shannaschaffer
Thanks for the explanation, Wilki. I didn't realize how many possible holes there were where things could get out.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]shannaschaffer wrote:[/b]
if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.[/QUOTE]
And most do nowadays ! But now and again accidents do happen. For instance, Derek Sherinian let out a copy of a rehearsal tape of Dream Theater in the early stages of creating Scenes From A Memory before Jordan Rudess joined the band. It was a thing of legend for a few years, but after it exchanged enough hands it popped out. Mike Portnoy was pissed beyond belief, and rightfully so.
But to answer your question more directly - there are many avenues for old recordings.
For concert recordings, it's usually recordings taped from the audience or things taped off TV back in the day. But deeper than that, there are recordings from the archives of TV/radio stations (or even the artists themselves - stories abound), reel to reel tapes, or maybe even recordings made by a crew member who worked the gig. Every story is unique.
Studio recordings have an extra dimension to them - they often come from acetates that the band themselves turfed. They just didn't care back then. An acetate can only be played back a handful of times, as it was just meant to be heard once as a work in progress and then discarded. Sometimes they're recovered from trash bins by passers-by, and sometimes they end up at auctions. These can be an absolute goldmine.
The reason why there's so much unreleased Beatles studio stuff is because people literally walked into the studios and made copies of recordings. There was often no security. The business end of The Beatles was in shambles after Brian Epstein died, so tapes got out there. There are literally hundreds of hours of The Beatles in the studio. The entire Let It Be sessions are out there - the whole month of January 1969, two tapes referred to as tapes A and B, and the compilation was aptly named "A-B Road". In FLAC format it's about 14 gb !
There are just so many stories. And while so few of them are related to some sort of theft, this one certainly is. But on the other side of the moral argument is a view of a piece of music history that is absolutely unparalleled - a bird's eye view of The Beatles breaking up.
if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.[/QUOTE]
And most do nowadays ! But now and again accidents do happen. For instance, Derek Sherinian let out a copy of a rehearsal tape of Dream Theater in the early stages of creating Scenes From A Memory before Jordan Rudess joined the band. It was a thing of legend for a few years, but after it exchanged enough hands it popped out. Mike Portnoy was pissed beyond belief, and rightfully so.
But to answer your question more directly - there are many avenues for old recordings.
For concert recordings, it's usually recordings taped from the audience or things taped off TV back in the day. But deeper than that, there are recordings from the archives of TV/radio stations (or even the artists themselves - stories abound), reel to reel tapes, or maybe even recordings made by a crew member who worked the gig. Every story is unique.
Studio recordings have an extra dimension to them - they often come from acetates that the band themselves turfed. They just didn't care back then. An acetate can only be played back a handful of times, as it was just meant to be heard once as a work in progress and then discarded. Sometimes they're recovered from trash bins by passers-by, and sometimes they end up at auctions. These can be an absolute goldmine.
The reason why there's so much unreleased Beatles studio stuff is because people literally walked into the studios and made copies of recordings. There was often no security. The business end of The Beatles was in shambles after Brian Epstein died, so tapes got out there. There are literally hundreds of hours of The Beatles in the studio. The entire Let It Be sessions are out there - the whole month of January 1969, two tapes referred to as tapes A and B, and the compilation was aptly named "A-B Road". In FLAC format it's about 14 gb !
There are just so many stories. And while so few of them are related to some sort of theft, this one certainly is. But on the other side of the moral argument is a view of a piece of music history that is absolutely unparalleled - a bird's eye view of The Beatles breaking up.
Wilki Amieva
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
Everyone take notes. The professor has spoken.
I have studied copyright law for years. Anything to the contrary is absolute hogwash.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
Everyone take notes. The professor has spoken.
I have studied copyright law for years. Anything to the contrary is absolute hogwash.
Wilki Amieva
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]shannaschaffer wrote:[/b]
if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.[/QUOTE]
And most do nowadays ![/QUOTE]
Just a couple of decades ago, artists/producers/engineers/etc. weren't used to take care of what got 'outside'. Acetates have a limited playability, tapes decay easily if the storage conditions are not good and test pressings tend to be unlabeled and fastly misplaced. Also, in that time, copies were mostly analog, and the audio degraded with the generations. So there was no need to be over-jealous with that kind of material. Once they did their job, these recordings were quickly forgotten and time usually wasn't kind on them.
[QUOTE] [b]shannaschaffer wrote:[/b]
if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.[/QUOTE]
And most do nowadays ![/QUOTE]
Just a couple of decades ago, artists/producers/engineers/etc. weren't used to take care of what got 'outside'. Acetates have a limited playability, tapes decay easily if the storage conditions are not good and test pressings tend to be unlabeled and fastly misplaced. Also, in that time, copies were mostly analog, and the audio degraded with the generations. So there was no need to be over-jealous with that kind of material. Once they did their job, these recordings were quickly forgotten and time usually wasn't kind on them.
shannaschaffer
Thanks for explaining, Bob and Wilki :)
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting.
...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science.
If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book?
You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take.
TRS - feel free to share the tracks ![/QUOTE]
Before who knows how many edits who knows when this reply to me initially alleged boundless "pride in my ignorance" and suggested that I go ahead and keep up with my "long posts full of nothing". "Nobody", you said, "is listening". I'd suspect those are a little closer to your real sentiments that the reasonable man facade you eventually wind around to here and other places, but people of course are listening, to all of it, from all sides. Which I expect explains why you're hanging out like a hawk here today and yesterday trying to stay in control of the ever fraying narrative after recently bragging you don't spend more than five minutes a day on the place.
My last thought on shutting off my computer last night was you as Assad trying to hang on to Syria, railing that the commoners were too stupid to understand the benefits of tyranny. "Creationists" ffs. You can't even suppress your inherent arrogance when you've edited a post 50 times.
Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting.
...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science.
If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book?
You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take.
TRS - feel free to share the tracks ![/QUOTE]
Before who knows how many edits who knows when this reply to me initially alleged boundless "pride in my ignorance" and suggested that I go ahead and keep up with my "long posts full of nothing". "Nobody", you said, "is listening". I'd suspect those are a little closer to your real sentiments that the reasonable man facade you eventually wind around to here and other places, but people of course are listening, to all of it, from all sides. Which I expect explains why you're hanging out like a hawk here today and yesterday trying to stay in control of the ever fraying narrative after recently bragging you don't spend more than five minutes a day on the place.
My last thought on shutting off my computer last night was you as Assad trying to hang on to Syria, railing that the commoners were too stupid to understand the benefits of tyranny. "Creationists" ffs. You can't even suppress your inherent arrogance when you've edited a post 50 times.
The Real Wizard
I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it.
One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?
Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?
One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?
Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it all depends of the definition of "personal use".
As long as you play the music to your friends in the same room it's alright, but If you have it available for trade with any person in the world, it's no longer personal use. It's just a tool for your personal gain.
There are legal precedents for that as well.
In Finland it's perfectly legal to make copies of albums for your personal use, or for your friends, but it's illegal to share the music online.
But hey, whatever makes you sleep through the night. ;)
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it all depends of the definition of "personal use".
As long as you play the music to your friends in the same room it's alright, but If you have it available for trade with any person in the world, it's no longer personal use. It's just a tool for your personal gain.
There are legal precedents for that as well.
In Finland it's perfectly legal to make copies of albums for your personal use, or for your friends, but it's illegal to share the music online.
But hey, whatever makes you sleep through the night. ;)
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.
But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point.[/QUOTE]
My post had two quotes about profit:
#1 "If you have at any time received any compensation (even a 1$ donation for your website) for your trading, you are also a thief profiting from other people's work."
100% fact.
If you gain a single CENT from somebody else's work, you're a thief, and no better than David Fuller.
#2 "You said it yourself: You know you have stolen the contents of the acetate, and the only repercussion you want from it is profit."
100% fact.
The collector who makes a trade with the stolen material of an acetate is in it to make a profit. Whether it's monetary profit, fame among peers, or an exchange with other stolen material, it's still a profit made with stolen property.
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Actually, not entirely.
If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.
But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point.[/QUOTE]
My post had two quotes about profit:
#1 "If you have at any time received any compensation (even a 1$ donation for your website) for your trading, you are also a thief profiting from other people's work."
100% fact.
If you gain a single CENT from somebody else's work, you're a thief, and no better than David Fuller.
#2 "You said it yourself: You know you have stolen the contents of the acetate, and the only repercussion you want from it is profit."
100% fact.
The collector who makes a trade with the stolen material of an acetate is in it to make a profit. Whether it's monetary profit, fame among peers, or an exchange with other stolen material, it's still a profit made with stolen property.
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.[/QUOTE]
tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Wilki Amieva
Here we go again...
As simple as it might appear, 'copyright' it's a difficult concept, which sets several levels of rights to authors, intellectual property holders and publishers and means different things in different territories and also depending on the time of creation and registration of the copyrighted work. All in all, most jurisprudences wouldn't make anybody accountable unless there's loss of profits [lucrum cesans] or a break of pivacy. I've been working in music production for 15 years now, so I am well aware of local and international laws, agreements and sentences.
Its contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of an item still retains the right to listen/watch them, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent from the authors, intellectual property holders and publishers - as long as is for 'personal use'. So making a transfer from an owned acetate/tape/VHS/reference CD-R/etc. to a digital media is labeled as 'personal use' and it's allowed. Of course, 'personal' in this context means... well... just that: personal - its for the solely enjoyment of the owner or owners and rules out third parties or profit.
But the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties, under the 'fair use' legal figure. Sharing the contents of an item between a very limited group of researchers working together (such as the Fanthology) could be regarded as 'fair use' - allowed, again. As long as the contents remain off the public eye and profit is not made nor there's measurable loss of profits to authors, intellectual property holders or publishers [lucrum cesans].
Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'.
As simple as it might appear, 'copyright' it's a difficult concept, which sets several levels of rights to authors, intellectual property holders and publishers and means different things in different territories and also depending on the time of creation and registration of the copyrighted work. All in all, most jurisprudences wouldn't make anybody accountable unless there's loss of profits [lucrum cesans] or a break of pivacy. I've been working in music production for 15 years now, so I am well aware of local and international laws, agreements and sentences.
Its contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of an item still retains the right to listen/watch them, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent from the authors, intellectual property holders and publishers - as long as is for 'personal use'. So making a transfer from an owned acetate/tape/VHS/reference CD-R/etc. to a digital media is labeled as 'personal use' and it's allowed. Of course, 'personal' in this context means... well... just that: personal - its for the solely enjoyment of the owner or owners and rules out third parties or profit.
But the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties, under the 'fair use' legal figure. Sharing the contents of an item between a very limited group of researchers working together (such as the Fanthology) could be regarded as 'fair use' - allowed, again. As long as the contents remain off the public eye and profit is not made nor there's measurable loss of profits to authors, intellectual property holders or publishers [lucrum cesans].
Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'.
ParisNair
Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music.
This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.
This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.
inu-liger
[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was a nightmare in itself. People on QZ are just TOOOOO bloody stiff and opinionated!
Yeah, that was a nightmare in itself. People on QZ are just TOOOOO bloody stiff and opinionated!
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it.
One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?
Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?[/QUOTE]
She already has contributed something useful, as have others. You just don't like the answers. On the other hand, you continue to peddle the same old tripe you have here in the past, and then condescend as if we don't understand your pov. Seriously chum, condescending only works if you have something to condescend about, and you're not in that position.
Nice hyperbole too -- "scourge of the earth" -- no one has suggested that or even come close. No, wait. That's how you guys are describing David Fuller! Oh dear...
So you can add misrepresenting other people's views to your tactics. Amazing how on other topics you would be outraged if that happened and one of the first to point it out. You have a huge blind spot on this topic. Since you're fond of analogies, no matter how silly, let me give you an apt one: you guys are a bit like drug addicts: consider this an intervention :)
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it.
One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?
Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?[/QUOTE]
She already has contributed something useful, as have others. You just don't like the answers. On the other hand, you continue to peddle the same old tripe you have here in the past, and then condescend as if we don't understand your pov. Seriously chum, condescending only works if you have something to condescend about, and you're not in that position.
Nice hyperbole too -- "scourge of the earth" -- no one has suggested that or even come close. No, wait. That's how you guys are describing David Fuller! Oh dear...
So you can add misrepresenting other people's views to your tactics. Amazing how on other topics you would be outraged if that happened and one of the first to point it out. You have a huge blind spot on this topic. Since you're fond of analogies, no matter how silly, let me give you an apt one: you guys are a bit like drug addicts: consider this an intervention :)