POLL: Is burning a CD ethical?

Remove all ads!

Burning cd's is actually not illegal. It is legal if you are making a backup cd. Which people of course can say if they are caught, which rarely ever actually happens to anyone. I think there is nothing wrong with burning a cd. If rock stars dont like burning cd's because it is "stealing" their music, then they can d**m* well just stop singing. Thats my opinion at least. I think that if they have any popularity worth horse droppings they will make plenty of money of conserts, and if not...too bad for them.

Yes, I do agree with the statement that making profit from selling burned cd's isnt too cool, that could be considered a bit closer to stealing...

 

On a side note, I am burning copies of BTA's American Idol tryout and selling them on EBay for $15.00 apiece...Is that wrong?

 

This is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Are you really this clueless? That's like telling a carjacking victim "If you don't like being shot in the face and having your car stolen, you better damn well stop driving your car." Come on!

 

Really. I think the artists are the ones who have a any right to be offended by the whole download and burn issue. As for corporate global (used to be corporate America) let me get out the world's smallest violin and play them some short notes. Here's irony: Sony Corp is one of the biggest media companines running the record industry, yet I have two burners with big SONY logos in my network for burning. Go Figure.

 

I did a quick 'once around the world' search on this topic. The whole copyright/trademark/intellectual property rights legal framework is so badly constructed that it almost appears as if no two judges can agree on the difference between right and wrong on this issue.

Stuff:
Yesterday the previous court decision to allow the free distribution of unlicenced dvd decryption software was overturned by the Supreme court. This has handed dvd publishers the right to chose which operating systems can play their dvds. Do you think that Microsoft won't influence their decision on whether or not to license support for Linux, Mac and Sun dvd-playing software?

If somebody takes my photo in the street, they then possess the copyright to that photo at no charge. If I then download my photo from the web and republish it elsewhere, then they can sue me for copyright infringement.

There is a good site here, and a post that Amazon Affiliates should be aware of:

http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1167

It seems that anyone can trademark a pair of words, like 'Moronic Judges' and launch a legal challange against anyone else who attempts to use this trademark in their own publication (as a book title for instance). Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

It is all a great big pile of horse**** As far as I am concerned.

No one should be allowed to trademark words.
Copyright should be extinguished on any item that has been in the market place for over five years.

Noone is standing up for the ordinary guy in the street. Nobody is making sure that he doesn't get ripped off. So he is standing up for himself by telling the corporations where they can stick their laws. Most people are treating laws as little more than guidelines and they are using their own moral compass to decide what is right and what is wrong. The governments of this world better act quickly, we might get a taste for it.

I have a question. Does copyright have a limited lifespan, or is it forever?

 

Ok, I have a question here. What about all the software out there for ripping cds? They advertise right on the box how they can clean up downloaded music, improve the quality of the recording, you can make all the songs the same output level so when you combine different songs from different cds one song doesn't shout at you and the next one require you to turn up the volume. What else would you use a program like that for other than copying cds and music?
So if making a copy of a cd is illegal, like some have said, why do stores sell the software? Or is it just something like radar detectors? There are states were using a radar detector is illegal, yet stores there sell them.
I admit that I have downloaded music at times. But for me its to "test out" the music to see if I like it. Even with a software program for cleaning up what I download, the music still cannot match the qaulity off of a professionally produced cd. I do burn the music to a cd and listen to it a couple times, then if I like the music, I go to the store and buy it. Yeah I know it wasted recordable cds, but that's why I buy them in bulk when they have the mail in rebates were you get your money back.

 

The duration of copyright varies from country to country. As far as the UK is concerned, this is the legislation for the duration of copyright.

 

@BOC. Thanks.

If I may generalise the info on The site BOC referenced, copyright in the UK remains with its owner until death + 70 years.

I am guessing, but I think it is this way because if it was death + 1 year, a lot of skilled artists would find themselves having very suspicious, and very fatal accidents.

On the other hand, if death was taken out of equation and copyright lasted for only five years (the length of time most investors allow for any investment to turn a profit)then the artists would be able to make their money while their work was fresh and hot, and the people who could never afford a licence to reproduce the artists work could use it five years later as a basis for creating something better.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien's decendants are not best pleased about people using the Aurora Toolset to recreate the Lord Of The Rings story locations. They would have every right to demand that an exceptionally good module be prevented from being used on an Alfa-like server.

I'm getting dangerously close to having a rant about patents, and their misuse by the medical community, so instead I'll slink off and quietly create my own fantasy realm/game. At the end of the day this is even easier than having to deal with the encumberance of detail that licencing the use of a pre-existing game/realm concept involves.

[ August 27, 2003, 05:46: Message edited by: Bluin ]

 

BTA - Yes, it is legal to make your own copies. But, I still remember when this same tribe was trying to put a tax on blank audio cassetts and home recorders back in the early 80s. That was a last ditch effort after they failed to have them outlawed completely.

If you are anywhere near my age, then you may remember that these guys have had a past history of trying to hold back technology because it threatened the status quo for them. And that was really home technology, and mostly for personal use, nothing like the huge business that is now the internet.

 

Let me try and offer another perspective on just how the music industry works based on my recent experience with it.
I have two songs that are getting airtime on a few radio stations. One is getting played on a major station in Chicago late at night, the other on a small station in Colorado. I don't have an ablum, so I just got a flat fee up front for my work. If either song is played for promotional purposes, etc, (anything other than normal airplay) I'll get a small, and I say small royalty fee.
I have talked to an agent on possibly producing an album. However the time I would need to put into it is not really worth it in my opinion.
But in this case, sharing copies of my song would help me and thus would help if I ever decided to put out an album.
But what about the artists who have albums? Do you really know how much an artist gets from the sale of an album? Its literally pennies. It costs just as much to actually record music on a cd. The major cost of producing an album comes from the design and layout of the jacket. That's were the bulk of the profits go on a sale of a cd. True, pennies does add up for an artist, but of the major artists complaining about file sharing, they are not going to be hurt from people copying their cds. The bulk of their money comes from concerts, promotions, etc. For the majors stars, IT DOES NOT hurt them. For the smaller stars it can actually help them in the long run.

 

But she caught me on the counter
(It wasn't me)
Saw me banging on the sofa
(It wasn't me)
I even had her in the shower
(It wasn't me)
She even caught me on camera
(It wasn't me)
She saw the marks on my shoulder
(It wasn't me)
Heard the words that I told her
(It wasn't me)
Heard the screams getting louder
(It wasn't me)
She stayed until it was over

Shaggy
__________________________________

She caught me using Kazaa
(It wasn't me)

Bluin
(And I'll sue your ass if you copy those two lines, me and the RIAA, you see if we don't. )

[ September 18, 2003, 06:20: Message edited by: Bluin ]

 

Sorry to revive an old thread but I just read an article related to this subject that I thought I'd post a link to. Orson Scott Card makes a very interesting point about how the idea of copyright has been abused by the record publishing companies, and uses this to defend the downloading of unpaid-for music.

Ornery American article on MP3s

Edit: BTA, we must have different definitions of the word "defend". I agree that he's saying record publishing companies don't lose out as a result of MP3 downloading. To me, if the "victim" does not lose anything, there is no crime. I can hardly imagine a better defence if you accept his argument. Personally I'd want to look more closely at the numbers myself before accepting this argument but I thought it an interesting line of thought.

[ September 23, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

I certainly feel a lot better about it.

[LMAO! Thief! - BTA]

[ September 22, 2003, 18:26: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

This may be a dying thread, but I thought some might find this of interest:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11936