Conference napalm::commusic_v1

>       [Does this imply that GM should be prevented from selling cars
>       because of the threat that someone might break a law in one? -mjt]
    
    Not that I condone the effort to stop DAT, but I might ask MJT if
    he is for the abolishment of gun control for the same reasons.

    	db

    
    Boycott all recorded material until unprotected DAT is released.
    Refuse to buy LP, Cassette, or CD based media until such time as
    they cease and desist holding up a brilliant new technology because
    they're afraid of making only $299,000 salary.
    
    This legal stuff is such a bummer, I think I'll make my own music
    from now on.
    
    AND, REMEMBER every CD purchase you make is going to be obsolete.
    The sooner we all realize this, the sooner they'll be trying to
    reinstate their cash flow.
    
    In the interest of what's fair, I consider these guys as thiefs.
    They are stealing technology. I mean, what ever gave them the notion
    that they were expected to provide DAT format product for these
    machines? If they can't stand DAT, then they shouldn't even consider
    releasing DAT material. Just don't try to keep a potentially great
    recorder out of my hands because I'm going to steal some hypothetical
    material that no one is forcing you to produce.
    
    This whole thing is so unconstitutional, I am surprised it's hasn't
    been flung out of court a long time ago.
    
    							John.

RE: 1288.2     IOENG::JWILLIAMS 

I'm not thrilled with the fact that the record companies have held
up the release of DAT either but let's try to keep the issue
focused on the arguments presented. Getting upset and slinging
half-baked allegations about imaginary agenda items only hurts the
cause and obfuscates the issues. 

>                            -< Control this, MoFo. >-

Insulting them won't help and only decreases the credibility of the
insulter.     
    
>    Boycott all recorded material until unprotected DAT is released.

 ... and you'll immediately put 100s of 1000s of people out of work
as well as effectively suppressing further artistic development. Not 
to mention the fact that the royalties for legitimate sales of product
will dry up. 

>    Refuse to buy LP, Cassette, or CD based media until such time as
>    they cease and desist holding up a brilliant new technology because
>    they're afraid of making only $299,000 salary.
 
Please cite your source for this statement. While financial considerations
*are* the major reason for the delay, I'd like to know why you think that
protecting record company exec's salaries is a contributor. Loss of
*royalties* has been the argument. Even if their salaries are the underlying
reason, they're smarter than to advance that as an argument. Doing so
would make them all too obviously self-serving, and as such would hardly
garner the support they seek.   
 
>    This legal stuff is such a bummer, I think I'll make my own music
>    from now on.

...and if the legal issues are settled are you going to stop? What's 
your point?
    
>    AND, REMEMBER every CD purchase you make is going to be obsolete.
>    The sooner we all realize this, the sooner they'll be trying to
>    reinstate their cash flow.
 
DAT will obsolete CD's the same way tapes obsoleted records. In other
words, it won't. There is no reason the 2 formats can't co-exist.
   
>    In the interest of what's fair, I consider these guys as thiefs [sic].

I suppose you can consider them anything you want.

>    They are stealing technology. I mean, what ever gave them the notion
>    that they were expected to provide DAT format product for these
>    machines? 

I've never heard this point as being one of their arguments. What they are
worried about is the ability of DAT to make pristine copies of any media
despite 'n' generations of dubbing. 

>    If they can't stand DAT, then they shouldn't even consider
>    releasing DAT material. Just don't try to keep a potentially great
>    recorder out of my hands because I'm going to steal some hypothetical
>    material that no one is forcing you to produce.
 
You've got 2 strings running in parallel here, one of which isn't an
issue. Which one is your point?
   
>    This whole thing is so unconstitutional, I am surprised it's hasn't
>    been flung out of court a long time ago.
 
The constitutionality of the issue hasn't been decided.
   
Edd

    I don't want to get all bogged down with defending my attitude in
    the last reply. The subject ticks me off a little, and if I offended
    anyone here, I apologize.
    
    Let me explain my point. The controversy over copy protection is
    very similar to what is going on in the software domain. Manufacturers
    introduce inferior quality product by using copy protection and
    justify this by saying that piracy costs would be passed on to the
    consumer. Using this argument, then, isn't it the consumer's choice
    whether or not to pay an extra 20% or so for "intellectual" property
    that isn't copy protected? There are several examples of products
    that better quality and are not copy protected that sell for less
    because there is little incentive for piracy.
    
    Preventing the sale of DAT recorders on the grounds that it will
    encourage piracy is clearly unconsitutional. It is in fact stealing
    someone else's "intellectual" property in order to defend one's
    own. How about the years spent developing the DAT technology, and
    the massive investment that is prevented from seeing a return? If
    the incorporate a copy protection scheme, how about the loss in
    quality? How about the loss in reliability ( what happens if I attempt
    to record my own music that doesn't happen to have enough activity
    in the notch band )? This whole mentality is seriously flawed.
    
    I am willing to bet that if they just get on with it, sales will
    be fine, and the price will even go down. Pirating with DAT will
    be less than what it is currently with cassettes ( Surely you've
    seen those high speed "dub" decks? ). Now, it would be crazy to
    suggest that piracy wouldn't happen without copy protection, it
    would be equally crazy to say that it wouldn't happen with copy
    protection ( the tradeoff appears to be quality vs. security ).
    The level of piracy is going to vary much more directly with the
    price of the product. Maybe they still haven't figured it out.
    
    My main point is that they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
    The honest consumer ends up with inferior quality, and the dishonest
    consumer has only a minor obstacle. The artist and the consumer
    both lose out because the material just isn't being heard.
    
    						John.

    re .1 - your analogy with gun control is flawed; automobiles must
    be registered before they can be driven.  All most gun control
    proponents want is that guns be registered, specifically so that
    obvious defectives not be allowed to purchase them (any more than
    obvious defectives are allowed to drive); not that they be outlawed
    in general.  Furthermore, it should be obvious that guns are designed
    to kill, while automobiles are designed to provide transportation.
    And gun buffs, spare me the "target shooting" argument.  You can
    still shoot registered guns at targets.  And when the Commies invade
    America, they'll be more likely to confiscate our typewriters, copying
    machines (and DAT recorders?) and PCs than our guns.
    
    re the subject in general:
    
    I'm glad the NBS report exposes copycode for the hack it is.  I
    believe the intellectual bankruptcy of the RIAA's position can be
    most easily exposed by using some simple analogies with photocopying
    technology.  Copycode is like *requiring* (*by law*!) copying machines
    and copyrighted documents to employ technology that makes it impossible
    to copy such documents.  While publishers (especially magazine
    publishers; copying books is impractical with today's technology)
    might relish such legislation, I'm sure copier manufacturers would
    protest vigorously.  Some proposals have been made for paper
    that fluoresces under the illuminants used in copying machines,
    and printing copyrighted works on such paper.  So much for the fair
    use provisions of the copyright law.  One can also imagine a situation
    where for economic reasons, untreated paper becomes increasingly
    difficult to procure, rendering it difficult to copy one's own
    works.
    
    The "one copy" notion is a little more palatable, but I don't see
    why I should be limited to making one copy of a tune for my own
    use.  (E.g., suppose I want to copy a tune onto two or three different
    compilation tapes, one for partying, one for use in the car, etc.)
    
    Then there's the tax on blank tape.  That's like taxing blank copier
    paper on the assumption that most copying deprives copyright owners
    of their royalties.  Right.
    
    I'm a tad sympathetic to the concerns about piracy, but as always
    the best way to deal with this problem is to vigorously enforce
    existing laws.  If the laws are unenforceable (i.e., if it's nickel
    and dime copying by teenieboppers rather than wholesale bootlegging
    by professional pirates that's depriving the artists of royalties,
    which I find hard to accept), then they might as well be dropped.
    Trying to apply a technological fix that penalizes legitimate users
    of the technology in order to stop abuse by a few defectives is
    bad law.  We could solve the "gun problem" once and for all by requiring
    that guns don't shoot.  Or how about a tax on bullets that is used
    to compensate shooting victims?
    
    The record companies made the same arguments about cassettes.  They
    were wrong, and not only that, cassettes have turned out to be an
    important prerecorded medium.  The movie industry tried the same
    thing to stop VCRs.  What we have here is a powerful lobby looking
    for free money.  It's easier to take money from blank tape and recorder
    buyers than it is to produce a good product at an attractive and
    competitive price.
    
    The record companies don't care about artist royalties; the blank
    tape tax will go to megasellers like Michael Jackson and Bruce
    Springsteen, people who are not exactly hurting for royalties and
    are probably not being copied extensively.  It's the low volume
    artists who'll be screwed - they're too small to be noticed by
    the accounting technology and they're more likely to be copied because
    of limited distribution and availability.
     
         
    len.              
    

    >    Preventing the sale of DAT recorders on the grounds that it will
    >encourage piracy is clearly unconsitutional.
    
    No, it isn't. Like it or not, there are laws which are designed
    to prevent certain legal acts which could lead to illegal activity.
    Case 1:
    
    Encryption of data is routine when communicating over leased channels.
    There are no restrictions on encryption complexity within the US.
    When you communicate over international boarders, however, the law
    says that thou shall not encrypt using a key length greater than
    32 bits. This renders DES useless for international traffic. The
    government is assuming that, if unregulated, we would be smuggling
    national secrets out of the country faster than the NSA could de-crypt
    them. The government is assuming that, if givern the opportunity, the
    people would break the law.
    
    Case 2:
    
    Posession of a gun silencer is against the law in the US. In England
    it is legal for hunting purposes. The US Government is assuming
    the the silencer will be use to kill people, not to make the local
    rifle range quiet. We are denied access to these devices because
    the government feels it will encourage illegal activity.
    
    Case 3:
    
    The sale of Waterpipes or 'Bongs' is illegal in some states, because
    the local government feels that they will encourage the use of illegal
    narcotics. Again, the government is assuming the worst within its
    people. Leave us not forget that it is possible to smoke tobacco
    with these things. 
    
    All these laws have stood the test of constitutionality. The law
    books are loaded with examples of the doctrine: 'If given the
    opportunity the common person will break the law'. A legal person
    could fill in more details, my fiancee does the law work, I just
    listen.
    
    The legal issues are important to address. I feel we have a right
    to a good home studio. The government may ban the sale of DATs,
    and tell you, "If you want it bad enough, go shell out 60-100K dollars
    (or whatever they cost) for a SONY PCM-16xx professional digital
    recorder"
    
    I'd be amazed if RIAA lets DAT live. Where can you buy a double
    VCR deck in the US?? The answer is 'anywhere' in most other countries
    around the world.
    
    dp

    
    I agree with len that the low volume artists are the ones who are
    going to get banged.  If I desperately need a copy of "Thriller",
    I can go to the store.  If I need a copy of "The Raisins", I am
    going to have to either special order a copy, or bum one off of
    my friend.
    
    DAT tapes will still probably get eaten by car DATdecks, but CDs
    will stay around longer than taxes.
    
    A new question arises since the media manufactures are now coming
    out with a 3" CD.  I don't know if it is a single, or what.  I also
    don't know if it will fit in my machine.
    
>>>      And when the Commies invade
>>>    America, they'll be more likely to confiscate our typewriters, copying
>>>    machines (and DAT recorders?) and PCs than our guns.
    
    
    It won't be the Commies, it will be the Japanese.  Remember that
    when you're playing your Roland through your SPX90 and recording
    it on your Sony DAT deck.
    
    Ashley in Smogland

    The 3" CDs will play in ordinary players, with the use of a plastic
    ring that snaps on the out side.  Reminds me of those big-hole 45s.
    Zappa has 3" CD currently availible.
    
    I don't know what the maximum capacity is.
    
    Steph

    The constitutionality of keeping DAT's off the market is not the
    question, nor the main issue. It is the matter of DAT providing
    the means to violate the "artist's" rights. You can't have it both
    ways, you either violate the rights of the people who have developed
    DAT, or you allow the rights of artists to be potentially violated
    to some extent. My main contention is that the artist has little
    to lose from DAT, that any perceived cost is passed on to the consumer
    anyway, and I expect the price would actually go down.
    
    The only ones who stand to lose something are the ones in power,
    and that is what this whole mess is actually about. If I were an
    artist, my priorities would be:
    
    1) Have a copy of my material.
    2) Pay for it.
    
    For the people in power, it is the other way around. The two are
    not mutually exclusive, it is only a matter of priority. The record
    executives have little to lose, either, since: " The cost is passed
    on to the consumer ".
    
    						John.

    re: .5
    
>    re .1 - your analogy with gun control is flawed;
    
    I don't see how.  
    
    My point is that if you argue that you can't regulate cars or DAT
    for their potential illegal uses, I don't see how you can argue
    that guns can be regulated.
    
    Would you support regulating DAT in the way that cars and guns
    are regulated?
    
>    I'm a tad sympathetic to the concerns about piracy, but as always
>    the best way to deal with this problem is to vigorously enforce
>    existing laws.  If the laws are unenforceable (i.e., if it's nickel
>    and dime copying by teenieboppers rather than wholesale bootlegging
>    by professional pirates that's depriving the artists of royalties,
    
    Len, you've got it exactly reversed.  According to what I've read,
    the lost revenue from professional bootleggers doesn't amount even
    to nickels and dimes.  It's pennies at most.  They already
    have ways to make high quality tape copies and NO copy protection
    scheme is gonna stop them and the RIAA knows that.
    
    What I've read has said that the major loss comes from the casual
    pirating that nearly ALL of us do: borrowing albums from friends
    and taping them.  Compare the number of so-"borrowed" recordings  you
    have seen with the number of "bootleg" copies you might imagine there
    to be.  Is it even close?
    
    If I came to your house, how many of these types of pirated recordings
    would I find compared with the number of professional bootlegs?
    
    And let's not forget the context here.  The context is fear of the
    ability to make CD-quality copies.  Have you seen many "bootleg"
    CDs?  I haven't seen any.  
    
    While I don't support the copycode method, I definitely do support the
    idea of using regulation to protect artists royalties, which you've
    clearly stated you do not.
    
    My feeling is that artists already have too many things working against
    them.  It's already far too easy to steal their bread and butter, and
    our society has seemingly casually condoned that.  I am amazed at
    the apathetic attitude exhibited even by non-professional musicians
    such as Commusic and Music noters.
    
    At least once a week I have to delete "clearing house" notes
    in MUSIC that propose exchanges of recordings, sheet music, etc.
    
    I believe that in art, you get what you pay for, and if you don't pay
    for it, you don't get it.
    
    	db

    < Note 1288.10 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "The height of MIDIocrity" >
                  -< We've touched on one of my hot buttons >-
>    If I came to your house, how many of these types of pirated recordings
>    would I find compared with the number of professional bootlegs?
 
    0 zero null none 
    of either
    it's against the law
    Tom

    
    Likewise, there is nothing at my place that is outside of the
    US Copyright statutes; "fair-use doctrine" jurisprudence included.
                       
    This is not to say that you won't find any copies of anything.
    It _is_ to say that such copies are either issue of the copyright
    holder, or a legitimate copy made under fair-use doctrine provisions
    in the copyright law.
    
    If we want to argue about fair-use-doctrine, etc. that's another
    matter altogether.  (and one not-very-germane to this NOTESfile)

    
    Same here.   Anything you see on tape in my collection has a
    corresponding CD on the shelf somewhere... but the tape may
    not have been from *that* CD.  Sure, I have made copies of discs
    I didn't own, but shortly after that (usually within a week) I either
    had the CD or erased the tape.  (with the prices of CD's, it's a
    good idea to listen to what you're getting before you buy it.
    Musicians are entitled to their royalties, but I'd like the chance
    to decide *before* I buy if I like the quality of their product...)
    
    To change the subject a little:  The PC industry is starting to
    get 'hot' about DATs for data storage.  Would DATs make good media
    to store samples or sequences?  The way the media talks about it,
    you'd think CD roms were in trouble... but I didn't think DATs had
    the random access features CD's have...
    
    /Mitch.
    
    

    Look I know that there are angels among us.  You are also unlikely to
    find any pirated tapes in my collection either.  I say unlikely
    because I will make copies from friends to evaluate whether the
    record is worth buying for me, but if it's not I recycle the tape.
    
    But can any of you claim that you don't know anyone who does this?
    
    Can any of you claim that based on what you've seen, private pirating
    is "nickel and dimes" compared to professional pirating?  That is,
    you've seen far more professional bootleg copies than personal
    copies.
    
    See, that's my point.
    
    	db

    >< Note 1288.14 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "The height of MIDIocrity" >
>                        -< Let's not deny the obvious >-
>
>    Look I know that there are angels among us.  You are also unlikely to
>    find any pirated tapes in my collection either.  I say unlikely
>    because I will make copies from friends to evaluate whether the
>    record is worth buying for me, but if it's not I recycle the tape.
>    
>    But can any of you claim that you don't know anyone who does this?
    You're the only person I know who does this.
    >    
>    Can any of you claim that based on what you've seen, private pirating
>    is "nickel and dimes" compared to professional pirating?  That is,
>    you've seen far more professional bootleg copies than personal
>    copies.
>    
>    See, that's my point.
>    
>    	db
>

                                                Tom

    Tom,
    
    > You're the only one here
    
    If you're concluding this from this note, I might question your
    sample as being biased.
    
    Who is gonna say "yeah, I pirate tapes" after such admonition?
    
    If you want evidence of how widespread it is, I suggest you look
    in the old version of MUSIC at the tape tax note.  People were willing
    to admit it there before the fallacies of such excuses as "well, I
    wasn't going to buy it anyway" were demonstrated.
    
    Or if you like, I will forward to you every note I delete that proposes
    an exchange that proposes an exchange that violates copyright laws.
    
    Don't stick your head in the sand.
    
    	db

    Also Tom,
    
    Probably anyone in here who's played in a cover band has violated
    copyright laws.
    
    	db

    How about if we just calm down abit. I think Dave's point is valid. I
    happen to aproach the issue from a different point of view, so I
    disagree with him, but lets cut him a little slack.
    
    pcv

    re .10	OK, I'm guilty as charged.  I don't really know what
    makes me do it.  It may be some combination of:-
    
    a)	Insensitivity, since I've never tried to earn a living from
    	music.
    b)	Resentment at the recording companies' profits.
    c)	What I observe to be common practice, especially since the advent
    	of tape cassettes, of course the double decks with the double speed
    	Dupe'ing FEATURE actually encourage me.
    d)	I like to share music I like with people I like.  If someone
    	hears a CD that I have and comments on it favorably, my first
    	reaction is,  "I'll make you a tape if you like ?",  vs  "It
    	only cost me $xx.yy at Lechmere's, they had a whole bunch of
	'em last week."
    
	None of this is defensible, I'm thinking about changing my ways.
    
    	I would guess I am in a majority, as db says, and this is where
    the fears are founded.  For this kind of  "casual abuse"  copying
    I doubt that copycodes and such would be effective, cassette quality
    is plenty good enough, especially for the transient pop stuff.
    
    	Reg
    

    Well, my goodness.
    
    re .10 re .5 re .1:  Your analogy with gun control remains flawed.
    I have no problems registering my DAT recorder.  It seems a singularly
    futile gesture.  A proper analogy would be for *you* to call for,
    rather than just registration and licensing of guns, a tax on guns
    and ammunition, to be used to compensate the victims of violent crime,
    and the development of technologies that would prevent guns from being
    fired at people, except perhaps by professionals (e.g., police officers). 
                                                                        
    So, yes, I suppose I could tolerate DAT recorders regulated the same
    ways cars and guns are regulated (i.e., registration of ownership
    and licensing for use), although we do it for cars and guns because
    of the possibility of accidental (as well as deliberate) destruction
    of life and property, not because of the possible denial of royalties.
    
    It's a little hard for me to imagine the Copyright Police banging
    on my door and demanding to see my recording license, though...
    (Recording blocks set up after the release of new records with
    spot checks at major private residences?)
    
    I'm also not likely to kill or maim anybody with a DAT recorder,
    even if I'm stupid enough to throw it at them, or if I operate it
    while intoxicated.  I'm also not likely to walk into a bank and
    hand the teller a note saying "Give me all your cash, this recorder
    is loaded and ready to deny to you royalties".
    
    And I for one *DO NOT* copy recordings I do not own, and I do not
    copy my recordings for friends, except in the very few cases where
    the material in question was no longer available.  I have no qualms
    about the latter, as I cannot deny royalties to anyone by copying
    material that can't be bought.  I do in fact say, "you can buy it
    at Thus and Such for $SoMany.95".  And sometimes people grumble
    "f**king moralist".  I treat software the same way - when I gave
    the guys at EUW a copy of the MRB-500 librarian so they could check
    it on their Super Jupiter, I explicitly warned them "If you use
    this for anything other than testing the interaction with the Jupiter,
    which you are doing as my dealer, then you have bootlegged this
    software".  Their response: "You're a real professional, aren't
    you."
    
    Finally, the proposed mechanisms for doling out royalties from either
    at DAT recorder tax, a tape tax, or registration fees (a tax) will
    not have the effect you desire.  It will result in money going to
    the most popular artists, which may have only the most tenuous
    relationship to those whose material is being bootlegged.
       
    The argument that it is one off copying that is "killing" the recording
    industry comes from, guess where, the recording industry.  Of course
    they're going to argue this.  Who's going to bother to try to prove
    otherwise.  But you take the wind out of your own sails by saying
    that professional bootleggers can make copies no matter what protection
    scheme is developed.  Why would they bother if there wasn't more
    than "pennies" in it?  And yes, I've seen and heard about far more
    "professional" bootlegs than I have "borrowed" copies.  Maybe I
    don't hang around with enough teenieboppers, but it's getting
    increasingly difficult at my age.
    
    My attitude is not apathetic.  I just don't want to be charged for
    other people's lack of ethics.  I already am by the IRS - I pay
    all my taxes, and I am routinely characterized as a fool.  So be
    it.  And I especially don't want to have new technology hobbled
    or denied to me because of somebody else's (the recording industry
    and bootleggers) greed.   If kids can make CD quality copies
    cheaper than they can buy them, why can't the recording industry?
    
    len.                                                        

    
    
    I agree with db.  I know tons of people who trade albums to
    tape them.  I don't do this myself, if I want an artist work,
    I'd rather spend a couple of bucks extra and get the album
    instead of buying a blank tape and copying it.
    
    On the other hand, I have a small collection of bootleg records
    (no flames please) and seeing how hard these have been to find,
    I can't see how they can have as big an impact as the millions
    of 'home pirates' out there.  As a matter of fact, of all the
    people I know who tape albums, I'm the only one I know who
    collects bootlegs.  Just in my circle of friends, alot more
    royalty money has been lost from constant home taping than
    from my occasional purchase of a bootleg record (not that I'm
    trying to justify it, I know its wrong, but hey, I'm not an angel
    either!!)
    
    Ralph
    
    

   Sure I want to copy CDs -- my CDs to play in my car where I don't want to 
   put an expensive CD player to get jostled to you know where on New England
   back roads.

   I wonder how much illegal copying of CDs onto DAT will hurt the recording
   industry.  I would much prefer forking out money for a CD than a DAT
   to play, as a tape is much easier detroyed, doesn't have random access,
   'shuffle play', etc. etc. etc.  Plus, the future holds great things for
   CDs with video clips on them, data, etc. in the currently reserved
   unused space on a CD.

   DAT and CD should go hand in hand, not one or the other.

   Chad

re Dave, len..
>And yes, I've seen and heard about far more
>"professional" bootlegs than I have "borrowed" copies.  
    
    Hey, if it's really a 'pro' bootleg, i.e. clean audio, well-reproduced
    cover, etc., HOW DO YOU KNOW ???  Home tapers are an easy target...
    the hand-lettered covers are a dead giveaway.

karl    

    
    I'd like to make one point.  Aren't there actually some advantages
    for the artists when people share and copy albums or CDs.  I mean,
    for instance, I once copied an album off the radio and fell in love
    with the band.  Since then, I have bought two albums by that band.
    
    If I hadn't made the original copy, I probably wouldn't have known
    about the band and they wouldn't have received *any* money from
    me.
    
    Same goes for books.  Imagine a friend of yours is talking about a book
    she read and she says, "Here, why don't you borrow it and read it?" Are
    you stealing money from the author by not buying it yourself. I say no,
    because if you like it, there's a good chance you'll probably buy the
    next book put out by that author and tell other people how good a book
    it was.  It's kind of like free advertising, I suppose. 
    
    Isn't that a valid use of copying: to spread the good word about
    an artist?  Or is *my* argument flawed?
    
    Peter

    The Copyright Law is not the BorrowRight Law.  Borrowing books isn't
    covered, as far as my habits are concerned.  However, no one who
    wants to keep their books loans them out.
    In my own practice, I take the law to mean that I , TOm, may record
    off the radio with my tape on my deck from my radio to listen to
    with my ears.  That's no problem for me.  Maybe I misinterpret.
                                             I agree that
    publicity is publicity and plublicity helps sales.  
    But why put yourself at legal risk to publicize Warner Bros?
    Tom

    re: .20
    
    
    > A proper analogy would be for *you* to call for,
>     rather than just registration and licensing of guns, a tax on guns
>     and ammunition, to be used to compensate the victims of violent crime,
>     and the development of technologies that would prevent guns from being
>     fired at people, except perhaps by professionals (e.g., police officers). 
    
    OK, have it your way.  
    
    An analogy that almost exactly fits your description is mandated 
    emission control requirements in cars.  The analogy seems perfect.  
    
    	o Both are technologies that were invented to prevent socially 
    	  undesirable events (pollution and pirating) 
    
    	o Both increase cost 
    
    	o Both degrade performance
    
    	o Both are ineffective at preventing someone from deliberately
    	  by-passing them.
    
>   although we do it for cars and guns because
>    of the possibility of accidental (as well as deliberate) destruction
>    of life and property, not because of the possible denial of royalties.
    
    The "possible denialty of royalties" might have more impact if
    described as "theft".   You might feel it was a little more deserved
    if it kept people from robbing your pay on the way back from the bank.
    
    If you were to lobby for such a device a device, I wonder how you'd
    react to a counter argument that you make enough money already.
    
    >The argument that it is one off copying that is "killing" the recording
>    industry comes from, guess where, the recording industry.  Of course
>    they're going to argue this. 
    
    This is a damned if you aren't, damned if you are argument.
    
>    But you take the wind out of your own sails by saying
>    that professional bootleggers can make copies no matter what protection
>    scheme is developed.  Why would they bother if there wasn't more
>    than "pennies" in it?  
    
    As I've said, copycode was not intended to stop professional
    bootleggers and thus it clearly doesn't take the wind out of any sail
    that the recording industry ever hoisted.
    
    >And yes, I've seen and heard about far more
>    "professional" bootlegs than I have "borrowed" copies.  
    
    Based on my experience, I would call this highly unusual.

    	db

    BTW, I appreciate the "let's calm down" sentiment expressed, but it is
    my impression that we are simply having a rational discussion.  I have
    NOT sensed that anyone is angry at me, and I am certainly not angry at
    anyone who has participated.
    
    I think as long as we continue along these lines, the discussion will
    valuable, educational, and interesting.  Exchanges of differing views
    always are.
    
    Although issues surrounding DAT are of course extremely important to
    Commusic noters, this may not be appropriate for this conference.
    If the moderator so thinks, we should move this to MUSIC.
    
    	db

    re: .24
    
    Peter,
    
    Without doubt, pirating can have advantages as you've noted. 
    Personally, I would suspect that the general opinion of the recording
    industry is that the revenue gained from it pales in comparison with
    the revenue lost.  And frankly, that seems intuitive to me no one
    will ever be able to back that up with real data.
    
    So I think the answer is, yes there are some benefits, but they are
    overshadowed by the disadvantages.
    
    	db

There are four flavors of copying, each with a different degree
(as I see it) of moral culpability.

"I own it, but made a tape for the car" is straight fair use.
Party tapes or compilations belong here, and demos for your
cover band are pretty close.

"I borrowed it from a friend" is technically illegal.  There is
some room for rationalization, however.  "Out of print" seems
OK to me.  "Testing an unfamiliar group" is almost OK.  Like a
previous reply, if I like it I *ALWAYS* buy the record or CD
because they simply sound better than a tape.  "Tapes are only
$3 and you can fit an album on each side!!" is pure, simple theft.

"A Clash bootleg from Chicago '78" is OK to a point.  The artist
*SHOULD* get royalties (and many bootleg companies provide them).
The record companies can squawk, but I feel no pity.  Anybody who
spends $25 for a bad pressing of a walkman recording surely already
owns everything the record company has deigned to supply by that artist.
Grateful Dead tapes are a well known, hopelessly non-commercial, example.

"Counterfeits" aren't much of a problem in the US (although I recall
something with ELO and Heart albums), but the third-world is *SWIMMING*
in them.  Several Southeast-Asian and African countries have no
copyright laws and a LARGE fraction of the tapes in these areas are
fakes.  I assume (not sure) the same is true of the eastern bloc.

Now look back over the list while thinking about DAT and copyguard.
You can't make car tapes (fair use).  Sample-borrowing would survive,
but you're stuck with cassette.  Since DAT decks and tapes are FAR
more than $3, the boombox thieves won't even care.  Bootlegs won't
be affected at all.  Counterfeiters customers' can't afford DAT.

So the honest (fair use) or almost-honest folks are affected.  Boombox
thieves, (nice) bootleggers and counterfeiters aren't touched.  Some law.

    "I borrowed it from a friend" _is_ technically legal.
    
    Fair Use Doctrine (as interpreted by various courts) implies that if
    you manage to legally get your hands on something, you may copy it for
    your own personal use.  You can't sell or publically display your copy,
    but you have the right to own and use that copy for your personal use
    forever. 
    
    The "FBI WARNING" on VCR tapes, etc. is vacuous as long as you aren't
    in the business of making and selling bootlegs or running a video movie
    theatre (pay entry).  It's quite legal to rent a tape for your Saturday
    evening _private_ video party (not paid entry).  You note that the
    warnings do NOT tell you the law, they just have a badge and the
    words FBI in big block letters, and then refer you to some obtuse
    part of the copyright law.  It's not to their advantage to tell
    you your rights under that law.
             
    (Consider: why do libraries have photocopy machines?  Even the Library
    of Congress, an integral part of the U.S. Copyright System, has coin-op
    copiers available.  Ask your local library what limit they put on their
    photocopying.  It's unusually simple for legalese: "We don't copy for
    other than personal use.  You can't sell our copies, and we won't make
    copies for you if we think you're going to sell them.") 
               
    Re: Cover Bands:  Cover bands can play anything they want: BUT they
    cannot charge admission to see their covers performed!  So, technically
    cover bands cannot play covers in a venue that charges a cover charge!
    :-)  (but see BMI and ASCAP for permission to publically perform or
    display such works, also "legal" fake books that include fee performance
    licenses for all the works in the book).  Again, the difference is
    between private use and public sale.  Fair Use allows one and disallows
    the other. 
                          
    Cover Demo Tapes:  again, as long as they aren't performed in public
    for fee, nor sold, they are fair use.  Buying sheet music carries an
    implied license to play said music privately.  It's definitely private
    if you don't admit the public and don't charge a fee (it doesn't matter
    if it's live performance, sequenced, or taped).  SELLING your cover
    demo tape is on very shaky ground. 
            
    Plays and other live theatrical works:  This is where it gets weird.
    There's some question as to whether a play can be performed in public
    for free admission.  I recollect that it can, but I don't recall
    it well enough to be sure.
            
                               
    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in notesfiles.  :-)

    according to my copy of post-1976 law This Business of Music,
    (cf. index under "performance fee"), although the old law allowed
    non-profit no-charge performances of all types, the 1976 law allows
    only church services and in-class teaching to perform protected
    stuff without a fee.
    
    If you can't borrow things, libraries will have to be closed. 
    Now that's something publishers could get into!
    ;-)
    Tom

    How recent is your copy?
    	
    Some other stuff changed in '84 (new copyright law- AGAIN!) 
    
    (what a mess!)                                              
    
    I guess it's pretty clear that the lawyers are the ones who make
    the laws...  :-%
    
    	-Bill

    
    
    	once upon a time, ascap and bmi collected their fee's from the
    club owner and never from the performer. Cover bands are not exactly
    a phenom of the 60's. The only case i can think of where a cover
    band MAY be liable is a "concert"...
    
    	And thanx len - every spring as i get my wife to sign old 1040,
    and get called (in usually less polite terms) fool, that there's
    another one out there...
    
    					bs