Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime 704
An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Orlando Sentinel reports on a poll done by the LA Times and Bloomberg. The informal study looked at teenager attitudes towards copying media. Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it. Attitudes about ill-gotten media were less clear, and the article admits than even the legal system is slightly fuzzy on this issue." From the article: "Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased. Those figures are a big problem for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of which have spent millions of dollars to deter copying of any kind. The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA."
Your education tax dollars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your education tax dollars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your education tax dollars... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cut. Try another scene. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte.
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, but since everyone in my family makes their livings in the production of one form or another of things that can (and do) get ripped off, it's a very familiar topic.
But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song. I've seen my work ripped off (in ways that do not magically contribute to a larger audience for me that will eventually somehow contribute to my bottom line - that recurring notion is really BS in most circumstances), and have seen the same things happen to other writers, artists, etc. that are close to me. Of course you want more people to enjoy your creative work - but you also have to wake up to the fact that if you're a professional who spends your entire waking life producing that work, it has to pay the bills. No one owes creative people a living - that is, no one except the people who choose that artist to be their entertainer when that artist has set a price for that experience.
oh, really, you're being ripped off by teens? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you should consider lobbying for alternate methods of compensation that lets you get paid anyway.
There have been various suggestions ranging from direct payments to authors for every incarnation of a copy actually sold (ie, bypassing the entire publishing structure and levying a point-of-sale fee instead), to pure taxation and payment per copy schemes. All of which would get a far higher percentage of the money spent on creative content to the actual authors.
Consider how much money the *AA's claim is being lost to illicit copying, compared to how much money is actually spent on, and intended for arts that _never reaches the artists_.
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now how much does the music industry steal?
Did you know, for example, that if you sell a thousand copied of an album through the music industry, you will make pennies, whereas if you sell that many yourself, you will make much much more?
Here's a quick example. A friend of my uncle's got his song played on a national radio station here in Britain as a record of the week. He then sold ten thousand copies of his self-produced CD. If he had a record deal, he would have earned about two-hundred pounds for that. But he didn't have a record deal. He had the CDs pressed and printed by a local professional reproduction service for about two pounds each. He sold each album for ten pounds. Eight pounds profit per CD multiplied by Ten thousand CDs is? He bought a new house with that.
I realise this is a rare event, but it needn't be. And it goes to prove just how unnecessary the music industry really is. I do believe in paying for music. But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, artists now have all sorts of options about how to distribute what they produce. And even so, many new and very talented people survey the situation and make the choice to sign up with a recording company so that they (the label) can handle the countless business-related things that would otherwise just be a total distraction from being creative. It's an economic decision. The people who s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then clearly that market rates having coffee with friends as a more desirable produce than a three minute song on their iPods. However, since music nowadays costs virtually nothing to distribute, you should be making a far greater profit per item sold than th
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you've never had to split "$50 + a case of beer" or "$100 against the door" between 6 people before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Artists deserve compensation for their work just like anyone else.
However, they do not deserve compensation for their work for 50 years past their bloody death.
I get paid for the work I do every day. Just because they use my work to do business, they are not going to pay me again every day until I die for each for the 100,000 people that use my software every day.
Pick any high but ordinary salary ($120k-- even $150k) and I'll support it.
The current model *invites* abuse. The
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:4, Insightful)
>on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It
>doesn't get any simpler than that.
Nor does he get any if I borrow it to listen or if he gives me it when he no longer wants it or if I go over to his house to listen to it and so on (in all cases, add "as oposed to buy my own copy). But then, I don't think you argue that I should not be allowed to play my CD when a friend comes visit unless he first goes out and buys one too so that he has paid royalties, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It
>doesn't get any simpler than that.
Nor does he get any if I borrow it to listen or if he gives me it when he no longer wants it or if I go over to his house to listen to it
Nor does the artist usually get any money from commercial sales of CDs.
People have been pointing out for some time that, unless an album sells about 1.5 million copies, the musicians usually receive no royalties at
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The music industry (along with most of the others) is a pyramid, with 1-2% at the top of the "fame&fortune" win-the-lotto pile, and everyone else underneath. Like a lot of people, you've been conditioned to see the "extreme" end of the spectrum, when the vast majority don't live there, and most would just like to be able to pay the rent.
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Funny)
This is fun, I think I'll start casting for my own PSA
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it did, then a kid copying his CD for his friend would be legal, so long as the one doing the copying wasn't getting paid for it. If the copying is done with a cd copier, then it's legal already, paid for by you and me and everybody else who backs up their data using cdr/dvdr.
I'll grant, it might break the flow of your stream of stereotypes.
Re:Don't copy...Don't copy that floppy! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:4, Informative)
In any event, you can use AHRA in conjunction with computers. You need only use Audio CDRs (which are labeled differently than regular data CDRs and cost more) and only make copies of works that fall under AHRA. This is because the exception applies to copies made with AHRA-compliant devices or media.
Article is ironic, because it IS legal to copy CDs (Score:4, Informative)
17 USC, Chapter 10 [house.gov], Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
Re:Article is ironic, because it IS legal to copy (Score:4, Insightful)
The one problem is that the AHRA really does not apply to computers:
As for computers themselves:
Computers as a whole don't fall within subsection (3) because their digital recording function is not "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of
There was a court case about all this some years back. The RIAA was arguing that computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players did fall within AHRA. They wanted this to be the case so that they could 1) get royalties, 2) require computer and peripheral manufacturers to implement the SCMS system of DRM that is mandated by the AHRA. In the case, RIAA v. Diamond, both the district and circuit courts found that computers were outside of the AHRA. The cases are worth reading. They even look at the legislative history in which Congress, in debating the law, also said that this law wouldn't apply to computers.
What the AHRA does apply to are Audio CDRs, whether or not you use them in computers or in standalone Audio CDR burners.
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed. The AHRA only protects you against infringement suits with regards to fixation in the AHRA-compliant media. Fixation in other media wouldn't qualify unless you had a sympathetic court that isn't fond of the MAI v. Peak line of cases. The 4th Cir. maybe?
Oh, and jZnat is correct re: how to cite the USC.
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, we just need a way to let everyone see their favorite band in person so this conversation can actually happen.
Giving money direct to the artists (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a huge fan of a Melbourne (Australia) 3-piece punk/rock/rockabilly band, and I copied their CDs several times to give them to friends overseas. When I met the lead singer/guitarist of this band at a pub, I told him about it and offered to give him $20 AUD, or at least buy him a drink. He politely declined, and told me he was happier that I was spreading good word-of-mouth for the band.
I've bought enough merch and been to enough concerts that my conscience is f
Personalisation is Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Strangely enough, the displacement of sales and the advertising effect appear to counter each other almost exactly. [slashdot.org] However, copyright infringement remains an abuse of trust, so it is still wrong; it is simply mistaken to believe that it leaves the artist out of pocket.
I will say here, to make my position clear, selling pirated goods is theft. What is different? People appear to have a certain sum of money that they spend on music/videos etc; if pirated goods are bought, that money is redirected from the artist or his/her representative, since that cash is no longer in the hands of the purchaser. Accordingly, I would have profiting from piracy be a crime with a fine proportional to the money made, rather than the degree of infringement.
Re:Cut. Try another scene. (Score:4, Insightful)
Im pretty sure that the percentage who copy CDs and DVDs from they friends is much higher than 58% who consider it legal. Here in finland it's prolly something like 99.9%. Back in my school days everyone copied cassettes and CDs. Most of kids bought music of bands they really liked and copied the rest. Have to wonder why the music industry didn't die in 80s or 90s.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think every dumb American commie like yourself should spend the time I spent in a country like Russia. And then we will talk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's not theft.... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, you would be wrong. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it is ----- infringement. To have theft, you need something tangible to steal. Copyrights, by definition, are intangible property. So, in effect, you aren't stealing anything, you are infringing on the copyright owner's right to say how their intangible personal property is to be used, but in the end, it is still their intangilbe personal property.
By definition, you cannot steal something that is intangible. You can steal the medium it is recorded on or the documentation of what the intangible item is, but, you cannot actual steal what you cannot physically posses.
The simple solution, if you want to legally copy a CD is to do so via analog through a wireless speaker connection. That way, you can use the broadcast exemption already allowed. Of course, I should add IANAL and your mileage may vary.
Of COURSE it's not theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!
Last night I went to see a movie I've been looking forward to all summer. And the cool part was, it was free! You see, the guy who takes the tickets at the theater is kind of old and it's easy to sneak by him. Geez, they're not even going to try to protect their rights! Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. And besides, everything Hollywood produces is crap.
Then I took the subway home. It didn't cost me anything because I jumped the turnstile. One of my friends said I was committing "theft" -- obviously he can't think for himself. I mean, the city was running the train anyway, and there were empty seats. Besides, the subway sucks, and they fill the route with lots of stops I'm not interested in (I only want to pay for the stop next to the theater and the one near my apartment).
There used to be a bus line that was more convenient, but the city shut it down, with some lame excuae about not making enough money to justify the expense. That just shows that they suck and don't deserve my money anyway! Fight the Man! Transportation wants to be free!
I probably won't go to that theater any more. I heard they're installing some new "security system" to prevent people from getting in without paying. That really pisses me off! How dare they! It just goes to show how evil they are. And besides, it serves them right if they lose money -- watching movies in a big theater with other people is an outdated business model!
Re:Of COURSE it's not theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you're right! I don't have time now to read the rest of your excellent comment, but it's good to see that some people at least understand the difference betwen "theft" and "infringement".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of COURSE it's not theft (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that by not paying for something just because it isn't a material good, doesn't make it any less of a crime, and doesn't mean that there isn't financial impact. People seem to think that if it isn't a physical stolen piece of property that nobody is hurt, but it isn't true.
Re:Of COURSE it's not theft (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the purpose of copyright is to prevent the unauthorized reproduction or performance of copyrighted work, or make derivative works. That is the definition and the purpose.
I don't endorse copyright infringement or stealing. Once the legal courts of the land make laws and distinctions, we as citizens need to abide by them, but equating violation of an original copyright owner's exclusive rights to the crime of theft is incorrect.
In short, right is right and wrong is wrong, and copyright infringement and theft are both wrong. However, they are NOT the same thing, no matter how hard you try and bend the english language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a clue on what theft actually is. Pick up a dictionary before you start spouting your hyperbole.
T
Re:Of COURSE it's not theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed there is a difference between theft and infringement. But you don't need to be brainwashed to understand that this difference is of no real importance in case you are depriving someone of income by 'taking' their product. As it is, some products (e.g. a chair) are material whereas others (e.g. music) are content-related. A CD store is not selling plastic/alu discs, they are selling content and the plastic is only a bearer.
Would you feel embarrassed to go to your favourite artist (assuming she/he is with a major label) and tell you copied their latest CD? If so, you know something is not ok, regardless of the difference between infringement and theft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What they don't tell you (Score:5, Funny)
You want to know what is a crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, copying a CD is not a crime.
Re:You want to know what is a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would certainly be a help, given the topic.
A crime is what you can be prosecuted for by the state and do jail time for. Something found in the criminal code.
What if copying a CD were a civil violation, between private interested parties? Something could be illegal and yet not be a crime. What a crazy world that would be, huh? If only.
KFG
Re:You want to know what is a crime? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I bought the two-pack: Kid's friend bought it, copying it is ok. Kid's friend stole it, copying it not so ok. That's what the numbers say.
Re:You want to know what is a crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like that we pass around cultural artifacts freely? Tough shit. You're on the wrong side of history, and you can't stop us. Society adapts to new technology, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You want to know what is a crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to care about being legal. I spent a lot of time reading about copyright law and following cases and history. I concluded that copyright infringement is a crime. It is illegal to do what I do very often. I just don't care anymore. I honestly do not care whethere SONY/BMG or Universal miss out on my 16$, I don't care if my generation thinking that way costs them their whole goddamn business. Copyrights were instated to promote the progress of the sciences and the arts, not gaurantee a multibillion dollar industry its profits. Some people I know cry about it, but I know in MY heart that music will still be made.
And I think these kids, some of them, are starting to get it. Maybe now they are just enjoying free stuff, but they are setting the standard. We want instant distribution, we want to share our culture, and we want it now. If the record labels can't fill the demand, someone will, and lots of people will make money off of it. Perhaps together we can profit from this tragedy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pitiful that is... (Score:5, Informative)
Although that copying has been limited recently by the addidion 'you may copy - but not if the media is protected by a _WORKING_ digital protection'. Well.. most CD anti-copy schemes today are easy to overcome and this very soft rule has not been tested in court yet. The musiv industry just plainly tries to keep their too high prices up by suing everyone around and lobbying for more limiting laws.
Greater Threat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, because, at least for p2p, they have their sueing and scare-tactics. The RIAA didn't get their claws on CD-burning technology early enough to prevent its use for pirating music, so they see it as a greater threat.
Threat Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Another misleading poll... (Score:4, Informative)
Many artists - and DVD video creators - encurage you to copy and spread their work/information.
Thus; just asking "is it legal to copy a CD" is misleading.
For example, the documenaties you can download from http://torrentchannel.com/ [torrentchannel.com] are completely legal to copy and share with your friends.
It is legal to copy a CD you made with a song you wrote yourself where you yourself are singing.
It is not legal to copy a CD where the copyright belongs to some member of the very evil MPAA.
Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...
Re:Another misleading poll... (Score:5, Insightful)
IABAL, but I thought that under the default definition of copyright, you can't legally make a copy. That's why the GPL has to spell it out. So, your statement would be more properly stated as "No, it is not legal, unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD explicitly permits it."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I fail to under
Re:Another misleading poll... (Score:5, Informative)
What's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
No wonder the RIAA is pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully, these kids have decided that it's more reasonable to think that sharing music with friends of yours isn't a crime. This creates panic in the RIAA because if enough people come to think that way, it suddenly won't be illegal. As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?
These kids are just exhibiting common sense, and common sense is the enemy of the **AA's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask anyone who's been sent to prison for growing and selling plants.
The pure and simple truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you are allowed to write down, or remember? No again. So record the spoken ones and zeros to cd.
Any restriction on such activity is clearly immoral, and the other side hasn't a leg to stand on.
Yep... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bwahaha! (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they have to limit themselves simply because the recording companies refuse to adapt?
If they need more money, play more concerts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for crying out loud, just admit you guys are cheap and be done with it. I've heard this over and over and over again. Even if songs were 10 cents each and released in a completely lossless open format with no DRM people would STILL pirate music. Concerts are one of the few places where the vast majority of the money goes to the artists s
It's only natural (Score:5, Funny)
They don't value other people's effort (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me stake out a position here:
I think that most people who are happy to freely duplicate copyrighted works have never been in the position of selling anything of their own.
I think that people who sell their own materials (be it books, music, software etc.) are more likely to be aware of the effort that creators put into their creations. Such people are more likely to identify with fellow creators. They are thus less willing to duplicate material without fair recompense because they know how wretched they feel when they see copies being made of their own materials.
These beliefs lead me to make the following testable proposition: A person who starts selling their own original materials will be less willing to duplicate the copyrighted works of other people.
I welcome informed discussion. Of course, this is Slashdot, so I expect the signal-to-noise ratio to be woeful!
AussieScribe
Re:They don't value other people's effort (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Is just wrong. Surely a good fraction of people have tried to market their artistic work at some point. And in slashdot, I would expect that proportion to be nearly 100% given the nature of the audience.
2. With or without any experience trying to sell an artistic work, surely an even larger proportion of the population has at least created an artistic work and can appreciate the effort involved. And surely many can appreciate the joy of seeing their materials being copied, rather than feeling wretched. Not everyone is a control freak, and real artists want their works to be appreciated by as wide an audience as possible, regardless of recompense.
3. Would obviously need to be settled by experiment, but I think the experiment is doomed due to the definitional difficulties (just how much selling of their own materials is required?)
You don't value other people's interest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you've got some talent that is vaguely interesting to me...
I don't owe you anything, but I choose to SUPPORT your expression by listening/reading/watching and sharing the news with others...
At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...
Soon your art is broadcast over airwaves onto my property, into my car, on commercials between my kids cartoons, on my elevator and your excerpts are slipped into the pages between jumk mail that's dropped in my mailbox uninvited. You sell your services to advertisers/promoters who are trying to take my money. Your clothes line is produced by third world sweatshops and sells for 3X more than the generic brand. You are trying to sell me a perfume with your name on it (and some pimple cream too) and you have a commercial on the air urging me to imbibe addictive substances so I can get a "free" mp3. You sell pictures of your frigging baby to the news media.
Do I protect your financial interests when my friend asks to copy a song? Probably not...
Wait, you're not THAT artist? You're struggling, selling CDs at your show and living at home waiting for your big break? Ah, then, nevermind, because nobody is copying your damn CD!
ART is not some magic invisible soul cream. If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts. Good luck to you on that, but don't cry about how people are stealing your thoughts. That's just crazy talk. Unless someone steals the plastic you bought and put your thoughts on, then they didn't steal anything from you. A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.
who doesn't value other people's effort? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Find out the world of hell distribution is.
3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work.
4. The world is a better, more culture rich place
5. Profit???
basic question (Score:4, Insightful)
Hello idiots, copying a CD is NOT a crime (Score:5, Informative)
You notice that all these RIAA filing sharing suits are SUITS, not indictments? What does that tell you?
Copying is a crime if it's done commercially. I think it might also be a crime if the material is hosted on a computer for sharing, but prosecutions for that are very very rare.
The entire idea of criminal copyright infringement is a fairly new concept. Copyright violation is a civil matter unless it is done on a commercial scale.
Violations of civil laws are not crimes.
I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp by slashdotters, because clearly teens have figured it out.
Re:Hello idiots, copying a CD is NOT a crime (Score:5, Informative)
Well in Germany 1943 (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they think its OK... (Score:3, Informative)
It's also no surprise that kids feel less comfortable sharing something that was not initially paid for - we all inherently understand that it takes work to create or discover new ideas. But we also inherently understand that the work (and thus the cost) is in the creating, not in copying. Under the current system of charging for each official copy, the simplest reconciliation of the two is to be sure that the lineage of the copy you receive includes at least one paid-for copy. It doesn't quite match up, but it is probably the closest that monst kids are going to get given all the other constraints on their lives.
I'm sure there are more than a few people just itching to condemn me for supporting thieves with no respect for copyright owners. Save it. This is slashdot, we've all heard it before a million times. This post is not about morality, it is about human nature for better or for worse.
"teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled" (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, I just love these kids. Wait a sec, I'll tel you while.
As a quick intro, I'm not even 30 yet, but I still remember the good old days when we used to record dozens of casette tapes with songs from the radio, play it for ourselves, play them on parties, copy it to other friends. Then, if someone managed to get an original tape from somewhere (where I grew up these things were really not that easy to get) we just were just exstatic, everybody copied it and we listened to it till the tape rotted away. We never ever felt we were doing anything that could be labelled as s crime, crime is when you kill someone, not when you listen to music.
These days I buy CDs. I have CDs from most of the bands that we were listening to when we were kids too. If I weren't listening to them on those tapes, I probably wouldn't have bought these disks. If one of my friends would ask me to borrow him a disk, I would do it with no second thought, they would do the same. I know some associations would label us as criminals, still, while I rarely would download music these days, I would still like to know what I'm buying before I'm buying it. I make oggs and mp3s of them to listen to on my portable and on my laptop. If somebody would label me a criminal, I'd smack'em. Still, if I couldn't make a copy or I couldn't lend it to a friend, I'd rather not even buy it.
So, why I love these kids ? Because they are not that brainwashed yet to forget what fair use should mean. In time, they will be, they have no escape. Still, I hope someday someone will realise that drming everything and dog, constraining people up to their necks [well, ears in this case], closing down everything and trying to control and watch everything and everybody is not a solution to anything. Instead of trying to establish even more harder lockdowns, they should just sit down, use their brains and figure out a bussinness model that suits every side - artists, listeners, studios. Yes, I didn't include associations in that list.
Now comes the funny part... (Score:3, Informative)
Land of the free, indeed.
-m.
doesn't shock me (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060809/od_afp/usatta ckspolloffbeat_060809145351;_ylt=ArnrtaXH3JkyylylP [yahoo.com]
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
But what about the underlying feeling (Score:4, Interesting)
Record companies should GIVE product away! (Score:5, Interesting)
You can get CDs pressed in China for as little as $0.25 in quantities of 10K. Even cheaper, approaching $0.10 in sufficient volume. Domestic record companies already own the means of production, so I'm sure their cost would approach $0.10 per CD if not actually be sharply lower.
My business plan called for giving these CDs away, primarily at live shows but this could also be accomplished via other channels. CDs given away are intended to be nothing more than loss leaders, contain maybe six tracks, with advertisements and "hidden extras" such as Bios also included and, most importantly, prominently contained URLs leading people to iTunes.
Now it gets profitable.
iTunes pays 70% of the selling price to the distributor / band / whomver owns the music.
Give away some tracks on CD, get people interested and then reap massive margins from electronic distribution rights. The average customer on iTunes purchases SIXTY tracks (Smith, 2005). The average customer will more than pay for that CD. Just the average; we're not talking about the higher volume, rabid fans either.
I did a market analysis and we projected annual growth rates in excess of 60% from the iTunes distribution channel.
So I think record companies have it half ass backwards. Give the fucking sound away, and they'll make more money in the long run.
----
References
Smith, T., 'Apple Touts iTunes customer total', [online], Available from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/08/apple_rev
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In a real democracy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part is that the teens are RIGHT! (Score:5, Informative)
The reason that "Music" CD-R is more expensive than "Data" CD-R? License fees paid to the RIAA to cover the copies made in this way. The artists are supposed to get compensated from those fees, but like so much where the RIAA is involved, the artists are being left out in the cold.
Let's insist that the facts be reported rather than the RIAA and MPAA's propaganda, shall we?
Not a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
You know why teens don't think CD copying is a crime?
Because it isn't.
Not inherently, anyway. The natural state of information is free. The pigopolists have made up (read: bought) laws that create an artificial crime out of duplicating otherwise freely available bits. It's all in their imagination, of course, but they've managed to make their farce a reality. Teens see right through that farce and are just ignoring it. Good for them.
That's because it's not. (Score:3, Informative)
Wait 'til these kids become jurors... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd really like to see FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) implemented so that these kids could just use their common sense to effectively nullify the efforts of despicable organizations such as RIAA and MPAA in court. These kids seem to understand the idea of "No harm, no foul."
Unlike /. (Score:3, Funny)
He was glad I downloaded his music (Score:3, Interesting)
His response?
"Good!"
Subject (Score:3, Informative)
That's good, because the type of CD copying discussed in TFA isn't a crime. It's a civil offense.
Re:What happend to Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What happend to Fair Use (Score:4, Informative)
You might be referring to time shifting devices, which were ruled legal decades ago.
The same Fair Use rights apply to DVDs. The difference is that the CSS encryption in commercial DVDs qualifies as an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. Tools that are capable of breaching such technological measures cannot be distributed. So while you have a right to rip a DVD that you own to your hard drive under linux, it's illegal for someone else to make available to you the program needed to do that.
This article (or rather, its summary, as I did not RTFA) does not mention teen opinions of legitimate copies, but only illegal copying for friends.
Please correct me if I said anything inaccurate.
Re:23 comments, not one good (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow's headline: Teenagers are not literate in copyright laws! There was the same response as this to the article about evolution illiteracy. The average person simply doesn't know.
Doesn't know, and doesn't care... Apathetic and amoral are the values that prevail today. Not that it's a bad thing, mind you. But I would've preferred to hear that Teens don't think copying CD's is illegal in a defiant stand against the RIAA, "THE RIAA CAN SUCK ON THESE", said one young man as he pointed his two index fingers to the sky, instead of I want to listen to MY Justin Timberlake/Ciara/Fergie and nobody's gonna stop me...