Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Am I illegal now?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAm I illegal now?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:19
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

VHS was an official release (it is the Denver show btw) ...  fetches HIGH prices on ebay.. or did.. before bootleggers got it....don't think it has been released  on DVD.  Not uncommon...  Traffic's 'Live at Santa Monica' has not been released on DVD either  (last time I checked at least)  Still have my 20 year old VHS copy so if it has.. I need to find it hahaha
 
Thanks! I didn't know that! I will try to track one of those VHS's down then. But I will not buy any bootleg versions. I never buy bootlegs unless they are what is sometimes called semi-official


Pat is right...  I got the dates wrong.. knew there was a rare VHS show out there... but had the Denver show in my mind,  which was discussed at some length on a Yes forum I used to be a member of.  Sorry.. old age is a bitch hahahha

have some clappies Pat

ClapClap
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:22
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

It's totally and absolutely illegal.
 
Any track or tune protected by the (P) Circle P or Phopnograph, is protected against copy of the notes plasmated in the music, and BTW, Pnoom isn't right when hesays it's protected by default, the artist or the ´producer paid for that copyright.
 
Doesn't matter if it's a bootleg never recorded, the problem is that the sequence of notes is protected by the Phonograph symbol and even in some cases the copyright symbol is not necessary.. 
 


So make up your mind.  Is it protected by default ("the copyright symbol is not necessary") or is it not?  I was under the impression that any unique work a person creates is automatically copyrighted to them (as in, by default), even if they don't pay for the copyright.


Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

And yes, it's inmoral, this artists live of that work, I believe that no person will allow his work to be shared without hs authorization.
 
Iván
 


Yes lives off the sales of unreleased bootlegs? Confused


Edited by Pnoom! - August 15 2008 at 16:24
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:25
if I may.....  the guy asked for opinions Pnoom.. and Ivan gave his and has his right to it.  Discussion on this pariticular  topic is not allowed here.. and has been closed on NUMEROUS occasions.  We've helped the OP out... let's leave it at that OK.  Let Ivan have his say... trust me.. he knows more about you on copyright law LOL
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
SouthSideoftheSky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Team

Joined: June 29 2008
Location: Close To The...
Status: Offline
Points: 1933 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:27
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by NotAProghead NotAProghead wrote:

Interesting thing.

Imagine, one person owns, for example, 10 legal albums of YES (or some other band) and several illegal copies (downloads, CD-Rs etc). Another person is indifferent to music at all, never buys, never downloads, listens only radio in his car. Who steals more from the artists?



This thread will probably get closed if we pursue this discussion but it is an interesting question.  I would say definitely the second (though I'm a bit partial - I fall into the former category much of the time)
 
Why can we not discuss this question here? This is a music forum and this issue is closely related to music. Where is the right place for such discussions if not here?
 
I would definately say that the person who "is indifferent to music at all, never buys, never downloads" is perfectly innocent., he ha obviously not stolen from anyone. While the person who has downloaded illegal abum, is clearly not innocent. The fact that he has many legal CD's is totally irrelevant to the matter in my opinion.
 
Let me take an example, the fact that I buy all my groceries in one store doesn't give me the right to steal anything from that store - not even bubblegum! I have surely benefitted this store a lot by buying a lot of stuff there, just lik I have benefitted Yes by buying a lot of albums, but it changes nothing when it comes to stealing.
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:30
discussion is promotion.... that is the rules here.  You had a question as to the legality of your download.. it was answered.  Discussing the pros and cons of the download.. the ethics.. the legality of it is not allowed and is probably in the site rules  (not that I've ever read the damn things hhahaha)
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
SouthSideoftheSky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Team

Joined: June 29 2008
Location: Close To The...
Status: Offline
Points: 1933 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:34
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

discussion is promotion.... that is the rules here.  You had a question as to the legality of your download.. it was answered.  Discussing the pros and cons of the download.. the ethics.. the legality of it is not allowed and is probably in the site rules  (not that I've ever read the damn things hhahaha)

 
Ok,  I understand. I will not pursue this issue further then. But I know I'm right Wink
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:41
hahhaha... we ALL do brother LOL

thanks.. we don't make the rules.. just live by them.. and skirt them when we can.  Discussions on that are terminated with extreme prejudice... this is a privately owned website... and they want a clean website with NO ties.. .none.. to illegal downloading for those who surf the internet looking for them. 


The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
SouthSideoftheSky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Team

Joined: June 29 2008
Location: Close To The...
Status: Offline
Points: 1933 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:44
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

hahhaha... we ALL do brother LOL

thanks.. we don't make the rules.. just live by them.. and skirt them when we can.  Discussions on that are terminated with extreme prejudice... this is a privately owned website... and they want a clean website with NO ties.. .none.. to illegal downloading for those who surf the internet looking for them. 


 
I totally agree! Because I don't want PA (my fav site Wink) to support illegal downloading in any way.
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:46
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

hahhaha... we ALL do brother LOL

thanks.. we don't make the rules.. just live by them.. and skirt them when we can.  Discussions on that are terminated with extreme prejudice... this is a privately owned website... and they want a clean website with NO ties.. .none.. to illegal downloading for those who surf the internet looking for them. 


 
I totally agree! Because I don't want PA (my fav site Wink) to support illegal downloading in any way.


Clap
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
rileydog22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:47
Yes has a pretty lenient bootleg policy.  Their view is that when they play a concert they release that night's experience to the public and that any non-officially-released, non-demo/studio/outtake material is legit to trade.  

Back to Top
SouthSideoftheSky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Team

Joined: June 29 2008
Location: Close To The...
Status: Offline
Points: 1933 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:52
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Yes has a pretty lenient bootleg policy.  Their view is that when they play a concert they release that night's experience to the public and that any non-officially-released, non-demo/studio/outtake material is legit to trade.  
 
From where have you got this info?
Back to Top
SouthSideoftheSky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Team

Joined: June 29 2008
Location: Close To The...
Status: Offline
Points: 1933 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:58
 
I'm starting a new thread on the prospects of getting an official DVD from the Union Tour released.
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 17:01
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

if I may.....  the guy asked for opinions Pnoom.. and Ivan gave his and has his right to it.  Discussion on this pariticular  topic is not allowed here.. and has been closed on NUMEROUS occasions.  We've helped the OP out... let's leave it at that OK.  Let Ivan have his say... trust me.. he knows more about you on copyright law LOL


I asked Ivan to clear something up, because first he told me I was wrong and then he said exactly what I had been implying in the statement that he said was wrong.

I'm not debating him, I'm asking him to make himself clear since his post contradicted itself.  And besides, this isn't a discussion of illegal downloading (between me and Ivan), it's a question about the nature of copyright law.


Edited by Pnoom! - August 15 2008 at 17:04
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2008 at 17:03
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

discussion is promotion.... that is the rules here.  You had a question as to the legality of your download.. it was answered.  Discussing the pros and cons of the download.. the ethics.. the legality of it is not allowed and is probably in the site rules  (not that I've ever read the damn things hhahaha)



Hmm... we recently had a good, rational discussion on whether marijuana should be legalized... any insight on how that's different from discussing illegal downloading?

Please don't take this as an attack, I'm genuinely curious.
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2008 at 04:51
Ivan, our expert on legal matter such as this, has asked me to psot the follwing as the final word here:
 
Pnoom: The copyright law is not a term for two years until the album is popular, if a lifetime term that lasts in average the life of the artist plus 70 years.
 
An artist may not want to release an album today, but has the right to release it during his life and his successors for 70 years after his death.
 
Yes, protection is automatic in most countries, but laws change,and most important, the first 25 years of intellectual property are for the producer, you can understand it in this cghhart:
 
 
  1. If you see, people from 1923 to 1989 may be in problems if they didn't copyrighted their work or didn't renewed, so the authors have to pay a copyright in order to be safe
  2. There are two dates, 95 years after the publication (If done by a producer, because he owns the first 25 years as average) and 70 years after the death of the author in case he self produced his work.
  3. After those dates, the author is entitled to release his work during his lifetime and his successors for 70 years more.

A clear case was Rick Wakeman he made a terrible contract with A&M Records, but he was young so he gave a damn. But after a couple years he had a heart attack and almost had to leave music.

Some of his best works like Criminal Record and No Earthly Connection couldn't be lreleased because A&M dodn't wanted to do it and didn't allowed Eick to release them with his money.
 
So he had to wait 25 years to release them again.
 
Why should we limit the right of the author?
 
Now comes the second problem, you make a recording don't protect it, and a couple of days before it's release, somebody sells a copy to another artist.......How can you prove you doid it without a copyright certificate?
 
Probably you will, but it will take you 100 times the time and the cost, remember the Vanilla Ice vs Bowie and Queen in the Ice Baby - Under Preasure situation.
 
It was a ripp off, but it had to be proved and Mr. Van Winkle was apparently forced to settle outside court.
 
So in the case of copyrighted works, there aretwo rights:
  1. Inmediate right;: You can release your work today
  2. You and your successorsvcan release it in 95 years.

That's a lot to think in.

 
Iván
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.438 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.