Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 24 July 2002

Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.

 

From: Chris Bell
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Copyright and music

As I've tried to say before in this forum, the notion of
consumers being allowed to create backup copies of CDs 'for
free' is nonsense. If I buy a car so I can drive to the
Coromandel at weekends, I don't purchase the right to own
a 'free copy' of it for driving around Auckland during the
week. If I buy six beers for this evening from the bottle
shop, do I receive six free beers to drink tomorrow night?
I don't think so.

I can't believe New Zealanders continue to be so hard of
thinking. The vast majority of consumers appears to believe
music should be free and that the "big bad record
companies" are exclusively to blame. If you buy a CD, all
you're doing is purchasing a sound carrier and a limited
use licence to listen to that music under certain specified
circumstances. If you don't like that, go and listen to the
radio. At least then, the broadcasters have already agreed
and arranged to pay a fee to the copyright owners. That's
the way it has (almost) always been with recorded music and
I see no reason why that should change.

Aardvark Responds
If, as you assert, buying a CD provides you with a "licence to
listen to that music" then why should a scratch on the disk
invalidate that licence?

When I buy software on CD I get a licence to use that software
and, if the disk gets damaged, most vendors will recognise that
I have already bought such a licence and replace the disk
for the cost of the media.  Why won't the recording industry
do this too -- then there'd be no need to burn CDR
backups would there?

It strikes me that they (the recording industry) are  trying
to have their cake and eat it too.  Either we're buying
a licence or we're not -- which is it?


Chris Bell Replies:

Aardvark responded:
"If, as you assert, buying a CD provides you with
a 'licence to listen to that music' then why should a
scratch on the disk invalidate that licence?"

That's not an assertion, Bruce. That's pretty much what
Michael Glading would tell you, any record company boss or
music publisher worth their salt. You buy the carrier (the
CD) and a limited licence to access the music on it.

If the goods were faulty when you bought them, take them
back to the retailer. If you scratched the CD yourself -
or, worse, if your CD player scratched it - well, you're no
more protected from your travails than you are if you
scratch your car (or its free copy) or spill your free beer.

"When I buy software on CD I get a licence to use that
software and, if the disk gets damaged, most vendors will
recognise that I have already bought such a licence and
replace the disk for the cost of the media. Why won't the
recording industry do this too -- then there'd be no need
to burn CDR backups would there?"

Personally, I've never found software vendors any more
accommodating than record companies in this regard. Perhaps
it depends how well connected you are. :-) Did people
expect the privilege of replacement copies when the
carriers were made from vinyl? What has changed about the
the intellectual property itself? Only the technology
relating to the carrier has evolved. Perhaps what makes
music different from other forms of software is that
composers and musicians formed bodies such as PRS, MCPS and
APRA many decades ago to protect their interests in their
work.

There's no doubt most CDs are over-priced and that there
are exploitative practices in the music industry. That
sadly doesn't alter the fact that you don't own the music
on a CD you purchase just because you bought the carrier.

"It strikes me that they (the recording industry) are
trying to have their cake and eat it too.  Either we're
buying a licence or we're not -- which is it?"

The limited licence is tied to the carrier you purchase -
it is not transferable, as one of the other posters here
has implied. You might just as well argue that you bought
concert tickets, saw a performer, heard a song and
therefore "own" the copyright in it. Would you apply
your "scratched CD" logic to a book you had bought and then
spilt coffee on? What we're arguing about is cost. If, as
you sensibly suggest, subsequent purchases should cover
only the cost of the medium (the carrier), not the costs of
licensing the rights in the work, I'd like to see the
software program the stores would use to communicate the
vagaries of this second purchase to APRA.





From: Brian Harmer
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Last bastion?

Bruce, you wrote

"and who said the Net was the last bastion of free
expression?"

well it would't have been me because I don't believe that
the quaint mythology that the Net is some specially
privileged jurisdiction.

You went on to say:

"However, things are not quite so simple in the world of
the Internet.  After all, if I were to include that link in
this column, I would not actually be publishing the
information in New Zealand would I?"

I disagree. I believe things are exactly that simple. In
its ordinary meaning, publish simply means "to make known".
By linking to that site, you, Bruce Simpson, resident in
the Kaipara region of New Zealand at the time of
the "crime" would have made known something, contrary to
New Zealand law, regardless of where the technology that
facilitated such an awful act was located on the globe :-)




From: Tom
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Copyright and patent law

Both Copyright and Patent law were drafted a long time ago,
before widespread electronic transmission and storage of
data, and before developments in the field of biotechnology.

Both groups of laws are clearly inadequate and
inappropriate for the modern environment and need
overhauling from the ground up. Merely amending them will
fix nothing.

My personal opinion on Copyright is that you will no more
stop people copying and reusing electronic material than
you will stop people singing a song they heard on the
radio. Should we all be stopped from reproducing someone
elses music by singing it?

I think the key is to draw the line at "for profit or
personal gain". In practice downloading and listening to
MP3s is little different to radio on demand. Record
companies are going to have to find other models to
generate revenue other than overcharging for hardcopy. The
sooner legislation changes to reflect this the better.

Legislating for and enforcing respect for intellectual
property when you wish to use some or all of soemone elses
creation to generate profit is a much more practical
proposition.




From: Dominic
For : Right Of Reply (for publication)
Subj: The system failed years ago

I've been experimenting with FreeNet, a development
pioneered by Ian Clarkson. I consider FreeNet to be a
profound threat to Copyright laws.

This is the page to read on why FreeNet came into being. I
offer a forewarning to companies: FreeNet opposes some of
the values of commerce. Although I am sure that at a
personal level, investors / owners of companies here might
subscribe to some of the culture of FreeNet, there is an
interesting irony.

http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Main/Philosophy

In his defence of his creation ("FreeNet"), Clarkson makes
many statements, of which this is one: "Secondly, it could
be questioned whether copyright is effective even now. The
music industry is one of the most vocally opposed to
enhancements in communication technology, yet according to
many of the artists who should be rewarded by copyright, it
is failing to do so. Rather it has allowed middle-men to
gain control over the mechanisms of distribution, to the
detriment of both artists and the public."

I remember one of the philosophies of the Internet from the
early 90's: control back in the hands of the citizen. I
guess this is no longer a thinking phenomenon. It is now in
action and so now being felt.




From: Mike Dawson
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Copyright or Copy – Right!

Your article on copyright reminds me of a time when I first
began studying web design and researched this, very
important, issue.

I was bemused by the fact that web designers usually
include a copyright notice on all sites they develop, yet
one of the first questions we’ll ask a client is if they
can identify any sites that have style, content, etc., that
they would like “incorporated” into their website.

Naturally, a blatant rip-off is an infringement, but using
other sites as “inspiration” is commonplace.

With regard to CD copying, this is an ongoing issue and I
agree that there are many grey areas. However, I believe
that the Recording Industry Association is using this issue
as a smokescreen in an effort to draw attention away from
their outrageous prices.

An excerpt from a letter I had published in NetGuide
magazine:

“I have no problem with musicians being fairly paid for
their craft – they deserve it. Factor in manufacturing
costs, agents, managers, PR and advertising, related music
video costs, lawyers, accountants, record company fees,
retailer markups, transportation costs, everyone’s taxes,
(plus GST), and you can see where your hard-earned dollar
is going. CD piracy exists because the consumer is forced
to pay for all the middle-men”.

It has also been pointed out that anyone owning a record
album, audio cassette, or music CD, wishing to make a
backup copy, has already paid for copyright with their
initial purchase. Simplistic, perhaps, but a good point
nonetheless.


Hit Reload For Latest Comments

Now Have Your Say

Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre