of these things.

Personally, I like the scheme that Kingsway Music had in the late 70s and early 80s... the stamps thing.

Basically, the artists should get their royalties, and the publishers theirs, and so on.  But if you make a copy, and if you were willing to pay for the right to do that (which is the effect of the scheme that Kingsway set up), then once those royalties are paid (and acknowledged in the form of a stamp, say...) then there should be no problem making the copy.  The process should be cheaper since the company don't have to manufacture the sold unit... why can't they do this?  It was a brilliant idea, and like most brilliant ideas, the industry shoved it aside.

[mikec]

Dragging this back on topic (well trying too  )

Copy protection schemes suck. If I've bought the LP/Tape/CD/DVD then its mine to do with as I please!

cheers

MikeC

But the material on it isn't.... legally speaking.

Your money pays for the work involved, true, but it doesn't entitle you to copy it.  There's a notice to that effect on the labels of these things.

Personally, I like the scheme that Kingsway Music had in the late 70s and early 80s... the stamps thing.

Basically, the artists should get their royalties, and the publishers theirs, and so on.  But if you make a copy, and if you were willing to pay for the right to do that (which is the effect of the scheme that Kingsway set up), then once those royalties are paid (and acknowledged in the form of a stamp, say...) then there should be no problem making the copy.  The process should be cheaper since the company don't have to manufacture the sold unit... why can't they do this?  It was a brilliant idea, and like most brilliant ideas, the industry shoved it aside.

David,
Ignoring the points/stamps bit for a minute. (valid thought they are)

Are you saying that by transferring (copying by another word) any CD onto my iPod I am breaking the law? If not then what is the difference between transferring a CD onto my iPod and copying the same CD onto a CDR to listen to on the move as I do with my iPod? I'm not clear as to the difference.

Now I accept that there is a difference between copying (sorry transferring  ), for personal use and copying for others , (and this is where the problem lies and where I admit I don't have a solution) but restricting me to using a CD (download or whatever medium) to a single type of usage is wrong in my book.

cheers


MikeC

P.S. I didn't want to copy his post here but Skirky said all I wanted to earlier in this thread so read backwards folks

[James SftBH]

Pre-iPod, I copied about 400 CDs onto CDR to play in the car. When the iPod arrived I put everything on that......what was I to do with all those burned CDR copies? Throw them away? No of course not, I gave them to Skirky. So whilst they were originally for personal use (and therefore not illegal as I understand it), when I passed them on they became counterfeit. Which is a bit odd.

[Andy]

Possibly technically not, since there was no financial transaction involved.

[mikec]

Possibly technically not, since there was no financial transaction involved.

And there's where the problem arises. (sorry, you lot sort the dichotomy out. I'm too p***ed!)

[Paul]

If you go by the absolute letter of the law, you are not allowed to make a copy at all, but there are grey areas that the law seems to turn a blind eye to, like making a backup copy for yourself, or giving the pianist a photocopy while you hold the original in your hand to sing from.

You certainly cannot pass on copies to anybody else, even if no money is involved.

Paul

[Chris]

Sorry folks - -as much as I agreed with Randle's post, it was certainly libellous.....and therefore I have removed it, with sadness.

[Randlepmcmurphy]

No problem Chris im used to it by now

[Andy]

An article I read today (might have been in PC World mag) said that even backup copies of your own CD's are illegal. Bananas.

[Anna]

So.... All of us with iPods & similar are breaking the law too?  Unless we downloaded the tracks from paid-for sources...

[Paul]

Correct. As the law stands, if you make a copy you are breaking the law.

Paul

[clive]

An article I read today (might have been in PC World mag) said that even backup copies of your own CD's are illegal. Bananas.

It was PCW mag (May issue, page 45), there was a link to
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm

According to the author's contact with the UK Patent Office he was under the impression owning an iPod was technically breaking the law before you even download a track.

[Andy]

There was a court case against Sony with regard to Betamax (!) which fell because the recordings were temporary - as long as it is erased, all is ok.

But this is all outdated rubbish really.

[mikec]

An article I read today (might have been in PC World mag) said that even backup copies of your own CD's are illegal. Bananas.

So.... All of us with iPods & similar are breaking the law too? Unless we downloaded the tracks from paid-for sources...

Correct. As the law stands, if you make a copy you are breaking the law.

Paul

Sorry but I have to quote the great Mr MacEnroe here. "You must be joking"

Has the world gone completely mad?

[Liam Schwilik]

YES!

[Andy]

Err. the quote is "You cannot be serious!".

It's obviously a good idea to protect the interests of artists and the company that sells their wares, but as I said, I reckon these are outdated measures.

Mind you it woul dhelp if CD's containing 40 year-old 39-minute albums were not priced at 14.99 in the shops!

[mikec]

Err, he actually said both quotes several times but the Serious one is the one everyone tends to remember.

Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment re 40 yr old CDs at full price tho Andy.

[Liam Schwilik]

Does that mean that great work, like any antique or ancient artifact have a decreasing value over time? Why is music any different? Because you expect it on a plate? Because the money has been made over time, it does not mean it has to be given away, surely?

Mark.

P.S. Do you have any idea as to the costs of making a CD, releasing it and hoping that you are going to make a profit?

[jude]

Umm for what it's worth, it is hard enough for most artists to get paid any sales royalties from record companies especially when the catalogue has been sold several times over and obviously each new company wants to recoup the money spent on acquiring the catalogue.

They don't have the inclination to track down the bands involved from early catalogues. And those bands certainly don't have the legal clout or the money to fund legal costs for what might be a trivial amount to a record co. but a helpful amount to the artist.

This is a bit off topic probably, but I do feel that copies made and passed on do affect sales.

Actually I'm just having a grumble here as I am trying to track lost stuff. It's all very well being a lost legend , but a broke lost legend is not much fun.

Jude

[Andy]

Does that mean that great work, like any antique or ancient artifact have a decreasing value over time? Why is music any different? Because you expect it on a plate? Because the money has been made over time, it does not mean it has to be given away, surely?
Mark.
P.S. Do you have any idea as to the costs of making a CD, releasing it and hoping that you are going to make a profit?

To release a CD, you price it so that the costs of making the recording, preparing the sleeve and the production run will be recouped as quickly as possible - and indeed hopefully so that the costs are recouped! No label I have ever come across was a charity and those that are non-profit organsiations perish, such is the way of the world.

But when it is a re-re-rerelease, and all the costs of recording etc have been recouped decades ago, and some of the artists are indeed lost to us and won't get paid any royalties, the profits just go to the record company, who have, in a lot of r-r-r's bought the music outright and are now just hammering the fans for a few more quid.

It's not Fairport I'm thinking of here, but, let's use The Beatles as an example. Albums much shorter than current CD's are sold at £9.99 or more when I remember buying them on vinyl at Woolies for 7/6". Thats 37.5p - in their heyday. How can anyone justify £9.99?

Jude, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to offend in any way. I'd never recommend to anyone that they take profits from you. If it's any consolation, I'm a broke lost legend too, albeit in a different field.

But my central point was that when ridiculous prices are being charged by the labels to be paid straight into their coffers, it's hardly surprising that r-r-r's get copied.

I'll just shut up now.