Post by postscript on May 20, 2009 9:43:12 GMT
May 19, 2009 21:25:50 GMT @roger said:
Hi Peter,Sorry, but the CD is copyright protected. This appears on the back of the slip-in case:
FOR PROMOTIONAL USE ONLY - NOT FOR RESALE
The producers of this CD have paid the composers and publishers for the use of their music. All rights of the producer reserved. Any unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performances and broadcasting of the recorded work prohibited
The producers of this CD have paid the composers and publishers for the use of their music. All rights of the producer reserved. Any unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performances and broadcasting of the recorded work prohibited
In my experience, all promo CDs are copyright protected just the same as all other recording. I admit I don't understand it in the case of promo material but that's the way it is.
Have you though of enquiring about obtaining a back issue from a local newsagent?
Roger
Hi Roger, confusion of comment due to me being somewhat slipshod in my writing.
1. I meant that it would be technically possible to duplicate as it was unlikely to be physically protected in that sense.
2. Since it was given away 'free' no one was losing money directly and the paper wouldn't have been available to people abroad to buy.
3. In any case, i think Martin had in fact been able to acquire the number of copies required for his overseas contacts.
4. Your 'bafflement' at why promos are copy-protected is simply that under the Berne convention, or which ever convention we are now operating under, copyright exists in principle from the moment of creation and it is 'simply' a statement for those concerned about their artistes that the CD is legitimate. It would also help the argument in the event of a prosecution that such a statement had been made and was clearly there to be seen (which i hadn't!
).5. My casual reference was intended in the event of papers no longer being available since no monetary gain would have been made but even that is arguable since a paper had not been bought, so there could be a legal argument that the newspaper had lost out through nonsale of a copy!
6. The key of course, as you rightly emphasise to protect our discussions here and HWI's position with those who trust us, is that any form of copying for what ever purpose is illegal, full stop. While the purpose of copyright is to protect the creator/inventor it perversely counters availability through stifling sales to only those rich enough to buy, which leaves us with the rough ground of reasonable 'quoting' in order to promote debate/discussion.
The more one looks into this the more complex the issue becomes and in fact all that is being highlighted is what has been the norm since the 1930s. It is modern technology that has opened opportunities to the restricted few to the grossly many and it is numbers rather than principle that is causing concern and having a serious economic effect.
There is a very valid point against Youtube from the publishers' viewpoint. However the mass market of today's technology does not understand the subtleties. To them, 'I want, therefore I can have' is an inbuilt psyche. Youtube may have a sound concern in terms of the costs of administrative policing, unless any agreement puts responsibility on the publishers' to do the policing. That is an extra cost for them but for a trial period at least they could try relying on their artiste's fans being alert and advising the publishers but even then there is an additional administrative cost to the publisher to check the reference, quote it and request its elimination.
I am sure all artiste's fans want the best for their artistes and for themselves as fans. All that I did for my own interests as a student (and in fact modern technology now makes concessions for students which was not the case in my student days) has been replaced by professional recordings at least once (LPs when I could afford them and then cassette tapes, now CDs) and I am at the point when my cassettes, LPs and possibly even CDs need throwing out to be replaced by downloads. I need the space.
The key is that reasonableness prevails but will it and what do we mean by 'reasonableness'? A term lawyers would have a field day over interpreting. I don't see a problem with modern technology reading dates of births through credit cards (and a special card for the very young), therefore identifying people and being able to check age, thus allowing concessions for those under 18, or perhaps mature students and senior citizens!
Developing this further, Youtube could set up an ID via the parent to identify the child without financial transactability. Those of legal financial age will have checkable details through their credit card. That covers cost-reduction or free access for children, students and seniors. Yes, there is room for abuses but the information will be easily available to do individual random checks and follow-ups and that may well be sufficient to deter the greatest abuse. My guess is that it would greatly reduce the present level of abuse as to provide, in such savings, the leeway to pay for the administration. Once the system is seen to be fair not only will there will be a greater desire to comply but a sense of duty to expose those who don't play the game.
Just thinking out loud. Maybe admin would like to re-address this as a new thread on copyright?
Peter S.
