Re: Posting of Links, OK or NOT (from Plone Thread)



Apologies, I had missed that you were addressing revox in your post.

This valid point is what makes it difficult for the law to pinpoint exactly how much harm is being done to artists/authors by downloads made without an equivalent exchange in value for the 'product' by the ordinary law abiding man/woman.

Let's say that you introduce two other people to the music (product). You purchase a copy, one friend another, but although the recording stays on their HDD or remains burned to CD, the other friend doesn't listen to it again.

OK, the artist has made two sales of an album that is from a freely available source, perhaps it is a source that the artist is aware of and is prepared to accept this compromise, two sales being better than one, or zero.

If the artist has SOLE RIGHTS then there isn't generally an issue. However, if the recording engineer, for example, has made additions to the product that enhance the artist's vision then they are fully within their 'rights' to have reason to complain if their percentage of the value of the product is not forthcoming and the quarterly utility bill is due. The scale of the complaint and action taken would be based upone the perceived loss.

OK, granted, the genr? of musical taste shared by those of us here on the forum is hardly likely to appeal to the mainstream and, in the above instances, I think we'd all agree that the loss would be minimal and the potential for 'cult status' promotion and creation of further demand perhaps far outweighs the hassle to recompense the minor loss.

Let's look again at the copy on the HDD or the CD. Well, they're not doing any harm, forgotten about in fact. It could be that the copy of the CD is given to a further friend and they buy a copy of the download - result!

OK. Now, the fourth 'friend', they know that there was a hardcopy version of the product and they would like one BUT they were a limited edition and there are none left. They know where there is an image of the JC cover. They download it, resample in Photoshop, layout in InDesign/Quark, print out on one of the latest Canon Photo printers and, with their copy of the recording, it makes a pretty good 'pass-off' copy of the original. Now, what do they do, keep it, give it away, sell it?




OK, it does sound like your trying to placate a slightly guilty conscience here by making a clever plea bargain.

If you look at the label of one of your albums you will see "All rights of the manufacturer and of the owner of the recorded work RESERVED. Unauthorised copying public performance and broadcasting of this recording prohibited".

This is a clever legal way of saying 'we can't put all of the things that we can do if we aren't happy about anything done with this product on the label, but, there's lot's of it and those rights are RESERVED - you CAN'T bagsy them cos we already have 'em, even though you don't know what they are.

In fact, the 'owner' of the recorded work is probably not the artist and the artist probably doesn't know what those rights are either (that's why they have agents and managers to deal with all that crud).

The other interesting thing is that the 'recorded work' isn't actually the album, you'll need to look for other copyrights related to photography, graphic design etc. it's the musical notes and rythms on the master tapes that is the recorded work.

Rather like software, we can't touch it or see it, but we SEE the existence of it in RAM or Virtual Memory on our monitors. We perceive the results of the 'recorded work' via our headphones and loudspeakers via our ears, it can't be seen but it is still Intellectual Property.

The 'unauthorised' bit is why bars, events in the park, dance venues and all those other places 'need' licenses. The revenue for the licenses goes into a big pot and is distributed to the various royalty distributors.

So, the second hand album you've bought has already had it's royalties distributed and the continued existence of the product does for promotion and keeping the artist in the public eye, this is the acceptable compromise the record companies and artists tend to make etc etc

HOWEVER. It is unlawful to take those untouchable notes and rythms and take them from their comfy little grooves and transfer them to another 'hardcopy' media eg a cassette tape and then sell them - that is the unauthorised bit. Begin to make a living out of the sales and that's is potential minefield time.

Where there is leeway is that it is 'accepted' that playing your lp's in the car is not possible and given that you have a hardcopy of the original product one copy of the recording, for 'fair and personal use', is generally overlooked as being tolerable - BUT if the driver really upsets a 'with it' officer of the law, these may well be a good reason to get yah. Remember, Al Capone wasn't put away for all of the nasty things he did, he was put away for Tax Evasion.

It can be made far more complex than this by determined agrieved people with solicitors and big wads of moolah though, so don't take this as definitive, it's for reference only, OK?

~8^)>