| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:05 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
gavf wrote:
| Quote: | ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1131052040.435237.157750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
gavf wrote:
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:anqaf.12034$dO2.1374@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"PhantomFlyer" <adam.boffa@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1130995038.692137.108200@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Did you answer the original question? Because I don't see where?.
My question...a rhetorical question designed to send the
message..."Your input is not required, because there is no problem."
Your competence failed you there didn't it?
I responded to the poster who said it was fair use. That was a
significant
misstatement, a common misconception and one that I will respond to
when I
see it in this newsgroup.
You just need to realize when your creating problems out of nothing.
This is one of them.
Lots of free time on your hands, hunh?
I'm sure your newsreader has a filter. Feel free to use it to kill
posts
from me.
Shows what a sad world we've so willingly created - what has this kind
of
'law' attributed to anything 'good' ' positive' any real
advancement in humanity - I am all ears.
Please re-read what I wrote in this thread. I didn't say it wasn't
fair use. I only said that it's not possible to say, as an absolute,
that it is given the nature of fair use doctrine.
Is it copyright law that you don't like?
As for the original question - make your own mind up, it is your gift,
use
whatever music you feel is right (if you dare, now!!) - no one else has
better credentials although we could all have a go!!
I think it is the fact that 'law' seems to equate to monetry value nowadays
more than any form of actual justice.
|
Sorry, but that's simply not true, at least in my experience (and, as I
said, I do this every day).
| Quote: |
People seem to turn to proving something by law as opposed to actually
'working' it out.
|
That is absolutely untrue. I settle 95% of the disputes that are
brought to me, usually without even requiring a formal mediation or
arbitration.
| Quote: |
And it is not only the outcome (litigation, payments, agreements) it is also
how much you can put into a case (the more you can pay the better vchance
you have of 'winning')
|
Also untrue. It is an unfortunate fact that there is a steep price of
entry for litigation -- it is the primary weakness of the system.
However, it is a myth that you can buy a decision.
| Quote: | - certain lack of balance, equality, fairness - and
justice is depicted by a balanced scale!!!!!
|
My guess is that you have little, if any, contact with the court
system. Your description is a commonly-held one, but one with little
basis in fact.
| Quote: |
A personal gripe of mine, but funny how it has 'sttrangled' this thread!
GavF |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Larry J.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:16 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, "bo peep"
<cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> said:
| Quote: | The Radio stations gave us "Free Access" to music and still
do
It's free to you, but it's definitely not free to the radio
station. Each station has to pay a performance royalty every
time they play a song on the air, with that money eventually
going back to the performer. Some of the royalty money (actually
the majority of the royalty money) goes to the person who wrote
the song, or the person who currently owns the song. That's why
you see so many current performers writing their own material -
it gives them way more income than just being a singer. Radio
air play is a major source of income for some writers and
performers, over and above CD sales.
|
Even better than that, license it to Cadillac, Microsoft, etc. for
commercial use.
I would bet that the Led Zeppelin song "Ramble On" used by Caddy is
paying more hard cash that the entire album has in 30+ years of
sales.
When the Rolling Stones' song "Start Me Up" was used by Microsoft to
launch Windows 95, the royalty paid was $1,000,000 - and Microsoft
got a very limited number of days to use it.
--
Larry Jandro
Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
[Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:34:52 GMT, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"bo peep" <cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131042576.600104.314230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you don't need the lost income anyway
There is a fatal flaw in your logic...
For any given combination of author and product and market at a point
in time, there is some number of free accesses to that product that
would eventually maximize the author's income from that work. However,
*you* simply don't have the right to select, on behalf of the author,
without his permission, the number of those free accesses to be
allowed. The author is not obliged to derive maximum income from the
product, nor is he even obliged to derive any income at all from the
product. Even if we disregard the financial consequences, it is simply
none of your business.
John Cowart
Yes, And I agree, no one but the author has the right, however using music
as an example...
In the 70's, 80's, 90's heck even today....
The Radio stations gave us "Free Access" to music and still do, this sharing
is what promoted the music
and created the demand to go out and buy the record in the first place.
|
In general, whatever the radio station did was likely with the
permission of the copyright holder. They'd be in deep shit if they
just went out, bought an album and started airplay without doing so.
Even if it ended up that the copyright holder in fact paid the station
for airplay, rather than the reverse.
| Quote: |
Artists need to remember that without some amount of free sharing,
popularity doesn't go up.
So in a way, this leakage, let's say, helps the artist to a degree.
But they will always want as you say "Maximum Income" so they don't see it
that way.
I wonder if the roles were reversed how happy artists would be?
Say if they had to pay each time their music was played on the radio?
Pay to promote it on the internet. LOL Pay people to download it and give
them incentive to listen to it.
Hoping enough people would like it to cause a demand enough to start selling
copies.
Seems like everyone is never satisfied, they benefit from free publicity but
also want to complain they don't
get paid for every single person listening. Seems to me, if a work of art is
good enough, the artist can still become a millionaire
in today's current environment. This should give them incentive to just try
and make better music rather than thinking because they didn't sell enough
copies, then people are stealing them instead.
If the *Product* is truly great, they will sell and make tons of money, if
not, let them try harder next time.
It's a capitalistic economy, right?
AnthonyR.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:33:08 GMT, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | interesting perspective...not that it would change any legal opinons.
I just started reading this book on the wall street journal best seller list
and in the beginning of the book
the author tells you to highlight and markup the book and make it personal,
then says not to loan it or give it
to a friend after you read it because it's all marked up and private
comments inside.
|
This sounds like complete crap. Unless the book is "not sold,
but licensed" to you, I believe that the doctrine of first sale
applies. At the time of sale, the author or publisher loses control of
the book, except as specified in copyright law. That is, once you've
purchased the book, you are free to leave it on a shelf, scribble in
it, burn each page after reading it, leave it on the street corner,
give or sell it to anyone you choose or donate it to your local
library or VA hospital. You may also sell it to a second-hand book
store. If you were sufficiently unsatisfied, you're entitled to hang
it in the outhouse for use after the Sears catalog is left pageless.
As long as you do not _copy_ the book, then sell or give the
copy (or retain the copy and give the original) to someone else, it's
none of anyone else's business. The stuff about "personalizing" the
book or not appears to be a red herring, possibly no more than an in
terrorem clause, with no legal standing. I suppose the author believs
you could also not keep page-referenced "personal" notes in a separate
notebook and hand those to a friend, leaving the original book
unmarked. He might as well say you and a group of friends in a book
club could not each purchase their own copy, then gather to comment
upon/review the book.
| Quote: | Also says how is he going to make money if people don't buy new copies for
their friends?
|
His problem, not yours.
| Quote: |
The reason i commented here is close to your point, after I read a legally
bought book,
|
For which, see above.
| Quote: | if I decide to share it with someone
who never intended to buy this book to begin with, I am actually promoting
the book and author by telling friends that this was good, worth my time and
effort to want to share it with them. That tells people it's worth their
time to actually read it, and word of mouth spreads and them others who hear
of it but don't have a book go out and buy it.
So like your point was, the author should be so lucky to have a piece of
work worth of reading, and stealing or loaning to friends.
Then he will have something that will also actually sell well enough to make
him some money.
It's like a paradox, no?
AnthonyR.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:i2rlm15lqqm08hs2s74t2bhpspurih99l8@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:34:52 GMT, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com
wrote:
"bo peep" <cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131042576.600104.314230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you don't need the lost income anyway
There is a fatal flaw in your logic...
For any given combination of author and product and market at a point
in time, there is some number of free accesses to that product that
would eventually maximize the author's income from that work. However,
*you* simply don't have the right to select, on behalf of the author,
without his permission, the number of those free accesses to be
allowed. The author is not obliged to derive maximum income from the
product, nor is he even obliged to derive any income at all from the
product. Even if we disregard the financial consequences, it is simply
none of your business.
John Cowart
Yes, And I agree, no one but the author has the right, however using music
as an example...
In the 70's, 80's, 90's heck even today....
The Radio stations gave us "Free Access" to music and still do, this
sharing
is what promoted the music
and created the demand to go out and buy the record in the first place.
In general, whatever the radio station did was likely with the
permission of the copyright holder. They'd be in deep shit if they
just went out, bought an album and started airplay without doing so.
Even if it ended up that the copyright holder in fact paid the station
for airplay, rather than the reverse.
Artists need to remember that without some amount of free sharing,
popularity doesn't go up.
So in a way, this leakage, let's say, helps the artist to a degree.
But they will always want as you say "Maximum Income" so they don't see it
that way.
I wonder if the roles were reversed how happy artists would be?
Say if they had to pay each time their music was played on the radio?
Pay to promote it on the internet. LOL Pay people to download it and give
them incentive to listen to it.
Hoping enough people would like it to cause a demand enough to start
selling
copies.
Seems like everyone is never satisfied, they benefit from free publicity
but
also want to complain they don't
get paid for every single person listening. Seems to me, if a work of art
is
good enough, the artist can still become a millionaire
in today's current environment. This should give them incentive to just
try
and make better music rather than thinking because they didn't sell enough
copies, then people are stealing them instead.
If the *Product* is truly great, they will sell and make tons of money, if
not, let them try harder next time.
It's a capitalistic economy, right?
AnthonyR.
|
And there are lots of stations doing just that, and occasionally they get
sued of it.
I heard of two cases personally but that is commercial air play and
sometimes the stations
assume the artists won't notice or will be happy to hear their music.
I guess each artist has to keep their ears open. :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Guidry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear. And
if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
Steve
| Quote: | The Radio stations gave us "Free Access" to music and still do, this
sharing
is what promoted the music
and created the demand to go out and buy the record in the first place.
Artists need to remember that without some amount of free sharing,
popularity doesn't go up.
So in a way, this leakage, let's say, helps the artist to a degree.
But they will always want as you say "Maximum Income" so they don't see it
that way.
I wonder if the roles were reversed how happy artists would be?
Say if they had to pay each time their music was played on the radio?
Pay to promote it on the internet. LOL Pay people to download it and give
them incentive to listen to it.
Hoping enough people would like it to cause a demand enough to start
selling
copies.
Seems like everyone is never satisfied, they benefit from free publicity
but
also want to complain they don't
get paid for every single person listening. Seems to me, if a work of art
is
good enough, the artist can still become a millionaire
in today's current environment. This should give them incentive to just
try
and make better music rather than thinking because they didn't sell enough
copies, then people are stealing them instead.
If the *Product* is truly great, they will sell and make tons of money, if
not, let them try harder next time.
It's a capitalistic economy, right?
AnthonyR.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:42 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
"Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d7Naf.4820$m81.4379@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear. And
if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
Steve
|
well yes Steve,
True advertisers pay dearly for the music we hear for free, but that in turn
causes us to like the music and drives up demand, advertisers pay for us to
hopefully hear their commercials they stick inbetween the music we are
listening to for free.
No matter how we slice and dice it, without the free (to us) music exposure
we would not be buying the cd's at all!
We wouldn't even like the new songs unless they forced them on us till we
got to like them.
So my original point doesn't change, as we shift from a society who listens
to radio less and less, I use my iTunes about 90% now and radio maybe 10% if
even that, unless I get exposed to new music some other way, I will have no
desire (no demand) to buy it or even know about it and tell friends about
it.
That will hurt music and cd sales much more in general than illegal
downloading IMHO.
I guess that is why so many of these online music services are pushing for a
subscription based (radio model) type scheme nowadays.
AnthonyR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:56 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EYNaf.12506$u43.3794@twister.nyc.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d7Naf.4820$m81.4379@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear.
And
if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
Steve
well yes Steve,
True advertisers pay dearly for the music we hear for free, but that in
turn causes us to like the music and drives up demand, advertisers pay for
us to hopefully hear their commercials they stick inbetween the music we
are listening to for free.
No matter how we slice and dice it, without the free (to us) music
exposure we would not be buying the cd's at all!
We wouldn't even like the new songs unless they forced them on us till we
got to like them.
So my original point doesn't change, as we shift from a society who
listens to radio less and less, I use my iTunes about 90% now and radio
maybe 10% if even that, unless I get exposed to new music some other way,
I will have no desire (no demand) to buy it or even know about it and tell
friends about it.
That will hurt music and cd sales much more in general than illegal
downloading IMHO.
I guess that is why so many of these online music services are pushing for
a subscription based (radio model) type scheme nowadays.
AnthonyR.
|
Also all these years that music was freely available from the radio, why
haven't music companies been freaking out about people recording the music
off the radio rather than running out and buying the cd's? Did they not fear
people recording their own copies rather than buying cd's?
NO, you know why?
Mainly because they knew they needed the exposure no. 1 to sell any music at
all, and also people are lazy in general.
Why sit there recording music off a radio and making tapes and cd's when you
can just pay and get one ready made?
So it's been working well so far.
Also CD's offer much better quality than the fm transmission range can, so
those who wanted it to have also wanted a better quality version to have.
The same can be said now with mp3's, they aren't as good as the uncompressed
CD versions so people will still want better quality (if they can afford to
by music at all). So sales should still be good from that aspect.
But i suspect because people aren't using cd players as much any more, in
general, and it now has become easier to download and compile all your music
on an ipod type device, now because the laziness factor has shifted, quality
becomes less important and convenience will cause cd sales to drop. I
personally only buy music online now at iTunes cause I hate having to
transfer then to my iPod (again laziness factor) and have to store all those
cd's somewhere. i guess i could start passing them around like a used book
but that would violate the law since I copied the music so I have to just
store them. It's not convenient buying CD's anymore and that's why sales are
going down and will continue to go down, they need to realize this, and find
solutions. It's not cause people want to steal, it's cause people want
convenience and they need to legally give that to them if they want to
continue to get paid well.
AnthonyR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry J.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:18 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com>
said:
| Quote: | We wouldn't even like the new songs unless they forced them on
us till we got to like them.
|
People who buy for that reason should be shot.
;-)
--
Larry Jandro
Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
[Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry J.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:23 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com>
said:
| Quote: | Also all these years that music was freely available from the
radio, why haven't music companies been freaking out about
people recording the music off the radio rather than running out
and buying the cd's? Did they not fear people recording their
own copies rather than buying cd's? NO, you know why?
|
Yes, but not for your reasons.
They knew that the analog recordings made by people were generally
crap, and got worse as more people copied them. (Not that they liked
it at all...)
They fear the digital mastering and subsequent digital copying which
essentially leaves the material pristine.
--
Larry Jandro
Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
[Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David McCall
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:37 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Actually, it seems to me that the music industry has been
screaming foul every step of the way. That included reel-to-reel,
cassettes, CD burners, MP3s, etc. Even back in the 60s.
Perhaps they even fought the proliferation of consumer
phonograph recorders. They were very difficult to get a
decent recording out of, so they may not have cared as much.
Every time there is an improvement in our ability to duplicate
media with our consumer recording equipment, they go for
another round with the government to see if they can outlaw
it, or at least cripple it in some way.
I've always contended that it is the people that are most into
exchanging music with their friends that buy the most CDs.
How long would you keep making copies for your friends
if they didn't have anything to share with you? The problem
now is that we can make copies of CDs with equal quality
to the original with any off the shelf computer. Now copies
can keep spreading forever, and the quality never degrades.
Back when the best we had was Cassettes, and 8 tracks,
the quality of the copy was pretty inferior, as compared to
the original, and went downhill pretty dramatically after a
couple generations. Even the original phonograph records
and tapes could easily be worn out or destroyed by using
them on poor equipment or carelessness causing some
people to go out and buy new copies.
I've always felt that most piratecy of media is pretty benign.
Many of the copies that are made don't hurt sales, because,
while people are happy to get a copy for free, they may not
have been interested enough to spend money on the media
they represent. This includes optional software.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Guidry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:58 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
OK. Fine. This argument isn't worth my time.
I think I'll go in the back room now, and gin up some copyrighted content.
And if anyone pirates it, I'll just shoot their balls off with my .357 !
Steve
"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EYNaf.12506$u43.3794@twister.nyc.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d7Naf.4820$m81.4379@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear.
And
if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
Steve
well yes Steve,
True advertisers pay dearly for the music we hear for free, but that in
turn
causes us to like the music and drives up demand, advertisers pay for us
to
hopefully hear their commercials they stick inbetween the music we are
listening to for free.
No matter how we slice and dice it, without the free (to us) music
exposure
we would not be buying the cd's at all!
We wouldn't even like the new songs unless they forced them on us till we
got to like them.
So my original point doesn't change, as we shift from a society who
listens
to radio less and less, I use my iTunes about 90% now and radio maybe 10%
if
even that, unless I get exposed to new music some other way, I will have
no
desire (no demand) to buy it or even know about it and tell friends about
it.
That will hurt music and cd sales much more in general than illegal
downloading IMHO.
I guess that is why so many of these online music services are pushing for
a
subscription based (radio model) type scheme nowadays.
AnthonyR.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:17 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Ignoring for the moment issues of copyright infringment on the music it
would be helpful to see the images presented.
If it is only 12 minutes long I would simply look for a couple of
classic pieces (Brahms etc, not Led Zepplin) that fits the general mood
you are after.
On copyright for your intended use you are not likely to get caught and
prosecuted, which is quite different to say it is perfectly legal.
There are some free soundtracks around if you do a search on the
internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Guidry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:22 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
At last . . . someone who understands the issue.
Which is : it's not a legal decision you have to make when you use
copyrighted music. It's a business decision.
<marks542004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131142655.123053.99770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Ignoring for the moment issues of copyright infringment on the music it
would be helpful to see the images presented.
If it is only 12 minutes long I would simply look for a couple of
classic pieces (Brahms etc, not Led Zepplin) that fits the general mood
you are after.
On copyright for your intended use you are not likely to get caught and
prosecuted, which is quite different to say it is perfectly legal.
There are some free soundtracks around if you do a search on the
internet.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Music for my home video... |
|
|
Hey Steve,
I don't know if you think I understand the issues, I mean to understand and
agree with are two separate things, no?
I understand that they are selling pirates (still in theaters) dvd's as I
type on thousands of street corners, in walking distance from my house even.
I understand I can purchase illegal CD music for $5 each from the Asian guy
standing outside my gym most days.
I understand people can still order cable and satellite boxes that bypass
the fee structure for onDemand movies.
And even in high school we would by mixed 8-Track tapes from the local car
wash, not because they were cheaper, but because we liked the mix of music
which wasn't available legally in stores back then. The industry is always
late to the party with legal products people want.
Understanding I didn't think was the problem here.
So YES, she can use any music she wants in her grandma's dvd without fear of
prosecution, unless somehow the government would rather make an example of
someone making a home movie costing the industry more than those running
commercial illegal duplicating business'?
AnthonyR.
"Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:laRaf.5461$AS6.631@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | At last . . . someone who understands the issue.
Which is : it's not a legal decision you have to make when you use
copyrighted music. It's a business decision.
marks542004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131142655.123053.99770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ignoring for the moment issues of copyright infringment on the music it
would be helpful to see the images presented.
If it is only 12 minutes long I would simply look for a couple of
classic pieces (Brahms etc, not Led Zepplin) that fits the general mood
you are after.
On copyright for your intended use you are not likely to get caught and
prosecuted, which is quite different to say it is perfectly legal.
There are some free soundtracks around if you do a search on the
internet.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in