I was unable to follow a link a couple of days ago, and found out yesterday that the likely reason was because the website, megaupload (which is used by only two people who have accounts here, I think- at least, a really quick search only finds two links to it on this whole site...) is presently the subject of a lawsuit and was indeed shut down 2 days ago (see Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload) e.g.)
Any thoughts whatsoever?
(And yes, I know we attempt to avoid copyright violation as much as possible. Actual copyright violation is one thing, perceived copyvio however... anyways. That's one thought, if fragmentary :) )
The "bills" currently before congress are poorly written, over-reaching, and should fail.
Quote from: kolaboy on Sunday 22 January 2012, 03:06
The "bills" currently before congress are poorly written, over-reaching, and should fail.
Eric, I'm pleased to started this thread, as issues of copyright affect us all, and the music business in general.
At first glance of the Indictment, I agree with you,
kolaboy. Personally, I think it is an attempt by the US DoJ to bully providers and frighten the general public, and is fuelled by the big business interests of the mega-rich in the US film and music industry. I am amazed that it has taken place before the legislation has been finalized. I'm not sure what law entitles the New Zealand government to arrest and detain the executive managers of MU, but detained they are - at least when I checked yesterday!
It is certainly a very dangerous strategy from the FBI's point of view. Firstly, because it is untimely in relation to the legislation, and therefore could fail - in which case it will set a precedent and open the floodgates; secondly, because, the MU people are billionaires and will have the very best lawyers fighting their case, and may win or at least expose the inadequacies and errors in the FBI's case; and, thirdly, because it provokes a counterproductive reaction - and, indeed, I see there is already a string of new providers taking the place of MU - for every one they try to shut down, many more will start up, often beyond the reach of the US.
I am sure we all have our views about these matters, but I believe that as far as copyright goes - for good or ill - the genie is out of the bottle, and policing it is already impossible. The action of the FBI reminds me of Eliot Ness and his men valiantly smashing up illegal stills during Prohibition! ;D
If you want to be technical, most of the LP rips uploaded here are copyvios (more for some countries than others). I'm not quite as sure about radio broadcasts, though I'm sure they are technically as well.
The fact that they are what they are, as it were, means pretty no one is really going to care, though.
In the UK, the speed limit on motorways (freeways) is 70 mph. Most cars are driven at between 75-80 mph. The police quite openly say that the likelihood of anyone being prosecuted for driving under 80 mph on a motorway is very, very low but above that drivers are fair game.
It seems to me that the digital copyright arena is in the same situation. Technically, if I rip a CD to my iPlayer I'm infringing copyright. Uploaded rips of long-defunct LPs probably are, uploads of broadcasts might be, uploaded rips of current CDs certainly are. There's a test of reasonableness slowly and clumsily evolving. I have no truck with the giant entertainment companies and porn barons, but they do have a point: they should be able to protect the copyright of their current material. They're trying to do it in a very heavy handed and unsophisticated way at present, but it has to be accepted that MegaUpload and the plethora of other filesharing sites out there (Including MediaFire for all I know) do host a huge amount of blatantly illegal copies of current material, which anybody can find with a few minutes googling.
Our policy is not to host anything ourselves and to drive at about 72 mph.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 22 January 2012, 09:03
Technically, if I rip a CD to my iPlayer I'm infringing copyright.
Had (relatively temporarily) forgotten that part. I am going to guess that they presently enforce this as they enforce some other things, to lengthen existing lists of charges against people in civil or criminal court (my terminology is not good and I know it), but I don't know. And it does seem nonsensical to me (and decreases respect for the law, I speak seriously enough there- echoing what has been said at other times in other - admittedly more serious - contexts.)
Every week for the last 8 years a little Chinese chap with bags full of pirate DVD's walks up the stairs at my place of work and tries to sell 3 for £10. He tours the whole Town for 5 days a week and not once has he even been approached by the Police. I anticipate that every town in England has a similar little Chinese chap and the loss to the Copyright holders must be billions.
I therefore find the closure of a file sharing site to be slightly overboard, especially when you consider the amount of legitimate files that have been wiped off the face of the Earth. Only today I read an e mail from someone who has now lost 200gb of legitimate files that he will find difficult to replace.
Not sure where all this will lead, but I think a bunch of nerds like us exchanging copies of 40 year old LP's are reasonably far down the list of offenders.
Thal
My suspicion is that the "loss" to the entertainment industry is, as is often the case, over-hyped. The folks who are buying the 3 for 10 DVDs are in all likelihood not folks who would pay 15 each for them. That doesn't make it right, of course, but those sales do not represent a "real" loss to the copyright owner. Couple that with the number of sites that now offer streaming movies as part of a pretty inexpensive subscription or membership - such as NetFlix - and you wonder who's really buying DVDs anymore??
Jerry
I just get DVDs from the public library myself. For free.
But yeah, I've always hated the "x people DLed it, that's a loss of y!" because it's stupid to assume everyone would have payed for it. Some? Sure. Many more, probably at a lower price. Many would never have. And then there's plenty who'll go and buy because they like it (imagine that).
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 22 January 2012, 19:18
Not sure where all this will lead, but I think a bunch of nerds like us exchanging copies of 40 year old LP's are reasonably far down the list of offenders.
Thal
Isn't that what every copyright violater thinks...?
And you can turn it upside down:
Especially because the music we like here is heard by so few people, we are violating the copyrights holders far more than others, because the small classical music labels need everyone to buy the CD to get the money they need. On the other hand Lady Gaga is selling millions of CDs and even more downloads regularly, she doesn't care if I am ripping the file illegally...
I think you should not try to trivialise the downbload section here: Face it - every one here downloading files is commiting crime. OK, nobody is interested to punish that (nice to hear), but anyway crime is crime.
Tobias
Quote from: violinconcerto on Sunday 22 January 2012, 20:57
And you can turn it upside down:
Especially because the music we like here is heard by so few people, we are violating the copyrights holders far more than others, because the small classical music labels need everyone to buy the CD to get the money they need.
There have been no CD's shared here. Everything has been either deleted LP's or radio broadcasts.
Small classical music labels have probably earned a fortune from the members of this site. Or at least they have from me as I constantly buy works I never would have considered if it were not for suggestions from others.
Thal
Thank you Thal, that's pretty much the way I look at it.
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:07
There have been no CD's shared here. Everything has been either deleted LP's or radio broadcasts.
And you know that no record label will now or at any point in the future release these recordings on CD?
I don't want to accuse anybody here and be the upholder of moral standards, but I really don't like this self-concept of "We are doing here just the right thing". Actually - no, downloading a file is incorrect and uploading is even worse! I think we should at least stand to the injustice of the download section.
I know, I know, you don't have to say it, its just my opinion!
Best,
Tobias
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:07
Quote from: violinconcerto on Sunday 22 January 2012, 20:57
And you can turn it upside down:
Especially because the music we like here is heard by so few people, we are violating the copyrights holders far more than others, because the small classical music labels need everyone to buy the CD to get the money they need.
There have been no CD's shared here. Everything has been either deleted LP's or radio broadcasts.
Small classical music labels have probably earned a fortune from the members of this site. Or at least they have from me as I constantly buy works I never would have considered if it were not for suggestions from others.
Thal
Not only that, Tobias, but when it becomes known that any of the downloads have at any time been available as CDs they have been taken down as quickly as possible. I don't see any crime here at all now. How 'bout you?
I don't want to get into an argument here. Tobias, I entirely respect your opinion but I don't share it.
Quote from: violinconcerto on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:37
Actually - no, downloading a file is incorrect and uploading is even worse!
Except, surely, and at least, if the recording is the property of the uploader...
Quote from: JimL on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:42
Not only that, Tobias, but when it becomes known that any of the downloads have at any time been available as CDs they have been taken down as quickly as possible. I don't see any crime here at all now. How 'bout you?
I told that somewhere here before, but I had my own experiences with that (and I did not put any files on my site, just biographical data) and so talked to several lawyers working in the music sector (for example one at the Bayerischen Rundfunk, a German radio station). And I can tell you, everything here in the download section is somewhat illegal! You make material owned by artists available for which none here has copyrights! Thats simply a crime. If you do it 1 day and just one other downloads it, then shares it with his 5 friends who put it online - then they got you! And if they want, you have to pay copyrights fees for the composer, the orchestra, the conductor, the radio station, etc... pretty, pretty bad
Its just so, that none of them is doing that - but they can! And they are in the right!
Thats just what I say, so if anyone here gets effed up by the law, don't rant and rave and feel like a choirboy.
Best,
Tobias
Quote from: isokani on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:55
Quote from: violinconcerto on Sunday 22 January 2012, 21:37
Actually - no, downloading a file is incorrect and uploading is even worse!
Except, surely, and at least, if the recording is the property of the uploader...
To be in the position to do so, you must own the copyrights of
1. the composition (so if you are the composer, OK, you got them),
2. of the performance (so if you are the performer, OK, you got them)
3. of the production (so if you are the recording studio, OK, you got them)
So actually you only have the rights to upload a file without any further documents, signments, etc if you write a piece, play it on your piano and record it with your hi-fi system. In that case you are fine.
But if you buy a recording, you only got the permission to play the recording for yourself, because you don't own the copyrights of the three parts above!
Best,
Tobias
Sorry, Tobias, but I beg to differ. It is not all illegal.
Copyright laws vary by country, but in every country, copyright protection expires at some point. I would guess that all 78 RPM recordings have entered public domain. Many of the old LP recordings have entered public domain. Etc.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the exception to copyright law (in the U.S. and many other countries) that permits distribution of copyrighted materials to a limited, well defined number of people for research and education (learning), and when there is no commercial gain for anyone involved.
So long as access is limited and the recordings are not distributed beyond our group and there is no commercial gain to be had by anyone, I think we are not in violation of copyright laws. Everything we share here is unavailable commercially, our use is not for redistribution or sale, and it is primarily for the enlightenment/education of ourselves.
There is a big (VERY BIG) difference between us and MegaUpload. MegaUpload was a filesharing service, but it also functioned as a primary distribution service for distributing new movies, music and other materials that are currently on the market. There was a great deal of trafficking in recent releases, and they were profiting from the service. In addition, among the many types of materials they were distributing was child pornography.
So, on the surface, MegaUpload looked like Mediafire and Rapidshare and Filesonic and other file sharing services. But it was much more than that.
There are a number of groups like our own in which music lovers share live broadcasts and old recordings among themselves. They have been in existence for many years. They are careful to limit the types of recordings they permit (with rules similar to our own), and have experienced no difficulties.
One precaution I do recommend to everyone is to use file names that are obscure, or wrap your files inside a ZIP cover with an obscure name. The reason is because the files residing on Mediafire servers are searchable by Google. By using file names that are obvious (composer work, for example), you are in effect, making the music you upload available to the entire world.
So, I recommend that everyone go into Mediafire and rename your files to cryptic file names that you can decipher, but no one would ever use for searching in Google. This would not affect the links, so there would be no need to change those. Just the file names. I don't think this is a big deal, since everything we share is old classical stuff that is not available commercially, but it is an extra layer of protection for those who are still nervous about it.
I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt quite a lot with copyright in academic settings. I think we are within the bounds of copyright law, even in the restrictive U.S.
Nor am I a lawyer..although I did study International Law at university for a year ;D
One fundamental principle I seem to recall though was that 'unenforceable law is bad law' :)
And with regard to the issue of music uploaded for members of this site, I can honestly say that I have downloaded vast quantities of music from all over the world over the last month or so but if any of the symphonies, say, I have downloaded appeared-in a different performance obviously- on a cd which was reasonably straightforwardly available I will buy the cd as well. The most recent examples of that would be the Arthur Somervell 'Thalassa Symphony' and the Merikanto Symphonies Nos. 1 and 3. All three of these symphonies can be downloaded courtesy of members and I have certainly downloaded them myself. Now all three have been issued on cd and I shall be buying these cds too :)
Quote from: Amphissa on Sunday 22 January 2012, 22:40
Sorry, Tobias, but I beg to differ. It is not all illegal.
No problem of course ;)
You are right, that copyright differs from country to country. I can understand that you use the US law, I surely take the German law, that maybe explains a few differences.
And you are also right that copyright expires. I am not sure how many years are necessary, but for every recording ALL copyrights have to be expired (not only the 70 years after the death of the composer). I think for performers its 50 years, and maybe for production as well. The files here uploaded mainly are broadcasts from post-1962 or LP recordings also recorded after 1962. So they are in all copyright I guess.
And finally I am not sure how a court of justice would decide about our "profession as a researcher". Actually I think most here are "just" some music lovers. I guess that isn't enough to be a musicologist.
Anyway, your statement made it clear: the whole subject is - unclear.
Best,
Tobias
Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download. And, since nearly everything I have downloaded is a BBC broadcast, I don't feel that's like stealing from a private company: the BBC is funded through the public, so essentially belongs to it. And I have always wondered why they don't release more of their broadcasts as CDs and make some money.
If I tried to calculate the amount of money record companies have made out of me over the years, I would probably faint in horror.
Over the last 20 years (since I began collecting cds) I reckon I have spent somewhere in excess of £30,000 on cds. A lot of money certainly but it averages out and I buy fewer per month these days because I am no longer collecting standard repertoire items......I have all the ones I need or want ;D No doubt better performances have been issued since I bought my Schubert Great C major, for example, but the versions I bought were rated at the time as amongst the best so I shall be happy with them ;D ;D
Quote from: Jimfin on Sunday 22 January 2012, 23:52
Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download.
Hmmm, maybe you should try to translate this into "normal life behaviour" and compare. If you go to a shop, see a thing you like, ask if you can buy it, the shop owner say No and then you steal it. After that you get caught and say for your defence: "If the shop owner would have sold it, I would have paid for it!"
I don't think thats a good excuse in "internet life" as well.
Quote from: Jimfin on Sunday 22 January 2012, 23:52
And, since nearly everything I have downloaded is a BBC broadcast, I don't feel that's like stealing from a private company: the BBC is funded through the public, so essentially belongs to it.
Well, I can understand that but thats actually not the point. A part of your taxes funds the BBCs does not mean you own the copyrights, it just helps to let the BBC exists. You also fund the streets you are walking on, but don't own them.
Best,
Tobias
Quote from: violinconcerto on Monday 23 January 2012, 05:21
Quote from: Jimfin on Sunday 22 January 2012, 23:52
Yes, I for one would have have paid for all the music I have downloaded here, if it were available on CD, or on an official download.
Hmmm, maybe you should try to translate this into "normal life behaviour" and compare. If you go to a shop, see a thing you like, ask if you can buy it, the shop owner say No and then you steal it. After that you get caught and say for your defence: "If the shop owner would have sold it, I would have paid for it!"
I don't think thats a good excuse in "internet life" as well.
The analogy doesn't quite hold true in this case, since the LPs and broadcasts involved here are, as near as I can tell, private property of the individuals holding them that are either no longer available for purchase, or, in the case of the dubbed broadcasts, never were. In many cases the labels, performers and of course, the composers are no longer alive to receive royalties. An argument can be made that their estates may be due remuneration, but even if it isn't 70 or 50 or whatever years after these performances, this is an exclusive website. And I don't recall there being any mention of research or education having to be by professionals or students. Surely everyone participating in this site qualifies as an amateur student, at some level.
I'm not entirely convinced that I don't own the streets and pavements, albeit jointly with my fellow-citizens, and, since I pay tax, I feel entirely free to use them. It would be different were I to try to stop other people using them. Likewise with recorded material, although in one sense one is "taking" it, in another sense one is not, since the rightful owner does not actually "lose" it. Nobody is losing money by our sharing this material, since it is not being commercially released. They are making no money out of it whether we share it or not.
I'm going to bring this topic to a close for now because we seem to be in a classic "agree to disagree" situation and nobody here (myself included needless to say) is an expert in this field.
Amphissa has made the very sensible suggestion that those of us who have uploaded files alter the file names so that their content is unclear to non-members searching MediaFire and other file sharing sites, and I shall certainly be doing that with my files.
I see that the large file sharing site FileSonic has closed down its sharing facility. If anyone here has uploaded files to FileSonic for sharing here, they need to be found another home.
Finally, members may rest assured that we'll be keeping a very close watch on developments.
A quick note of reassurance as a follow up to my last post. Amphissa helpfully suggested renaming your files held on file-sharing sites to prevent non-members searching for and downloading them. Most of the files linked to from UC are held at MediaFire which I now find has no search capability (http://support.mediafire.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/15/1/can-i-search-files-from-other-mediafire-users). Therefore any files uploaded by UC members for UC members should be secure against downloading by third parties.
Eric has helpfully pointed out that, while MediaFire doesn't have a native search facility, it is still possible to google and find files there. It won't find the folder name, just the file name. So, in my case, a search for "Mediafire Bleyle" won't find my Bleyle uploads because the mp3s don't have Bleyle's name in the title. But a search for "Mediafire Flagellantenzug" would find that mp3.