Avril Lavigne: don't DRM my music! - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 27th Apr 2006, 11:17

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04...ian_music_drm/

boggsi · 27th Apr 2006, 11:34

I am going to buy a genuine copy of all these artists' music! This IS the way forward.

-Xp- · 27th Apr 2006, 12:32

Artists make minimal profit for record sales, so they stand to gain more from piracy than the record companies do.

McKaamos · 27th Apr 2006, 12:40

I agree with -Xp-.
The thing artists benefit from is getting known, and having people come to their concerts.

I admit I download lots of music, but whenever I can, I go to a concert or buy some band-wear to support the artist.
I'm just lucky to live in a country where downloading is legal by law.

Glider · 27th Apr 2006, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by McKaamos

I'm just lucky to live in a country where downloading is legal by law.

I think you should check your facts. Downloading is legal in every country, breaking copyrights is illegal in allmost every country, and it sure is too in "Nederland".

konsta · 27th Apr 2006, 12:55

It's a nice sentiment, but the whole thing seems rather academic to me. The artists can't exactly leave their record label if they wish to continue offering their music to the mass market, even ignoring contractual issues. The record lables can therefore continue to operate their DRM schemes completely unaffected by this group. Yes, it's a loud voice, raising the issue etc, but I don't believe this will change anything. If one record label were to promise no DRM forever, then it might be a real threat, as the artists could threaten to move to this one, but I can't see this happening.

One thought has just occured to me though, something I haven't seen vocalised previously. The end of the necessity for record labels must now be very close. CD sales are declining in favour of online sales. Therefore artists are increasingly going to have less need for the labels at all, as they will not need the infrastructure to produce and distribute music through highstreet outlets. I realise that makes iTunes the new record label, but there may be alternative services which find some other way to distribute in a commercially viable way than overly restrictive DRM.

McKaamos · 27th Apr 2006, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I think you should check your facts. Downloading is legal in every country, breaking copyrights is illegal in allmost every country, and it sure is too in "Nederland".

I have checked my facts. Its true.
Downloading music and movies is legal here. Even if its copyrighted material.
Uploading (sharing) is not, but since I don't upload I'm acting within the law.

btw, in the USA its illegal to download copyrighted material, as it is in most of the world, but not here.
Thats what the whole kazaa user lawsuits were all about a couple of years ago.

Glider · 27th Apr 2006, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by McKaamos

I have checked my facts. Its true.
Downloading music and movies is legal here. Even if its copyrighted material.
Uploading (sharing) is not, but since I don't upload I'm acting within the law.

btw, in the USA its illegal to download copyrighted material, as it is in most of the world, but not here.
Thats what the whole kazaa user lawsuits were all about a couple of years ago.

Are you sure about that? Because if that is true, I'll move up north 5km (so that I live in the Netherlands). I find it hard to believe tough... I do wonder why they sell copyrighted stuff then in the Netherlands, if everyone can download everything legally...

That is one of the reasons copyright was "invented", to protect the author's work...

Meanmotion · 27th Apr 2006, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by konsta

One thought has just occured to me though, something I haven't seen vocalised previously. The end of the necessity for record labels must now be very close. CD sales are declining in favour of online sales. Therefore artists are increasingly going to have less need for the labels at all, as they will not need the infrastructure to produce and distribute music through highstreet outlets. I realise that makes iTunes the new record label, but there may be alternative services which find some other way to distribute in a commercially viable way than overly restrictive DRM.

True to a certain degree but there will always be a market for someone to buy up the next big thing and make some money off them. Music will always be around and there will always be little local scenes or bands with a regular following but for taking that big leap, which most bands dream of, and doing world tours (etc) you need BIG money (it's costs £10,000 to get on the ozzfest bill) and backing. It's almost nothing to do with the music/CDs, it's everything else.

konsta · 27th Apr 2006, 13:46

Copyright law is harmonised throughout Europe, so it is the same everywhere. No need to move home. I'm actually a law student studying intellectual property, and so should really know the definate answer to the question, given the proximity of my exams. However I'm currently in the library revising land law. Will check the answer when I get home and have the right books to hand.

I think it may have something to do with exactly what is being copied.... the right of reproduction is contained in s17 CDPA 1988 (Copyright Designs and Patents Act), and I have an idea that in order to infringe the right, you must becopying a 'master' copy for sound recordings. However, there is still copyright vested in the song as both a literary and musical work, and the master copy status doesn't apply here.

The Kazaa and Grokster cases were actually concerned with so called Secondary Infringement, (in this case, the facilitation of infringement via the software). Secondary infringement relies on the infringer knowing that they are doing so (to use the legal jargon, it's not a Strict Liability offence), and so those cases turned on whether Kazaa could be said to know that their software was being used for illegal purposes, and this is why the legitimate uses angle was so important.

Glider · 27th Apr 2006, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by konsta

Copyright law is harmonised throughout Europe, so it is the same everywhere. No need to move home. I'm actually a law student studying intellectual property, and so should really know the definate answer to the question, given the proximity of my exams. However I'm currently in the library revising land law. Will check the answer when I get home and have the right books to hand.

I think it may have something to do with exactly what is being copied.... the right of reproduction is contained in s17 CDPA 1988 (Copyright Designs and Patents Act), and I have an idea that in order to infringe the right, you must becopying a 'master' copy for sound recordings. However, there is still copyright vested in the song as both a literary and musical work, and the master copy status doesn't apply here.

The Kazaa and Grokster cases were actually concerned with so called Secondary Infringement, (in this case, the facilitation of infringement via the software). Secondary infringement relies on the infringer knowing that they are doing so (to use the legal jargon, it's not a Strict Liability offence), and so those cases turned on whether Kazaa could be said to know that their software was being used for illegal purposes, and this is why the legitimate uses angle was so important.

Please do that when you are home, because I would like to know all about it... And I recon a lot of Bit-tech readers here too...

Drexial · 27th Apr 2006, 15:28

now there are a couple things that i belive to be true, that i have heard from a few people that dont seem to be full of ****.

but from what i understand, artists are paid by contract in the begining of their deal. they may recive bonuses for passing certain number of sales. but bassicly the label owns the music that is produced under contract, so it doesnt matter what they do with the music while under the label. in one case, Nine Inch Nails released their first album under TVT records which recently sold off all their artists, they were bought by another label and they rereleased the album. Trent Reznor of nine inch nails was going into a trend of releasing 5.1 mixes of his albums, and he had wanted to do one for his first album, and the label came to him to do one, but offered him no money for it. so because they own the songs, he cant do anything with the songs from that label, and that label owes him no money, cause they are not technicaly his songs anymore.

Drexial · 27th Apr 2006, 15:42

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_contract

here is some info that suports the pice above, and also adds in some extra info

Kipman725 · 27th Apr 2006, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Are you sure about that? Because if that is true, I'll move up north 5km (so that I live in the Netherlands). I find it hard to believe tough... I do wonder why they sell copyrighted stuff then in the Netherlands, if everyone can download everything legally...

That is one of the reasons copyright was "invented", to protect the author's work...

nah copyright was inveneted so that people who creeated stuff could contiune to create stuff... not to make the creator live off a one hit wonder forever and then their family living off something that they never even created. It's kind of failed and should be drasticly reformed or scraped.

quack · 27th Apr 2006, 16:12

IANAL and IMO - My interpretation is: copyright law is not exactly the same across the EU. The EU issues directives, and each member state works out how to best word/fit the directive into their own laws/constitutions. Because of this copyright law in Sweden is very different to copyright law in the UK, which is why The Pirate Bay survives there and wouldn't here.

Godboy_g · 27th Apr 2006, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by konsta

It's a nice sentiment, but the whole thing seems rather academic to me. The artists can't exactly leave their record label if they wish to continue offering their music to the mass market, even ignoring contractual issues. The record lables can therefore continue to operate their DRM schemes completely unaffected by this group. Yes, it's a loud voice, raising the issue etc, but I don't believe this will change anything. If one record label were to promise no DRM forever, then it might be a real threat, as the artists could threaten to move to this one, but I can't see this happening.

It's True that there may be problems leaving their labels, however with the calibre of artists listed, I'm absoulutely certain that they could easily afford to start their own Label free from DRM, and RIAA entirely.......I'd definately buy albums from a label like that.

fev · 27th Apr 2006, 20:52

mmm Avril Lavigne....

McKaamos · 27th Apr 2006, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Are you sure about that? Because if that is true, I'll move up north 5km (so that I live in the Netherlands). I find it hard to believe tough... I do wonder why they sell copyrighted stuff then in the Netherlands, if everyone can download everything legally...

That is one of the reasons copyright was "invented", to protect the author's work...

Its called the "Wet Thuiskopie" and it has been there since casette tapes and vinyl.
'Cause it was made back then it has some serious flaws that allow you to download and own copies of copyrighted material, but does not allow you to make the copies/share. Only if you own an original of something you may make a backup copy and give it to someone saying its an off-site backup (what if my house burns down! my CD's and DVD's will be gone!).
That law only covers audiovisual media, so software piracy is not allowed.

Since you are not allowed to copy something yourself (when you don't own the original) in effect distribuition of media should quickly end since not everyone knows someone that has an original and can copy.
The next point is that not everyone is familiar with downloading from P2P networks, FTP servers and such things, so that should limit the amount of downloading too.
Third is that not everyone knows how to operate a CD or DVD writer, so again, this limits the media getting around.

Actualy I am a bit surprised you didn't know about this. You live so close to the Netherlands, so you must have seen it on the news at some point.
The most recent thing (that i know of) that involved this law was about someone from the city of Groningen.
His daughter had installed Kazaa and didn't disable sharing, so he got fined for distributing copies of media he doesn't own.
If he had disabled the sharing he wouldn't have been fined.

edit: There is another thing btw. On empty media cariers you pay a small amount of money (dont remember what its called again) that goes to a fund wich distrubutes that money among artists (within the country that is).
Though I don't believe that anything gets done with that money, except go to the government, but thats a whole different matter.

edit2: Btw, that that law has flaws is known, but the government doesn't want to change it. They don't think piracy is such a big problem, and tbh, i agree. The money goes to the record companies instead of the artists anyway.
CD's could easily become 5 euro's cheaper, if the record companies would cut down their 90% profit margin...

[USRF]Obiwan · 28th Apr 2006, 10:18

Actualy the Dutch law of the now called "thuiscopy" aka homecopy is there since 1912. Its in the Dutch autheurswet (Authorslawbook). It was given by Queen Wilhelmina queen of the Netherlands.

It gives users the right to make a "backup" copy or make a copy of part of the material for own use. (these are books, newspapers, musicals, gheography works, music, drawings, paitings, maps, photgraphic work, Movies and recent new closule:Computer media).

Since 2004 there has been a change in the Authorlaw section. That Software may not be copied in any form whatsoever without the approval of the owner/copyright owner. So making copy's of games is also illigal.

Music can be copied, but only for own use, so making a copy of robbie williams from your neighboor is forbidden. Giving a copy to your home users (like for example your sister) is approved. Also placing a mp3 on your homepage is forbidden, because then you make it public. For own use, is as it is, for own use, Not for your company, your neighboor or your best friend.

Because of this The Dutch pay a extra Fee on all empty media, cassette tapes, video, cd, dvd) The Fee payed is spread allong the artists of the copyrighted material by "stichting thuiscopy"

Fee rates:
Data cd/rw : 0,14 euro per disc
Blank DVD-r/-RW: 0,60 euro per 4.7gbyte
Blank DVD+-r/+RW: 0,40 euro per 4.7gbyte
Audio cd-r/rw 0,40 euro per 74 minutes
Blank DVD-ram (free)

this one is new:
HDMI 1,10 euro per gigabyte

videotapes, cassettes, minidisc : 0,23 euro per hour

Hope this will make some things clear about the Dutch Auhtorlaw.

Glider · 28th Apr 2006, 10:58

So what I make up is that, in the Dutch law, you do have to own an original copy of the music (let's just call it music, but actually the whole list). But when you download music, you don't have it right? Aren't you therefor in violence of the law?

Or is it just the person you are downloading it from that's breaking the law? Ok, if nobody shares, then nobody can download it, but come on... That doesn't make a lot of sense. And isn't it possible that you'd be held liable because you know when you download the person who's seeding is breaking the law, therefor you help him to break it?

Here in Belgium it's allowed too to make copies of original media, for personal use. We have the same extra fees IIRC. But that doesn't make downloading copyrighted material legal. I was once stopped with my car, and the police asked to see my cd's. All were CD-R's. They "confiscated" them and I had 5 working days to come and show the orgiginal media at the police bureau. Off course that wasn't a problem, because I intentionally made copies for my car (if someone steals it or something like that).

27th Apr 2006, 11:17	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	Avril Lavigne: don't DRM my music! http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04...ian_music_drm/

27th Apr 2006, 16:12	#15
quack \o/ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: England Posts: 5,221	IANAL and IMO - My interpretation is: copyright law is not exactly the same across the EU. The EU issues directives, and each member state works out how to best word/fit the directive into their own laws/constitutions. Because of this copyright law in Sweden is very different to copyright law in the UK, which is why The Pirate Bay survives there and wouldn't here. __________________ Denying Rights to Music lovers. Denying Rights to Movie lovers.

27th Apr 2006, 20:52	#17
fev Corporate Whore Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Tesco - On Beanbag, Games Playing Office Posts: 2,885	mmm Avril Lavigne.... __________________ I know what I'm doing... do you? Follow me on Twitter..go on

28th Apr 2006, 10:18	#19
[USRF]Obiwan Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,220	Actualy the Dutch law of the now called "thuiscopy" aka homecopy is there since 1912. Its in the Dutch autheurswet (Authorslawbook). It was given by Queen Wilhelmina queen of the Netherlands. It gives users the right to make a "backup" copy or make a copy of part of the material for own use. (these are books, newspapers, musicals, gheography works, music, drawings, paitings, maps, photgraphic work, Movies and recent new closule:Computer media). Since 2004 there has been a change in the Authorlaw section. That Software may not be copied in any form whatsoever without the approval of the owner/copyright owner. So making copy's of games is also illigal. Music can be copied, but only for own use, so making a copy of robbie williams from your neighboor is forbidden. Giving a copy to your home users (like for example your sister) is approved. Also placing a mp3 on your homepage is forbidden, because then you make it public. For own use, is as it is, for own use, Not for your company, your neighboor or your best friend. Because of this The Dutch pay a extra Fee on all empty media, cassette tapes, video, cd, dvd) The Fee payed is spread allong the artists of the copyrighted material by "stichting thuiscopy" Fee rates: Data cd/rw : 0,14 euro per disc Blank DVD-r/-RW: 0,60 euro per 4.7gbyte Blank DVD+-r/+RW: 0,40 euro per 4.7gbyte Audio cd-r/rw 0,40 euro per 74 minutes Blank DVD-ram (free) this one is new: HDMI 1,10 euro per gigabyte videotapes, cassettes, minidisc : 0,23 euro per hour Hope this will make some things clear about the Dutch Auhtorlaw. __________________ Mascleta: "The most accurate simulation of thunder, humans can simulate..." The answer is 42, so... whats the question again? If you know what 'Peek' and 'Poke' represents, then you are probably as old as me.

28th Apr 2006, 10:58	#20
Glider /dev/null Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 4,102	So what I make up is that, in the Dutch law, you do have to own an original copy of the music (let's just call it music, but actually the whole list). But when you download music, you don't have it right? Aren't you therefor in violence of the law? Or is it just the person you are downloading it from that's breaking the law? Ok, if nobody shares, then nobody can download it, but come on... That doesn't make a lot of sense. And isn't it possible that you'd be held liable because you know when you download the person who's seeding is breaking the law, therefor you help him to break it? Here in Belgium it's allowed too to make copies of original media, for personal use. We have the same extra fees IIRC. But that doesn't make downloading copyrighted material legal. I was once stopped with my car, and the police asked to see my cd's. All were CD-R's. They "confiscated" them and I had 5 working days to come and show the orgiginal media at the police bureau. Off course that wasn't a problem, because I intentionally made copies for my car (if someone steals it or something like that). __________________ There Are 10 Types Of People, Those Who Know Binary and Those Who Don't

27th Apr 2006, 11:34	#2
boggsi Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 105	I am going to buy a genuine copy of all these artists' music! This IS the way forward.

27th Apr 2006, 12:32	#3
-Xp- Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 557	Artists make minimal profit for record sales, so they stand to gain more from piracy than the record companies do.

27th Apr 2006, 12:40	#4
McKaamos Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands Posts: 169	I agree with -Xp-. The thing artists benefit from is getting known, and having people come to their concerts. I admit I download lots of music, but whenever I can, I go to a concert or buy some band-wear to support the artist. I'm just lucky to live in a country where downloading is legal by law.

27th Apr 2006, 12:55	#6
konsta Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 92	It's a nice sentiment, but the whole thing seems rather academic to me. The artists can't exactly leave their record label if they wish to continue offering their music to the mass market, even ignoring contractual issues. The record lables can therefore continue to operate their DRM schemes completely unaffected by this group. Yes, it's a loud voice, raising the issue etc, but I don't believe this will change anything. If one record label were to promise no DRM forever, then it might be a real threat, as the artists could threaten to move to this one, but I can't see this happening. One thought has just occured to me though, something I haven't seen vocalised previously. The end of the necessity for record labels must now be very close. CD sales are declining in favour of online sales. Therefore artists are increasingly going to have less need for the labels at all, as they will not need the infrastructure to produce and distribute music through highstreet outlets. I realise that makes iTunes the new record label, but there may be alternative services which find some other way to distribute in a commercially viable way than overly restrictive DRM.

27th Apr 2006, 13:46	#10
konsta Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 92	Copyright law is harmonised throughout Europe, so it is the same everywhere. No need to move home. I'm actually a law student studying intellectual property, and so should really know the definate answer to the question, given the proximity of my exams. However I'm currently in the library revising land law. Will check the answer when I get home and have the right books to hand. I think it may have something to do with exactly what is being copied.... the right of reproduction is contained in s17 CDPA 1988 (Copyright Designs and Patents Act), and I have an idea that in order to infringe the right, you must becopying a 'master' copy for sound recordings. However, there is still copyright vested in the song as both a literary and musical work, and the master copy status doesn't apply here. The Kazaa and Grokster cases were actually concerned with so called Secondary Infringement, (in this case, the facilitation of infringement via the software). Secondary infringement relies on the infringer knowing that they are doing so (to use the legal jargon, it's not a Strict Liability offence), and so those cases turned on whether Kazaa could be said to know that their software was being used for illegal purposes, and this is why the legitimate uses angle was so important.

27th Apr 2006, 15:28	#12
Drexial Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 297	now there are a couple things that i belive to be true, that i have heard from a few people that dont seem to be full of ****. but from what i understand, artists are paid by contract in the begining of their deal. they may recive bonuses for passing certain number of sales. but bassicly the label owns the music that is produced under contract, so it doesnt matter what they do with the music while under the label. in one case, Nine Inch Nails released their first album under TVT records which recently sold off all their artists, they were bought by another label and they rereleased the album. Trent Reznor of nine inch nails was going into a trend of releasing 5.1 mixes of his albums, and he had wanted to do one for his first album, and the label came to him to do one, but offered him no money for it. so because they own the songs, he cant do anything with the songs from that label, and that label owes him no money, cause they are not technicaly his songs anymore.

27th Apr 2006, 15:42	#13
Drexial Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 297	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_contract here is some info that suports the pice above, and also adds in some extra info