HydrogenAudio

Hello folks,

I have some CDs dated from 1985-1994 and such. It comes to my attention that there are vinyl rips of the same CDs floating some places on the internet.
Some of the rips are superior to CD in terms of mastering: Pearl Jam's Ten CD vs. LP comes to mind. I've heard both and the CD has been clearly abused and bass is lacking a bit, even on its first pressing.

Is it legal to obtain those rips, or do I actually need to acquire the same pressing LP which I am downloading?

As far as ripping myself, I would never have the gear or the time to do this...

( I couldn't search the "vinyl rip cd legal" keywors, the system wouldn't let me. Apparently there is a minimum size character policy. So I'm sorry if this has been answered somewhere here).

Thanks for answers.

Many commercial CDs have been made from LPs and older than LP disks, entirely within the system, using legitimately acquired rights. If you mean, can you buy such music, the legal issues were taken care of up front.

If you mean, can you somehow acquire legitimacy from an illegal download server offering pirated production, because you legitimately purchased something similar elsewhere, you add up the logic.

Technically it's illegal, since when you buy music, you're not buying a license like you do with software, you're buying an actual specific reproduction of the music. Think of it as a hardware rather than software purchase. That means you're not strictly allowed to download the music, even if you already own a copy of the album, even if it is the very same edition that you already own.

On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining anyone would pursue legal action because you downloaded a vinyl version of an album you already own on CD. However, if you distribute a copy, that's a wholly different matter and you could face serious repercussions.

Some of the rips are superior to CD in terms of mastering

And when you buy a CD, you pay for the work of all those involved in the production of the CD. That doesn't cover the work of all those involved in the production of the vinyl record.

Copyright laws are different in different countries, so it would be surprising if there was one correct answer to this question the world over. I think most people have answered accurately for the majority situation though.


In the UK, until very recently, it was illegal to rip your own CD for your own personal use (or copy your own LP onto a cassette tape to listen to in your own car). You will gather from this statement that I, and many other people in the UK, have wilfully broken UK copyright law for many years.

I think if someone takes the trouble to produce a superior product, then they deserve a financial reward. If the people who appreciate that product aren't paying for it, then they can't expect to see more of it.

However, the costs and practicalities of this situation have become quite stupid for someone who just wants a better sounding version on their PC or mp3 player, rather than specifically desiring a vinyl record or SACD. I have sympathy with your plight - but chances are it's not legal where you are.

Cheers,
David.

Copyright laws are different in different countries, so it would be surprising if there was one correct answer to this question the world over. I think most people have answered accurately for the majority situation though.

Right. Without stating which country you live in it is hard to say if it's legal or not. There are countries where making copies (which includes downloading them from dubious sites) of music you already own is perfectly legal. There are even countries where downloading music you don't own is perfectly legal, as long as you don't upload them as distribution is illegal.

Without stating which country you live in it is hard to say if it's legal or not.

His profile says he's in Brazil.

You need to look at the actual legal statutes in effect in that country, and whatever precedents have been set in court (if they have common law). There's a lot of folklore out there about what's "legal" that is really just wishful thinking, exacerbated by poorly researched media coverage.

For example, a few years ago, there was a lot of press saying that the UK got a private ripping exception. Actually, the government commissioned a late 2010 study (the Hargreaves Review), which led to a 2012 government report (Modernising Copyright (https://ipo.gov.uk/response-2011-copyright-final.pdf)). When the report came out, there was another round of press saying an exception was here, whereas the report only said there was an intent to pass legislation to that effect. The legislation wasn't even drafted until mid-2013, and it is still in the works (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/intellectualproperty.html), not yet law. So as they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed."

Thanks for all replies.

Yes, I'm in Brazil.
For what I have known, I am entitled to have a backup copy of all my audio.
In terms of vinyl, arguments above make sense. The purchase would only be cosmetic, sice I would be using a copy of that in FLAC.
I think there are "cracks" in the law here so there may be no clear cut on this matter.

So as they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed."

Well there you go - millions of us Brits are still criminals. As the Hargreaves Review pointed out, branding such a widely practised and morally defensible act as illegal makes a mockery of the entire copyright law. As does record companies buying a 20 year copyright extension.

Cheers,
David.

At least you have a commitment to a smidgen of progress from a government & legislature that still, on occasion, gives consideration and weight to what is morally defensible and in the public interest. In my country, Congress can pretty much be relied upon to always side with the well-funded industries whose lobbyists roam the halls. If any course of action can be framed as a choice between "helping the economy" on one hand, and something that will benefit freeloaders and/or terrorists on the other, you can guess what the outcome is.

The legislation wasn't even drafted until mid-2013, and it is still in the works (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/intellectualproperty.html), not yet law.

Regarding the proposed changes to the UK law, I linked to the wrong document. The proposals for reform are not being made via the Intellectual Property Bill, but rather through a set of Statutory Instruments that were finally presented for Parliament's review the day after I posted.

• Info & links to drafts of the Statutory Instruments: https://ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves/hargrea...-techreview.htm (https://ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves/hargreaves-copyright/hargreaves-copyright-techreview.htm)
• Status: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...ction-e.htm#e-1 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsilist/section-e.htm#e-1)

At both sites, look for the various "Draft Copyright and Rights in Performances" documents.

I haven't heard if there is any debate; I assume they're going to be approved soon. If approved, they go into force on June 1.

I can understand the dilemma and frustration faced by the OP, because I have thought about this myself.
A recent experience I had. . .

Target Album:    Creedence Clearwater Revival — Cosmos Factory (1970)

Releases:
(1) Vinyl, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab MFSL 1-037 (USA), Half-Speed Mastered LP (1980)
(2) CD, JVC VDP-5039 (JPN), 'C.C.R. CD Collection 5' (1986)
(3) SHM-CD, UCCO-9197 (JPN), '40th Anniversary Reissue' (2009)
(4) SACD, Analogue Productions CAPJ 8402 SA (USA), Remaster (2002)

I dragged the four releases into foobar2000 on a Windows XP box, using Kernel Streaming output to a powerful vintage solid-state class-A amplifier to high-end speakers in a small room with great acoustics giving me a very intimate audiophile experience.

I played and I played and I played all of them thoroughly, and took my time and slept over things and repeated things and compared things over a number of days, i.e., I made sure the first impression was not coloring my listening judgement.

As far as satisfying listens go, my order of preference ended up being:   (1),   (2),   (4),   (3)

In my opinion, to fully appreciate the music of Creedence Clearwater Revival, it is important that the mid-range and low-end bass 'thump' play a pronounced role in the sound stage...

(1) The Vinyl, stood out as the ONLY presentation of this album with that criteria; it also was the only release which made me want to play the album from start to finish without pressing STOP.

Conversely, the most striking thing about all three digital discs was the lack of drama from the bass tones.
(2) the CD, was very very close in listening satisfaction to the Vinyl....it had great clarity, but the bass 'thump' just lacked dramatic emphasis at the right moments.
(4) the SACD, was good but brought nothing memorable to the table over (1) and (2)
(3) the SHM-CD, was mastered loud; If you like normalized in-your-face music or if your hi-fi system needs a bit of a “boost” then this one would be a good choice, but it's not recommended if you are listening through an expensive pair of speakers in an optimized listening environment.

The lovely 1980 vinyl mastering by MFSL impressed me to the point of wanting to own an Audio CD of this. So I went looking on the internet to buy myself a CD version...and discovered that this mastering was NEVER RELEASED ON CD !!! .....So I contacted MFSL support and asked them about the chances of the 1980 mastering ever being reissued on CD,
and here was their reply:

> Thank you for your email. We appreciate the feedback and will pass it along.
> Please keep in mind that there are many contractual details involved with
> the release or re-release of any album that have nothing to do with sales.
> If we could simply release any past title again at any time, we surely would
> love to release that one again, but unfortunately that is not the case.
> Sorry.

So what is a person supposed to do when musical nirvana has so many glass walls and ceilings?

I dragged the four releases into foobar2000 on a Windows XP box, using Kernel Streaming output to a powerful vintage solid-state class-A amplifier to high-end speakers in a small room with great acoustics giving me a very intimate audiophile experience.

I played and I played and I played all of them thoroughly, and took my time and slept over things and repeated things and compared things over a number of days, i.e., I made sure the first impression was not coloring my listening judgement.

It sounds like you had the time of your life but: isn't this audiophile "nirvana", as you call it, somehow way off-topic?

---

Krafty, we all know that here in Brazil authorities end up not giving a rat's back side to that sort of thing.

As I particularly haven't heard a thing about them coming up with any appropriate legislation regarding that yet, I very much doubt it it would be enforced had it already been drafted.

So: relaxa amigo* and let your conscience be the best judge!



*Even though anyone reading this have pretty much guessed it, it means "relax friend" - just to be TOS10-compliant.

Copyright laws are different in different countries

THE point.

But there is another point to make, for the general question although I have no idea of whether it ever applies to the special case of copyright laws:
Nothing prevents country C from criminalizing act A regardless of where and by whom it is committed. (I fact, when it comes to crimes against humanity, so will be the case in most jurisdictions except the largest, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court) but I guess downloading does not qualify ... so there are bounds to lobbying power  .)

E.g., it is possible that a Brazilian citizen can sit in Brazil and download information from a .co.uk domain from a server hosted in the Netherlands - without violating any law in any of these countries - and still be in violation of North Korean law (just to pick a country that likely has nothing to do with the path of the data, and which is not unlikely to criminalize certain insulting content).

And the slightest connection to foreign ground could lead you into even greyer areas - for example, you could be in trouble if you take your legally obtained files abroad.

Well there you go - millions of us Brits are still criminals. As the Hargreaves Review pointed out, branding such a widely practised and morally defensible act as illegal makes a mockery of the entire copyright law. As does record companies buying a 20 year copyright extension.

It is a failure of a particular democracy implementation and it makes a mockery of the whole state system. In case vast majority of people in a country deem something as "common practice", the laws should reflect such opinion. Why not initiate a referendum about that?

I don't know about UK but here in the Czech Republic, our political representation is basically a clique of people who line their own pockets first and do something for people second (some cheap "bribery" of citizens with unfulfilled promise of better tomorrow - just to get voted for). And we don't have a referendum law and politicians are actively blocking attempts at passing it.

I haven't heard if there is any debate

You sound like you know more about this than I do, but I don't think Statutory Instruments need to be debated. Someone writes them and they become law (except in really rare circumstances - Parliament last blocked one in 2000 according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_(UK)#Parliamentary_control_over_Statutory_Instruments)). I'd be astounded if someone tried to block this one.

So on 1st June, it will be legal to rip your own CDs in the UK. Absolutely no practical difference, except that the law will be slightly less of an ass after that date.


It's interesting to consider the international dimension. There's a whole bunch of recordings out of copyright in Europe which are still in copyright in the USA, and the RIAA supposedly doesn't like that one bit... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/internat...02CND_COPY.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/international/02CND_COPY.html)

I liked it before the EU countries agreed on copyright, and some EU countries set it at 25 years for live recordings. You could legally buy some great "bootlegs".

Cheers,
David.

As a result of heavy industry lobbying copyright in the UK was extended from 50 to 70 years.

UK copyright law 2011 (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension)

Oh, I know that.

It's EU wide btw.

As a result of heavy industry lobbying copyright in the UK was extended from 50 to 70 years.

UK copyright law 2011 (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension)

The way I see it, copyright times being extended for so long, don't absolutely do the great public or the work itself any favour:

These heavily-lobbied laws are only passed for the sole purpose of making nasty middle-men even wealthier and to make sure the deceased artist's grand-children carry on with their posh lifestyles, happily milking this cash cow as if there were no tomorrow. All that (some widows and children apart) without having ever lifted a finger to contribute to said work.

If that ain't shamelessly exploiting an easy way to make money, I don't know what else is.

In case vast majority of people in a country deem something as "common practice", the laws should reflect such opinion.

I guess breaking certain traffic rules will count as "common practice", and ... people still understand that it is not a good idea to abolish them.

I liked it before the EU countries agreed on copyright, and some EU countries set it at 25 years for live recordings. You could legally buy some great "bootlegs".

20 years was the minimum under the Rome convention, and then it didn't apply to older works. E.g. (W) Germany adopted the convention in 1966, and the IFPI famously took a Dylan bootleg to the Federal Supreme court and lost.

There is a book by Lee Marshall: "Bootlegging: Romanticism and Copyright in the Music Industry" (2005). Likely based on his 2001 thesis, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3068/1/WRAP_THES...rshall_2001.pdf (http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3068/1/WRAP_THESIS_Marshall_2001.pdf) . This is sociology, not law, but the round-up on legal status in chapter 8 is fascinating.

I guess breaking certain traffic rules will count as "common practice", and ... people still understand that it is not a good idea to abolish them.

Could you give an example, please? Does a vast majority of car drivers really do that?

The extension of Euro performers copyright from an already excessive 50 to an incredible 70 years (the 'industry' lobbyists wanted 95 like the States) was sold to the public on the basis that poor Bert Roady  who once played the triangle on a 6Ts B side aged 20 could really use the royalty cheque in his old age.

This of course is mainly bollocks. The Bert Roadys of this world end up needing cash money sooner rather than later. So they sell the rights back to the record company. Who then incorporates them into what are in effect financial instruments.

Composers still keep copyright for 70 years after their death. No idea what the rational behind that is. At all.

Composers still keep copyright for 70 years after their death. No idea what the rational behind that is. At all.

Imagine that you and your wife (or husband) are 20 years old.  Your wife has just written a best-selling book, but she gets run-over by a bus the day before it's released.

This of course is mainly bollocks. The Bert Roadys of this world end up needing cash money sooner rather than later. So they sell the rights back to the record company. Who then incorporates them into what are in effect financial instruments.

If you wanted to sell the rights to your wife's book to get some cash NOW, and let someone else collect the royalties for 70 years, what's wrong with that?

Maybe 70 years is too long...  I don't know.  But, there is some rational behind it.

With respect. I think you are missing the point Doug.

Of course it is possible to dream up circumstances where one might sympathise with the victims of extreme circumstance.

That only makes up a tiny fraction of the real world cases In reality it's a form of financial derivative.

So the record companies and their financial advisers have an greater financial incentive to spend the money trying to influence politicians rather than adapt to the modern world.

It's a bit like the horse livery stable owners managed to get a law passed making it compulsory for a man waving a red flag walk in from of all oncoming pesky new fangled motor vehicles.

Quote from: mjb2006 on 2014-03-29 23:43:28

I haven't heard if there is any debate

You sound like you know more about this than I do, but I don't think Statutory Instruments need to be debated.

I admit, I only sound like I know stuff. Parliament's website explains (http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments/):

There are two types of Statutory Instrument (SI):

• Affirmative instruments: Both Houses of Parliament must expressly approve them
• Negative instruments: become law without a debate or a vote but may be annulled by a resolution of either House of Parliament

In both cases, Parliaments room for manoeuvre is limited. Parliament can accept or reject an SI but cannot amend it.

I also get the impression they are more the realm of specific committees.

The copyright reform SIs are the affirmative type. The list of SIs in the House of Commons (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsilist/section-e.htm) shows the SIs in question as having been presented for approval (or rejection) on 27 March. If approved, they'll move to one of the other lists on that page, and will have an "approved" date shown. I wasn't able to find a similar list for the House of Lords; it seems this is the only list there is, so you tell me what that means.

With respect. I think you are missing the point Doug.

Of course it is possible to dream up circumstances where one might sympathise with the victims of extreme circumstance.

I'm not sure why death should come in to it. I think 50 years for identifiable artistic input (composing, playing, singing etc) and 25 years for identifiable technical input (remastering, restoring etc - currently generally uncopyrightable, but it doesn't stop people trying) from the date of creation would be more than enough.

Because the conversation is funded by rights holders, people miss the genuine creative and financial value of the public domain. I found yet another plus point for it in a report yesterday, which looks at the pitifully poor survival rates for silent films...

http://www.loc.gov/film/pdfs/pub158.final_...n_sept_2013.pdf (http://www.loc.gov/film/pdfs/pub158.final_version_sept_2013.pdf)

As the original 28-year copyright term expired for many silent
films, distributors began offering 16 and 8mm prints for sale to
schools, libraries, and private collectors. These companies would
select (and by copying, preserve) only the titles in the public domain.
When offered old nitrate prints for potential distribution, the first
action for nontheatrical distributor Blackhawk Films was to check
the copyright status. According to Blackhawk’s company policy,
“[We] hold up any attempt to copy or announce for release
until we have the report back from the Copyright Office
indicating that the word is ‘no renewal found.’ Then, and
only then, do we get to work and make the conversion.”
The company made 16mm negatives for its purposes, and
passed the nitrate to archives.

The public domain status of some films has encouraged their
survival. The United States copyright on most studio silent features
was renewed. The copyright on almost all independent films expired,
as for the most part, their producers were no longer in business
and there was no one to file the renewal.

Copyright protection should have increased the economic incentive
of a studio to preserve its silent films, but MGM was the only
company to do so as a matter of policy. Copyright could not have
been MGM’s primary motivation, as the studio also preserved at least
43 features to which the studio’s rights had expired and the
company had no ownership. And valid copyrights were not
sufficient to encourage other studio rights-holders to invest
in their silent libraries.

Some small producers, such as Charlie Chaplin, Mary
Pickford, and Harold Lloyd, owned the films in which they
starred. They preserved their films regardless of copyright
status. The public domain status of films produced by independent
companies (such as the films Cecil B. DeMille
produced at his own studio) led to their acquisition by
entrepreneurs who preserved them in the course of commercial
exploitation. In 1956 television distributor Paul
Killiam bought the negative to Cecil B. DeMille’s The Road
to Yesterday (1925) after the film fell into the public domain
and preserved it. Nontheatrical distributor Blackhawk
Films preserved dozens of features and hundreds of short
films in the public domain.

Far more silent films were preserved outside of the studio that originally made the film than by that studio (with the exception of MGM).

It was the (compared to today) short copyright term that preserved many of these films. Had they remained in copyright, even more would have been left to rot.

Don't think for one second that this doesn't and won't apply to audio, even now. Go beyond the mainstream, and it's amazing how much material only becomes available either just before it falls out of copyright (from the original owner), or just after (from someone else). Extending copyright to delay it entering the public domain just locks it in the vaults, where at best it's preserved properly (even though no one gets to hear it), and at worst it rots or is destroyed.

Cheers,
David.

There is a book by Lee Marshall: "Bootlegging: Romanticism and Copyright in the Music Industry" (2005). Likely based on his 2001 thesis, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3068/1/WRAP_THES...rshall_2001.pdf (http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3068/1/WRAP_THESIS_Marshall_2001.pdf) . This is sociology, not law, but the round-up on legal status in chapter 8 is fascinating.

It's all fascinating, thank you. The record company stance: it's all about money (of course), but we daren't say that so we'll pretend we care about the artists.

Cheers,
David.

Well if we're going to hijack this thread to rant and rave...

Much like publishers, the record companies will insist to their (and our) graves that they don't want or need any unsolicited "preservation assistance" from the general public, Google, or anyone else. Legally, it is these companies' prerogative to hold their master recordings for ransom for as long as possible, only reissuing in dribs and drabs what they think there's a worthwhile market for, in whatever the format and mastering standard du jour is. If that means obscure recordings and our preferred masterings languish unreissued, and unprotected master tapes walk out the door or deteriorate beyond usability, so be it. They don't care about preserving culture or nobly securing the benefits of the public domain. They want their goddamned money, as much of it as possible, in perpetuity, so our only responsibility is to be good little consumers, following the laws they wrote for us and handing over the cash for new product. Digitally ripping or trading old vinyl on our hard drives is akin to buying secondhand CDs, stealing food from the mouths of starving artists, in their view.

Of course I don't sympathize. I wouldn't blame anyone if they simply set their reservations aside and disregarded the letter of the law, in those countries where it's not legal to rip whatever you want. But I'd also understand if some here feel strongly that the law should be followed.

In the U.S., a 1990s "home taping" law allows the public to make analog copies of anything, but only allows digital copies to be made when using digital "recording" media & devices which carry a levy paid to the RIAA. Very few devices & media qualify. It's mainly just DAT and "audio" CD-R. Hard drives, smartphones, iPods, and general-purpose CD/DVD/BD burners are not in this category, so ripping vinyl to your hard drive remains illegal...unless the audio on the vinyl is public domain, of course.

So I will be firing up my standalone CD recorder now, recording the vinyl playback straight to a special Audio CD-R, and not using my computer at all. That's how I always do it. Don't you?

Well, the other way round, some people who transfer their records or cassettes to PC or on a CD claim that it's perfectly OK to download a release they own on any of these old media from a warez forum or a torrent, as long as they already paid for it in the past. A number of them prefer to do it if they have the opportunity since they avoid any hassle with recording and cleaning the audio and last but not least they get the recording of better quality.
However, if you think of that, it may not seem absolutely OK, just because they obtain better quality than that they paid for. Let's take an example, in the 90's and early 2000's you had a choice to buy a CD for 25$ or a cassette for 15$ of many albums on the market. Would it feel good if you bought the cheaper cassette and then downloaded a lossless rip of the CD from the internet? Probably not.
Even today, many download shops offer customers the right to choose which quality they would like to buy, e.g. MP3 or MP4 in different bitrates: 192 kbps, 256 kbps, 320 kbps; lossless files WAVE/FLAC or even studio masters (24bit/96kHz, 24bit/88.2kHz) etc., of course, again, the higher quality the higher price. That may be compared with the previous CD vs cassette example. If you downloaded the cheapest 192 kbps mp3 quality from the shop, you probably could not say you legally own a studio master quality recording which you downloaded from a one-click host or a torrent.
Concerning this case, when vinyl has a different mastering, and a person owning a CD release downloads a needledrop, I agree with the person who's mentioned that the engineer who was envolved in production of the vinyl master deserves to be paid for their job, but this way it might not reach them.

I'm not sure why death should come in to it.

x years after death means that the rights are fully "owned" by the originator, but only to a limited extent inheritable. There is a sense to it.

I guess that there are other rights that could work quite a bit the same way. E.g. in a jurisdiction where you can sue over slander, it might very well be that the law could allow you to sue me over claims that your late father was pedobear incarnated, yet dismiss you when you want to sue over finding an ancestor on a list of people attending Emperor Caligula's underage orgies. (Of course the Roman coin you inherited through a line of (great)^n-grandfathers is still yours.)

Quote from: Porcus on 2014-03-31 16:45:40

I guess breaking certain traffic rules will count as "common practice", and ... people still understand that it is not a good idea to abolish them.

Could you give an example, please? Does a vast majority of car drivers really do that?

Never ever hit 51 when speed limit is 50? Never ever forgotten to signal a lane change? Never ever crossed an orange traffic light? Never ever had - or deserved - a parking ticket? I see people doing that more or less every day. (And ... I have been driving around two months with only one bulb lighting up my back plate. Ah, that makes me a true outlaw, now I'm heading out to the internet to download a bootleg.)

some people who transfer their records or cassettes to PC or on a CD claim that it's perfectly OK to download a release they own on any of these old media from a warez forum or a torrent, as long as they already paid for it in the past. A number of them prefer to do it if they have the opportunity since they avoid any hassle with recording and cleaning the audio and last but not least they get the recording of better quality.

Let me disregard your example of paying for the lossy but downloading the lossless, and rather take as example: you buy a CD or an LP, and then you download a rip of the very same. (To confess to a particular case myself: I once corrupted a FLAC file, track 1 of a CD rip of mine, and rather than digging up the CD from deep down somewhere (I still own it!) I pirated it, fixed this image's offset to get tracks 2 etc. bit-identical to mine, extracted track 1, checked that the CRC matched my rip log, transferred tags from my corrupted file and replaced it.  Quite a lot of work for one track I have hardly listened to, but I was annoyed.  Now that was maybe an odd case?)

To the arguments:
On one hand it sounds reasonable to say that well, I would rip the CD so I don't obtain anything I wouldn't have - the file is a near-perfect substitute to something I already have, nobody loses anything. But then on the other hand, if you do buy an LP mainly as a collector's item, much like a piece of merchandise, then that is not necessarily a perfect substitute - you might have been streaming the same music rather than taking the effort of ripping from the LP. Quite a bit of the streaming market would be music that people could play from their own copies - but still stream it. That is the convenience of accessibility, and that is a good people pay for (or a good people visit piratesite.com to obtain!). So in this sense, downloading an LP rip to save you the work of ripping it, that snatches the very same service that you might want to obtain from e.g. Spotify.

On the other hand, what if you have already paid your Spotify subscription? Well then it still affects someone's per-listen royalties. And downloading could push the prices on streaming services - I guess it has, but I would assume that LP buyers who might not even buy the LP if they didn't "bundle it" with an illegal download, is a very small part of that. If reality is - although anyone could claim that, and even wrongly believe so  - that you would not buy the LP couldn't you download the rip (then you would have stuck to streaming, which could be less profitable than the LP) then there aren't much losses to argue over.

To return to the OP's original question, no one but the uploader put any work into the DIY digitization of the LP, which is likely out of print anyway, so there's really no one to compensate. The OP has already paid the artist and the music company by buying the CD (which he still owns), so who is hurt?

I think companies like MFSL are missing a business opportunity by not offering their own needledrops of OOP LPs (labeled as such) to the public for a reasonable price. The physical disc will still retain its eBay value, and people who would never be able to buy a copy could enjoy the wonderful work MFSL put into the project. I realize the contractual issues would be an obstacle, but the artist and the music company could collect (yet another) few bucks for the album sale.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-04-01 11:29:29

I'm not sure why death should come in to it.

x years after death means that the rights are fully "owned" by the originator, but only to a limited extent inheritable. There is a sense to it.

Well, yes, I see what they're doing. I just find it perverse that a musical composition has one protection (life+70), a recording of a performance has another (was 50, now 70), and an invention has another (20). The different separation (or not) of money vs moral rights is also strange.

I guess that there are other rights that could work quite a bit the same way. E.g. in a jurisdiction where you can sue over slander, it might very well be that the law could allow you to sue me over claims that your late father was pedobear incarnated, yet dismiss you when you want to sue over finding an ancestor on a list of people attending Emperor Caligula's underage orgies. (Of course the Roman coin you inherited through a line of (great)^n-grandfathers is still yours.)

You can make that argument. It's not a bad one.

The argument that life matters for composition, but not for performance or invention, and in a monetary rather than just moral sense, is what I find hard to accept. If life does matter, then I can see the point in a short post-date (because it removes the incentive to bump-off an author), but 70 years?!


In truth, we have the situation because the industry has lobbied for it, and no one has lobbied against it. There are people who would love patents to last for life+70 years too, but any country that enacted that would send their industry back into the 19th century.

Cheers,
David.

To reply to the original question: depending on where you live, I'd say there is a 90% chance it's not legal, but it differs per country.

I'm not sure why death should come in to it. I think 50 years for identifiable artistic input (composing, playing, singing etc) and 25 years for identifiable technical input (remastering, restoring etc - currently generally uncopyrightable, but it doesn't stop people trying) from the date of creation would be more than enough.

Let's look at it from the other way: why limit it at all? Well, from a practical point of view, at some point it no longer possible to maintain. But still: someone made something. It has been released to the public. Because works like these (books, music, video other forms of art) are easy to copy, there is a certain protection granted by the law. Why is this protection granted limited at all?

So my question: why do you think 50/25 years is enough? Not to be rude or to be taken personal, but the only reason I see people giving for limiting copyright is 'selfish', like "so I can have it for free" or more disguised like "so some artist can use it for free to create a derivative work". Is there any fundamental reason why copyright should be limited to a certain timespan, aside from whether it is possible to maintain such rules and granted there are some fair use policies like being able to copy a rightfully obtained copy for personal use? It is very different from patents for example, because copyright protects creative expressions, while patents protects tools. A tool is universal, such a creative expression is not.

Sure, I'd like to see a much shorter copyright term so I download old recordings for free, or make recordings of works by certain composers without having to worry whether copyright has already expired in Mexico or something. But that's all quite selfish. I can clearly see the reason for copyright protection, I cannot see the reason to limit the term.

edit: to differentiate copyright and patents further, think of what a patent would do in music. For example, I can make a piece of music in a 5-beat measure.(5-beat measures give a sense of doom or eeriness) That piece of music is protected, if you make something with exactly the same notes in that 5-beat pattern, you're violating my copyright. Now, if I'd patent 5-beat measure, stating that I found that the human psyche reacts to 5-beat measures with an emotion of fear, which is useful for film soundtracks, you can't use a 5-beat measure in your music without my permission. That's the difference: copyright protects a certain expression or performance, while patents protect the tools to do these things.

So my question: why do you think 50/25 years is enough? Not to be rude or to be taken personal, but the only reason I see people giving for limiting copyright is 'selfish', like "so I can have it for free" or more disguised like "so some artist can use it for free to create a derivative work". Is there any fundamental reason why copyright should be limited to a certain timespan, aside from whether it is possible to maintain such rules and granted there are some fair use policies like being able to copy a rightfully obtained copy for personal use? It is very different from patents for example, because copyright protects creative expressions, while patents protects tools. A tool is universal, such a creative expression is not.

As long as you do not accept the patent analogy, I guess the null hypothesis would be a limit of 0 years, 0 days, 0 seconds. What needs to be argued against, is the following principle: I see a nice garden, I lay out my own garden the same way; I see a nice piece of clothing, I sew myself a nice piece of clothing; I see Mona Lisa, I draw a copy of Mona Lisa; I see a mathematical formula used to encrypt files, I copy that mathematical formula to encrypt my files; I hear My Way, I sing My Way; I hear a particular recording of My Way, I make myself a copy of that one.
I am not taking anyone else's copy, so I am not stealing from anyone. And I am not pretending my copy is the original one (nor that I am the one who originated it) - there is a good reason to give you the exclusive right to "pose as yourself" in public, but not the same reason to interfere with my singing in the shower as long as my walls keep the noise inside.

If OTOH you do accept the patent analogy: whoever brings something new to the table should be granted the right to eat from it it first - then we are talking.
(Why should patents expire any more than the monopoly on distributing old words put in a particular order?)


Patentability is also jurisdiction-dependent, BTW.

I am not taking anyone else's copy, so I am not stealing from anyone.

Sure, but that's not the problem here. Copyright (as the name says) is a restriction on copying something. You didn't steal, you copied, which isn't legal too. It's like saying "yeah, I didn't take their car, it's still their car, I'm not stealing from anyone" when you just set a car on fire. Sure, you aren't stealing, but that isn't the problem, the problem is setting fire to it.

As long as you do not accept the patent analogy, I guess the null hypothesis would be a limit of 0 years, 0 days, 0 seconds.

That is like saying: if you don't accept that stealing a car is similar to setting fire to it, the null hypothesis is that setting cars on fire is not illegal. Bit odd, don't you think? Yes, patents and copyright are both protection intellectual property, but a very different kind of it.

And I am not pretending my copy is the original one (nor that I am the one who originated it) - there is a good reason to give you the exclusive right to "pose as yourself" in public, but not the same reason to interfere with my singing in the shower as long as my walls keep the noise inside.

Yeah, but your using someone else's work without proper compensation.

Apparently goverments around the world have acknowledged that intellectual property in the form of certain ideas should be protected by patents, and intellectual property in the form of a work of art should be protected by copyright. That's because both are really easy to copy. It's a protection, as to encourage people to create such works without some else taking credit or using it without proper compensation.

Protection in the form of patents should be limited, as those protect tools, having them in public domain opens up possibilities for others. This is important, as ways to do things, those tools, are limited in number and therefore scarce. However, copyright protects renditions made with tools, and there is an almost endless amount of possibilities. The odds of you creating something exactly the same as someone else without having heard it are extremely small (if the work is not trivial, that is). More important, the higher the value of the work, the smaller the chance. Copyrighted material is therefore not scarce, you can keep creating it without being bounded by existing copyright!

So, as a TL;DR: patents protects things of which possibilities are limited and therefore scarce. You can make an electric motor in only so many ways, for example. Copyright is protecting things that aren't limited, those aren't scarce. A good example on this concerning books is found here (https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/)

OK, I'll bite.

Copyright doesn't pre-exist. For the majority of human existence, there was no such thing as copyright. If you sing a song to me, and I memorise it, I can sing that song to someone else. What are you going to do, kill me after you've sung it to me? Sorry, murder has, in certain circumstances, been seen as wrong through most of human existence. What are your other options: You put up with me singing it too and hope people would rather hear you sing it, or you don't sing the song at all, ever, to anyone - so no one can copy it.

Again, throughout most of human history, that's where we were: other people will sing your songs. That's life. Get over it.

You want to change that? OK, you go for it. But think: How many genuine artists are there vs how many people who just want to listen to the stuff? In pure democratic or by-force numbers, the artists don't stand a chance.


Ah, but there's a problem with that. Artists have to eat. People do want to hear music. Starving artists = no music = artist+public unhappy. We've got to find some way to pay the artists. We've got to find some way to encourage the really talented to create music, rather than go and be a plumber or something. To do this, we invent copyright. We get the government, police, state, whatever to get together and protect the artists against copying so they can make money from their music. We've taken something pretty big away from the public (the uninhibited ability to copy anything that can be copied) in return for a greater supply of something they want. It's win-win. Artists thrive, public gets more music.

That's what copyright is for in respect of artists' works. That's what patents are in respect of inventions. That's what design registration is in respect of industrial design. Artificially constructed things to enable those aspects of life to earn money. That's not to say they can't earn money without them, it's just easier, more efficient, and more reliable/predictable (= encourages more investment) for them to earn money with them. Which benefits everyone. It also open up all this information to government. Government (in many jurisdictions) get sight of and free copies of all books, music, inventions, designs etc. I only mention that because that's more than half of the story at some in the history of these "rights".


By this pure utilitarian argument, there's no reason to make copyright perpetual. It only needs to be long enough to make this work. What duration of copyright is sufficient to encourage artists to be creative? It's probably in the teens of years, possibly with some way of renegotiating rights and renewing it once. Quite amazing that the Statute of Anne AND modern mathemtical analysis of copyright both come to such similar conclusions.

However, you may be brainwashed into the "artists are special" school of thought. A day's work by an "artist" should last a life time, rather than until the next pay cheque. Hence you automatically assume that artists should have perpetual copyright in their work, and maybe so should their descendants, or (more likely) the companies they sell their copyright to.

I think that's wrong for these reasons:
1. The public gave up the ability to just copy stuff when it was new for the benefit of having more new stuff. Now you're saying they'll never get the ability to just copy stuff back, even for really old stuff? What do they get out of it? Nothing?! **** that. You can't enforce laws that almost no one agrees with. This isn't going to work.
2. Every artistic industry borrows from its history. If its history stays in copyright, it can't. Copyright is supposed to help artists. Perpetual copyright hinders future artists.
3. In reality, copyright generally doesn't sit with artists these days - it's owned by corporations. Perpetual (or even reasonably long) copyright disincentivizes their investment in new artists - the opposite of what copyright intended. This is also an argument for a very short copyright term, a break-point, and then a second renewed short copyright term - a separate argument, but one you can't even have with perpetual copyright.
4,5,6,... All the arguments made previously about orphan works, lost works, preservation, access, etc etc which, despite what copyright owners try to claim, have been proven to works out much better for things in the public domain.

I think there's a separate argument to be made about moral rights. If someone is alive, and their work is out of copyright, then maybe they have some say in how it can be used, or maybe they don't - but that's a separate issue from money.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. - IMO you are way off on patents. Patents have to be original, non-obvious, and useful. They're far more specific than you think. I can't think of any way of relating them to music that makes any sense. The closest I can get is that a new electronic synthesized drum sound is somewhat equivalent to something you could protect as a registered design.

The real reason patents get different treatment from copyright is because at least some of them matter. Their subject matter can save lives. Governments don't want it locked up for too long. The reason (especially American, and to some extent European) copyright terms have been allowed to get out of hand is because the damage is less - not because it's a good thing - but because the harm is limited. No one is going to lock the cure for cancer into one person or company's hands for 100 years, but they're not quite so concerned about granting a monopoly on "Hey Jude".

EDIT: you added another post while I was writing mine. My post replies to your previous one.

... but the only reason I see people giving for limiting copyright is 'selfish', like "so I can have it for free"...

So you would rather pay hefty royalty fees for about anything that mankind has ever discovered, designed or invented? Do you even realize that almost anything you use and do in your daily life was created/discovered by someone else? Be glad you're paying royalties only for some recently created stuff.

If I discovered/invented/composed something useful, wouldn't it be selfish of me to require the whole mankind to pay for using it for eternity? Why would anyone need to pay anything after my death? Provided I'm the sole author, anyone else profiting from my work (even more so after my death) is just a leech. My offspring and relatives included - they should find their own ways of being useful to mankind and earning money on their own.

So, as a TL;DR: patents protects things of which possibilities are limited and therefore scarce. You can make an electric motor in only so many ways, for example. Copyright is protecting things that aren't limited, those aren't scarce. A good example on this concerning books is found here (https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/)

The number of patents vs the number of published tunes suggests you may be wrong on this. Ideas for new stuff, or how to do things in a new way, aren't that rare. Considering the cost and difficulty in obtaining a patent, vs the ease with self-publishing a song, the raw numbers may be quite similar.

Obviously many of the patents may be junk, but most music is junk too. The cure for cancer has more value than the Beatles catalogue, but I bet the Beatles catalogue has more value (financial, cultural, social, whatever) than a large percentage of US patents - precisely because music of that quality is really quite scarce. Most of the other music on the planet (which I will freely admit is quite plentiful) is really not a substitute.


Most scientific advances are of the kind that, at a given moment in history, someone is going to come up with them. This is proven by the fact that so many scientific inventions are co-discovered independently. The exact same invention. The exact same discovery.

Whereas the music of Mozart or Lennon and McCartney wasn't going to come along anyway without them. I don't think, anyway.


Yes, I'm making an argument that specific music is more scarce than specific scientific invention, not less. You've actually got it completely the wrong way around. It might be more easily substituted, but even that isn't a secure argument. Similar inventions give you different ways of doing the same thing. Is iOS more unique than Android than the Beatles are than the Stones? For me, you can swap my phone long before you can swap my music collection!

Cheers,
David.

Be glad you're paying royalties only for some recently created stuff.

That why patents expire. In one way or another, you'll have to use them, because they patent things that are scarce. edit: okay, maybe not

However, if you don't like the music I composed, you don't have to use it. If you think it's too expensive, you can take another. That's the difference: being scarce or not. Oh, and BTW, this does not have to get personal, I do not endorse the view I laid out, I just want to get a few good reasons why copyright should be bounded. It looks like it works already!

[...]

Okay, so there are a few reasons I could get out of this

• Paying for things that are ancient is something the public won't accept
• People can re-use stuff (I wonder whether that increases or decreases creativity though)
• It encourages industry to invest in new artists (I don't get that, if the public is sick of an artist, they won't buy it anymore, will they? And if they don't, expired stuff might cannibalise sales of not-yet expired artists)
• Artistic rights should be separate from royality-rights (but what if the artists says: you can do that to my work, but you'll have to pay me compensation for the 'damage')

In short, I'm not so sure...

another edit: the student orchestra I'm associated with already prefers older works, because works that haven't expired yet cost > € 1000 to perform. If this was shortened to like 30 years, this 'cannibalism' might influence composers of contemporary classical music quite a bit. I think especially wind band composers, as they rely more on amateur use than for symphonic orchestras. It's not like they should lower the price, because most contemporary composers don't live very luxurious.

So, the problem is, the 'sweet spot' with the utilitarian approach is different for every art form. It's not possible to put that into legislation. Perhaps that why they those the "longest common denominator"

Quote from: Porcus on 2014-04-02 15:13:24

As long as you do not accept the patent analogy, I guess the null hypothesis would be a limit of 0 years, 0 days, 0 seconds.

That is like saying: if you don't accept that stealing a car is similar to setting fire to it, the null hypothesis is that setting cars on fire is not illegal. Bit odd, don't you think?

Am I supposed to take that kind of argument serious? The answer is the obvious yes. If there were no known reason to forbid burning cars, then there would be ... no known reason to do so. (Assuming I would want to burn your car, then there is one obvious similarity to stealing it, and if we have agreed that stealing it is wrong - then we are talking.)


You were trying to establish an infinite ban on copying, based on an argument that a work of art isn't patentable.
The primary consequence of negating patentability is as simple as: this argument for that kind of legislation does not apply.

I think you need to start with the very basics of what we tend to consider civilization: a state does not intervene in your life unless by good cause.
Criminalization requires justification. The null hypothesis is non-intervention.

If we have found that there is good reason to forbid me copying these kinds of invention - that is, the protection of patents - fine.
If you could then establish that originating a work of art is pretty much analogous to originating an invention, then you can argue that the law should intervene in an analogous way.
Merely negating the analogy does not establish any justification whatsoever, for denying me the right to copy a work of art. Indeed, negating the analogy means negating a justification for protecting copyrights.


By all means, there are reasons to deny me copying as I please. Negating analogy to anything worth forbidding, is not one of them. Take it from there.

I think you need to start with the very basics of what we tend to consider civilization: a state does not intervene in your life unless by good cause.
Criminalization requires justification. The null hypothesis is non-intervention.

Sure, you're right. That's a much better way to look at it. If I look at the 'cannibalisation'-argument I put forward, it looks ridiculous and smells like censorship: make 'old' music unattractive to be sure new stuff is produced. That's definitely not the way to go. The null-hypothesis is indeed non-intervention. I lost track of the big picture in the details I guess.

But then again: there is a problem with legislation. There are reasons to restrict copying, but for different forms of art, different terms would be 'optimal'. However, coding that in legislation would be hard, it might be seen as unfair and is worthless if not done at an international level (which is not going to happen) Seeing that the Berne convention is almost 130 years old, I don't think anything is going to change in the next few years.

In the vein of this discussion, a while ago I read this: http://news.yahoo.com/italy-challenges-us-...-193944955.html (http://news.yahoo.com/italy-challenges-us-gun-ad-using-michelangelos-david-193944955.html)

Italy claims copyright over any images of David, a monumental marble sculpture preserved since 1873 in the Accademia Gallery in Florence. Anyone wishing to commercially use a picture of the statue, the government says, must receive legal authorisation and pay a fee -- which ArmaLite had not done.

That's copyright 510 years after creation? I really wondered how this could be true?

Oh, and BTW, this does not have to get personal

I apologize. I'm not native English and after re-reading my text, I agree it's a bit blunt. I should have phrased it better or use emoticons. I don't get personal in discussions anymore.

Regarding copying images of David... How can Italy enforce this abroad? Are they going to declare war on someone for that?

However, coding that in legislation would be hard, it might be seen as unfair and is worthless if not done at an international level (which is not going to happen) Seeing that the Berne convention is almost 130 years old, I don't think anything is going to change in the next few years.

Quite a lot has happened, indeed. The Berne convention has undergone quite a few revisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#External_links), and the US (and to a certain extent the UK) implementations are less than thirty years old, and there are other relevant treaties/conventions too (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/). A list of parties to some of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parti...g_Organisations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations) - notice the US is not party to the Rome Convention. AFAIK, in the US you are not entitled to royalties from airplay of your performance - but as a songwriter you are, the rationale is that if my record(ing) of Yesterday is played on the radio I should be happy they promote my record, but the situation is different for Lennon/McCartney who are credited as originators (although Lennon never wrote it). For all that I know, that could change; I am somewhat surprised it hasn't, given that the US has put pressure on other jurisdictions to rule out internet music suppliers who had assumed legal status of (internet) radio stations. After all, there is a fine line between offering streaming and playing radio, and if the latter is royalty-free ...

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-04-02 15:43:20

[...]

Okay, so there are a few reasons I could get out of this

• Paying for things that are ancient is something the public won't accept
  
• People can re-use stuff (I wonder whether that increases or decreases creativity though)

If today's copyright terms has existed way back, people have claimed that you'd kill certain Shakespeare plays, many pieces of classical music, and several Disney films.

• It encourages industry to invest in new artists (I don't get that, if the public is sick of an artist, they won't buy it anymore, will they? And if they don't, expired stuff might cannibalise sales of not-yet expired artists)

Until very recently, we had a 50 year recording copyright in the UK - doesn't seem to have done the UK recording industry any harm at all.

• Artistic rights should be separate from royality-rights (but what if the artists says: you can do that to my work, but you'll have to pay me compensation for the 'damage')

I didn't say the right "should" be separate, or should not - I said it's a separate argument.

There are some arguments for longer/fuller moral control than monetary control. There are also many practical examples of stricter monetary control than moral control - in most countries (not all) once an artist releases a recording or work through one of the standard licensing organisations, they've given up the right to stop someone they don't like (e.g. a lousy radio station in the case of a record, a lousy band in the case of a composition) playing it. In many countries, legally they don't strictly have to go through one of the standard licensing organisations, but good luck trying to have a career without them.

another edit: the student orchestra I'm associated with already prefers older works, because works that haven't expired yet cost > € 1000 to perform. If this was shortened to like 30 years, this 'cannibalism' might influence composers of contemporary classical music quite a bit. I think especially wind band composers, as they rely more on amateur use than for symphonic orchestras. It's not like they should lower the price, because most contemporary composers don't live very luxurious.

A shorter composition copyright term would give your student orchestra (who presumably also don't live very luxurious lives based on the income from the orchestra?) more music to play. Sounds good to me. I like 50 years. Even at 30 or 40 years, that's a reasonable duration to earn money from something. Sat down at 25, am I going to decide not to write a piece or create a new arrangement because I'll stop getting paid for it when I'm 55 or 65 or 75? Sat down at 40, the piece I do today will earn money until I'm 70, 80 or 90 with those reasonable 3/40/50 year terms - what is the point of having longer?

There's new copyright in arrangements. There's separate (typically, shorter) copyright in the physical layout of the musical score. Hence publishers and arrangers (as well as composers) have a renewable income stream - assuming they're adding something and charging accordingly.

So, the problem is, the 'sweet spot' with the utilitarian approach is different for every art form. It's not possible to put that into legislation. Perhaps that why they those the "longest common denominator"

In the EU, the just picked the longest copyright term of any country, and forced that on every country. From a rational stand-point, that's a really strange policy.

The reason was simple - industry lobbying.

Cheers,
David.

Perhaps it's just my imagination... But I have a feeling that the industry needs to rely on older material (as source of income) because there isn't so much new, original, high-quality content anymore or there is but it's too fragmented.

In the past, there was no Youtube, no Facebook, no Myspace to promote one's self. One needed to sign a contract and the industry took care of marketing and promotion.
In the past, there was no I-tunes to sell one's music easily. One needed the industry to press and distribute CDs for sale.

Nowadays, it's possible to bypass the industry (renting a studio for recording/mixing is not prohibitively expensive). I understand their grasping at straws.

I have a feeling that the industry needs to rely on older material (as source of income) because there isn't so much new, original, high-quality content anymore or there is but it's too fragmented.

Old news. The industry had its heyday when CDs became mainstream, when they could first raise prices significantly and then also pump out titles people already owned. Those days appear to be gone forever - well people do pay to stream music they already own, but nobody "collects" that format, nobody is buying all that music that gathers dust in the shelf.
And a sealed CD that could be exchanged was the perfect gift to anyone with the slightest interest in music (and who hasn't? They needed a kick in the right direction ;-) )

Re: radio royalties for sound recording airplay in the US: terrestrial radio companies big & small have always successfully argued that they shouldn't have to pay to promote the big record companies' merchandise. The record companies are basically paying for the airtime anyway.

So what the big record companies have done, aside from influencing royalty policies in other countries, is set it up so that in the U.S., the new forms of radio (satellite and Internet) do have to pay royalties on the sound recordings. The next logical step is already happening: now they are saying "gosh, look at the discrepancy! all forms of radio pay these royalties except terrestrial radio! this makes no sense, and the only solution is for terrestrial radio to pay just like the others!" Similar arguments are trotted out to try to get all the different royalty rates to match whatever the highest ones are.

Watching these baboons stab each other in the back would be comical if we all didn't end up paying for their shenanigans.

I had thought that both kinds of airplay paid the creator of the piece (circle c) a royalty, but not the performer (circle p)?

I differentiate between illegal and immoral.

I try not to do things that are immoral.
I will sometimes do things that are technically illegal if I am willing to risk prosecution, but I prefer not to.

Getting around copy protection so I can rip a movie I purchased and watch it on my computer (Linux) is something where I believe it is not immoral even though it is illegal according to the DMCA.

Sharing that rip on a P2P (or other) network however would be immoral so I won't do that.

With respect to downloading a needledrop, I have done it in cases where it I own the analog version but currently do not have the equipment to rip. Technically illegal for me but not immoral.
I have also done it in a case where the artist tried to get a CD release, even offered to pay for it - he was doing a tour after being out of the business for years - and the record company would not re-release his stuff even when he offered to pay for it.
So he specifically said as the artist who created it, go ahead and pirate it.

Still illegal because it is the record company that owned the rights - but I have little sympathy for a company that won't re-release so an artist going on tour has something to sell.

In the cases like the OP where he has the CD but prefers the sound of the vinyl mastering, well I have never come in to that scenario but if the vinyl is no longer being produced then if he has the CD, I would not consider it to be immoral. Just my opinion. If the vinyl is still being produced I would suggest buying the vinyl.

-=-

EDIT - the issue with the artist, the company was planning a collectors boxed set but that could not be done before his tour because he had recorded with two other labels and they were still negotiating rights, and they didn't want to re-release his other albums even with him paying because they were worried about it eating into the boxed collectors set profits. So screw the artist trying to have something for fans on his re-union tour. The music industry sometimes really sucks.

Emphasis mine!:

I have also done it in a case where the artist tried to get a CD release, even offered to pay for it - he was doing a tour after being out of the business for years - and the record company would not re-release his stuff even when he offered to pay for it.
So he specifically said as the artist who created it, go ahead and pirate it.

Still illegal because it is the record company that owned the rights - but I have little sympathy for a company that won't re-release so an artist going on tour has something to sell.

And again, the RIAA has hardly ever recognized that the artists have the originator's copyright to the music they write and create. "Hardly ever" rather than "never", as the scandal over the Mitch Glazier fraud - where the RIAA bribed a Congress proofreader into inserting a few extra words into a law in the passing - forced them into sort of admitting that it was never the lawmakers' intention to give the record companies the copyrights.

Of course, a contract that involves some monopoly on distribution means that the artist is not necessarily free to send you a digital copy (or point you to a filesharing network). And in the event of disputes, fans are of course biased into taking the artist's word at face value, rather than the company.

And again, the RIAA has hardly ever recognized that the artists have the originator's copyright to the music they write and create...

...Of course, a contract that involves some monopoly on distribution means that the artist is not necessarily free to send you a digital copy

Exactly...  RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America.  They represent the industry, NOT the artist! 

Organizations such as ASCAP represent the artists.

The recording is the property of the record company.  The record company took the financial risk, paid for the recording, production, packaging, promotion, and distribution, etc. 

The performing artist gets a royalty.  The songwriter also gets a royality, but the words & music remain the property of the composer.

Like any contract there is give-and-take on both sides.  Most artists would love to get  a record deal!  When it all works out, both sides make lots of money.  When it doesn't work out, the record company looses money and the artist has to go back to his/her day job.

but the words & music remain the property of the composer.

That is your view. And mine. And after US Congress cleaned up the Mitch Glazier fraud, it is fairly clear - to the extent that anything is "clear" in law (IANAL, BTW) - that so is US legislation. But the MAFIAA's view was and officially still is that, once under contract, the words and music are composed as a "work for hire": that they have then hired you to write (not only perform in studio) a work for them, and that it is their property. You would have a hard time to negotiate a record deal with any RIAA member company where this is not part of the contract, although these terms are overruled by applicable law.

For those who have not checked it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Glazier#Work_for_hire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Glazier#Work_for_hire) and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100611/0203309776.shtml (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100611/0203309776.shtml) - Pirate Bay, eat your heart out.

And then they claim that a remaster is a new recording that they own: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1157566973.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1157566973.shtml)
Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five's Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was "New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium."

And then they claim that a remaster is a new recording that they own

So, people who are ripping and trading recordings from out-of-print vinyl & CD, if they're infringing copyright at all, are only infringing copyright on those specific masterings, not the remasters that are currently commercially available. It would be interesting to see if a record company could be tripped up in court by (e.g.) suing over the wrong mastering, or being too vague about which mastering they're suing over, or the lack of commercial availability of the old masterings, or not being able to prove they own copyright on the defendant's mastering (normally in infringement cases they point to a copyright registration, which they probably didn't do for every mastering).

This Glazier guy... the industry... it's ridiculous what these human leeches are capable of. The sooner they go out of business the better for everyone else.

And then they claim that a remaster is a new recording that they own:

They claim it, but have they successfully won on it in court?

Copyright only applies to artist endeavour, not slavish technical work. This is a very well established legal principle in all areas.

Remixing = artistic. Trying to get the most accurate copy of an existing master tape = technical.
On many CDs, they claim a publishing date rather than a copyright date for the latter. I have no idea what that means.

Of course, when laws can be bought...

Cheers,
David.

Of course, when laws can be bought...

And possibly retroactive too ...

The "work for hire" would apply that way. The way the US copyright legislation allows for certain works to belong to employer, is to honor those contracts when the work is on a short list of types. Should they manage to extend that list - possibly by outright fraud like the Glazier scandal - then they already have the contracts that per now are not enforceable.

Quote from: Porcus on 2014-04-22 10:39:56

And then they claim that a remaster is a new recording that they own:

They claim it, but have they successfully won on it in court?
[snip]
Of course, when laws can be bought...

Surely this is a law that the record companies wouldn't want to buy. Because if they can successfully establish that every different mastering counts as a new artistic work and deserves its own copyright, then surely this would open up a loophole...

Suppose I rip a CD and then apply some sort of modest processing (eg. EQ, dynamic range expansion, whatever). I could then claim it was a remaster and therefore the copyright applicable to the original recording did not apply. If the record company wants to sue me, which precise copyright do they claim I have infringed? They can't have it both ways.

Remixing = artistic. Trying to get the most accurate copy of an existing master tape = technical.

I don't think remastering has been about accuracy since...ever. It is about getting a commercially appealing sound, according to the tastes of the day. And that sound is almost without exception going to be noticeably different than what was available on previous masterings, lest someone catch on that the previous mastering engineer actually did a good job.

Mastering/remastering involves making decisions about noise reduction, EQ, stereo width, levels, and compression, as well as fixing mistakes and trimming unwanted portions of the recordings...maybe more. All the tools of digital audio workstations are at the engineer's disposal. If they want to do something specific to a particular instrument or portion of the stereo field, they'll separate the parts out as best they can, work on each part separately, and mix them back together. Or, they will request stems (partially mixed multitracks with baked-in effects) and do a whole new mix from those rather than operating on a dissected 2-channel final mix. There is at least one mastering house I've seen online that specifically requests stems when possible.

Remixes are also made from stems, in the same way, but nowadays we think of a remix as being a new mix, with usually quite a bit of additional production and edits, to the point where it's basically a creative cover version that incorporates very little of the original source material. It doesn't have to be, though.

Even when remastering just involves twiddling some knobs while a stereo mix plays, who's to say whether the engineer's decisions don't involve enough changes to nudge the resulting audio over the line distinguishing it as a new recording?

On many CDs, they claim a publishing date rather than a copyright date for the latter. I have no idea what that means.

The P in ? stands for phonogram, i.e. the sound recording, although it can also be thought of standing for "publication" of the sound recording. © copyrights printed on releases are for the artwork, usually, although sometimes they will be mentioned for lyrics or compositions.

Record companies usually don't (but sometimes do) update ? copyrights for simple edits & fades. It can even be inconsistent across different releases of the exact same edit. They are far less consistent in whether they update the ? date for remixes and remasters. Even non-remastered reissues will sometimes have an updated ?, sometimes not. It just goes to show that they're probably just winging it. Copyright law doesn't say where you draw the line, so at best they are guessing, and at worst seeing what they can get away with. Most of the time, they're probably just going on momentum.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-04-23 10:13:56

Quote from: Porcus on 2014-04-22 10:39:56

And then they claim that a remaster is a new recording that they own:

They claim it, but have they successfully won on it in court?
[snip]
Of course, when laws can be bought...

Surely this is a law that the record companies wouldn't want to buy. Because if they can successfully establish that every different mastering counts as a new artistic work and deserves its own copyright, then surely this would open up a loophole...

Suppose I rip a CD and then apply some sort of modest processing (eg. EQ, dynamic range expansion, whatever). I could then claim it was a remaster and therefore the copyright applicable to the original recording did not apply. If the record company wants to sue me, which precise copyright do they claim I have infringed? They can't have it both ways.

What you are doing is creating an additional copyright, not nullifying the existing one. You have still infringed the existing one by (imperfectly) copying the original.

You wouldn't be free to commercially exploit your copyright until the original one expired, or you struck a (financial) deal with the owner of the original copyright.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-04-23 10:13:56

Remixing = artistic. Trying to get the most accurate copy of an existing master tape = technical.

I don't think remastering has been about accuracy since...ever. It is about getting a commercially appealing sound, according to the tastes of the day. And that sound is almost without exception going to be noticeably different than what was available on previous masterings, lest someone catch on that the previous mastering engineer actually did a good job.

Mastering/remastering involves making decisions about noise reduction, EQ, stereo width, levels, and compression, as well as fixing mistakes and trimming unwanted portions of the recordings...maybe more. All the tools of digital audio workstations are at the engineer's disposal. If they want to do something specific to a particular instrument or portion of the stereo field, they'll separate the parts out as best they can, work on each part separately, and mix them back together. Or, they will request stems (partially mixed multitracks) and do a whole new mix from those rather than operating on a dissected 2-channel final mix. There is at least one mastering house I've seen online that specifically requests stems when possible.

Remixes are also made from stems, in the same way, but nowadays we think of a remix as being a new mix, with usually quite a bit of additional production and edits, to the point where it's basically a creative cover version that incorporates very little of the original source material. They don't have to be, though.

Even when remastering just involves twiddling some knobs while a stereo mix plays, who's to say whether the engineer's decisions don't involve enough changes to nudge the resulting audio over the line distinguishing it as a new recording?

The line is "originality". Some remastering clearly meets this requirement, some clearly doesn't, and other times it's a grey area.

This is the classic test case...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art...y_v._Corel_Corp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp).
...though people debate its applicability. There are other similar cases, and some counter ones too.

Quote

On many CDs, they claim a publishing date rather than a copyright date for the latter. I have no idea what that means.

The P in ? stands for phonogram, i.e. the sound recording, although it can also be thought of standing for "publication" of the sound recording. © copyrights printed on releases are for the artwork, usually, although sometimes they will be mentioned for lyrics or compositions.

Thank you - I have learnt something!

Cheers,
David.

Thought you'd like to know that the House of Commons approved the "Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014" Statutory Instrument on 14 July 2014,[1] and the House of Lords approved it on the 27th.[2]

Painful reading, that House of Lords transcript, but heartening that good sense (or perhaps resignation) prevailed at the very end.

It hasn't yet shown up on http://www.legislation.gov.uk/2014?title=copyright (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/2014?title=copyright) but if I understand correctly, it will go into effect on 1 October.[3]

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...e/140714v01.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmvote/140714v01.htm)
[2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...140729-0001.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140729-0001.htm) and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...140729-0002.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140729-0002.htm)
[3] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9...116036/contents (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111116036/contents)

Thank you for posting this.

Painful reading, that House of Lords transcript, but heartening that good sense (or perhaps resignation) prevailed at the very end.

They did seem to be clinging on to the idea of the law as it stands, requiring a user to separately purchase every copy, and making almost every normal use of a CD ripper (or even a cassette recorder without a microphone) illegal.

Two things are unbelievable:
1. the number of words spoken
2. their belief that somehow the change from the old law to the new law would change consumer behaviour in any way

It's interesting how we can now legally buy one unprotected copy of some audio and have a right to format shift it as we please (effectively making it a once for a lifetime purchase, if we make backups), but no one will sell us an unprotected copy of some video to do likewise, and we can't legally circumvent copy protection.

Where we can legally buy copies without protection, does the new legislation cover videos, books, etc? I know it says "work" excluding a computer program, but is "work" defined that widely somewhere?

Interesting that we finally get this right IMO (after 50 years of personal copying!) at a time when owning music is declining and renting/streaming music is growing. That trend could make the exception almost obsolete in a lot less than 50 years.

Cheers,
David.

Hi all,

1st- Nice post. All technical about the law but after a quick read of the 3 pages, a point is missing: The Philosophy of it all.

I see it like this: You did not fork all your cash to us (media companies), you can't do diddly squat. We own you and please try to derogate from what WE told you and will sue you to bits.

Unless you live in China.

And now the media company controlled governments are pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
If you had a tiny bit of rights because you did buy a CD, once, it wont matter anymore if the TPP goes through.

If you want to know the future... here it is:
YT clip of Marc Geiger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Geiger) at the "Marché International du Disque et de l'Edition Musicale 2014".
It explains where the media moguls should focus their attention. It's 26 minutes but it is so revealing. It explains the business model to adopt so to thwart the illegal copying of media.
http://youtu.be/bcNsAR_FM5M" (http://youtu.be/bcNsAR_FM5M)

If you want to know the future... here it is:
YT clip of Marc Geiger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Geiger) at the "Marché International du Disque et de l'Edition Musicale 2014".
It explains where the media moguls should focus their attention. It's 26 minutes but it is so revealing. It explains the business model to adopt so to thwart the illegal copying of media.
http://youtu.be/bcNsAR_FM5M" (http://youtu.be/bcNsAR_FM5M)

Meh. This is a great example of CEO porn, a cottage industry and echo chamber dominated by books, blogs and PowerPoint presentations from entrepreneurs long on buzzwords and short on substance. They always speak with great certainty about the past, present and future of business, and no one is accountable for ever being wrong.

The music industry is currently fighting about streaming, with a very vocal faction decrying it as a fad with no future because it's not turning out to be as profitable as files and physical product once were. Their ideas for how to proceed basically involve demanding Google, Facebook, Spotify, Pandora, etc. just hand over more and more money in exchange for licensing music, so the services will either find a way to comply or they'll become too expensive to operate, so everyone will get back to doing things the old way.

Geiger's pitch is that streaming is actually "disruptive" (one of the buzzwords these guys love) and is not just the future, it's here now and there's no turning back. Not only that, but it's on its way toward wild success with triple the revenue of physical product and files, so the industry needs to stop fighting it and just get on board with some subscription models, like one he proposes at about the 19 minute mark. He says stop worrying about piracy and ownership of files, and just focus on enabling and legitimizing what consumers want and/or already engage in (kinda like what the UK is taking baby steps toward doing). To that end, he says they should offer not just basic streaming of their entire catalog, but also for an extra charge, "audiophile quality" and some sort of "peer to peer" (although it's not clear what he really has in mind with that). He also says to trust the big user-focused social media companies rather than regard them as the enemy.

His ideas are confined to legitimizing certain streaming services and their captive audience, preferably by piggybacking on mobile tech and social media. There's also the underlying assumption that these middlemen in the industry are necessary, when in fact there's strong evidence that they aren't.

The entertainment industry spent decades teaching consumers to treat music, art and other types of culture strictly as a commodity, and now they are reaping what they have sown... yes many of us will pay for convenient access ot it, but the market will also drive the price down to what it's really worth, which is a whole lot less than these companies want it to be.

Geiger speaks with great certainty about an uncertain future. He tells people what they want to hear: streaming is going to be a $150 billion industry in 10 years, and physical/download sales will be dead in 2 years, and if we just do These 10 Weird Things That Will Make Us Billionaires, the sky won't really be falling.

As for us vinyl-ripping, file-loving, rare-music-collecting freaks, we're already a tiny sliver of niche market. They don't give a shit about giving us what we want, even when we're willing to pay for it. They alienated most of us years ago anyway with all their shenanigans. Watching them convince themselves that they're "getting it" now doesn't make the fact that they regard us as prey any less distasteful. Their business model is still based on the idea that they know what's best for us and that we should accept whatever deal they're offering.