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.
If I make someone a comp CD and it has a Stickmen song on it, and I do this with the intent that it will create a Stickmen consumer out of someone who has no other practical means of encountering the Stickmen, and I take no money for this (and in fact have paid both for the Stickmen LP in the first place long before it was ever reissued and for the CDR), how have I wronged you? skip h on 11/30/02 2:07 PM, CuneiWay@aol.com at CuneiWay@aol.com wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list
Hello, ....I certainly see Steve's point below. But purely for the sake of argument, let me present a hypothetical situation. Cuneiform currently has over 170 releases in it's catalog. Let's say two imaginary music fans w/ below average income wanted to have at their disposal the entire Cuneiform catalog. They enter into a agreement where each will buy half the catalog and copy their half for the other person. Certainly the easiest and most correct way to look at this is that you've been screwed out of the profits from a complete run of yr complete in print discography by two people who are a dangerous combination, obsessive and (extremely) cheap. But in the process one copy of every Cuneiform in print release was purchased. Of course, I realize that the gray areas in this discussion can get so damn gray at times that we'll never come to a consensus. Steve's opinion of the above would probably differ from John Zorn's or Derek Bailey's or Bruce Russell's or Dan Koretzky's or insert truly independent label owner here. On the consumer side of the fence, as we've seen from the long string of posts on the topic, things can get just as muddy. But that's to be expected I guess when art and commerce come together. I remain.... Joseph NP: The Mount Everest Trio- "Waves of Albert Aylmer" CD NR: Dave Eggers- "You Shall Know Our Velocity" -----Original Message----- From: zorn-list-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:zorn-list-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of CuneiWay@aol.com Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:07 PM To: zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com Subject: why isn't it stealing? 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.
_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list
I almost hesitate to bring this up because because it might add to the arguments of people who feel burning entire CDs is OK. After all, Steve is clearly right that burning an entire CD for another person is against copyright law and furthermore is exactly the type of behavior that's intended to be regulated; no amount of "loosening" the law will change that nor should it. But *strictly* (ie legally) speaking burning an entire CD is not theft for the following reasons: (1) With one exception, copyright law is civil while theft falls under criminal law. Any copyright violation is statutorily not theft but open to civil remedies. The one exception is criminal copyright infringement which requires a certain minimum (I think it's currently $2500) but that is also not theft. (2) Copyright is federal law while theft is state law so there's no overlap. Whether unauthorized burning is morally stealing, of course, is a different question. Lang
Hello Lang, Monday, December 2, 2002, you wrote: LT> But *strictly* (ie legally) speaking burning an entire CD is not LT> theft for the following reasons: (1) With one exception, copyright LT> law is civil while theft falls under criminal law. Any copyright LT> violation is statutorily not theft but open to civil remedies. The LT> one exception is criminal copyright infringement which requires a LT> certain minimum (I think it's currently $2500) but that is also LT> not theft. (2) Copyright is federal law while theft is state law LT> so there's no overlap. Bravo! Great statement. LT> Whether unauthorized burning is morally stealing, of course, is a LT> different question. Absolutely agree. Law by itself, by the way, cannot be considered as the last right argument. In the country I lived, for example, law doesn't support foreign publishers and therefor local companies can print copies of CDs "legally". However, law says that artist's royalties should be paid. Several years ago the market was full with pirated CDs which was stated as the violation of both international and local laws. Now pirates are paying royalties to the federal agency of authors' rights, which supposed to redirect the money to the artists. The CDs are called "licensed" and they are absolutely legal by the country's law. The worst thing about the situation is that majors have their branches in the country now and more or less protected by law as local publishers. But the independents are not protected at all. So here is the question: does this law make the situation with "pirated" music any good? I think, this question is rhetoric and the answer is trivial. -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin@shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/
participants (5)
-
CuneiWay＠aol.com -
josephneff -
Lang Thompson -
Peter Gannushkin -
skip Heller