Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits

On Dec 25, 1:37 pm, Rick Ruskin <lion...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:09:49 -0800 (PST), jbd4...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 25, 12:50 pm, Rick Ruskin <lion...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:15:29 -0800 (PST), jbd4...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:36 am, Rick Ruskin <lion...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:42:48 -0800 (PST), jbd4...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:54 pm, Rick Ruskin <lion...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks here.
Who among us believes that it is ok to obtain, use, copy/distribute,
etc.; copyrighted material belonging to another who is still alive and
attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to
said owner and/or his delegated agents?

Putting aside 'law' (obviously it is illegal) and speaking in terms of
ethics, I believe it's ok. But I think Ed is right that any answer to
this question might require a lot of caveats that your yes/no question
is not allowing. Ethical questions can be somewhat different with
commercial uses vs. non-commercial, for one example.

Implied in your question is presumably an explanation for the answer.
I don't think a copyright is a moral right to begin with, so making
any particular amount of income derived solely from copyright is not
any kind of moral right of its owner. As such, other people's uses
that might actually or theoretically reduce that kind of income is not
unethical on that basis (it is 'ok'). That an author would like to
make more money is understandable, but that does not create any
inherent right to that outcome.

So you believe that even though someone holds a copyright, another's
personal sense of ethics should decide whether or not compensation is
due or permission is necessary for use? By what logic do you come to
that?

I thought your question was asking about our personal sense of ethics:
"Who among us believes that it is ok to...". You elaborated saying
that you were not interested in our "thoughts on the morality of
current copyright law". I took this to mean you were asking what our
personal sense of ethics would decide, not what the law decides.

It was but part of the ethics question was acknowledgement that the
law exists.

What you seem to be asking now is why would i think it would be ok for
someone to do anything other than what the law says they must do (in
this case what copyright law decides). Is that the question now? If
so, then this would require me to discuss the morality of current
copyright law, which you said you didn't want.

It's a follow-up question to you. Why do you think it's not unethical
to use someone else's copyrighted intellectual property without
permission or compensation?

Because I generally think current copyright law is unethical.

Nor do i think most of the 'uses' it forbids ethically require
permission or compensation. For example, the idea of "compensation"
being owed implies that any time somebody hears a piece of music the
copyright owner is working for them. They aren't.

That's all I wanted to know.

Ok, other ollow-ups: If you wrote and/or recorded something, would
you bother to copyright it? Assuming you did seek and were grsanted
copyright, would you allow any and all to use it without permission
and/or compensation? Under what circumstances if any, would you want
your permission to be sought and/or compensation to be rendered?

Well, it doesn't work that way. The way the law works is that if I put
some piece of music into a fixed version (like a recording) the
copyright is there automatically. You don't seek it out and it doesn't
have to be granted. The law just imposes it the moment you make the
fixed version. The only way this would not be the case is if some
other copyright holder (anyone else who fixed some version of
something), took me to court and said my version was a copy or
derivative of theirs and won the case. Then my copyright disappears
and I have to pay them money.

As to your questions, it should not be my right to decide what uses
are or not allowed in all cases. So what I want should not always be
the law. I might want whatever makes me the most money, but that
doesn't mean whatever does that should be my right. That said, I would
want attribution at least, not having someone else claiming authorship
of something i wrote, and I would want permission sought and some
financial stake in commercial ventures that wanted to use something I
wrote or recorded to those ends. I suppose I would *want* everyone who
made a non-commercial copy to give me money (and everyone who didn't
for that matter), but I wouldn't demand it because it's not right.
But, what people want can get hairy though if dealing with others,
such as recording companies. So as soon as you start dealing with
others you have to deal with their wants too.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to ... due or permission is necessary for use? ... personal sense of ethics would decide, not what the law decides. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to ... due or permission is necessary for use? ... this case what copyright law decides). ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to ... due or permission is necessary for use? ... personal sense of ethics would decide, not what the law decides. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to ... due or permission is necessary for use? ... personal sense of ethics would decide, not what the law decides. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... attempting to derive income from that material without compensation to ... due or permission is necessary for use? ... personal sense of ethics would decide, not what the law decides. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
Loading