Removing instruments fromk backing tracks - Crazy technical idea floating...

" I'm rather bitter about this and it makes me feel like the rules and laws are in place more for monetary reasons (i.e. fleecing me) than fairness." - Dewster

A licence which is transferrable to other media would be ideal - but it isnt workable.. The cost and complexity of, for example, sending your compact cassette back in exchange for a CD would be more expensive than the normal retail price for a CD.

And heres the dillema - I can copy all my CD's onto a HDD or even my Sansa player (a few SD cards) - I have a mountain of CD's I no longer need - I can sell these on ebay at probably 1/3rd of what I paid for them... The purchaser/s can do the same as I did, and record the CD's onto whatever they want, and re-sell their CD's (probably with no loss as they bought the CD 2nd hand) ... These CD's can circulate endlessly..

When looking to buy a CD, most sites (Amazon etc) give me the option to buy from several sellers - some selling 2nd hand "as new" CD's at a fraction of the new price - And I buy these rather than a new CD.... This is fine and "fair" IF the work has not been copied - But if (as is most likely) at least one person has recorded the CD to other media, and is using it - well - lets just say that I can see justifiable reason for the copyright holders to be a bit peeved.

Fred.

I think copyright laws are necessary, but the current copyright laws are excessive in many respects.

For example, why should it be forbidden to publish a cover of a song on Youtube, without making any profit (i.e. with Youtube paid ads turned off)? This doesn't harm the artist in any way. In fact, often it's the opposite, it's free publicity (apart from being an act of admiration towards the artist, and not theft). It wouldn't be the first time that I know a song by listening to a cover on Youtube, I like it and go buy the original.

I also don't agree with the duration of copyright terms extending beyond the author's life. In any other job, the children inherit the savings of the parent, but if they want to earn more money, they have to work. That's the normal way things work and I don't see why the children of authors should have a special privilege. Of course, in most of the cases it's not really the children of authors but a big corporation, which makes it even worse.

In theory, copyright should encourage people to create new things. In practice, with excessive copyright laws, that is not the case because the corporations are better off sitting on top of old franchises than risking to support new artists.

"If I buy a CD or DVD that was just released and discover that it's a dog (a band that I like cashes in on previous success and produces a dud, a director that I like cashes in on previous success and produces a dud, an actor that I like...) I should be free to resell it and recoup at least some of my loss" - Dewster

Yeah - Agreed! - Its a bit like "distance selling" where one does not have the ability to examine the product, and one therefore (at least in the U.K.) has more right to return it if you dont like it.

Back in the '60s and '70s,  one could go into a music store and listen to an album with headphones before deciding to purchase - these days one has, at best, a few minutes of MP3 on line to listen to.. unless one finds an "illegal" publication of the music on-line.

The irony is that the high quality and ease of recording means that a full recording placed on-line can be 'ripped' so there is no incentive for people to buy an album if it is downloadable for free.. Back in the old days, pirate radio stations were hounded by copyright enforcers, when, in fact, they were doing the music industry a great service - Most of the albums I bought were the result of having heard them on a pirate station (I was living in South Africa, so the closest "pirate" was in Lorenso Marks [Mosambique] on SW).. These broadcasts let me hear music not available in the stores in SA, and enabled me to request albums which would otherwise never have got into the shops...... But..... If I had been able to record these broadcasts in high quality (not possible from AM broadcasts! ;-) I wonder if I would have bought them - to be honest, probably not!

Fred.

There really is only one way to make things "fair"..

Some form of COMMUNISM!

(as in, the ideal form.. Everyone contributes to the best of their ability, and eveyone shares the benefits and gets at least what they need to maintain life and wellbeing)

But we have a long way before we will have evolved to this level of sophistication - its just a dream.

fRed.

"Back in the '60s and '70s,  one could go into a music store and listen to an album with headphones before deciding to purchase - these days one has, at best, a few minutes of MP3 on line to listen to.. unless one finds an "illegal" publication of the music on-line."  - FredM

This is how I bought at least 1/2 of my music CDs.  We had a new/used music store in the town I attended college at - they had the used CDs unsealed with a couple of players & headphones in the store one could freely use.  They would even open up new CDs for you.  I'd listen to all kinds of stuff and more often than not end up buying quite a few.  Really broadened my horizons.  For a while there was a CD "club" here in NJ that would do the same, but I never joined because they wanted money for the service (and their prices were rather high and IIRC they didn't trade in used CDs).

If you haven't seen the 2009 film, THE LAST STATION, I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824758/

It has a super cast, and the story has to do with many of the things we have been discussing in this forum - the copyright to Russian author Lev Tolstoy's great work, WAR AND PEACE, which the writer wanted to leave to the Russian people. It seems Lev's wife, the Countess Sofya Tolstoya (wonderfully played by Helen Mirren), had other plans. She wanted the copyright to be left to her and the Tolstoy children.

"they had the used CDs unsealed with a couple of players & headphones in the store one could freely use.  They would even open up new CDs for you" - Dewster

Yeah, those were the days (although for me, it wasnt CD's - they hadnt been invented yet ;-)

The beauty of this method (and pirate radio) was that one could explore new music without risking great expenditure - I was able to encounter Jazz, and this led me to both trad and experimental, Pirate Radio introduced me to Weather Report, and I bought all their early albums, Pirate also introduced me to "Tales from Topographic Oceans" which is perhaps my all-time favorite album, but would probably never have discovered (Later Yes was not nearly as interesting IMO).

A way for people to be able to hear an album at home, without the ability to copy it.... Or something which makes a copy less valuable than a purchased version... Perhaps 10 seconds of "Short wave AM quality" on every track - enough to cause one to want to buy the album (if you like it) but still give you the chance to hear the album before you buy it..

"A way for people to be able to hear an album at home, without the ability to copy it.... Or something which makes a copy less valuable than a purchased version... Perhaps 10 seconds of "Short wave AM quality" on every track - enough to cause one to want to buy the album (if you like it) but still give you the chance to hear the album before you buy it.."  - FredM

Or FM radio quality entire albums, which is what I used to record sometimes as a teen when the local rock station played them at midnight. 

I can often tell if I dislike an album in a single listen, but telling whether I like it enough to want it in my collection often takes 5-10 complete listens.  Needless to say, I haven't been buying much lately.  And I haven't been downloading either, as that kind of thing leaves me a bit cold and unexcited, not the same as buying a CD with the liner and pictures and all.

The thing is..

Do the publishers REALLY want people to have access to the content before we part with our money? - I think not!

IMO, Even if there was no risk of people copying an album, the mere fact that they could listen to it and make a choice about whether they buy it, would impact the sales for a large percentage of the crap which they can shift because people fall for the advertising and hype.

It has been this way for a long time - the marketing machine working to push the acts they want to sell, and less mainstream music being sidelined until it sprung up, against all the odds to assume a "status" which gave it enough "importance" to be of interest (financially)..

This is where "pirate" radio played such a huge role (or certainly did in my life, where both the regime in SA and the market would never have imported anything "stronger" than the Carpenters - Buying a Jethro Tull Album like Aqualung was almost as despicable as joining the banned Communist party)-8

But - Reading the history of Radio Caroline, it seems that things were only a little better in the U.K. (and Europe) .. The amount of effort and expense the UK (and other, but mainly the UK) governments went to silence Caroline was astounding - Enacting laws to extend the territorial reach into the ocean where the 'pirates' were moored, making supply of goods to the vessels a criminal offense, and then even passing laws to allow boarding of "pirate radio" ships operating from international waters and registered by a foriegn nation! Piracy ?! The only real pirates were the thugs who implemented these laws!

.... All so that the government could control what people heard, and so that the music industry could be protected from the undermining effect this had on what THEY wanted to promote and sell. Nobody could make a decent copy of from any of the pirate broadcasts - but, after listening, people could choose to buy the music they really liked.

And when people can discover what they REALLY like, thats when the majority of the music industry thinks it is at greatest danger... Possibly because the Exec's dont have a musical bone in their boddies, and deep in their souls are nothing more than crooked used-car salesmen, who think that they can get more from s(l)ick advertising and cons than by providing a good product which the consumer really wants, at a fair price.

(or perhaps they know something that I probably know, but am not comfortable believing - they know that the vast majority of the population like what they are told to like.. that the majority of consumers can be programmed.. That the real game is making the programming as effective as possible - and the real threat is the de-programming effect which [particularly "subversive"] art can have on people)

Fred.

it is very disapointing that my latest release it available as illegal downloads on sharing sites... :( I spent 3 years of my life to create it and now its free for whoever wants it. Doesn't matter how many times i write and ask them to take the link down, how many times i say "my lawyer will get in touch with you"... it still pops out repeatedly. It is annoying... :(

flattering, but still frustrating.