Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital Rights Management Survives Analog Duplication

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 6:23:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone here
have any experience with this system? If it works, is it affordable for
indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has been virtually
wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly sold 700 copies.)

-----

I floated this topic to a friend of mine who is the President of a
Company that specializes in this field. They have been in existence
Since 1991 so they know the issues.

Here was his initial response:

We may have the solution. We have invented a watermark that survives
most analogue duplication, but which doesn't affect sound quality.

They could use an industry standard format such as .WAV, but embed the
identity of the purchaser into the file. That way, if the file gets
out, you have someone to go after.

We're launching an online music store in about a month that could be
adapted to sell audio books. We'd be interested in partnering with
someone like Audible.

Our system is becoming the standard for music and is in use by all the
majors. Over 75% of radio stations in the US are getting music using
our system. The system gives the content owner the choice. The content
is locked down to a particular computer. If that user is trusted, then
it can be exported to CD or WAV, but a watermark is embedded which
identifies the user.

This is a link with more info. http://www.dsny.com/investor.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:16:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mcp6453 wrote:
> We may have the solution. We have invented a watermark that survives
> most analogue duplication, but which doesn't affect sound quality.

While watermarking might make it easier to prosecute a major bootlegger
(and for all I know, this might be more of a problem with audio books
than with popular music), it does nothing to eliminate person-to-person
copying. Record companies have had only token success in making an
example of 9 year old kids who have "stolen" music files on their
computers.

There have been some pretty effective watermarking schemes (as well as
some pretty intrusive ones) but they've all untimately failed because
nobody's been able to figure out what to do with any data that might be
obtained from the watermark.

Any system that prevents a legitimate owner to reaonable things with
the property is either quickly bypassed or such a fuss is raised that
the system is ultimately dropped.

There is no technological solution for a moral problem. And you won't
solve this moral problem until you convince people that distributing
someone else's intellectual property without permission is immoral (as
well as illegal).
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:29:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mcp6453 wrote:
> I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
> particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone here
> have any experience with this system? If it works, is it affordable for
> indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has been virtually
> wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly sold 700 copies.)

This appears to be someone posting a story in a feeble attempt to promote
his own company, or perhaps to influence the value of a small stock. I
certainly wouldn't put much faith into it. Analog watermarking has been
tested by a number of companies, but no one has succeeded in making it
inaudible (though I'd expect it to work better for audio books than for
music). Furthermore, no one has technology that is "in use by all the
majors", or even the minors.

There's very little truth in the post below. For example, if the
statement "Over 75% of radio stations in the US are getting music using
our system" is at all true, there's only one possible explanation - the
company itself may have created one CD of watermarked music and sent it
to all the radio stations they could find.

As a small independent label, how would this help you anyway? It
wouldn't prevent anyone from copying your CDs. The only way it could
benefit you would be if you 1) created a separate watermark for each
individual copy of a CD (makes duplication rather impractical, no?), 2)
registered each CD purchased to a specific purchaser (are you going to
require them to give you their name and address?), 3) somehow figured out
that an illegal copy had been created (I have no idea how you'd do that),
4) brought legal proceedings against each individual who copied your CD
(not very good for public relations), and 5) won enough of your cases to
let you collect meaningful damages from the original purchaser (who
probably doesn't have much money anyway).

Not very practical, I'm afraid.

> I floated this topic to a friend of mine who is the President of a
> Company that specializes in this field. They have been in existence
> Since 1991 so they know the issues.
>
> Here was his initial response:
>
> We may have the solution. We have invented a watermark that survives
> most analogue duplication, but which doesn't affect sound quality.
>
> They could use an industry standard format such as .WAV, but embed the
> identity of the purchaser into the file. That way, if the file gets
> out, you have someone to go after.
>
> We're launching an online music store in about a month that could be
> adapted to sell audio books. We'd be interested in partnering with
> someone like Audible.
>
> Our system is becoming the standard for music and is in use by all the
> majors. Over 75% of radio stations in the US are getting music using
> our system. The system gives the content owner the choice. The content
> is locked down to a particular computer. If that user is trusted, then
> it can be exported to CD or WAV, but a watermark is embedded which
> identifies the user.
>
> This is a link with more info. http://www.dsny.com/investor.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:08:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> If someone has bought a CD, he is free to lend this CD
> to a friend.

Correct.

> The friend can make a copy of this CD for personal use.
> That is completely legal, at least according to the law in The
> Netherlands.

I doubt that it's legal according to the laws in the US. Tell me - does
this make any sense at all, given that the intent of the person making
the CD is to make money by entertaining people with this recording of
his writing and/or performing skills?

> If someone has bought a CD, he is free to sell it or e.g. donate it to
> charity organisation that sells it.

That's true. but a lot of copyright owners don't like this, because
they don't make any money on the resale that they might have made had
the purchases bought a new copy rather than a recycled one. It would be
better, when the original owner is finished with the CD, to recycle it
as plastic rather than as intellectual property.

> What is the value of the proof and how do you go after the person?

That's the real question, and the answer is that you can't, unless you
catch someone in the act. It isn't difficult to prove that someone who
has a carton of the same CD and is selling them a table at a swap meet
is selling bootlegs (if they actually are bootlegs - he might be a
legitimate record store). It's more difficult (or more realistically,
not practical) to prove that a CD-R copy of a CD in a person's
possession is a legitimate backup of a CD that he legitimately owns. I
suppose the music police could ask to see the original CD and sales
receipt before arresting him for copyright violation.

If he says "I used to own the CD, but I gave it to a friend." then he
no longer has a backup, he has a duplicate, and that's illegal, at
least over here.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mcp6453 <mcp6453@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
>particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone here
>have any experience with this system? If it works, is it affordable for
>indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has been virtually
>wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly sold 700 copies.)

I don't know how their technology works. I am skeptical.

BUT, I don't see how watermarking will do anything to defeat bootleggers.
A guy buys a record in a store with cash. He rips it and puts it up on
the net. The watermark tells you what store it came from. That does not
sound useful.

Unless you want to gather complete personal information with every sale,
or require a background check like they do for firearms, I don't see how
to avoid this.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:47:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Excellent analysis, Jim.

Jim Gilliland wrote:
> mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
>> particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone
>> here have any experience with this system? If it works, is it
>> affordable for indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has
>> been virtually wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly
>> sold 700 copies.)
>
>
> This appears to be someone posting a story in a feeble attempt to
> promote his own company, or perhaps to influence the value of a small
> stock. I certainly wouldn't put much faith into it. Analog
> watermarking has been tested by a number of companies, but no one has
> succeeded in making it inaudible (though I'd expect it to work better
> for audio books than for music). Furthermore, no one has technology
> that is "in use by all the majors", or even the minors.
>
> There's very little truth in the post below. For example, if the
> statement "Over 75% of radio stations in the US are getting music using
> our system" is at all true, there's only one possible explanation - the
> company itself may have created one CD of watermarked music and sent it
> to all the radio stations they could find.
>
> As a small independent label, how would this help you anyway? It
> wouldn't prevent anyone from copying your CDs. The only way it could
> benefit you would be if you 1) created a separate watermark for each
> individual copy of a CD (makes duplication rather impractical, no?), 2)
> registered each CD purchased to a specific purchaser (are you going to
> require them to give you their name and address?), 3) somehow figured
> out that an illegal copy had been created (I have no idea how you'd do
> that), 4) brought legal proceedings against each individual who copied
> your CD (not very good for public relations), and 5) won enough of your
> cases to let you collect meaningful damages from the original purchaser
> (who probably doesn't have much money anyway).
>
> Not very practical, I'm afraid.
>
>> I floated this topic to a friend of mine who is the President of a
>> Company that specializes in this field. They have been in existence
>> Since 1991 so they know the issues.
>>
>> Here was his initial response:
>>
>> We may have the solution. We have invented a watermark that survives
>> most analogue duplication, but which doesn't affect sound quality.
>>
>> They could use an industry standard format such as .WAV, but embed the
>> identity of the purchaser into the file. That way, if the file gets
>> out, you have someone to go after.
>>
>> We're launching an online music store in about a month that could be
>> adapted to sell audio books. We'd be interested in partnering with
>> someone like Audible.
>>
>> Our system is becoming the standard for music and is in use by all the
>> majors. Over 75% of radio stations in the US are getting music using
>> our system. The system gives the content owner the choice. The
>> content is locked down to a particular computer. If that user is
>> trusted, then it can be exported to CD or WAV, but a watermark is
>> embedded which identifies the user.
>>
>> This is a link with more info. http://www.dsny.com/investor.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:55:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> mcp6453 <mcp6453@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
>>particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone here
>>have any experience with this system? If it works, is it affordable for
>>indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has been virtually
>>wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly sold 700 copies.)
>
>
> I don't know how their technology works. I am skeptical.
>
> BUT, I don't see how watermarking will do anything to defeat bootleggers.
> A guy buys a record in a store with cash. He rips it and puts it up on
> the net. The watermark tells you what store it came from. That does not
> sound useful.
>
> Unless you want to gather complete personal information with every sale,
> or require a background check like they do for firearms, I don't see how
> to avoid this.
> --scott
>

Good points. If you go to the web site and look at who they claim are
using their technology, it's the big guys. The comment about sound
quality was interesting. Now I wonder what their objectives are?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:08:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D gh014$q1s$1@panix2.panix.com...

> BUT, I don't see how watermarking will do anything to defeat bootleggers.
> A guy buys a record in a store with cash. He rips it and puts it up on
> the net. The watermark tells you what store it came from. That does not
> sound useful.

The opening post was about selling by download, with a unique watermark in
each download.

Tim
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 6:08:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mcp6453 <mcp6453@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Good points. If you go to the web site and look at who they claim are
>using their technology, it's the big guys. The comment about sound
>quality was interesting. Now I wonder what their objectives are?

They say radio stations are using it. What good does THAT do? You
broadcast something with a watermark, and somebody tapes it. At best
you know now what station they taped it off of. That's not very useful.

Watermarking might be an excellent thing to do for demos and for short
run things. Certainly it would be a great idea for things like work
tapes, so that if they somehow get released under the table you can
figure out where they came from. But for material that is already
released, knowing the source isn't very helpful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 6:11:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tim Martin <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>
>> BUT, I don't see how watermarking will do anything to defeat bootleggers.
>> A guy buys a record in a store with cash. He rips it and puts it up on
>> the net. The watermark tells you what store it came from. That does not
>> sound useful.
>
>The opening post was about selling by download, with a unique watermark in
>each download.

Okay, so Joe downloads the file. Now it appears all over the internet
with a watermark on it that indicates Joe downloaded it.

Joe says, "someone stole a box of CDs from my car." Joe says, "Hacker X
broke into my machine and copied everything I had." Just knowing that
the bootleg originated from a file that Joe had is not useful. And it is
not enough to successfully prosecute Joe.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 7:44:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:23:12 +0200, mcp6453 wrote:

> That way, if the file gets out, you have someone to go after.

No you have not.

If someone has bought a CD, he is free to lend this CD
to a friend. The friend can make a copy of this CD for personal use.
That is completely legal, at least according to the law in The
Netherlands.

If someone has bought a CD, he is free to sell it or e.g. donate it to
charity organisation that sells it.

If someone has bought a CD, it might get stolen.

What is the value of the proof and how do you go after the person? Who
would like to buy music from a seller that intends to hold you
responsible for everything that happens with your CD?

Watermarking won't help you.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:43:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:08:03 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> If someone has bought a CD, he is free to lend this CD to a friend.
>
> Correct.
>
>> The friend can make a copy of this CD for personal use. That is
>> completely legal, at least according to the law in The Netherlands.
>
> I doubt that it's legal according to the laws in the US. Tell me - does
> this make any sense at all, given that the intent of the person making
> the CD is to make money by entertaining people with this recording of
> his writing and/or performing skills?

Yes, if you have acces to the content, e.g. from the library or from a
friend, from broadcast, or even if you download it from internet, you have
the right to make a _personal_ copy. Downloading is not breaking the law
over here, making content available for downloading _can_ be illegal.
Selling copies of content without permission of the copyrightowner, always
is illegal.

Yes it makes sense. In the same law there is a provision (levvies on blank
media) to compensate for the intellectual property rights.

I totally agree intellectual property rights should be payed. The current
system, with a hand(full?) of companies in the musicindustry spending
money on DRM and other collectionmechanisms for money, does not work.

BTW, the writing and/or performing skills don't pay too well in the music
industry, last figures I've seen around 5% of the price of a CD. (If you
sell a lot of CD's, otherwise the income could be negative.)

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
September 17, 2005 10:40:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> There is no technological solution for a moral problem. And you won't
> solve this moral problem until you convince people that distributing
> someone else's intellectual property without permission is immoral (as
> well as illegal).

My sense of moraily tells me that once material has been "broadcast" on
the radio, the owners have "given it away". Now I can choose to
record it and use it any way I wish (but not including making and
selling copies).

Now if I choose to make my recording from an MP3 download instead of a
recording off the radio, its is the same ends, only the means are
diffrent ,,, just a matter of what technology I used.

I understand that is not what the law says, but it is what my personal
moral code says to me.

Once material has been brodcast, it is free game for me to make a
personal use copy any way I see fit.

Mark
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:58:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark wrote:

> My sense of moraily tells me that once material has been "broadcast" on
> the radio, the owners have "given it away". Now I can choose to
> record it and use it any way I wish (but not including making and
> selling copies).

Funny, but the radio stations don't consider that it's been given away.
They pay a royalty for playing it, and the royalty they pay is based on
how many times they play it. They can't count the times that YOU,
however, play the recording that you made of it.

Nobody is going to arrest you for recording a song off the radio,
however.

> Now if I choose to make my recording from an MP3 download instead of a
> recording off the radio, its is the same ends, only the means are
> diffrent ,,, just a matter of what technology I used.

It depends on how the MP3 got there. If it was on a radio station's web
site as a promo, then they've probably paid a royalty based on the fact
that it was going to be put on a web site. But if it's a copy of an MP3
that some private owner (or non-owner) created and put on a
peer-to-peer network, nobody's getting paid for the copy you have made.
That's where the artist loses.

> I understand that is not what the law says, but it is what my personal
> moral code says to me.

The fact that you can get away with breaking a copyright law and
avoiding paying for goods you receive and not feel guilty about it is
your own think. Feel free to deal with it any way you wish. I'm quite
sure you'll never get caught, but if there are enough people like you,
the artist whose work you liked enough to download might decide that
he's not making enough money and goes off to design web sites or
something more profitable.

> Once material has been brodcast, it is free game for me to make a
> personal use copy any way I see fit.

In your country, you can make the rules. Just don't spoil the music for
me.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:42:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D ghm8h$mn6$1@panix2.panix.com...

> Okay, so Joe downloads the file. Now it appears all over the internet
> with a watermark on it that indicates Joe downloaded it.
>
> Joe says, "someone stole a box of CDs from my car." Joe says, "Hacker X
> broke into my machine and copied everything I had." Just knowing that
> the bootleg originated from a file that Joe had is not useful. And it is
> not enough to successfully prosecute Joe.

Once Joe's purchases have been identified as the source of illicit copies,
the material owners can sue Joe; it's then up to a jury tpo decide on the
balance of probabilities whether Joe deliberately made the material
available, or whether it was the result of some other person's actions.

The possibility might be sufficient to deter some people who would otherwise
make illicit copies available.

Tim
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:42:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tim Martin <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D ghm8h$mn6$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> Okay, so Joe downloads the file. Now it appears all over the internet
>> with a watermark on it that indicates Joe downloaded it.
>>
>> Joe says, "someone stole a box of CDs from my car." Joe says, "Hacker X
>> broke into my machine and copied everything I had." Just knowing that
>> the bootleg originated from a file that Joe had is not useful. And it is
>> not enough to successfully prosecute Joe.
>
>Once Joe's purchases have been identified as the source of illicit copies,
>the material owners can sue Joe; it's then up to a jury tpo decide on the
>balance of probabilities whether Joe deliberately made the material
>available, or whether it was the result of some other person's actions.

Joe will be sure to use his roommate's credit card next time, then.

>The possibility might be sufficient to deter some people who would otherwise
>make illicit copies available.

Maybe, but I bet it just changes where they get the original material
from.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:35:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> Broadcasting does not give rights away. Somehow there is a strange idea
> that you have to "pay per listen" for music. Why?

Because someone had to create that music, and that person wants to be
paid. It's a little unreasonable for a CD player to be like a jukebox
and require that you put a quarter in it every time you want to listen
to a song - you've paid your quarters when you buy the CD.

But what if you don't buy the CD and you still listen to the music? If
I give you a CD or allow you to make a copy of the CD that I paid the
artis for, the artist doesn't get any money from you, whereas he would
have if you had also bought a CD from him. The sale of CD is the way he
makes his money. And if peole can get the benefit of the sale (hearing
the music) without actually paying any money, the artist's work isn't
supported.

> If I buy a car, should I pay per drive?

That's quite a different situation. A car is real property - you get
metal, plastic, rubber, cloth, and a relatively small portion of the
price of the car goes toward design. A car wears out, and you can
repair it. You can sell it to someone else, or you can even get a few
dollars for it at the scrap yard. And (for a reasonably sized car) you
can give four or five other people rides without charging them. But
everybody has to pay to ride the bus.

> Radio stations pay per broadcast. In the music industry
> the same is normal procedure since the invention of the recordplayer.

The problme is that at the time broadcasting and the record player were
invented, listeners didn't have recorders and they didn't have the
means of making duplicates and defeating the record companies' means of
making a profit. Nobody worried too much about unauthorized duplication
when we had home disk or wire recorders. The tape recorder got pretty
popular but people didn't really get the idea of copying music and
trading copies (sometimes multiple copies of the same record to several
people) until the cassette came along. The hardware was inexpensive,
and the idea was already there because prerecorded cassettes were
common in the market.

Now, with the Internet, you don't even have to get out of your chair
and go over to your buddy's house with your tape recorder to copy his
latest album, all he has to do is rip the CD, make the file accessable,
and you have it. So the volume of copying has gone up to the point
where some see it as a loss of potential profit (let's not argue
capitalism and who makes the money here).

> I don't know any law against recording broadcasts, so there is no reason
> at all to arrest someone, although I get the impression some in the
> music industry would like to.

That's probably true. But their primary objection isn't with you
personally having a recording of the broadcast. This can be constured
as "time shifting" and, at least in the US, has already been judged
legal. But the fact that you have that recording, you have a computer,
and you have access to the Internet does make them look hard at what
you are technically able to do with that recording, and how that might
affect their bottom line.

> I don't know the laws everywhere, but in The Netherlands, and I think in
> the rest of Europe, downloading is not against the law.

Of course downloading, in general, it isn't. But I can't see that
unauthorized distribution of intellectual property would be legal in
any country.

> This has been
> mentionned before: for these copies there are levvies on blank media to
> give the owners of the copyright a fair compensation. So you pay for the
> copy you made.

If I record a song from a broadcast directly to my computer, or copy a
CD to my computer, where's the blank media to tax? A lot of people who
download music from the Internet never put it anywhere other than the
disk drive in their computer. I don't know that there's a tax on hard
drives yet. And if they copy the files to a CD or DVD, it's almost in
MP3 format. Let's say that the average CD has 15 songs on it, and the
artist gets 15 cents from the sale of the blank (more like 1/10 of
that, actually, if any at all). So he might expect a penny a song from
your copy. But you can fit 100 or more MP3s on the CD blank, or maybe
500 on a DVD, all for the same fifteen cents.

The problem isn't about the laws, it's that the laws aren't keeping up
with the technology.

> I do not see any breaking of copyright laws, except making copies
> available for download without autorisation or poor distribution of
> levvies on media.

And therein lies the bulk of the problem. You may not do this, but
you're not the only one making recordings of copyright music.

> Is there any country with a law against personal copies from broadcasts?

Not that I know of.

> If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
> prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts. Do you
> know any artist that ever has done so?

No, not for released material. But they go to great pains to prevent
unauthorized distribution - physical copy, on-air broadcast, or network
distribution - of unreleased material. They don't want people getting
copies of music, particularly for free, that hasn't yet hit the stores.
This is a big problem with movies.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 11:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> Distribution: selling, making files available for download etc. is illegal
> in most cases. Downloading is not distribution and is not illegal. That
> has been made clear in court in many countries.

This is a matter of symantics - while you may not be breaking the law
by downloading, that file that you downloaded didn't get there by
itself, someone had to make it available for downloading. So, in
essence the one who makes the file accessable for download is the
distributor. And the fact that he probably wouldn't have put it there
unless he knew that there would be people who would download it makes
the downloader an important part of the "problem" chain.

The thing that has got most people caught over here is that they've had
copyright music files on their computer in a directory, together with
the appropriate software, that makes them accessable to someone else
via peer-to-peer networking. I supposed that if someone actually wanted
to challange an allegation, he'd have to prove that a file transfer was
actually taking place at a time when his system was under observation.
Most of the time, though, it's a matter of "sure, I know, so you caught
me with some accessable files that I don't have the right to
distribute, so what?" They pay their fine or get excused, and go on
about their life.

> > The problem isn't about the laws, it's that the laws aren't keeping up
> > with the technology.
> >
> That is a favorite statement of the music industry. The european directive
> on copyrights is very young and just implemented in national laws. I does
> mention current technology. The US too has young laws on copyright.

Yeah, but they're still a generation or two out of date.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>>My sense of moraily tells me that once material has been "broadcast" on
>>the radio, the owners have "given it away". Now I can choose to
>>record it and use it any way I wish (but not including making and
>>selling copies).
>
> Funny, but the radio stations don't consider that it's been given away.
> They pay a royalty for playing it....

Not exactly, Mike. They do pay a royalty to the songwriter, but that's
it. Nothing to the artist or record company. Not for over the air
broadcast in the US.

> Nobody is going to arrest you for recording a song off the radio,
> however.

Courts have ruled it to be quite legal (the "VCR" cases back in the
1970s). You can't distribute it - with or without money changing hands -
but it's perfectly legal to record it.

>>Now if I choose to make my recording from an MP3 download instead of a
>>recording off the radio, its is the same ends, only the means are
>>diffrent ,,, just a matter of what technology I used.
>
> It depends on how the MP3 got there. If it was on a radio station's web
> site as a promo, then they've probably paid a royalty based on the fact
> that it was going to be put on a web site.

The rules for webcasting are different from over the air broadcasting.
Webcasters DO have to pay a royalty to the copyright holder, and so will
digital radio when that technology comes into play. That's one of the
major changes brought about by the DMCA.

>>I understand that is not what the law says, but it is what my personal
>>moral code says to me.

I don't believe that the courts have ruled on the question of copying
MP3s that have been legitimately posted as part of a webcast. Many
webcasters take steps to make it as difficult as possible to copy their
streams, but not all. Some don't restrict this at all.

However, it should be clear to all that there is little ethical basis
that would permit one to copy an MP3 that had been illegally distributed
in the first place. That's the key flaw in Mark's position - if the MP3
was illegally distributed in the first place, it would be hard to find an
ethical and/or legal use for that distribution.

But as long as we're discussing it, let me point out a possible
exception. I won't claim that what I did here was legal (though I'm
really not sure either way), but I do think it was ethical.

US law says that I can play any commercially released recording on my
radio show. So I decided that I wanted to play some commercially
released recordings that weren't directly available to me. To be
specific, they were recordings of Kasey Chambers that had been released
in Australia, but not in the US. So I found a clearly illegal
distribution of those recordings and downloaded them from Australia. I
then proceeded to play them on my show - using them to help promote her
appearance in here last month.

I told Kasey about that at the show, and she thought it was great! She
thanked me for it.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:27:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127007654.914774.169670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> My sense of moraily tells me that once material has been "broadcast" on
> the radio, the owners have "given it away". Now I can choose to
> record it and use it any way I wish (but not including making and
> selling copies).

By the way, the BBC already makes some (most?) radio programs available vie
internet for "listen again" - you can hear the program up to a week after it
was broadcast. Anhd they are also experimenting with a download service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/

But the copyright owners have control over this. There's a difference
between your making copies of the copyright material, and your making those
copies available to others.

Tim
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:14:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:58:39 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>> My sense of moraily tells me that once material has been "broadcast" on
>> the radio, the owners have "given it away". Now I can choose to
>> record it and use it any way I wish (but not including making and
>> selling copies).
>
> Funny, but the radio stations don't consider that it's been given away.
> They pay a royalty for playing it, and the royalty they pay is based on
> how many times they play it. They can't count the times that YOU,
> however, play the recording that you made of it.

Broadcasting does not give rights away. Somehow there is a strange idea
that you have to "pay per listen" for music. Why? If I buy a car, should
I pay per drive? Radio stations pay per broadcast. In the music industry
the same is normal procedure since the invention of the recordplayer.

> Nobody is going to arrest you for recording a song off the radio,
> however.

I don't know any law against recording broadcasts, so there is no reason
at all to arrest someone, although I get the impression some in the
music industry would like to.

>> Now if I choose to make my recording from an MP3 download instead of a
>> recording off the radio, its is the same ends, only the means are
>> diffrent ,,, just a matter of what technology I used.
>
> It depends on how the MP3 got there. If it was on a radio station's web
> site as a promo, then they've probably paid a royalty based on the fact
> that it was going to be put on a web site. But if it's a copy of an MP3
> that some private owner (or non-owner) created and put on a peer-to-peer
> network, nobody's getting paid for the copy you have made. That's where
> the artist loses.

I don't know the laws everywhere, but in The Netherlands, and I think in
the rest of Europe, downloading is not against the law. This has been
mentionned before: for these copies there are levvies on blank media to
give the owners of the copyright a fair compensation. So you pay for the
copy you made. There could be questions around the fair distribution of
these levvies by the music industry.

>> I understand that is not what the law says, but it is what my personal
>> moral code says to me.
>
> The fact that you can get away with breaking a copyright law a

I do not see any breaking of copyright laws, except making copies
available for download without autorisation or poor distribution of
levvies on media.

>
>> Once material has been brodcast, it is free game for me to make a
>> personal use copy any way I see fit.
>
> In your country, you can make the rules. Just don't spoil the music for
> me.

Is there any country with a law against personal copies from broadcasts?
If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts. Do you
know any artist that ever has done so?

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
> If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
> prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts.

In the US, the only way to prevent broadcast is not to release the
recording. The minute you put it up for sale, it becomes legal to
broadcast it.

Of course, most artists welcome airplay.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>
>> If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
>> prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts.
>
>In the US, the only way to prevent broadcast is not to release the
>recording. The minute you put it up for sale, it becomes legal to
>broadcast it.

What about all these discs I have that say "Not for Broadcast or Public
Performance-- Licensed Only for Phonographs in Homes" today?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:41:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip <chel@vangennip.nl> wrote:


> Is there any country with a law against personal copies from broadcasts?

In the UK, broadcasts are copyright and the law prevents recording
(although it is rarely invoked). In the case of time-shift video
recording, there is a general agreement not to take action against it
provided it is not abused.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>>Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>
>>>If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
>>>prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts.
>>
>>In the US, the only way to prevent broadcast is not to release the
>>recording. The minute you put it up for sale, it becomes legal to
>>broadcast it.
>
>
> What about all these discs I have that say "Not for Broadcast or Public
> Performance-- Licensed Only for Phonographs in Homes" today?
> --scott

They can put whatever they like on the disc - that doesn't make it
enforceable. But the recording industry fought and lost that battle long
before you and I were born. In the early days of the record industry,
they did NOT want airplay. It took some time before it became obvious
that airplay would help them sell more records rather than fewer. So
they initially tried to prevent the broadcast industry from airing
published recordings. I can't cite the specific cases, but the courts of
the day ruled against them.

I'm sure there must be someone around here who knows more about this than
I do, though, so feel free to chime in.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:41:45 +0200, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> Chel van Gennip <chel@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>
>> Is there any country with a law against personal copies from
>> broadcasts?
>
> In the UK, broadcasts are copyright and the law prevents recording
> (although it is rarely invoked). In the case of time-shift video
> recording, there is a general agreement not to take action against it
> provided it is not abused.

Making copies for personal use of copyrighted material is not against the
UK law I think, as the UK law must implement he EU copyright directive.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:13:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:39:12 +0200, Jim Gilliland wrote:

> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>
>> If an artist wants to prevent copies from broadcasts, he/she should
>> prevent broadcasts. He/she has the right to prevent broadcasts.
>
> In the US, the only way to prevent broadcast is not to release the
> recording. The minute you put it up for sale, it becomes legal to
> broadcast it.
>
> Of course, most artists welcome airplay.

I think the law is the same for movies and audio. If you explicitly
prohibit broadcasts on your distributed media, broadcast is not allowed.
The whole matter is however not so relevant, one of the main efforts of
the music industry is to get the CD's broadcasted.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:35:00 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Chel van Gennip wrote:

>> I don't know the laws everywhere, but in The Netherlands, and I think
>> in the rest of Europe, downloading is not against the law.
>
> Of course downloading, in general, it isn't. But I can't see that
> unauthorized distribution of intellectual property would be legal in any
> country.

Distribution: selling, making files available for download etc. is illegal
in most cases. Downloading is not distribution and is not illegal. That
has been made clear in court in many countries.

>> This has been mentionned before: for these copies there are levvies on
>> blank media to give the owners of the copyright a fair compensation. So
>> you pay for the copy you made.
>
.....
>
> The problem isn't about the laws, it's that the laws aren't keeping up
> with the technology.
>
That is a favorite statement of the music industry. The european directive
on copyrights is very young and just implemented in national laws. I does
mention current technology. The US too has young laws on copyright.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 10:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:40:41 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:


> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> Distribution: selling, making files available for download etc. is
>> illegal in most cases. Downloading is not distribution and is not
>> illegal. That has been made clear in court in many countries.
>
> This is a matter of symantics -

Law is about symantics.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:08:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Adrian Tuddenham" <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h335tc.tqe3rm3q70a8N%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid...

> In the UK, broadcasts are copyright and the law prevents recording
> (although it is rarely invoked). In the case of time-shift video
> recording, there is a general agreement not to take action against it
> provided it is not abused.

No, in the UK recording broadcasts for timeshifting is specifically allowed,
in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Below is what the UK Copyright Service says

Tim

http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyrigh...

a.. Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a
certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

a.. Private and research study purposes.
b.. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
c.. Criticism and news reporting.
d.. Incidental inclusion.
e.. Copies and lending by librarians.
f.. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries,
judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
g.. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at
a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
h.. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
i.. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or
society.
(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from
the Performing Rights Society.)
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:29:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mcp6453 <mcp6453@earthlink.net> news:k6LWe.24655$ua.154106
@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> I saw this post on an audiobook list serve. It is interesting,
> particularly the part, "doesn't affect sound quality." Does anyone here
> have any experience with this system? If it works, is it affordable for
> indie labels? (Where I live, a regional music genre has been virtually
> wiped out by bootleggers. The CD of the year supposedly sold 700
copies.)
-snip-

What CD /genre is that, Mike?

david
!