On 10-6-2009 0:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also
>>> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you
>>> legally own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.
>> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is
>> broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to
>> pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would
>> distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of
>> having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the
>> apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay
>> copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st
>> century)
> 
> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement, though 
> - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in a local 
> radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer to listen 
> to during the party.

If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not 
close the doors.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group.

In the USA, it's a public performance, but only if you're playing it for the 
public. If each person needs a personal invitation, then it's not "the 
public" and hence not a public performance. FWIW.  I don't know where 
tennants in an apartment fall.

You can, for example, play the radio in a restaurant as long as you have six 
or fewer speakers.  All kinds of weird laws.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:37:09 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement,
>> though - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in
>> a local radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer
>> to listen to during the party.
> 
> If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not
> close the doors.

"Party" to me implies at home as that's my most common experience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:35:15 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Forgot to add my pet IP dilemma
> 
> G. Download an album that I already own in another format.

You and I both see that one the same way, I think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> 
>> Logistics demand reasonableness.
> 
> Who will define reasonable?

As always, the person who has the power to do so. For the moment at 
least, *I* am that person.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/09 15:49, Shay wrote:
>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.

	Morally, I'd say it's "mostly" OK. I've known of cases where someone 
creates a work of art (e.g. book), and years later feels he was "wrong" 
to do so (e.g. the book espouses a POV that is no longer shared by the 
author, and he'd rather not be the reason it spreads around).

	In such cases, I can see a case for respecting the creator's wishes.

> B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials

	Really don't see a problem with this one. I don't recall signing a 
contract stating that I must watch the commercials, and it's not my 
fault if someone has a business model based on this not happening.

> C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a torrent
> and download it.

	If you mean "go download it", I'd probably be OK with it. Torrents and 
p2p in general are tricky - it may be OK for _me_ to get it, but the 
fact that I'm also sharing it with others makes it likely "wrong".

> D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)

	Nope.

	I can understand downloading it just for a sample (which you can often 
do in other ways anyway). But never cared for the argument where someone 
consistently uses a product (book, software, whatever), but says it's OK 
because he wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

> F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.

	Whether it's OK or not does not depend on whether it's a party or 
you're alone. Unless it's a huge party and/or is being broadcasted.


-- 
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/09 16:38, Warp wrote:
>    Of course the irony is: If you record a TV program and lend the recording
> to a friend, that's legal. If you send it through the internet to your
> friend, you are breaking the law, because now you are publicly distributing
> it. The end effect is exactly the same, but in one case it's ok while in
> the other you are a criminal.

	Nope - not the same.

	In one case, while you've lent it, you don't have access. At any time, 
only one person will have access to the material. In the other case, 
more than one person will.

	(Not sure if that's what you meant, though).


-- 
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

My flippant response: "When you're in a boat."  ;-)

But having spent a lot of time thinking about this over the past few years 
(no, I really did), I feel it is wrong ("wrong" being subjective) only if it 
was available for a reasonable fee through legal distribution outlets.

Back in the Napster days, my colleagues and I downloaded over a thousand 
songs.  That was wrong, in most cases, because we would download entire 
albums.  However, there was no Internet alternative, so in the cases where 
we just wanted one song, we had to pay $15+ for the entire CD, assuming we 
could even find it.  In those cases, I really did not feel guilty.  Instead, 
I felt like we were forcing the music industry to step up to the plate, and 
in that regard, I actually felt somewhat justified in my actions.  There was 
no true legal Internet alternative, so Napster was similar to civil 
disobedience.  Naively, I actually felt that music would become "Free" (as 
in speech and beer).  Then the Metallica lawsuit came (I actually got a 
letter!), and the next thing we knew, Napster was actually getting shut 
down.  In a way, it reminded me of the Chinese demonstrations in Tiananmen 
Square.  How could this possibly end badly?  Communism was failing around 
the world.  But then the tanks rolled in, and the party was over.  Heck, 
they even started making CD's that wouldn't play on a computer.

Of course, later on we got iTunes, which I don't hate, but with which I'm 
certainly frustrated (see last week's post).  At that point, the music 
industry felt they had to do everything in their power to make sure you 
didn't copy and/or distribute your songs, so it's filled with nonsensical 
DRM restrictions (some of which are gone now, I believe).  Then, Amazon 
started allowing people to purchase and download actual MP3's.  All this, 
only 7 or 8 years after Napster, and about 10 years after we, the people, 
starting creating MP3's.  What took them so long to do it right?

The music industry's loss in revenue probably is somewhat related to the 
illegal distribution of MP3's, but by and large, it's probably because the 
avoided the issue for so long.  I remember downloading MP3's in 1997, and 
reading a PC Magazine (John Dvorak) article saying how he was certain the 
music industry would miss the boat on this one.  They not only missed the 
boat, they tried to blow it to pieces and then sue anyone that was on it!

So, I have no love of the recording industry, but I certainly have some 
artists that I enjoy.  Most people will do what's right, if given an 
alternative, but the music industry's own greed forced piracy to make even 
greater gains in the last decade.  They seem to have a complete distrust of 
human nature.  It's hard to support someone who calls you names 
(theif/pirate/etc.) that, historically, have never been assigned to 
copyright infringment.  Their main argument, "Sharing is wrong."  Yeah, 
that's something to teach kids.

At this point, I would do everything possible to avoid directly supporting 
the RIAA, and in fact, I would pay to see their demise.  But I still believe 
in doing the right thing for the sake of the musicians and song-writers 
themselves.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:

> >   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
> > torrent and download it.

> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view.

I'm not sure. Maybe if you believe in cosmic justice or somesort. Why does a
failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?

What about:

C2. Power company f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
torrent and download it.

or

C3. Some punks make the building's fire alarm go off during a favorite
television program - go find a torrent and download it.

or

C4. A spill on the freeway blocks traffic for hours, making you miss your
favorite television program - go find a torrent and download it.

or

C5. Recession causes you to be laid off and you cannot afford cable
anymore - go find a torrent and download it.

... etc.

The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Why does a
> failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?

The failure doesn't.  The fact that you have paid for the license to view 
the program does.

Jim

Post a reply to this message