Community Newsletter: Q&A: Is peer-to-peer software such as LimeWire legal and safe to use?
- 3/23/07 12:14 PM
CDs????
by 757addict - 3/23/07 9:21 PM In reply to: Is peer-to-peer software such as LimeWire legal and safe to use? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Its so much easier to just buy the cd. Get a group of friends to share the burden of the excruiating cost of a CD. You get to rip your own high quality mp3's without having to suffer through crappy encoders. I played the Kazaa game a few years ago and it'd take me 4-5 hours just to find all the songs and delete the ones that are just blanks. Then I'd have to uninstall the trojans that my sister would install. P2P sharing is dead and CD's (or even super-cheap flash) will always have a place. Buying and sharing CD's is well on the gray side of legal, but theres no way that the RIAA is ever going to find out about it so share away!!!
I think that is bad to buy expensive songs
by IA4004 - 3/23/07 10:15 PM In reply to: Is peer-to-peer software such as LimeWire legal and safe to use? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I think that the price for each song is the problem that causes the people to use any peer-to-peer program,and they aren't going to stop us to share songs,the days of glory of the peer-to-peer are alive,when the cost for each song raises down to 10 cents each,at that point is when the people may going to download legal music,I hate that to pay too much for a song,that's why there are too much peer-to-peer software.
A very fine line
by imDaveK - 3/24/07 9:29 PM In reply to: Is peer-to-peer software such as LimeWire legal and safe to use? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Taking something from someone else without paying for it is stealing.
Stealing is wrong. Most people know right from wrong because of the "Golden Rule". This is where the "fine line" comes in. If one person feels using Limewire to replace music that was once bought and paid for and now lost, is legal, and another may think it is illeagle because it was taken without being paid for. Who's right?
I have hundreds of LP's that I want to copy onto CD's. I went as far as buying a turntalbe that has a USB cable to plug into my computer so I can do just that. Problem is, the old LP's are scratchy and have popping noises on them. Limewire copies don't. Is it stealing if I copy only the songs that I have already bought? I make sure that I don't have a shared file so someone else can copy from my computer.
Am I a thief?
DaveK.
The line is not so fine...
by David Eaton Productions - 3/25/07 2:01 AM In reply to: A very fine line by imDaveKDaveK knows the answer to his question.
But, you may not know WHO you are stealing from.
Assuming that the downloads that you are replacing your old LP's with are taken from re-releases of the original recordings that others have posted (hence, no crackles or pops), there was an engineer that was responsible for doing that. Often the old tapes are fragile and require special handling, which can include gently heating the tape for a period of time, then gently cooling the tape - this makes sure the emultion does not separate from the physical media when played on an analog tape machine.
Then the tapes are carefully transferred to a digital source. Additional noise reduction, eq and compression are often added by a Mastering Engineer to the digital form to help replicate or enhance the original sound. Then, in anticipation of trying to make the whole package appealing, and giving the buyer (who the record company knows has already paid for a vinyl version) added value, additional tracks, written commentary and art work are often included in the package.
So, all these people go to work, trying to make something of value for you - since clearly you do not have the tools or skills to do it yourself - and you make the decision that they are not worthy of being paid for their efforts. Why? Because years ago you bought the album, which is now scratchy from your mishandling.
Does that even 'feel' right to you?
When you purchased that LP years ago, what you paid for is the physical media (the disk and packaging), and a license for the private listening of the underlying content (the song, the performance, and the skilled people who made it happen).
The fact that you can play it over and over without additional cost, leads to the common misconseption that you have a certain "right and title" to the product. But if you look at the same issue in a movie ticket, it seems easier to understand the flaw. The argument of "I bought it once" is like saying, "I bought a ticket to a movie, so I should be able to just walk in and see it anytime I want." Your ticket was for a seat to see that one performance, and to pay everyone from the designer of the theater, to the ticket taker, popcorn sales person and even the clean up crew that got rid of the guy's coke and popcorn container who had the seat before you.
By comparison, a CD, at almost any price, is a bargain because it lasts much longer. Not to mention the joy that the music brings.
Whats the DIfference?
by gamingguru77 - 3/25/07 6:43 PM In reply to: The line is not so fine... by David Eaton ProductionsOk so its illegal to download songs you have not paid for?
Is it illegal to record a show off of TV?
To my understanding that is legal as long as you don't sell it?
Isn't that the same as recording off of the radio?
Whats the difference between me recording a tape (tv or radio) and watching it or listening to it as I please? I believe it is the same concept.
Another scenario I burn my friend a MP3 CD...I have not sold it to him so have I done anything Illegal?
I just don't understand the difference.
The Difference
by David Eaton Productions - 3/26/07 2:34 PM In reply to: Whats the DIfference? by gamingguru77To get the difinitive answers to your questions, one should consult an Intellectual Property Attorney, which I am not. But I'll try to do my best to make heads and tails of your questions, (which I believe to be very valid) and use normal language. But again, an Intellectual Property attorney would know the fine points much better than I do.
gamingguru77 wrote:
"Ok so its illegal to download songs you have not paid for?
Is it illegal to record a show off of TV?
To my understanding that is legal as long as you don't sell it?
Isn't that the same as recording off of the radio?
Whats the difference between me recording a tape (tv or radio) and watching it or listening to it as I please? I believe it is the same concept."
reply -
ALL the aboved mentioned uses are similar and legal, pursuant to the Supreme Courts rulings, as you are making a copy of a broadcast for personal use and you are NOT DISTRIBUTING the copy.
I believe that back with the introduction of the VCR the legality of the question was argued in the courts (now referred to as the 1984 "Sony Betamax Case"). The outcome determined that the overwhelming legal uses (making a copy but not distributing it) of the VCR to 'time shift' programs outweighed the illegal uses.
You wrote:
"Another scenario I burn my friend a MP3 CD...I have not sold it to him so have I done anything Illegal?
I just don't understand the difference."
reply -
The difference is that you are making a copy and "DISTRIBUTING" it, by giving it to your friend. This is illegal because it causes damage to the artists and record companies in the form of a "non-sale". Your friend, who now has a copy, has no incentive to purchase a copy for himself, so the Artist, Record Co., Producer, and all others who contribute to the manufacture and distribution of records are being 'robbed' of cash flow.
Looking at the fine points, the owner of the copyright (the record co.) has given the radio station a license to play the song. They usually do not charge a fee for the license, as they plan on radio play to generate interest that will cause your friend, and you, to want to have your own copy - hence, sales of the record. When you give a copy to your friend, you are undermining the reason music is free on the radio buy killing the sale.
On a side note, the radio station also pays a license to the songwriters for each time they play the song! When you purchase a download or CD, some of that money also goes to the songwriters. When you give you friend a cd, you are stealing that license money from the songwriters.
I hope this helps to distingush why one is legal and the other not.
Am I Understanding This Correctly?
by gamingguru77 - 3/26/07 6:51 PM In reply to: The Difference by David Eaton Productionsok expanding on that idea...this is what I get from what you say (mind you im a 17 year old high school senior who likes his free music)
as long as i do not give anyone a copy or "share" the files am I still downloading illegally?
Say I download the song copy it to "My Music" and delete it, from the shared folder, so I am not sharing it at all and I am not passing it on. (Which is what I do)
Is it still illegal?
I rarely burn a CD for a friend...when I do burn a CD it is to listen to in my car because I'm to lazy to buy an Ipod adapter (my income is stressed enough with car insurance, gas, and paying for my hockey seasons)
What I am getting is that as long as i do not share the file or burn it on a cd for my friend and keep the file strictly for my personal use it is somewhat legal.
Thank You for your time and understanding.
Very good question...
by David Eaton Productions - 3/27/07 3:01 PM In reply to: Am I Understanding This Correctly? by gamingguru77hey gamingguru77, I'm glad that you ask more questions. It is great that you are trying to understand the reasons and boundries of downloading. I know many others have the same questions that you do.
You wrote: "as long as i do not give anyone a copy or "share" the files am I still downloading illegally?"
When an unauthorized file is shared, both the provider (them) and the reciever (you) are breaking the law. By not sharing the file yourself, you are stopping the chain, but your original acquisition of the file is still illegal.
The law is there to protect those of us who have a vested interest in the file, meaning we have something to gain or loose by its use.
We in the music industry are faced with a most unique situation. Someone invented devices (cd burners & P2P services) that, for the first time in history, make an exact duplicate of our product for no cost. If the same device could duplicate your car insurance, gas, etc., would you still choose to spend your money on them and not on music? If that were the case, most fans would be happy to pay for their music and stick it to the insurance companies! But technology has not provided that option.
We, musicians, producers, etc., also have car payments, rent, grocery bills, etc., and when you file share illegally, we are simply left without a paycheck. Unfortunately, we are put in the position of having to look like jerks for trying to get paid by the people who basicly walk into our store and walk out with product but without paying. Do you know of any other industry that has to defend the right to be paid for it's work?
The money held back from us is desparately need for life's basics. Most people think, "those jerks are richer than I am, I don't mind stealing from them." The problem is that very few in the music industry are successful, and even fewer are rich (contrary to MTV's "Cribs"). The vast majority of good musicians are working day jobs to pay the bills. For every legal paid download, 12 more are not paid; and that lack of cash flow reduces opportunities for new talent.
I know you're a senior in high school, but you are probably making decisions as to what to do next. Would you consider a job where you will not get paid?
Good luck in your decisions and I hope you are planning a career in anything but the music industry! 
Consumer Point Of View
by gamingguru77 - 3/27/07 5:27 PM In reply to: Very good question... by David Eaton ProductionsActually I'm planning on majoring in computer science at Central CT State University and then transferring to MIT.
Before I was introduced to Limewire I had only a few CD's because they tend to get expensive, especially when you only want one song off of the entire album. I can honestly say I do not download like I used to, I used to download songs all the time now I only download maybe a handful a week. But I do understand your point about how most musicians are not as successful as we perceive them to be. But here from the fans point of view music can be expensive. Me being 17 and trying to pay car insurance, gas, internet, cell phone, and to play hockey...that little bit of money spent on music adds up fast. I can only work so many hours during the school year, and I could not afford to purchase music that is why I had very few CD's before I knew about Limewire. Music downloading has grown to be a part of my lifestyle now because it has been the only way for me to get music besides the radio.
Once again I thank you for your time.
We can agree to disagree
by David Eaton Productions - 3/27/07 6:07 PM In reply to: Consumer Point Of View by gamingguru77Hey gamingguru77,
I can understand your point about being tight on cash. I also understand not having spare money for music, as traditional cd's are still relatively expensive. But to be honest, with itunes, you can no longer blame your decision to download illegally on the full cost of a CD, as you can pick and choose the 1 or 2 tracks you like . Do you look at a 99˘ menu at McDonalds and think, "I'll wait until I get home where i can eat for free"? Most likely you see it as a bargain. But the mediocre Cheeseburger is gone in a moment, where a song would last forever.
Most of the musicians I know, also have to severely limit the number of cd's they buy, even though they are a tax write off! But they just don't have the income. Many of us work for years on projects with no pay, and go $30,000 or more in debt to create an album that people end up not paying for (because the 99˘/song is too much for them.) I speak from experience.
If nothing else, I do encourage you to consider the following analogy... when you pick fruit from a tree, but do not water the tree, the quality of fruit will worsen over time. If you love a band or artist, car pool to school, or return some recyclable cans, or buy one less magazine. Spend the $3 you saved on music.
Your purchase seems small, but it is not. It shows your favorite band's record company that money should be spent on promoting and marketing and tour support for the poor souls who are breaking their backs trying to make music that you love and trying to give you a chance to hear it. It's just 99˘ a song. It's just respectful.
You seem to understand the 'right' and 'wrong' of the situation, and are making a choice. I appreciate your honesty and I hope you understand a bit more about the industry that, in the end, is driven by you - the fans.
Thanks
by gamingguru77 - 3/27/07 7:14 PM In reply to: We can agree to disagree by David Eaton ProductionsThank you for your clarity on the situation
Be Aware of David Eaton from David Eaton Productions!
by faderAgent - 2/13/09 9:23 PM In reply to: We can agree to disagree by David Eaton ProductionsDavid Eaton president of David Eaton Productions is guilty of copywriting his clients songs behind their back for his own financial gain! Which is what we call STEALING! He charged us close to $10,000 a song and quit after being over 7 months late in finishing the songs. We had to find and pay someone to finish his job! After we completed the cd, we find out that he went behind our back and Copywrited our songs!
This individual should not be giving advice on what is legal! Anyone looking for a producer to help record an album------Be Aware of David Eaton!
Response from David Eaton
by David Eaton Productions - 3/22/09 1:11 PM In reply to: Be Aware of David Eaton from David Eaton Productions! by faderAgentI hate to even draw attention to the above post, but it contains false accusations that should not go unanswered.
1. The poster is not “Fader Agent” to whom I send many of my bands (a reputable engineer who provides mastering to myspace bands with extremely low rates.)
The poster is a member of a band that I produced in late 2006 and mid 2007. To name them would be to reward them for unprofessional behavior. The fact that they chose A) a public forum in an effort to damage my business, over B) reasonable conflict resolution, speaks volumes.
2. There has been no “STEALING”. The client has a balance due of over $24,000, and has yet to sign our contract that would make my contribution in the sound recording a “work for hire”.
My registration of the copyright is 1) proper, 2) reviewed by the staff at the Library of Congress, and 3) exactly as it should be, regardless of which author registered it – myself, or the client. The following are links to the Library of Congress online search catalog and the two related registrations:
For the Sound Recording:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=white%20trash%20cowboys&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=eXgAZl4XW1Pu5sLPWC1-L3FkbOL&SEQ=20090308222418&SID=2
For the Composition:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=white%20trash%20cowboys&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Xm0n-55oLAo-rOZqK7rSwPyqKT&SEQ=20090308222343&SID=1
Standard Royalty ‘splits’ are contained in the paperwork the client has refused to sign (which would require payment of the client's bill).
3. The claim that I "quit" the project, forcing them to hire someone else, is purely false. I delivered finished mixes by the client’s requested date of 10/1/2007. After approving the mixes on 10/1, the client changed his mind and wanted additional parts added (which he had failed to send to me for the mixes.) Sensing a change in 'tone' in the client's communication, and I requested we settle our business up to that point. This drew an aggressive email from the client and threats of legal action. None has been taken.
4. The claim that I was late on delivery is false. To save the client money, we worked using his home studio and my studio. There were some delays (corrupted files and sync problems), and the client was kept fully advised of, and given the opportunity to influence the resolution of, these problems (i.e., move to a different studio). In spite of the delays, my client-approved mixes were delivered to the mastering studio on time.
I have made many efforts to resolve the conflict with the above client, and continue to do so.
All the client needs to do to have everything as they wish is to sign their contract and pay their outstanding bill .
If any Artists are considering working with me, I would be happy to answer questions about any of the above issues AS THEY PERTAIN TO YOUR PROJECT. For obvious reasons, I will not discuss the above client's conflict. If you have any concerns, please contact me. My clients are treated with utmost respect and integrity.
David Eaton Productions ----guilty of stealing songs !
by faderAgent - 2/13/09 9:21 PM In reply to: Whats the DIfference? by gamingguru77David Eaton president of David Eaton Productions is guilty of copywriting his clients songs behind their back for his own financial gain! Which is what we call STEALING! He charged us close to $10,000 a song and quit after being over 7 months late in finishing the songs. We had to find and pay someone to finish his job! After we completed the cd, we find out that he went behind our back and Copywrited our songs!
This individual should not be giving advice on what is legal! Anyone looking for a producer to help record an album------Be Aware of David Eaton!
Response by David Eaton Productions
by David Eaton Productions - 3/23/09 12:28 PM In reply to: David Eaton Productions ----guilty of stealing songs ! by faderAgentEven though the above post is identical to another on Cnet, I will repeat my response. I hate to even draw attention to the above post, but it contains false accusations that should not go unanswered.
1. The poster is not “Fader Agent” to whom I send many of my bands (a reputable engineer who provides mastering to myspace bands with extremely low rates.)
The poster appears to be a member of a band that I produced in late 2006 and mid 2007. To name them would be to reward them for unprofessional behavior. The fact that they chose A) a public forum in an effort to damage my business, over B) reasonable conflict resolution, speaks volumes.
2. There has been no “STEALING”. The client has a balance due of over $24,000, and has yet to sign our contract that would make my contribution in the sound recording a “work for hire”.
My registration of the copyright is 1) proper, 2) reviewed by the staff at the Library of Congress, and 3) exactly as it should be, regardless of which author registered it – myself, or the client. The following are links to the Library of Congress online search catalog and the two related registrations:
For the Sound Recording:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=white%20trash%20cowboys&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=eXgAZl4XW1Pu5sLPWC1-L3FkbOL&SEQ=20090308222418&SID=2
For the Composition:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=white%20trash%20cowboys&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Xm0n-55oLAo-rOZqK7rSwPyqKT&SEQ=20090308222343&SID=1
Standard Royalty ‘splits’ are contained in the paperwork the client has refused to sign (which would require payment of the client's bill).
3. The claim that I "quit" the project, forcing them to hire someone else, is purely false. I delivered finished mixes by the client’s requested date of 10/1/2007. After approving the mixes on 10/1, the client changed his mind and wanted additional parts added (which he had failed to send to me for the mixes.) Sensing a change in 'tone' in the client's communication, I requested we settle our business up to that point. This drew an aggressive email from the client and threats of legal action - 1.5 years later, none has been taken.
4. The claim that I was late on delivery is false. To save the client money, we worked using his home studio and my studio. There were some delays (corrupted files and sync problems.) The client was kept fully advised of, and given the opportunity to influence, the resolution of these problems (i.e., move to a different studio). In spite of the delays, my client-approved mixes were delivered to the mastering studio on time.
I have made many efforts to resolve the conflict with the above client, and continue to do so today.
All that is needed for the client to have everything as they wish is for them to sign their contract and pay their outstanding bill.
If any Artists are considering working with me, I would be happy to answer questions about any of the above issues AS THEY PERTAIN TO YOUR PROJECT. For obvious reasons, I will not discuss the above client's conflict. If you have any concerns, please contact me. My clients are treated with utmost respect and integrity.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
