Downloading music and copyrights

Hi guys,

This is a serious question - I am just trying to clear the grey mist surrounding this topic for myself...

I just upset my daughter tonight because I made her remove all traces of music she had downloaded from friends and Internet sites off my PCs. She has an MP3 player which she wanted to transfer them to.

Am I being over cautious or am I wrong in believing that she was breaking copyright and it is becoming a serious issue?

Have I over reacted?

What is the current state of UK / Internationally agreed law on copyrights for music, downloads etc?

Any help would be gratefully received.

If she owned the CD's would she be okay - I am confused about this situation.

IPete2.

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/intel/site/music3.html

That might help.

Dunno whether the UK is different from NL on p2p guidelines, afaik: downloading is legal, uploading is evil.

I'd put the focus on other things, I'd say: buy worthy things, download the average/crap. Many ppl just download for the sake of downloading, even if it's pure crap, it's really no damage to the industry orso. So, I'd put the focus on "what's quality, what's not", give'r some insight in how things are made/produced, try to give'r an impression how crafty some albums are, and how quick 'n rushy/commercial some others are made. Teach the reckognision of 'art' and 'craftmanship'.
If we boycot crap and encourage quality.. we might perhaps even get rid of all the crap-productions in the long run ^__^.

Kill one and you're a murderer, kill a million and you're a conqueror. It's a bit risky to act like the booman by wiping mp3's when all her friends are also leeching the same stuff. Does she have serious (pocket)money to spend? If not: she might not even be able to buy all the stuff original, so in both cases (1:not being able to buy, 2:downloading) the record-industry won't suffer an inch. (tho they tell different stories on that ofcourse)

2ct./imho

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1947844,00.html

i heard something on the news about this

hmm. Well if you are downloading mainstream music and not paying for it, it certainly isn't legal as that stuff is copyrighted and the artist is losing out on royalties. However, it's just the same as copying CDs/Tapes etc. Uploading is worse as you have made a recording and put it on the Interet for free distribution. People are getting done for uploading stuff these days, but downloaders probably get away with it ... for now. I don't use P2P at all, never have bothered. People do all the same stuff with movies and TV programs too. This is illegal of course too. Same with games. It's jsu

Downloaders usually leech a bunch, burn it on a cd or dvd, and put in a cd-wallet, where it'll prolly stay. Ppl these days hop from one artist to another one, being less loyal to artists than ppl were quite some years ago. I for one think it's all related to the quality of these day's music, and moreover the "producers-formula" they are. I'm seriously NOT ever going to pay a dime for all the junk these days. Only rarely I encounter a CD that's worth buying. (and so I do then)

So, it's really the record-companies blowing all things out of proportion, they *still* think that every download was a sale-loss. Let them first create something decent, and scrap 50% of their producer 'n artist-database.

It varies from country to country, I'm not sure about England...

LAst I heard, the following is the current situation in The Netherlands, as well as Canada:

There, it is perfectly legal to download songs from file share networks and the likes for your own use, although it is illegal to distribute them to others. You are also allowed to borrow a copy of a CD from a friend and make a copy for personal use. A levy is charged over blank media (CD-R's, DVD-R's, flash memory, Ipod's, etc.) which gets paid to the national recording association which is supposed to distribute it among its members.
The music industry has been lobbying pretty heavily for the last couple of years to try to get laws passed to prohibit the downloading as well, but so far unsuccesfully.

Anyway, since it is illegal to distribute, some file share utilities like bittorrent can be used to break the law, since you will always upload/distribute the file you are downloading as well... but download-only P2P tools and one-on-one copies like a copy of a disc that a friend gave you, etc. are perfectly fine... At least it has been so far.

Again, not sure how it works in England... Do you pay a levy on blank media there?

But from what I've heard, pretty much all countries allow you to convert formats of a song, so you can legally make MP3's out of CD's you own yourself... Although in some countries you technically wouldn't be allowed to use the CD's at the same time as you listen to the MP3's.



Let me ask you this: How would you have reacted if she recorded a bunch of songs of the radio onto a cassette tape, and swapped it with a friend?

when you get down to it, there is no real fundamental difference between that and a few CD's worth of MP3's... but I have a feeling you've been 'guilty' of the cassette tape deal too when you were younger -- pretty much all kids were. Would your parents have destroyed/erased your tapes?

The music industry's current policy is to treat its customers as criminals when they dare to check out new music in lossy (hence untimately undesirable and CD-sale-encouraging) formats. *That* is an over-reaction to file-sharing on their part, mostly brought about by a bunch of fat old men realising that digital distribution has potentially made them redundant - but the practicality for everyday users is that the risk of getting into hot water from sharing music has been scaled up along with the increased ease of the sharing*. So, y'know, being cautious is totally understandable.

Whether you've over reacted depends on a number of things: Is there a ridiculous amount of music? Is she likely to buy the stuff she likes? Exactly how servile towards people who would sue their own customers do you want her to be? (Because there are genuine social/civil issues here - copyright was initially supposed to bind publishers rather than the general public.) Nobody can tell you how to bring up your kid and which values to impart, except to say that James Blunt is rubbish and his works should be purged from all devices.


Oh, and if she owns the CD - well record labels have pushed the notion of music licenses so, by their own standards, she's fine. A bit lazy not to rip her own, though.

*

I believe we do. My understanding is that the levy accounts for casual copying rather than large-scale piracy, which perhaps explains why "everyday" users are now getting stung - because for the first time they can distribute a similar quantity of material to "professional" pirates.

But CD-Rs are so utterly dirt cheap at trade price, are you sure we are really paying a levy? I guess a hyperlink will prove it.

It's amusing how these discussions always get drawn into discussions of quality. No one ever actually says "it's not good enough to buy, but it's good enough to steal" but it's amusing watching them almost say it, just the same.

I don't see how a levy on media is relevant to the legaility of something, it's just an acknowledgement that it happens. The supermarkets raise their prices to cover shoplifting, but it doesn't mean that shoplifters can go ahead and enjoy their pastime because someone's paying for it.

Did you overreact? No, you didn't, and I'll tell you why. Regardless of ambiguities in the law ( which I'm not sure exist anyway, but covering all bases here ) it's encouraging a mentality of taking something without paying for it. People with that attitude are prone to resentment, jealously, spite, etc. It's an attitude you don't want to foster. She may never thank you for it, but if it makes her a better person and untimately a happier person then I doubt you'll worry about that too much.

Now we know why you're called Gabriel ;)

EDIT: And yet...

Eh? That's not the impression I get from the discussion at all, although it's fairly straightforward that people will indulge in something they don't particularly want if it drifts by them for free. Nobody bothers saying it because it's bleeding obvious. And it's not like it's a lost sale.


Nobody said it was. The point of the levy simply helps us understand how average users have suddenly drifted into the big prosecution leagues: Distributing hundreds of songs to thousands of people was way beyond the bounds of home taping.

Have to agree with Gab here.

If you can't afford to buy the music, don't buy it (I am not saying you should download it when you can't buy it). You'll live. Otherwise, if you want it, cough up. How is it any different than pirating software, movies, etc.? Point is, there isn't a difference.

When you can buy songs for $1 on iTunes (and albums with 10 or more songs can typically be bought for $10 tops) I don't really see what the big deal is. If you download music without paying (where neccessary), wouldn't that just reflect how 'low' an individual you are to not pay even $1?

http://www.allofmp3.com

Allofmp3 isn't legal.

Downloading (in the UK) is a minor breach of copyright. It isn't a criminal offence and there is about zero chance of getting in sort of trouble. It's the same as making a tape of your friends CD\LP which most of did when we were kids. It's the same as taping from the radio.

Uploading (sharing) on the other hand is a bit more serious and *is* a criminal offence. Obviously P2P software involves uploading as well as downloading.

OK,

Thanks for the help - from the link Helios gave me I can say that I think the following:

(1) Downloading music which is not paid for, not promotional and which is copyrighted is illegal

(2) Downloading music from subscription and pay per download is legal.

(3) Currently RIAA are only prosecuting people who download >=1000 pieces of music

(4) That could change and lawsuits may creep in the future.

This is more or less how I was thinking, but I just didn't know the facts. Like Noel says if you download software or DVD's that is clearly illegal - music is no different.

IPete2.

That would be 'share/actively upload 1000 or more songs.'

In some countries, not everywhere.

whether you consider it 'moral' is something else entirely, but there are plenty of places where it's completely legal to do so. The RIAA is the Recording industry association of AMERICA, and has no jurisdiction outside the US, so none of their rules apply there either. Each country has their own laws that cover this, and some are singificantly more permissive than others.

As a matter of fact, I just ran into this tidbit earlier: The French courts have just ruled that using peer-to-peer networks (P2P), providing you are doing so for personal rather than commercial reasons, is legal:

http://www.audionautes.net/blog/index.php?2006/02/07/69-french-judge-authorizes-downloading-and-uploading-of-copyrighted-content-on-the-internet

Note that they ruled that it's not just the downloading, but also the uploading that's permitted in France.

Xlsior,

Wow! It is no wonder that people are confused about this subject.

Noel - yeah sorry I was mainly talking about my daughters' downloading thats why I didnt mention uploading - but uploading seems worse as you are giving free copies of copyright music away!

IPete2.

Yes.
Music must be free. Musicians must not gain millions by the recordings. Musicians must swept to gain money they must go and play live if they wand money.
The whole situation it's so wrong. They must allow people to download or record their music for free and charge television and radio station to play their songs.
But as they know the well practiced trick they just give their music to them for free and charge us.


kill them all and you are god. <Megadeth>
Sell one and you are poor , sell a million and you are a millioner , sell them all and you can by the world...

I have that album too and it's what the quote made me think of.

well live music is great but what about people that slave for hours making electronic music for games. I don't think it should be free otherwise the same could be said for art etc.

Right now downloading copyright music is stealing from a moral viewpoint even though it may be legal in some countries. However, we all copied a few tapes, C64 games etc as kids so it's not really much different. Selling this music on a market stall IS different. Thing is, as the Internet becomes faster and more and more kids are using it, we will have to change our entire outlook on copyright and ownership because it will be so hard to police.

It's far more different when music it's created for games or movies than just sell music or songs.
I don't know but this whole thing looks to wrong from my point of view.
Industry for music , games , movies gone to far.
30 euros for a full album? This is really to much money.
60 euros for a game?
So much money for entertainment?
And ok let's say that you can manage your self to not over reacting and buy CD and Games evry day. But teens how wands to expiriment to listen evrything to play evrything cannot stop from stealing the big companies and copy their products and no one can blaim them.
I bought all the games all the music that I ever really enjoid even if the games was rated old the time I had money to buy them.

Solution: subscribe to the local library. That'll cost you about $30 a year orso, and you can hire CD's for $1 each. Next you'll copy the CD, which is -afaik- legal, since you do it for educational purposes.
Pure CD! No mp3 hiss, zippo, just a 1:1 copy! All for a sum of money that dwarfs next to your internetsubscription.

'Stealing' is a bit of a wrong term used here. In the case of stealing A steals from B, A gains an article from B, B lost one article without payment. In case of downloading the original isn't lost. The only thing that's lost is potential profits for a number of shops/publishers.
This downloading would be the same as totally ignoring an album 'cause it's crap. In both cases you wouldn't have bought it. So, that's my point: 'buy the things you really like, ignore/download the trash'. In this case there won't be any difference with the situation as it was before the rise of p2p.

Yeah I guess you're right

In my world:
I *could* legally pay for a few songs to download before buying the cd; Then if I buy the disc, I have payed for the songs twice, and if i dont, ill not be intending on listening to those songs again.
Sounds overly ideal, but avoiding the above is my own justification for downloading music myself; Of course it doesnt justify it for those that never intend on buying
For some bands (ie for which any albumn i will buy) Ill download in order to decide the order in which i buy (saving inbetween); As a student, I only spend money on beer,cloths and CD's (which i like to have in collection, regardless of wether ive downloaded the songs or not).
Its not something im going to question myself on.
Then of course theres game music that i'll listen to occasionally: From games i have bought: Media is included for listening in the game, its just that i can only listen when it allows me to. I dont imagine anything in the liscence that dictates when the media can be used, or with respect to what.

I disagree with your point of view.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
I cast lightning lvl1,000,000.
Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist because you are only a lvl2 Druid.

if you download music illegally, poor popstars like bono and madonna will starve!!!.
you would hate to force these poor
unfortnuates on to the streets now would you?

LOL! Excellent parenting skills there! Over-react, THEN find out what the facts are. Even though you are morally/ethically correct, I can see an apology in the offing, because (a) you have over-reacted and (b) your daughter is undoubtedly female - hence you are wrong.

Good luck with the aftermath.

How many products exist that are given out for free (radio/tv) and take almost no resources/effort to reproduce?

The formula for make lots of cash from music is not working as well as it used to. It had a short life, while they could record with better quality than the listener. That time is over.