Printable View
OK - you are at home with your stereo, you have a tuner ( radio receiver ) you hear a track you like and so you record it. What is the difference between that and downloading a track from the net ?
Both ways you end up with a music track for your own use that you didn't necessarily buy.
I am obviously missing the point somewhere :blink:
No difference at all.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 14:07
OK - you are at home with your stereo, you have a tuner ( radio receiver ) you hear a track you like and so you record it. What is the difference between that and downloading a track from the net ?
Both ways you end up with a music track for your own use that you didn't necessarily buy.
I am obviously missing the point somewhere :blink:
There is no difference at all! The music/film industry has always blamed technology for their financial problems ( remember when VCR got really popular? ANd what abut CD-R burners ?), instead of looking for the real reason: they're trying to sell crap... And expensive crap! :D
Erm, there's actually one difference: with a little luck, you'll get good files, not the kind of " quality " we had when using tapes!
this is true. the entertainment industry HATED the fact that people had recordable cassette decks and VCRs, but as years passed it became not as big of a deal. they're upset about mp3s and mpeg/divx piracy now because the quality is better. and back in the age of cassettes there was the quality degradation factor-- if one person copied a tape for someone, and that next person made a copy for someone else, and so on... the quality of the nth generation cassette would be utter crap.
but with digital file trading there IS no nth generation copy. every copy is the same as the original file, so every file is a 1st generation copy.
JPaul's right - There's absolutely no difference at all.
BTW has anyone else noticed that the piracy issue has only been arisen while CDs & their writers have become cheaper? It took me a while to figure out that this s**t was happening for the C64, Spectrum et al games and all that by copying the cassettes. :lol:
But I bet we don't hear about that, do we? <_<
Well actually, I do see one major difference.
With p2p you are able to make that file available to millions of other users with zero effort on your part.
I think that's what has 'em spooked.
So if Kazaa was a radio station then would downloading the files it "played" be illegal ?
Could p2p "radio" be a possibility ?
In other words you log on, you request a track and whilst it is playing you download it - except that the "radio" element is not a station broadcasting one signal but individual users broadcasting to each other.........
So instead of download and play it is the other way round play and download
dunno - mad idea - just wanted to see what people thought
Yes its possible.
ES5 are doing something similar with movie streaming.
Its still illegal though, most places in the world...
That is an interresting possibilty.
If I remember correctly, the guys from ES5 are considering doing it with movies... But I bet it would require hardware and bandwidth unavailable to us common internet users!
Plus, the copyright issue wouldn't be solved since by downloading, you wouldn't pay anything.
Edit: RF was faster! Do you people have extra arms surgically implanted when turned into a mod or what? :lol:
movie studios and record companies collect royalties from radio/television stations that play their stuff, so they'd want prolly more money than filesharing networks are willing (or able) to pay.
internet radio is still flying a bit too low under the radar to get into any trouble yet for not paying royalties to record labels, but it will prolly become a serious dispute eventually.
Yes but radio stations are broadcasting to the public
If I invite you round to my house and play you a track I have recorded from the radio neither of us is breaking the law - even if you record it as well, or I give you a copy I have made
but I don't see the RIAA going after people who own stereo systems :blink: !!
So instead of inviting you round to my house I say "i'll play you the track over my computer" - where is the difference ?
Obviously there is a difference somewhere
Once again I'll point out- the difference is that instead of inviting one person over to your house, you are now actually inviting millions.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 07:47
So instead of inviting you round to my house I say "i'll play you the track over my computer" - where is the difference ?
Obviously there is a difference somewhere
Anyone with a internet connection has just become your new 'best friend'.
I don't know where you live clocker, but where I come from millions of people listen to the radio and probably tape from it. Several hundred probably also watch television and record movies.
This, as I recall, is the scenario the thread starter put forward.
Well I'm one of those several hundred as well - If I was being honest, I use Kazaa to get those things that don't find their own way to the UK (e.g. music from the US).Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@28 June 2003 - 15:54
I don't know where you live clocker, but where I come from millions of people listen to the radio and probably tape from it. Several hundred probably also watch television and record movies.
I can't help it if they don't find it feasible to sell at stores in the UK <_<
Not quite, JPaul.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@28 June 2003 - 08:54
I don't know where you live clocker, but where I come from millions of people listen to the radio and probably tape from it. Several hundred probably also watch television and record movies.
This, as I recall, is the scenario the thread starter put forward.
If I invite you over to my house and say "Listen to this cool new song I just taped off the radio", you listen and then leave. Unless we got to the trouble of duping the tape, you leave with nothing more than a fond memory.
If I say "Here's a cool new song I ripped off the internet, why don't you download it?" then you actually have a physical ( well, digital) copy of that song and with p2p you also have the ability to physically give that file to millions of other people simply by leaving your computer on.
A fine distinction perhaps, but I think a major one as far as the RIAA is concerned.
Specious and irrelevant, clocker
The question posed made no mention of this invitation, shared enjoyment of music or incitement to commit crime. It simply asked the difference between taping from the radio and downloading from the internet, in terms of breach of copyright.
Back to my original answer, none.
In fact now I come to review the post, he specifically mentioned that it was for his own use. Not to be shared amongst his nearest and dearest.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 14:07
Both ways you end up with a music track for your own use that you didn't necessarily buy.
How right you are.
Too bad for your argument that p2p doesn't work unless you do share.
Hence the crackdown on filesharers and not home tapers.
What on earth has that got to do with my argument that there is no fundamental difference, from a breach of copyright viewpoint.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@28 June 2003 - 16:18
How right you are.
Too bad for your argument that p2p doesn't work unless you do share.
Hence the crackdown on filesharers and not home tapers.
Sorry, I think you must have inadvertently slipped into drivel mode.
Quote:
If I say "Here's a cool new song I ripped off the internet, why don't you download it?" then you actually have a physical ( well, digital) copy of that song and with p2p you also have the ability to physically give that file to millions of other people simply by leaving your computer on.
If a friend came over then I could say why don't you get it of the radio, that is similar to them downloading it as they still end up with the song.
Who uses tapes to record of the radio anymore, or at all? Mini disc for me :)
JPaul, I understood the implied question here to be "What is the big difference to the RIAA?"Quote:
OK - you are at home with your stereo, you have a tuner ( radio receiver ) you hear a track you like and so you record it. What is the difference between that and downloading a track from the net ?
Obviously, in the narrow terms of copyright infringement there is no difference.
The difference ( to the RIAA) is what comes next.
That file is not only in your possession illegally, but is also available (from you) to the entire internet.
or for that matter, everytime you watch mtv or vh-1 and you record the video for your own personal use, how is that any different? Are they going to start suing people for watching these music channels. NOT.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 13:07
OK - you are at home with your stereo, you have a tuner ( radio receiver ) you hear a track you like and so you record it. What is the difference between that and downloading a track from the net ?
Both ways you end up with a music track for your own use that you didn't necessarily buy.
I am obviously missing the point somewhere :blink:
I guess I'm missing the point here too as well. :rolleyes:
The Difference is its a bit quicker 2 record a song that d/l it lol.
sorry, double post! :P
Internet radio has been attacked so cruely by RIAA as to almost obliterate their existance. They've been slapped with back-taxes (paid to RIAA rather than the US government) even going back years! Some sites had to close down or pay immediate $100+K to continue operating and roughly that amount more yearly to continue operating.Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+28 June 2003 - 08:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 28 June 2003 - 08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>internet radio is still flying a bit too low under the radar to get into any trouble yet for not paying royalties to record labels, but it will prolly become a serious dispute eventually.[/b]
The few that remain got bought out by guess who... members of RIAA!Apparently you haven't been following their attempts to put phone-home devices in almost all new stereo equipment and their attempts to block first digital recording in newer models and now they're even seeking to do what they can to block the 'analog hole'! This they admit openly, as little things like certain rights and freedoms for individuals is getting in the way of their corporate profits.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 08:47
Yes but radio stations are broadcasting to the public
If I invite you round to my house and play you a track I have recorded from the radio neither of us is breaking the law - even if you record it as well, or I give you a copy I have made
but I don't see the RIAA going after people who own stereo systems :blink: !!
Know what DAT (Digital Audio Tape) is? RIAA butchered it down to the virtual unknown that it is today.<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@28 June 2003 - 08:20
this is true. the entertainment industry HATED the fact that people had recordable cassette decks and VCRs, but as years passed it became not as big of a deal. they're upset about mp3s and mpeg/divx piracy now because the quality is better. and back in the age of cassettes there was the quality degradation factor-- if one person copied a tape for someone, and that next person made a copy for someone else, and so on... the quality of the nth generation cassette would be utter crap.
but with digital file trading there IS no nth generation copy. every copy is the same as the original file, so every file is a 1st generation copy.[/quote]Actually, with Kazaa, there IS possible file corruptions with every copy over the internet. So the 'tape' degredation issue has a VERY REAL equivalent for Kazaa!
Other networks have file verification systems built-in and partial file sharing (even hashing the PARTS to ensure every 1-10% of the file is correct) -- although they tend to lack users, they blow Kazaa away in this regard!
RIAA's tea needs to go back into the harbor... because it's barely fit to drink anyhow, the tax is exhorbitant, and you have to give up many of your unalienatable rights to drink it 'legally'!
The only difference is in the broadcasting / uploading. The broadcasting of a song is permitted as they generally have permission to do so. Uploading on the other hand, which could be available to millions, is considered dirtribution, which is illegal by most standards if it is copyright material which you do not have permission to distribute. Though the final possesion of the material is the same, and if I am not mistaken could also be considered illegal, though they are not going to chase down tapers, copiers or the like. They WILL chase down uploaders / distributers. There is no difference to them between an uploader and someone selling CDR copies at the swap meet, in theory to them, it causes them the same loss of revenue, to bad eh, f**k 'em.Quote:
Originally posted by velcrom@28 June 2003 - 14:07
OK - you are at home with your stereo, you have a tuner ( radio receiver ) you hear a track you like and so you record it. What is the difference between that and downloading a track from the net ?
Both ways you end up with a music track for your own use that you didn't necessarily buy.
The difference is very simple,
It is virtually impossible to detect someone copying from the radio, or television, or tape to tape etc. So they couldn't do anything about it.
However they can do something about sharing on the internet, as it is possible to trace the supplier(s) and the recipient(s).
As a somewhat ironic diversion, ever bought a blank audio / video tape from sony. What do they think we feckin do with them. Make copies of wedding videos.
Well as far as I understand they actually get money every time you buy a blamk CDR from Sony, irregardless of what you use it for, just more people the've managed to piss off.
They're days are numbered, boycott the purchase of any music they distribute and it may come more rapidly. It is our duty not to buy shit from them, as they have made this a battle to the end.
Seems like someone else has also thought about this-
Some reasons
ed quillen
So what if the recording industry dies?
By Ed Quillen
The recording industry in this country claims to be hurting, and so it plans lawsuits against people who share music files on their computers.
The financial pain looks real. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, CD sales declined 7 percent in the first six months of this year, compared to the first half of 2002.
What caused this? The RIAA says that people aren't buying as many discs these days because they're finding the music they want on file-sharing services like Kazaa and Grokster. The songs are free, and people can get just the song they want, instead of paying $16.95 for a disc with the song they want and a dozen lame tracks.
However, that can't account for all of the decline. Consider my experience with the finest rock 'n' roll album ever made, "Exile on Main Street" by the Rolling Stones. I bought it on vinyl in 1972, on cassette tape in 1988 and on CD in 1997.
This continued purchasing of the same music is worthwhile in that it helps keep Keith Richards alive so that he serves as a continuing rebuke to the "zero tolerance" mob. But there's a limit; once I've got the music on CD, that's as good as it gets.
Since CD technology appeared in 1981, the industry hasn't contrived a superior medium. As for the "digitally re-mastered" re-releases and the like which continue to emerge, I'm 52 and my hearing is such that I wouldn't be able to appreciate the difference, no matter how refined the source.
Multiply me and my discs by millions of other graying baby boomers who used to buy lots of CDs to upgrade their collections, and you've got an explanation for the music industry's sales curve. For years, the industry could make tons of money just selling us stuff we'd already bought at least once before. The industry could do this without investing in new talent or finding new audiences or developing new technology.
Now we baby boomers have pretty well completed the replacement of other media with CDs. The RIAA responds by blaming the sales decline on file-sharing; a few years ago, the industry went after the first big service, Napster.
I hadn't paid much attention to Napster until I read about the litigation and how the service faced imminent closure. Under those circumstances I naturally had to try it.
But the songs I downloaded weren't ones I'd have purchased; if I'd wanted to buy them, I'd have already gone to a local shop.
Based on that experience, and on what friends tell me about their own music downloading, I suspect this attitude is fairly widespread. In that case, the RIAA's claim of losing billions of dollars in potential sales to free downloads is specious - those are sales that never would have happened, with or without free downloads.
By using this dubious claim of economic loss, the RIAA initially went to court with the idea of getting a judge to rule that file-sharing technology was itself illegal. But in April, a federal judge in Los Angeles sensibly ruled that peer-to-peer file-sharing was in itself perfectly legal.
Thus thwarted in that effort to control our personal computers, the RIAA announced last week that it's taking a new tack - searching for songs in the file-sharing services open to the public, issuing subpoenas to Internet service providers to get customer records, then suing the file-sharers for copyright infringement.
On the legislative front, the entertainment industry in 2001 got one of its lackeys, Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., to propose a law that would have mandated copy-protection hardware in every computer. That came after the Digital Millenium Copyright Protection Act, which made it illegal even to talk about how copy-protection technology works - a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Now another lackey, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said on June 17 that he'd like to see technology that would destroy computers that shared copyrighted material. "If that's the only way to do it," he said, "then I'm all for destroying their machines."
And if I lose a year of work on my Great American Novel because of a bug in the Hatch program, where do I turn for relief?
Let's take the RIAA at its word that the industry might die on account of new technology. And so what? It was born of a new technology (Thomas Edison's phonograph), and if new technology kills it, note that we have survived the loss of other worthy old technologies, from steam locomotives to manual typewriters.
Musicians would have to play music to earn their keep, and fans would find ways to keep the music flowing. Lackey senators would have to find a new source of campaign contributions, but they'd manage. Meanwhile, we could go back to using our computers without any help from Big Brother.
Ed Quillen of Salida ([email protected]) ) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
RETURN TO TOP
clocker :) I loved reading that thanks :rolleyes:
My original point was really that copyright 'theft' is nothing new, ever since stereo systems and VHS machines went on general sale people have been duplicating and using and sharing copyrighted material.
To me the illegality is something of a technicality, the argument being that by using p2p you are making the files available to others - ie you are distributing them. But de facto so is a radio station when it plays a song, anyone anywhere who can pick up the signal can copy that track. The whole thing is bull*hit.
I'm not saying p2p is legal but it is a fact that college students and the like don't have the financial means to buy themselves a decent defence. I wonder if OJ Simpson uses p2p !
The truth is Sony ( for example ) have done just as much to facilitate the duplication of copyright material as any p2p network yet I don't see the RIAA taking them to court.
Spurious in some respects but the underlying point is still valid - does the Chairman of the RIAA have any taped films in his house - did he once tape his favourite Clint Eastwood movie off the TV ? - is anyone suing him for it ? Didn't he just make a duplicate of copyrighted material ? suppose he lent it to his friend the Vice Chairman of the RIAA, that is distribution of copyright material. Illegal. Sue him.