Lending CD's and records.

[MrGongGong]

Stick to downloads and you can share and be generous, without losing another CD.

Run the bath for me wont you. I'll be round in a bit for a soak as it seems that its ok to "share and be generous" with other peoples stuff !

[teamsaint]

Run the bath for me wont you. I'll be round in a bit for a soak as it seems that its ok to "share and be generous" with other peoples stuff !

oh dear, I feel a difficult and antagonistic thread coming on!!

[Panjandrum]

Run the bath for me wont you. I'll be round in a bit for a soak as it seems that its ok to "share and be generous" with other peoples stuff !

Never mind Gong if you can't afford a bath, I'm sure we'll have a whip round for you!

[amateur51]

As Alpie says, copying a CD is illegal, and I have never done it, either. Several times.

[EdgeleyRob]

...and those wonderful prog rock gatefold sleeves - In the Court of the Crimson King -was there ever a better one!

Yes, Yes Relayer

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=755646

[cloughie]

I think R3 Forum members copying the odd CD is pretty low down the list of worries for the industry.

not always against the artists interests, either, as the copy i give you might spark you to buy more.

you can argue these things any way you like.The sophistry used by the free downloaders is amazing.

The legal position notwithstanding, I think it would be quite ungracious to prosecute us, after all we've kept the industry going for years.

[Flosshilde]

you can argue these things any way you like.The sophistry used by the free downloaders is amazing.

But it's still illegal.

not always against the artists interests, either, as the copy i give you might spark you to buy more.

Ask the artists, who have been as vigorous in prosecuting for copyright infringement as the record companies. Theft of intelectulal property is always against the artists' interests.

[Bryn]

But it's still illegal.




Ask the artists, who have been as vigorous in prosecuting for copyright infringement as the record companies. Theft of intelectulal property is always against the artists' interests.

Tell that to those artists who actively encourage free downloading of at least some of their work.

[cloughie]

Tell that to those argsts who actively encourage free downloading of at least some of their work.

And they're probably the ones that have been exploited by their, often former, record companies.

[teamsaint]

But it's still illegal.




Ask the artists, who have been as vigorous in prosecuting for copyright infringement as the record companies. Theft of intelectulal property is always against the artists' interests.

i knew there was a difficult and antagonistic thread coming along !!

I am by no means certain that artists are always vigorous in these matters. Many artists have accepted that there are new business models for their music, which don't always include royalties from cd sales.

i absolutely don't agree with theft from artists of their intellectual property, and regularly argue this with younger people, who frankly take free downloads as a right, and have some very persuasive advocates on their side.

but as I said, I certainly don't feel the remotest guilt about, say, copying a CD to give to somebody, in order to engage that person with an artist, whom they might otherwise not connect with. It really can be in the artists longer term interest, though I accept that it may not be on every occasion.

[cloughie]

i knew there was a difficult and antagonistic thread coming along !!

I am by no means certain that artists are always vigorous in these matters. Many artists have accepted that there are new business models for their music, which don't always include royalties from cd sales.

i absolutely don't agree with theft from artists of their intellectual property, and regularly argue this with younger people, who frankly take free downloads as a right, and have some very persuasive advocates on their side.
but as I said, I certainly don't feel the remotest guilt about, say, copying a CD to give to somebody, in order to engage that person with an artist, whom they might otherwise not connect with. It really can be in the artists longer term interest, though I accept that it may not be on every occasion.

I think many of us may possibly supplement a fairly large collection with the odd 'borrow/copy' but many young downloaders' entire musical collection is freeloaded mp3. We have paid for our obsession over a lifetime. ....was taping the top 20, 50 years ago the free downloading of today, had it been available then would I have done it ... my guess is probably!

[Serial_Apologist]

My record (pun unintended) of lending out albums has to be for Stevie Wonder's "Innervisions". My last copy was my fifth!

For me the problem has always been not remembering to whom I have lent stuff - the sheer embarrassment of asking: "Do you remember me lending you that Keith Tippett album, 3 years ago?" The answer's always, "No!"

[Bryn]

And they're probably the ones that have been exploited by their, often former, record companies.

Those I was thinking of have no particular connection with record companies, though they do sometimes 'self-publish' recordings of their work, which recording they encourage listeners to either purchase, or sometimes download without a fee. Making low resolution data compressed versions of recording which may be purchased at significantly higher resolution can be a useful way of encouraging sales, too. The thrust of mentioning such matters is that there is no universal absolute here. Some artists protect their intellectual property vigorously. Others have a more flexible approach. Some even take a Proudhonist approach and regard all property, including intellectual property, as theft, (I do not kid).

[Flosshilde]

Those I was thinking of have no particular connection with record companies, though they do sometimes 'self-publish' recordings of their work, which recording they encourage listeners to either purchase, or sometimes download without a fee. Making low resolution data compressed versions of recording which may be purchased at significantly higher resolution can be a useful way of encouraging sales, too. The thrust of mentioning such matters is that there is no universal absolute here. Some artists protect their intellectual property vigorously. Others have a more flexible approach. Some even take a Proudhonist approach and regard all property, including intellectual property, as theft, (I do not kid).

There are undoubtedly artists making their work available for free, but I also have no doubt that most of the music 'shared' & downloaded for free is subject to copyright. Ceretainly music that is sold mainly on CD, or sold as dowloadable files, which is what people are talking about on this thread, should not be copied & shared.

[Bryn]

There are undoubtedly artists making their work available for free, but I also have no doubt that most of the music 'shared' & downloaded for free is subject to copyright. Ceretainly music that is sold mainly on CD, or sold as dowloadable files, which is what people are talking about on this thread, should not be copied & shared.

All well and good, but what I was immediately responding to was your misleading assertion that "Theft of intelectulal[sic] property is always against the artists' interests." By and large, yes, but not "always".