November 2002 - zorn-list - mailman.xmission.com

why isn't it stealing?
by CuneiWay＠aol.com 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft? Thank you, Steve Cuneiform Records >WC> Well, it is stealing. It's stealing the artist's royalty that >WC> otherwise would have been paid if the burned-copy-recipient had >WC> bought a legit copy instead. > >Still, technically it is not. The artist's royalty probably is >underpaid, but there is no stealing.

5 4

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by Fritz Feger 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

> > Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a > > used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the artist > > does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that >when > > he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes > > because he is now making money off of someone else's music. >Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When >you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money - >say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a cd >which you don't even own anymore! >Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever >money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, >there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one >payoff to the artist? The basic point behind this is: what is the artist paid for? The physical CD copy, or royalities for his intellectual property? I think the idea that it is the CD you purchase is only a vehicle which makes intellectual property tradeable in the first place; a practical consideration of how to make solid money from something as aetherical as music. For the artist to make a living, this is the crucial point. But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there the question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive since the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? Fritz ############################################## Fritz Feger mail(a)fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.com ##############################################

4 3

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by john schuller 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

>From: "Julian" <germ(a)iinet.net.au> >To: "john schuller" ><superbadassmofo(a)hotmail.com>,<zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com> >Subject: Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc. >Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:25:52 +1100 > > > Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a > > used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the >artist > > does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that >when > > he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes > > because he is now making money off of someone else's music. > >Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When >you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money >- >say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a >cd >which you don't even own anymore! Yes, you do lose money on your initial purchase. But the item you are selling is only generating any money because of the artist created material on it. Now the artist very well may have sold two copies new for versus just one copy with two seperate owners at different times. Just a thought and you make a great point. > >Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever >money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, >there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one >payoff to the artist? Again great point. But you have to look at the fact that the artist may have sold two copies of that cd new - versus one. Of course I do not claim to have any answers that make any sense. I am just curious about all sides and all angles to this topic. John Schuller _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

4 4

Re: Painkiller / Live in Nagoya
by Zachary Steiner 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

This seems like a common problem at Tzadik as of late. They are approaching Columbia and their box set punctuality. Is it a difficulty with the distributor? It would seem that way if DMG always can get the CDs before everyone else. Am I way off base on this? Zach

2 1

Mmmm, burgers
by William Crump 01 Dec '02

01 Dec '02

>From: Peter Gannushkin <shkin(a)shkin.com> > Hello Steve, > > Saturday, November 30, 2002, you wrote: > > Cac> Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby > Cac> depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of > Cac> the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft? > > Pretty simple. Lets say I'm making hamburgers and selling them. You > bought one, tasted it and then made copies of it, invited friends and > you ate them. Did you steal something from me? No. Did I get less > money because you didn't buy hamburgers from me, but copied them > instead? Yes. Was it theft? Of course not. Now, tell me, what is the > difference? Christ, are you serious? Curlew has a particular hamburger that they own the rights to. They contract with Steve/Cuneiform to distribute that particular hamburger. Copies of an artwork are not like copies of a generic foodstuff like hamburgers. If you manage to duplicate Curlew's blend of eleven herbs and spices in your CD burner and can create exact copies of Curlew's hamburger, you are cutting into Curlew's rights as an artist and Steve's rights (agreed into by contract) as distributor of the Curlewburger. You are stealing Curlew's and Steve's right to profit from Curlewburgers. There are Britneyburgers and Curlewburgers and Burnt Weeny Sandwiches and Bingcrosbyburgers. We're not talking about "hamburgers" here. We're talking about aural artworks, and your "reductio ad absurdem" is heavy on the "absurdem." Are you saying there's no difference in the flavor between a Britneyburger and a Curlewburger? Because the flavor difference is what Curlew has contracted with Steve to market, and the special picquance of a Britneyburger (urgh, my stomach is rolling) is what she's contracted with whatever-the-fuck-her-label-is to market. Copying CDs is theft. It just is. Instead of that question, we need to be talking about when and where the theft is justified. And sorry Steve-at-Cuneiform, I think sometimes it is. Ah'm Hongry! William Crump

2 1

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by Ellery Eskelin 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

skip Heller <velaires(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Do these > laws benefit Jello Biafra? Ellery Eskelin? John Oswald? > > Do we see Jello or Ellery on the news pounding a pulpit about how > downloading is "robbing us of our livelihood"? No -- Hi Ya'll, Just for the record, I have posted on news groups that I prefer folks not make and trade CDRs of my recordings or live concerts. I understand the pros and cons and to sidestep all the moral or legal arguments I would just say that if it we're up to me I would prefer that folks not do this with my music. > They're making the bulk of their > cash going out and playing live to that clientele and collecting the money > directly, instead of having to wait up to a year to see if the recouped on > their last release. Of course the money I make from recording doesn't come anywhere close to what major label pop music generates but it's still money that I need to keep doing what I do. My advances, royalties and publishing money all add up to enough that I'd sure miss it if it weren't there. > Burn American Music discs for your friends. Give 'em a > disc with Tim Berne, Cecil Taylor, Uri Caine, Ellery Eskelin, Mark Feldman > and Chris Speed. I appreciate your zeal Skip, really I do. But no thanks, I'd prefer you didn't. If it were that easy I'd give it away myself. It costs money to make these things happen. I gotta pay my band and if it weren't for a record company with some cash to get the ball rolling I wouldn't be able to fund these things to begin with. And so I value the relationship I have with my small label and would like to see them continue. It's sometimes rather close to the bone for them. And if I do decide that I want to give something away I can. In fact, we just put a cut on a promo sampler for WIRE magazine of which 30,000 free discs were made. That's not to say that you're wrong in your ideas about promoting music, nor am I going to get self righteous about folks who make CDRs of my stuff (although I have had fans come up to me and ask me to sign bootleg CDRs of my recent discs. I thought that was audacious as hell!!) But I do value the fact that I can generally control the means and presentation of my work and I'd like to continue doing so as long as I can. It's not that I see what you're proposing to be a threat, just that it's a fine line and it gets crossed all the time. So just to keep it simple I just prefer that folks not duplicate my music onto CDRs for others. And for live shows as well, I really don't like folks to tape and trade them. I go to great lengths to document my music as best I can. A version of a show on someone's walkman from the 20th row is simply gonna sound terrible and I'd rather not have that out there as an example of our sound. In fact, the sound on 99% of the live tapes of my band that are made by festival engineers for live radio broadcasts on our European tours just suck...terribly. I can't imagine how anyone could listen to that and feel moved to wanna pursue it any further. But that's just me. I know there are other viewpoints and I'm not particularly interested in hashing those out. I just wanted to drop in since my name was mentioned and offer my 2 cents. For whatever it's worth... Respectfully yers, Ellery ================================= ELLeRY ESKELiN/MiCHELLE VAn NaTTA RaMiChElLeRy/PrImE SoUrCe PrOdUcTiOnS http://home.earthlink.net/~eskelin/ =================================

2 4

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by Craig Rath 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

>Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby >depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of >the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft? The sense I'm getting from some people here is that they don't consider it stealing because you would never have made that sale in the first place - they wouldn't have shelled out the money anyway, so you can't lose what you would never have gotten in the first place. I happen to think this argument is crap. If you aren't willing to invest your money in purchasing the disc, what gives you the right to enjoy the disc? I would love to have a new car, but I won't get one because I can't afford one. But I really want it anyway, so just taking one isn't wrong because I would never have bought it in the first place, right? I realize there is a difference in scope here, but where do you draw the line? The only real difference I see is that I can't easily make a copy of a car whereas copying CDs has become ridiculously easy. The other prevailing argument seems to be that copying music and giving it to others helps the bands by spreading the word to an audience that otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to it. Again, crap. What about loaning your legitimately purchased copy to someone else for a week to let them make up their mind about it? If they like it, they can buy a copy and you get yours back. If not, you get yours back and there isn't an unplayed illegitimate copy laying around somewhere. Why is this not preferable to just giving them a free copy of a disc? Are you trying to expand someone else's taste in music, or just their record collection? Just because it is easy to do something today with the technology being what it is doesn't make it right. I was going to say that you don't see people making copies of books because it isn't cost effective to do so, but I guess billashline(a)netscape.net proved me wrong. Then again, his example assumes that a few bucks is better than full price, when you can get books at greatly discounted prices every day legitimately, and without the hassles of printing your own copy. I can guarantee that as soon as it is cost effective to copy DVDs, there will be people doing so and justifying it one way or another. I am in no way guilt free here - I've downloaded things because it was easier as well. But at least I admit that what I did was wrong. I'm not trying to justify it by coming up with excuses. And about 90% of the stuff I've downloaded in the past was music that was unavailable to me in any other way. If I find one of these releases available legitimately, I buy it and throw out the CDR. I'm not trying to be preachy - do whatever you want, it's your life. But don't make excuses for your actions or blame your actions on the "evil record companies". It's wrong, and that's all there is to it. If that doesn't bother you, all the power to you. Craig M. Rath H: fripp(a)attbi.com W: rathc(a)questarweb.com

4 4

Where next for JZ?
by William Crump 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

My first reaction is to say "relevant to whom?" His current audience, a wider audience? For me, he's more important as head of a label committed to making the avant-garde available to John Q. Public than as a composer or a player. But, as a player...for purely selfish reasons, what I'd really like him to do is work hard for however long it takes to get his alto playing where he thinks it needs to be, then record "Classic Guide to Strategy Vol. 3." William Crump ---------- >From: "Zachary Steiner" <zsteiner(a)butler.edu> > > I'll end this with questions: Where do list members want Zorn to go? What > should he be doing to stay relevant?

2 1

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by Craig Rath 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

At 11:52 PM 11/30/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Pretty simple. Lets say I'm making hamburgers and selling them. You >bought one, tasted it and then made copies of it, invited friends and >you ate them. Did you steal something from me? No. Did I get less >money because you didn't buy hamburgers from me, but copied them >instead? Yes. Was it theft? Of course not. Now, tell me, what is the >difference? In your hamburger example, did you go out an purchase the ingredients that go into making the hamburgers? I assume you did. In copying a CD, did you purchase the ingredients that go into making the CD? Other than the blank CD, I'm assuming you didn't. This is the difference. Craig M. Rath H: fripp(a)attbi.com W: rathc(a)questarweb.com

4 3

Re: Mmmm, burgers
by Peter Gannushkin 30 Nov '02

30 Nov '02

Hello William, Sunday, December 1, 2002, you wrote: >> Pretty simple. Lets say I'm making hamburgers and selling them. You >> bought one, tasted it and then made copies of it, invited friends and >> you ate them. Did you steal something from me? No. Did I get less >> money because you didn't buy hamburgers from me, but copied them >> instead? Yes. Was it theft? Of course not. Now, tell me, what is the >> difference? WC> Christ, are you serious? WC> Copying CDs is theft. It just is. I am serious as hell. You are saying that copying CDs is theft, I'm saying that it is not. You are not bringing any arguments. OK then but give me the definition of the theft which you think is right, as mine obviously doesn't work for you. And, yes, I don't think there should be any difference between food market and music market, otherwise we will always have Britneys with loads of money and starving musicians with holes in their pockets. NP: Bill Laswell "Ambient Compendium - Disc 2 Disengage Ambient Bass and Drums" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin(a)shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/

1 0