In reply to the threads in General about the dang music industry, let me ask this question that's been burning in my mind for years now. If you own an album on vinyl, cassette, or whatever else you may have, are you allowed to download the MP3 or bum a copy of the CD off a friend of yours?

I think: Yes. When you bought the vinyl or cassette, you bought a LICENSE to own the music. So, when the media you have is antiquated, you still own the right to possess the music. So, download the MP3 or bum a burned CD copy.

If I'm wrong, then I give a big F to the music industry. They want us to buy the album on record, then on cassette, then on CD, then on MMC (multi media card. lord, it would ROCK if albums came on those) or whatever? That's worse than estate tax when someone dies and their money gets taxed as an estate AND as it passes to the beneficiaries. Not to mention that it probably got taxes as it was earned and saved (ie: if put in a RothIRA). ... um, can ya'll tell that I'm sweating my investments? Word.

If you own an album on vinyl, cassette, or whatever else you may have, are you allowed to download the MP3 or bum a copy of the CD off a friend of yours?

Not really. You can make a copy of the tape you purchased. Or, if you purchased the CD or LP, you can make a copy of that. But nothing in the AHRA gives you the right to get the "better" digital copy just because you paid good money for the "inferior" cassette you originally purchased.

I think: Yes. When you bought the vinyl or cassette, you bought a LICENSE to own the music.

No, you didn't. You'd like to believe that, but it's not the case.

The way I understand is you are allowed to make a backup for your own personal use. ie you have to make the backup and only you can use it for your own personal use.

But I'm not a lawyer so I am probably wrong.

Although I'm quite sure Tony is legally right, every logical and moral fiber in me says it should operate like FireFox's model. When I pay for an album, I should have the right to listen to that album until my dying day, regardless of what form the music is stored. @#$@#! I feel I'm taking up the tailhole every time I feed them some of my money.

Yeah, but does that mean that you should have an automatic right to a DVD copy of a movie you own on VHS? just because the DVD version is newer/better?

I don't think so - don't get me wrong - I hate the music industry as much as you do, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

e.g. if you buy a ("inferior") analog copy of a movie or album, then I don't (nor does the law), think should have the automatic right to a "free upgrade" to the (superior) digital version - especially if that comes with extras not on the original analog copy (like 5.1 soundtrack, directors commentary, alternative endings etc for movies or CD-TEXT, bonus tracks etc for Albums on CD).

Of course if the music companies (and movie studios) would allow you to "trade in" your old (genuine) analog copies for newer digital copies - for a decent discount off the retail price of the digital version - then that would make common and economic sense and would make a lot of people like you (and me) more willing to upgrade to newer formats.

The music and movie industries would benefit as they would be able to make more money from "re-selling" the new (same old) product, while removing the older products from the market, thus preventing the market being flooded with old analog copies lowring the price for all. Of course, the old analog copies would need to be surrendered as part of the deal.

But that doesn't happen at the moment.

Unlike in the software industry where you can "trade up" or "upgrade" to the newer (enhanced) version for less than the cost of a new copy as a reward for being a prior customer.

Hmm, maybe thats why the software industry is making money and growing while the music industry is declining - something old-fashioned - like "being (relatively more) caring about your customers"?

The question here is whether you bought a real, solid, tangible item, such as a cassette or record, or whether you licensed a virtual, theoretical, intangible thing, such as a copyright.

As I understand the current law, you bought a real, solid item. Your rights under AHRA to make a backup only apply to the item that you bought. Of course, if you look further into the current copyright laws, you will find that making copies of friends CDs falls into their 'fair use' rights too. Whether that is morally or ethically correct....

But the RIAA would have Congress half-believe that they never really sold you an item, and what they were doing was licensing you the copyright. They wanted this to combat p2p downloads as it is impossible for them to prove who is *your* friend online. I say 'half-believe' because, ironically, if that were the case then obtaining a digital copy of something that you've already licensed would be perfectly legal. Whether it came from your best friend's CD or from the digital jukebox of the Little Green Men from Mars wouldn't make a difference - as long as it was from the same copyright registration that is. But that'd be a moot point under true licensing anyway - in theory you could phone the record company concerned, tell them that the 11 year old magnetic copy that they recorded on cheap tape with a 10 year lifespan has died, and they'd be bound to enable you to obtain a new copy. And they'd have a very difficult time justifying giving you a new tape as CDs are cheaper to produce. It'd be cheapest for them just to email you a new copy.

I think that is why the RIAA suddenly went a bit quiet on the idea of licensing - they realised that it wasn't such a good proposition for them after all. But they still try to use their favorite elements of the licensing model when it suits their arguments.

AFAIC, you're covered. They've had your money for that album.

There is also a related question.

"Own it on CD, Allowed to download (or buy/rent etc) the MP3 version?"

My reply to that, is I think in this case, where you own a digital copy already, then you should be entitled to download a mp3 version of it provided that:

1. The mp3 version you end up is no better "quality" than the CD version could ever be

2. The mp3 songs are the same (or substanially the same) as the songs on the CD you already own (downloaded the extended version in mp3 while you have the "regular" version on CD is not kosher).

3. You own the copy on CD already, and you could if you wanted to/could be bothered - make a mp3 version of the CD.

This would let you obtain mp3 files for CDs you already own, legitimately from p2p sources. Of course most of us know that the p2p versions of most mp3s are crap and you can do better yourself, but its the principle I'm getting at.

The record companies like to take the position that "all mp3s are theft" which is clearly wrong.

(wow, 6 posts by the time it took me to read through General and Off Topic alone). Good points all.

genixia: I came to the conclusion (read: lie I tell myself) a few years back that: When purchasing any entertainment, I am buying the artistic (taken liberally) process of creating that entertainment and I am NOT buying a physical object.

Basicaly, I'd rather be entertained by burning my money in a small pile in my living room then:
- pay $18 for a plastic disc that I can have produced for $0.90 (and I've researched this) which contains music.
- pay $30 for a slightly more complex plastic disc that costs $2.00 to produce which contains a movie.
- pay $50 for a video game that probably cost $5 to make (console and special form factors (ie: NES)).
- pay anywhere from $50 to $5000 for a plastic disc that could have, again, been produced for $0.90 which contains computer software.
- pay thousands of dollars for paint slapped on a canvas which just happens to be a work of art.
And this model can be extended to everything. Is your car really worth what you paid for it? No, there is a certain "artistic license" that went into creating that car which you are paying for. Did our empegs cost $1400 to make? No, we are paying for all the "artistic" creation of the empeg staff that went into the unit.

Honestly though, I understand your arguement and I'm only being extreme to point out a different way of looking at things. If I was paying for a physical product, I'd much rather listen to my music by going to live concerts. In those cases, the only physical thing I walk away with is half a paper ticket stub. How can the music industry's model fit THAT?

So, the process of creation, which I'll call "artistic license", must be what you are paying for. Otherwise, that crap AOL CD I got in the mail must have the same value as the rare German import Delerium album I had to pay $30 for.

Tony: But, in the end, you are probably right (though I didn't yet check your linked reference). Ya ain't entitled to a different format of what you already bought because it's different in so many ways. So, damn, guess I'd better delete the mp3 copy I downloaded of The Police's "Reggeta Da Blanc" because I bought the vinyl at a garage sale for $1 hoping to "own the license" for it. Hahaha. Oh shoot, and the mp3 copy of The Police's "Ghost in the Machine" which I have on tape only because a friend of mine left it at my house like... 10+ years ago.

When purchasing any entertainment, I am buying the artistic (taken liberally) process of creating that entertainment and I am NOT buying a physical object.

To some extent, it will work this way for a while. Disc formats seem to be the way our media will exist for many generations of technology to come, and backwards compatibility is trivial. Being the young age I am, I saw DVD like formats on the horizion, and intentionally did not buy VHS movies. I bought my first DVD player at the end of 1998, and began my movie collection from there. Sure, HDVD or whatever will be out in a few years, but I will still easially be able to play my DVD movies.

And I do agree, it should be that you are buying the right to the music, but to a point. You should not get a remastered version for free (IE an existing CD moved to DVD-Audio with the full 5.1 benefits). Same with games. You can buy the right to play a game on a platform, but you shouldn't have the right to then play a slightly better version of it on a different platform. (IE, all the beta testers of Halo on the XBox have no right to the better forthcomming PC version).

So, the process of creation, which I'll call "artistic license", must be what you are paying for. Otherwise, that crap AOL CD I got in the mail must have the same value as the rare German import Delerium album I had to pay $30 for.


ROTFLMAO... I gotta remember that one for the future

You are completely disregarding everything that went into making the media.

People have to get paid, and there are a LOT of hands that touched said media in some way before it hits that shelf. Take your statement about "pay $50 for a video game that probably cost $5 to make. There was a huge discussion about this at work on our internal forum recently regarding the Fairplay campaign (http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/). The games don't just make themselves and print themselves to media as i'm sure you're fully aware. There are dozens of artists, programmers, managers, marketing folk, media producers, etc... who have to get paid in order to produce that plastic 90 cent disc.

Now, music i can understand taking issue to... because some of my close friends own record labels that consistently sell CD's for $10 shipped to your door no more no less (and that usually makes the ARTIST less than $1 per CD after production, insert art costs, marketing, shipping and all that is accounted for. $18/CD is insane, but that's because most popular music passes through more money grubbing hands than Indie label stuff.

It's not the cost of the media itself and it's not the "artistic license", it's what went into making it, and the people along the way who have to get paid.

Now as for what rights you are buyin, that's a whole other argument =]

You own the medium that the music was delivered on: you are licensed to play the music. In theory, the licensor (eg., Egotistic Megalomaniac Idiots) can withdraw your license, meaning you can hand the medium back and be entitled to a part refund of your original purchase price.

What the exact conditions of the license are and what they entitle you to while you are licensed depends on local law. However, I doubt you will ever see a printed listing of your entitlements, ever. I may be wrong here, but I reckon the prevailing law would be the Millenium act in the US, wouldn't it? I wonder what the equivalent would be in Europe?

You guys reminded me of a funny story, though not directly related.

I have a friend who has been in the music industry a long time. Years ago, back when MP3s first started getting passed around (like 98-99), I had made some tapes from the MP3s. I was up visiting the friend. At the time, he was working for Music Connection (an industry mag). When I told him I'd made the tapes from MP3s, he proceeded to give me this whole long lecture about how I was ripping off the artists, and that the tape would probably cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in royalty fees. I was like, whatever.

Jump forward a few years and the friend is working for MP3.com. I mention the tape incident and he laughs and encourages me to pirate as much as I can.

It's even funnier that he later told me about this new service they'd be launching soon, called My.Mp3.com. I looked at it, laughed, and told him they'd be sued in a second. He told me "no way". Guess who's laughing now?

Point of the story: People in the record industry have no freaking clue what they're doing and will do anything to make a buck.

loren: Good point, I forgot about all the middle-men/women. I always consider the CD store, manufacturer, and record label (and, hopefully, artist) as the primary middlemen. Yeah, then artists, producers, and FRIGGIN marketing!! Yeah, gotta have part of my $18 go to banner ads on CDNow and Yahoo showing Faith Hill's friggin ugly mug.

But that's why I like paying $10 to guys like your record-label friend. Less middle men and, most likely, higher quality music than overproduced major label crap. I'll pay any talented folk singer at a show $15 for a CDR of their music in a cardboard sleeve. But I digress...

So, I guess the saying is true: "Buying CD's doesn't support the artist, it only helps keep the music industry alive." But, with low-talent rappers and rock stars getting million-dollah record deals, why SHOULD we support them? So they can be part of a pointlessly self-fueling inferno which consumes and destroys the collective good-taste of those who are blindly drawn to it like moths? Um, no, I'll mail my $10 "along with a self-addresses, stamped envelope" to my local indie label.

(by the way, Fatboy Slim rocks. I'm listening to his CDs now after not hearing them for years. I'd say that's tallent).

Oh and Drakino, extra features piss me off. Haha, does the industry have no other way to justify their high cost on re-releases than stupid new packaging and releasing studio alternate takes on reissue CD's? Or claiming they made the sound better with "24bit, super oversampling, sound shaping, gold master disc" crap?

And WHY oh WHY do the movies these days have to be 2, 3, and 4 DVD sets? Does the industry realize how much they can fit on a DVD? Yeah, but they need to justify their high cost by slapping 3 CD's of behind-the-scenes and commentary in the Lord of the Rings "super special collectors rare gold platinum" edition. (no, i honestly have no idea what's on those other 3 discs, or what's on the additional discs with most any DVD these days, but it just seems crazy.)

So, yeah, when buying jazz CD's (which are always reissued a million times from their original LP forms), I always try to find the sandard issue, no alt-take, no stupid packaging release (for $7, generally). It's the closest I can come to my ideal "upgrade right" which "allows" me to posses a current copy of a recording I own on outdated media.

Dude, 75% of the reason I buy DVDs (and LaserDiscs before them) is for the commentary. Generally, I don't care much for the deleted scenes and whatnot, but commentaries rule (most of the time).

OTOH, extras on music CDs are generally a load of crap, IMO. I don't really understand why it couldn't have been included on the US release if it was in the Japansese release. OTOOH, the ones I've heard have mostly sounded like ``deleted scenes'', which were mostly deleted for a good reason.

OTOOH,

You're a Motie?

(Let's see who gets the reference... Bitt will, I'm sure. Who else?)

tanstaafl.

And WHY oh WHY do the movies these days have to be 2, 3, and 4 DVD sets? Does the industry realize how much they can fit on a DVD?

Yes, but do you realize what is being sacrificed to fit the extra features onto a DVD along with the movie?

Many times, the movie on the DVD is over-compressed. Visible MPEG artifacting plagues many DVD releases. I prefer to see companies use as much of the disc1 surface as possible for the movie itself, and relegate the extras to disc2.

Sure, on a small television screen, most people don't see the artifacts. But when you use a big screen high-def television to get the "movie experience" in your home, the artifacts are magnified and noticeable.

There is one studio that releases "Superbit" DVDs. These are movies where they've gone to extra trouble to make sure that the film is mastered and data-compressed in such a way as to take advantage of every possible megabyte of data available on the disc. Disc1 has as few "extras" as possible. The result is a much more detailed version of the movie with less artifacting, which pleases us big-screen owners.

I've only seen one of these Superbit releases (I have others on my wish list), and I can say that it's definitely better than your average DVD release. No visible MPEG artifacts. It's like the difference between listening to a 128kbps MP3 and a 320kbps MP3.

And for a direct comparison of the advantages of Superbit (and therefore proof of the usefulness of relegating the extras to disc2), look here:

http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/TFE_01.htm

This is one of those movies where I'm going to buy the superbit version even though I already own the regular version.

Actually, I didn't. There was always a little too much emphasis on the ``S'' in their stuff.

Even with the Superbit releases (which I'd be more interested in if they had a second DVD for extras -- usually, they just omit them altogether), DVDs can't even begin to compare to 35mm film. One of these days, when I'm rich and have money to burn, I'm going to build myself a theater with a 35mm projector. And I'll burn the bulb at full intensity.

True.

I will agree that most "enhanced" CDs could have done without the "enhancing", but there is one notable exception that I can think of, and that's "Nico" by Blind Melon. That CD is loaded with special features. Articles, interiews, a couple videos, an a lot of other stuff as well. A lot of work was put into it, and it was worth at least the price of admission. The CD didn't cost anything extra, but you got a lot more.

The mote in god's eye and whatever the title of that second book was, written by.... Larry Niven I believe. Quite a nice story around aliens with 3 arms.

I guess this would be a direct reference to the beginning of the second book, where people use 3 sided logic in their arguments, i.e. on the one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand. If I say any more I would keep typing and start giving the whole story away.

hrmm, not on the third hand, but on the gripping hand. It has been a while since I read it.

The Moat around Murcheson's Eye

OT: For any LOTR fans out there, the Special Edition DVD's came out yesterday: 5 total DVD's with like 7 hours of commentary and "making of" features from concept to final. I watched a good chunk of the interviews and featurettes last night and they are incredible! This is a must have for anyone who is a Tolkein/LOTR fan.

Well, there were two sets that came out yesterday. One is a 4 DVD set that includes a bunch of LotR stuff in addition to the movie (which, apparently, is on 2 discs). The other is the same thing bundled with a National Geographic special and a pair of bookends. I got the former.

One is a 4 DVD set that includes a bunch of LotR stuff in addition to the movie (which, apparently, is on 2 discs). The other is the same thing bundled with a National Geographic special and a pair of bookends. I got the former.

Me too. Most of Empeg watched it round at Hugo's last night. IMO it's well worth it when compared to the original version -- a lot of the extra scenes introduce more of the Silmarilliony back-story stuff. The seventeen making-of's I can take or leave though: I just wanted the longer main feature. You have to change discs after the Council of Elrond.

Peter

Those of us in the US were too busy watching Buffy last night (really f'n spooky) to get around to LotR.

I got the set with the bookends, National Geographic DVD, and the ticket to see The Two Towers.