Prince declares ”the internet's completely over.”

[Rockadelic]

Dor,


Which of the following, if any, would you consider "stealing"?





1) A large corporation taking a piece of software sold to the Accounting industry and making copies of it without paying the designer/owner to use in their Accounting department??





2) A Mom & Pop business doing the above?





3) Taking the same piece of Accounting software and making it available to the masses for free at your website negatively affecting the sales of the company that designed the software?





4) Making copies of the above mentioned software and making copies to sell at a profit?

 

[dwyhajlo]

Serious question, do avatars on a forum fall under "fair use"? I have no idea. Do any of the lawyer-types know?





EDIT: I guess they could fall under another exception to copyright, but I really have no idea.

 

[Horseleech]

DOR said:I don't know why you would think it's "preposterous". Placing your copyright on an image or photo is not a difficult thing in the digital age. It's not like you need to apply or pay a fee to place copyrights on your photos. Wouldn't it make sense to think all images or photos on the internet were copyright protected until you knew they weren't or had a Creative Commons license or something?




Your assertion was that Rock was guilty of copyright infringement for posting a photo he took, but did not copyright, is indeed preposterous.





Whose copyright is he infringing upon?

 

[DOR]

It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.





Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?

 

[Rockadelic]

DOR said:


Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?




I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..

 

[Horseleech]

DOR said:It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.




I never used the word stealing in reference to this.





I think you're assuming Rock took his photo from some website, I'm assuming he took it himself.

 

[DOR]

Horseleech said:





Your assertion was that Rock was guilty of copyright infringement for posting a photo he took, but did not copyright, is indeed preposterous.





Whose copyright is he infringing upon?




I'm not sure if you read when I wrote "I???m not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn???t..."





In no way am I claiming he has committed an offense. I'm simply pointing out he could very well be.





But you haven't answered the question. Shouldn't everyone be under the assumption that something is copyright protected if they don't personally own the rights?





But as someone asked the question above. Rock could probably make a fair use case maybe. Just like music should have rules on fair use rights.

 

[DOR]

Horseleech saidOR said:It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.




I never used the word stealing in reference to this.





I think you're assuming Rock took his photo from some website, I'm assuming he took it himself.




I was replying to rock with that post. Not you.





Edit: In any case. Maybe we should get back to talking about Prince. Anyone ever watch the videos of Kevin Smith's dealing with Prince trying to get rights to put a song in one of his movies?

 

[Horseleech]

DOR said:But you haven't answered the question. Shouldn't everyone be under the assumption that something is copyright protected if they don't personally own the rights?




If you are going to reuse the image for certain purposes, yes. Avatars? Not sure about that one.





Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven't seen the whole 'net, though.

 

[DOR]

Rockadelic saidOR said:


Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?




I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..




Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".





In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.





They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done.

 

[Rockadelic]

Rockadelic saidOR said:


Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?




I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..




Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.

 

[DOR]

Rockadelic said:Rockadelic saidOR said:


Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?




I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..




Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.




I did...








@Horseleech


"Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven???t seen the whole ???net, though."





hahaha. There's still time...





I just mean that I'm guessing anyone who creates images, photos, etc that cares or knows whats up, has taken the easy steps needed to copyright their material. But I would think if you have the opinion that copyright infringement is bad, would practice what they preach. And that's not directed at anyone in particular. Just that if you believe stealing is stealing, you make sure you aren't doing it yourself. I've seen people on here fail to do this. IMO, I think it's hypocritical to take the stance.

 

[Rockadelic]

DOR said:Rockadelic said:Rockadelic saidOR said:


Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?




I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..




Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.




I did...








@Horseleech


"Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven???t seen the whole ???net, though."





hahaha. There's still time...





I just mean that I'm guessing anyone who creates images, photos, etc that cares or knows whats up, has taken the easy steps needed to copyright their material. But I would think if you have the opinion that copyright infringement is bad, would practice what they preach. And that's not directed at anyone in particular. Just that if you believe stealing is stealing, you make sure you aren't doing it yourself. I've seen people on here fail to do this. IMO, I think it's hypocritical to take the stance.




Huh?





What does that have to do with "owning" a record if I purchase it?

 

[LaserWolf]

I had a customer who worked at a large NYC or Northern NJ record store in the 90s.


They sold lots of bootlegs.





One day Prince, himself, walked in.


He brought a huge stack of Prince bootlegs to the counter, along with other stuff he wanted to buy.





My buddy was clerking and quick got in touch with his boss about what he should do.





"Just give him everything free."





While we are on the topic of Prince bootlegs. Who in the 80s-90s had a better bootleg catalog?


The Black Album of course, plus tons of live after party and killer concert recordings.


Far better than Springsteen, IMO.





I also think he always planned to pull the Black Album for the purpose of creating a Basement Tapes type legendary bootleg.

 

[DOR]

When I said "I did" I meant above... Right before your post.





The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed to you. @Horseleech means I'm talking to someone else.





But here you go.





"Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".





In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.





They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done."

 

[DocMcCoy]

It's something of a myth that you need to formally copyright something by registering it at the Library of Congress or similar. Certainly, doing that would be beneficial in the event of someone else claiming to own or control the copyright in it, but the fact is, the moment you create something original, copyright is yours until such point as you choose to assign that copyright to a third party. This is why copyright laws were established, contrary to what the legions of freetards would have you believe; so as to formally enshrine in law the right of the creator to decide who, if anybody, should be granted the right to make copies of their work.

 

[Rockadelic]

DOR said:When I said "I did" I meant above... Right before your post.





The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed to you. @Horseleech means I'm talking to someone else.





But here you go.





"Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".





In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.





They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done."




Yeah....my bad(RIP Manute).





I didn't see your post.





I'm not aware of anyone in the music industry who doesn't think you own the physical object, just that you don't own the music to do with as you please.

 

[DocMcCoy]

DOR said:





In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.










It's unclear to me if these are your words or Rock's but, either way, go to your crates or your Expedit or whatever right now, and pull a random album from the stack. Doesn't matter which - I've just this second done it with Black Uhuru's 'Anthem'. Now take out the record, and look at the tiny wording around the edge of the label. It reads something like this, doesn't it?





"All Rights Of The Manufacturer And Of The Owner Of The Recorded Work Reserved. Unauthorised Public Performance, Broadcasting And Copying Of This Record Prohibited."





That pretty much covers everything quoted above, especially if the album has a gold promo stamp on the back cover. In other words, 'twas ever thus. Historically, record companies have only ever asserted these rights when they believe that the people infringing them are hitting their bottom line - bootleggers (illegally recording bands who are under exclusive contract), home-tapers (although pirate tapes were a far bigger threat to their profit margins) and now serial downloaders.

 

[Rockadelic]

DocMcCoy said:


It's unclear to me if these are your words or Rock's





That pretty much covers everything quoted above, especially if the album has a gold promo stamp on the back cover. In other words, 'twas ever thus. Historically, record companies have only ever asserted these rights when they believe that the people infringing them are hitting their bottom line - bootleggers (illegally recording bands who are under exclusive contract), home-tapers (although pirate tapes were a far bigger threat to their profit margins) and now serial downloaders.




Not my words.....





In the late 60's/early 70's bootleg 8-Tracks were commonplace in NY....especially at the suburban Flea Markets. Top 100 LP's were completely ripped off, sometimes even with generic artwork.





They were busted regularly, had their stock confiscated and usually wound up paying a fine.





But the profits were so great that this never stopped them....some of the smarter dudes started selling Incense, Posters and other "legit" stuff and didn't display the bootleg tapes.....but it was known that they had them.





The point is the profit was far greater than the consequences......and it was without question, costing the record labels/artists big money.








Now multiply one crusty Flea Market dude 10,000x and you got the Internet.

 

[mannybolone]

This is going back, deeper into the thread but I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't lump very different forms of media industries together and apply a blanket statement of "the internet/free digital distribution" killed [fill in the blank.]





The decline of the paper newspaper industry, for example, is the product of multiple kinds of destabilizations in its profit model infrastructure. Even if every newspaper had been able to profit off of their digital editions at the same rate as their print subscribers, they still would have taken massive hits based on (pick your poison):


*The loss of classifieds revenue thanks to Craigslist, eBay, etc.


*Competition for viewer/consumer attention by other forms of media.


*Consolidation/monopolization of newspaper companies following deregulation.





As for the music industry, free downloading has been significant but it's hardly the only problem the industry has had to contend with. The recent book "Appetite for Self-Destruction" outlines the myriad mistakes the record industry made, not just post-internet but beginning with the introduction of the CD. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html





What we've seen in the collapse of the music industry has been a perfect storm created by multiple forces, not simply free downloading.





On the note of downloading: it's pointless, IMO, to debate the ethical merits of downloading/file sharing absent any useful and rational model of enforcement. If file sharing were treated as easily (and harshly) as, say, shoplifting in a store, you can bet your ass downloading would dry up very quickly across the board. But RIAA's approach was a PR disaster that failed to deliver on message. And these days, most are so accustomed to the ease (w/ lack of penalty) of file sharing that it just doesn't logically occur to people that what they're doing is unethical. A legal system is only as effective as people understanding the basic rules and consequences of breaking them. But with file sharing, those rules have never been made rationally clear and with the lack of enforcement, those rules hold even less weight than ever.