Ripping music from a cd to another device is not illegal. Under copyright law you can copy something as many times as you like (be it book, newspaper or music) as long as you own the original that you are copying from.
What is illegal is that you are not allowed to share/sell/distribute the music. So technically if there are other people in the car listening to the burnt music the law is being broken.
If you however were to play the original in the car with others present, it is legal unless you can cram more than 30 people into the car. Technically music at parties is illegal but who would enforce it.

riven wrote:

Ripping music from a cd to another device is not illegal. Under copyright law you can copy something as many times as you like (be it book, newspaper or music) as long as you own the original that you are copying from.
What is illegal is that you are not allowed to share/sell/distribute the music. So technically if there are other people in the car listening to the burnt music the law is being broken.
If you however were to play the original in the car with others present, it is legal unless you can cram more than 30 people into the car. Technically music at parties is illegal but who would enforce it.

Well that has some sense behind it and shows at the same time how the Law can be asinine.

If you have a look at this from the SBP from a few weeks ago there is a different angle taken I think. If it's wrong shouldn't we let the SBP know that it was incorrect?

Quote :

1. Putting a CD on to an iPod

This makes criminals of us all: it is illegal in Ireland to copy music from a CD on to an iPod, computer, mobile phone or other MP3 device. Although Irish copyright law has caught up with the concept of purchasing a song online and transferring it to your gadget, copying from a CD is still forbidden. (The same principle applies to burning a blank CD.)

Don’t worry, though, as the music industry has a solution to this problem - buy all your CD music again online. Alternatively, you can dust off your old CD Walkman (with a new backpack for all the CDs you’ll need).

Sunday Business Post

Say you buy a book. Is it illegal to copy that book a million times so long as you do not distribute it? The answer is no.
It is the same here. One you have ownership you may do with the stuff as you like and copy it as many times by as many ways as you like. It is only the distribution that is forbidden by copyright law and that is where it gets convoluted. SBP is wrong. They are getting mixed up with digital licences, a microsoft thing.

evercloserunion wrote:

I still download music though, with little regard to the legal status of my actions, or what it's doing to a poor little multi-millionaire musician. As a law student and prospective lawyer I suppose I should know better, but thankfully I am for the free flow of ideas and the toning down of copyright law so the cognitive dissonance is reduced for me.

Poor multi-millionaire musician my ass! Lawyers make much more than the average musician, you should remember that next time you steal other peoples work off the internet.

If music is being given away that's all well and good. If people go to the trouble of working hard and paying money to make a recording it's use should be paid for period.

It sickens me to see people using the "free flow of ideas" argument as an issue against musical copyright and musicians being paid for their work.

studiorat wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

I still download music though, with little regard to the legal status of my actions, or what it's doing to a poor little multi-millionaire musician. As a law student and prospective lawyer I suppose I should know better, but thankfully I am for the free flow of ideas and the toning down of copyright law so the cognitive dissonance is reduced for me.

Poor multi-millionaire musician my ass! Lawyers make much more than the average musician, you should remember that next time you steal other peoples work off the internet.

If music is being given away that's all well and good. If people go to the trouble of working hard and paying money to make a recording it's use should be paid for period.

It sickens me to see people using the "free flow of ideas" argument as an issue against musical copyright and musicians being paid for their work.

The vast vast majority of music on these sites has been created by musicians who are or become very wealthy because of their work. Its simple - if you like something even slightly obscure, there simply won't be a file available for sharing. So the chances that you are acutally depriving someone of their bread and butter money is highly unlikely. these people still make money from live performance - and this free/flow you slag off is advertising for these performances. To be honest I don't bat an eyelid thinking about 'poor' musicians. Who says they have to be much better paid than the average joe anyway.

I reiterate - www.mininova.org is a great way of getting music for free, albiet illegally. I urge people to deprive millionaire musicians and record industry types of a few bob and spend the money attending live music events and supporting real music. (preferably not stadium/point depot syle concerts by bored wealthy muscians but far be it from me to judge)

studiorat wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

I still download music though, with little regard to the legal status of my actions, or what it's doing to a poor little multi-millionaire musician. As a law student and prospective lawyer I suppose I should know better, but thankfully I am for the free flow of ideas and the toning down of copyright law so the cognitive dissonance is reduced for me.

Poor multi-millionaire musician my ass! Lawyers make much more than the average musician, you should remember that next time you steal other peoples work off the internet.

If music is being given away that's all well and good. If people go to the trouble of working hard and paying money to make a recording it's use should be paid for period.

It sickens me to see people using the "free flow of ideas" argument as an issue against musical copyright and musicians being paid for their work.

The way I would look at it is to compare the price the Russians charged with the prices iTunes (and the like) charge. The marginal cost of production of each additional recording is as close to zero as makes no difference, so the fact the Russians could sell you a song for 10% of what iTunes would charge suggests to me the iTunes (and the like) are robbing their customers blind. It is this open thievery that leads people to find other more economical sources for their music.
I realise that filesharing is a different concept, but the reality is that 'legitimate' vendors have driven the customers out of the marketplace with their obvious gouging and so I have absolutely no sympathy for them and their whining.

shutuplaura wrote:

So the chances that you are acutally depriving someone of their bread and butter money is highly unlikely. these people still make money from live performance - and this free/flow you slag off is advertising for these performances. To be honest I don't bat an eyelid thinking about 'poor' musicians. Who says they have to be much better paid than the average joe anyway.

I reiterate - www.mininova.org is a great way of getting music for free, albiet illegally. I urge people to deprive millionaire musicians and record industry types of a few bob and spend the money attending live music events and supporting real music. (preferably not stadium/point depot syle concerts by bored wealthy muscians but far be it from me to judge)

It's not that simple really. Record companies use money generated from their larger selling artists and back catalogue sales to re-invest into new acts. If they are not making it off larger artists they won't re-invest. Secondly, mechanical royalties are not being paid in the case of illegal downloading, meaning there has been a drop in residual payments for publishing to musicians lower down the chain.

Part of the hike in ticket prices is a direct result in the drop in recording sales and it's going to be the case soon where record companies will expect a share of concert sales in an effort to re-coup monies spent on recording through 360º deals.

So although it may seem noble and vaguely socialist to urge posters here to download from mininova the effects do in fact trickle right down through the business. Not to mention the authors, film makers and software developers who are also being pirated on that site.

Finally lets not forget that mp3's are in fact shite. There has been a major step backward in the quality of music media in recent times giving us a scenario where new technology is actually worse then it was before.

"poor musicians"? Why don't you swap that out for "political elites" and see how it makes you sound. The average wage for a musician in this country is in the region of €10,000.

coc wrote:

The way I would look at it is to compare the price the Russians charged with the prices iTunes (and the like) charge. The marginal cost of production of each additional recording is as close to zero as makes no difference, so the fact the Russians could sell you a song for 10% of what iTunes would charge suggests to me the iTunes (and the like) are robbing their customers blind. It is this open thievery that leads people to find other more economical sources for their music.

Each additional recording? There is no additional recording. It's a file stored on a server and downloaded.

How much do you think it costs to make the recording in the first place?

Well I used to download illegally from Napster back in the day

But since I acquired an Ipod I find myself going to Itunes quite a lot - its only 99cents a song or less if you purchase an album - how cheap do you want it to be?

The fact that my brother is a struggling musician and also works for a recordstore probably colours my opinion on it

Also the fact that as I get older - I'm turning into a solid citizen who pays his taxes and obeys the law - there is nothing for nothing in this world - anybody who writes and performes a song should get paid for it

If 99 cent breaks your heart and is too expensive - then I think you should seriously re-evaluate your world outlook.

I'm sympathising with the poor musicians. Erigena was posting about the musicians who may also have trouble collecting their dues from use of their music on compilations, in restaurants and so on.

The whole issue of the few musicians who are grossly overremunerated could be dealt with by tax. It would have to be international or tax at source though - these guys are always on the move

studiorat wrote:

coc wrote:

The way I would look at it is to compare the price the Russians charged with the prices iTunes (and the like) charge. The marginal cost of production of each additional recording is as close to zero as makes no difference, so the fact the Russians could sell you a song for 10% of what iTunes would charge suggests to me the iTunes (and the like) are robbing their customers blind. It is this open thievery that leads people to find other more economical sources for their music.

Each additional recording? There is no additional recording. It's a file stored on a server and downloaded.

How much do you think it costs to make the recording in the first place?

I mean each additional copy, which constitutes an additional recording IMHO. There is a tiny marginal cost of production for each new .mp3 file (or .ogg or whatever), made up of bandwidth costs, electricity etc. I've no idea what the cost of making the original recording is, though I'm sure it is fairly expensive, but if the industry can sell it to Russians for 10c a song, then I don't see why Irish people should have to pay 99c a song.

Edo wrote:

If 99 cent breaks your heart and is too expensive - then I think you should seriously re-evaluate your world outlook.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it breaks my heart, but it is too expensive, not really any cheaper than buying the CD online and ripping it yourself.
I would be interested if anyone has figures for what percentage of music downloads come from 'reputable' sources as opposed to more 'economical' sources. I think I heard an anecdotal figure of only 10%, but I have no source for that. If 90% of customers think 99c is too expensive then I respectfully suggest that it is your world outlook that needs re-evaluation.

At the moment the artist, record label and publishing company get about 65c per 99c download. The processing fee to the credit card company is about 23c which leaves a quiet a small margin for Apple. Apples main business concern here is selling ipods the real reason behind the itunes service

The Russian constitution gives it the right to license music even if it has not obtained permission from the copyright holders..

Adding to the problem is the fact that Russia’s copyright law (1993) allows collection societies to act on behalf of rights holders who have not authorised them to do so. Collecting societies have been set up to collect royalties for foreign copyright holders without their authorisation. This has also affected foreign-produced software, film and books. Numerous organisations in Russia receive royalties for the use of foreign artistic works, yet never pass on that royalty to the music companies or artists.

http://www.cisac.org

Thanks for the detailed answer Studiorat - I kind of suspected that the Russian situation was like that - they have a serious problem with piracy and the concept of intellectual copyright - that was one of the main planks of the failed Doha Talks - the issue of software theft, counterfeiting and piracy outside the West.

Well - if coc is happy with his money going to the Russian mafia - fair enough - I'll stick with Itunes thank you very much and I really dont care if Im in a minority of 10% - at least I know my money is going to the folks who produce and perform the works.

Amazing the lenghts folks will go to in their anti-American/west hysteria.

Edo wrote:

...
Well - if coc is happy with his money going to the Russian mafia - fair enough - I'll stick with Itunes thank you very much and I really dont care if Im in a minority of 10% - at least I know my money is going to the folks who produce and perform the works.

Amazing the lenghts folks will go to in their anti-American/west hysteria.

The Russian Mafia? Where did I say that? It's amazing the lengths people will go to to smear anyone who points out that the record companies are robbing their customers blind. I'm drawing a distinction here between the record companies and the musicians by the way.

Studiorat's figures are interesting when you consider that the Russians could sell the music for 10% of the cost of their western counterparts. If, as is alleged, they were not paying the folks who produce and perform the works then that suggests to me that the the folks who produce and perform the works ought to be getting 90% of the 99c per song. While some might be happy to lump the artist, record label and publishing company in together as the folks who produce and perform the works I rather suspect the smaller the artist the smaller the slice of the fruits of their labours they get and that in most cases it is the record label and publishing companies that pocket most of the difference between what the Russians were charging and what iTunes charge.

The 23% slice going to the credit card company sounds outlandish. I thought the normal charges for CC transactions were of the order of 1 or 2%?

My main point is that the music distributors charge around 1 euro per song if you buy a CD online from which they have to fund the production and delivery of physical discs and artwork etc. It must be cheaper for them the deliver the music without having to bear these costs. The fact that the price to the consumer is not lower suggests that they are robbing the consumer by at least as much as the cost of producing the discs etc.

Edo wrote:

If 99 cent breaks your heart and is too expensive - then I think you should seriously re-evaluate your world outlook.

99c for a single song is way too expensive. I suggest respectfully if you cannot see that perhaps your attitude needs to be re-evaluated. The Irish since the mid 1990's have a history of throwing their money away, using itunes in particular seems to be the very same. At least if you buy music, get the CD so you have a physical backup. There is nothing worse than loosing music files.

studiorat wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

I still download music though, with little regard to the legal status of my actions, or what it's doing to a poor little multi-millionaire musician. As a law student and prospective lawyer I suppose I should know better, but thankfully I am for the free flow of ideas and the toning down of copyright law so the cognitive dissonance is reduced for me.

Poor multi-millionaire musician my ass! Lawyers make much more than the average musician, you should remember that next time you steal other peoples work off the internet.

If music is being given away that's all well and good. If people go to the trouble of working hard and paying money to make a recording it's use should be paid for period.

It sickens me to see people using the "free flow of ideas" argument as an issue against musical copyright and musicians being paid for their work.

Well the average income for a musician is obviously brought down by all the musicians who make absolutely nothing or very little. But they're not the people who are having their work "stolen". In fact if you take the average income of only those musicians who have actually incurred any sort of notable losses due to music piracy, I bet it would be much much more than a lawyer's average income.

shutuplaura wrote:

Edo wrote:

If 99 cent breaks your heart and is too expensive - then I think you should seriously re-evaluate your world outlook.

99c for a single song is way too expensive. I suggest respectfully if you cannot see that perhaps your attitude needs to be re-evaluated. The Irish since the mid 1990's have a history of throwing their money away, using itunes in particular seems to be the very same. At least if you buy music, get the CD so you have a physical backup. There is nothing worse than loosing music files.

Perhaps Edo needs to broaden his horizons a little, listening to one song over and over again for years can't be healthy. In fact it's quite normal for people to accumulate thousands of songs over the years, which would cost them thousands of Euro.

cactus flower wrote:

The whole issue of the few musicians who are grossly overremunerated could be dealt with by tax. It would have to be international or tax at source though - these guys are always on the move

The great U2 being a case in point - now their finaces are done out of Holland for tax purposes. i'd liek to see the Army Rangers Wing being put to good use exteminating those gimps with extreme prejudice myself.

Studiorat suggests that its vaguely socialist to urge people to use file sharing. Its actually the opposite impulse - a desire for a free market that makes me do it. Record companies, musicians etc are all facing huge challanges in the face of new technology. Its up to them to adapt to music listeners behaviour and stop complaining that the market owes them a living.

Personally I think that musicians can survive and prosper without the likes of Sony as file sharing is akin to word of mouth and music can be transfered from user to user with an ease tape mixers in the 1980's could never dream of. Musicians have been around a lot longer that record companies. I'd like to think that a more mature market for live music develops, not one based solely around looking at a few of middle aged millionaires from a crowd a few hundred meters away or bringing kids to see the latest pop idol.

Regards the music industry's development of new acts. I'll take your world for it but I remain unconvinced. Record companies that are large enough to have acts with a presence on file sharing sites don't seem to value creativity as much as marketability. But I'd like to know exactly how a struggling musician on 10k a year is helped at all by me buying a CD instead of nicking it online.

New acts coming down the line and supposedly nurtured by record companies are not I believe that good, and I do not owe them a living but personal prejudice aside, creativity will always win out. There has always been a lot of money to be made in performance and that won't change. The likes of Phish or the Grateful Dead show how musicians can reach a massive audience and play large venues without large record sales. Radio stations also presumably have to pay for music they use and radio listenership is another thing that hasn't declines as much as some people twenty years ago suggested.

File sharing and movies works a bit differently. Like going to a gig people will always go out to the movies. VHS was supposed to kill a night at the movies twenty years ago. DVD's also make great gifts for people. Smaller arthouse films get funding of the state anyway and are made on a not always commercial basis.

Sorry Folks - All Im hearing and reading here is people doing verbal/political/social gymnastics to justify what is essentially - when it comes down to it - theft - pure and simple.

That's a bit much there Edo. You've accused me of funding the Russian Mafia (hopefully in jest) and I've responded in detail as to why I think the thievery is being committed by the industry and not the consumers. If you're going to call people thieves at least have the good grace to explain why.

Edo wrote:

Sorry Folks - All Im hearing and reading here is people doing verbal/political/social gymnastics to justify what is essentially - when it comes down to it - theft - pure and simple.

the point is that we know its theft but don't care. like drug use, its a personal choice because the laws are outdated/inadequate/stupid/whatever.

shutuplaura wrote:

Edo wrote:

Sorry Folks - All Im hearing and reading here is people doing verbal/political/social gymnastics to justify what is essentially - when it comes down to it - theft - pure and simple.

the point is that we know its theft but don't care. like drug use, its a personal choice because the laws are outdated/inadequate/stupid/whatever.

Great stuff - the good old communist/socialist mantra coming to the fore - "whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine" eh?

Must keep that in mind next time I'm placed in a position where renumeration is demanded for some good or service I require - " nah - not paying ya today - ye're too expensive but Im still keeping the goods - I dont agree with this bolloxology about having to pay for things.

Edo wrote:

Sorry Folks - All Im hearing and reading here is people doing verbal/political/social gymnastics to justify what is essentially - when it comes down to it - theft - pure and simple.

Just like how photographing someone is stealing their soul

Isn't music meant to be live and copying technology has just saved it from becoming Ivory Towered and locked in a narcissistic little studio-produced world of its own?

Besides, Coldplay did a lot worse didn't they ? Did Coldplay copy Satriani ?

Edo wrote:

Sorry Folks - All Im hearing and reading here is people doing verbal/political/social gymnastics to justify what is essentially - when it comes down to it - theft - pure and simple.

Does this surprise you?

Moral theft, 10 Commandment theft or legal theft ?

IMO, music publishers commit the first sort by charging 15 cuid for a bit of licenced plastic.

Downloaders I would say commit the last one.

I'm not sure about the middle one.