Er.... is it legal ?

Probably in a loophole of "copies for personal use only" defence if challenged.

BUT you have to find me first and then prove the copies are for gain before any legal team would want to risk losing a court battle.

Probably.

Jono

P.S. do you want my VCR/HDD/iTunes library at the same time?

According to the record companies yes, but the courts have consistently ruled on the basis that you can copy for personal use, going back to a ruling that it is OK to tape your LPs to listen to them in the car!

I would suggest that making a copy of a disc and then selling it, or giving it back to the library or friend who lent it to you, is illegal.

SO - all those who look forward to reducing the storage space required for their music had better be filling their hard discs with paid for downloads.

The issue of legality is something I had a thought about a couple of weeks ago.

I have had a few of what I consider "loaned" records on CDRs, but always buy the originals when they are re-released, or are obtaimable second hand. I am sure that these "loaners" were illegal, but currently they are all replaced, and I do not foresee anymore coming along now. I would never retain a copy if the proper version is available, and would never load a loaned disc, copied or commercially issued, onto a server. Sometimes getting a rare [deleted] proper copy is expensive, but my view would be that so long as I retain the original legal release, then it can go onto hard drive. Otherwise not.

George

Is selling s/h records legal?

You buy a record and listen to it

You sell it somebody on evil-bay, he/she also listens to it

So two people have listened to the record and yet the poor struggling artist is only gets one set of royalties.

The original buyer has only made a token contribution to the artist.

I ask you is this fair?

Surely the PRS should look in to stopping this practice.

I don't think there is any doubt that under current arrangements selling a record that has been listened to is entirely legal. Selling the record without further reference to the artist or composer seems entirely reasonable to me in that in selling it you can no longer listen to it.

Generating a copy and the selling it seems to me unfair. It would be interesting to know whether loading a CD onto a server and then selling the original disc would be legal. It is not something I would do, as the original remains the ultimate back-up, but I would bet this will what some people will do it, whether it seems fair or not ...

___________

You ask whether it is fair on the original artists that a recording can be sold without further payment. My answer to this is an unequivocal yes, because in making a recording this situation is known and accepted.

In future it may well be that music will neither be sold as a physical format or even available as a file download as such, but only available as a pay per listen from a central archive. This would bring back control of the recordings within the determination of the recording companies and artists. I suspect that the payment may be via monthly subscription as in Sky Television or Pay Per Listen, and making a copy of the streaming may well become illegal, as it is to record and retain Television programmes now.

Where this all goes is anybody's guess at this stage, but for myself having spent anything up to £16 for CDs, I do not think I am inclined to pay again for the same recording, or right to listen to it. If the artist has not been sufficiently rewarded, and the recording company cannot make a sufficient return on the investment in the recording then that is not a problem for me, and seems not the case as this business model has fed artists and allowed companies to stay in business for over a century now.

Of course any artist who refuses to record is welcome to this, and some have not made recordings. Sergiu Celibidache famously refused to make commercial recordings and tried in his lifetime to prevent the release of his radio station recordings. Of course once he died the various radio stations did then enter arrangements with major record companies to issue his concerts! It seems a fact of life that as a performing artists will end up replayed in the home whether they like it or not. I am not sure that this is such a bad thing.

ATB from George

Another example of an artist being microphone shy is Alfred Brendel, who will not allow his concerts to be broadcast apparently. Thus no recordings are made to loose control of. His work for recording is done in the studio, though there are some live recordings of him, but [perhaps?] done by his record company at a concert so he can veto them if he is not happy.

So artists do have a choice in the matter.

What they do not have is any choice over people boot-legging their work. Bootlegging is deplorable, but unstoppable in general, I would think.

I suspect there is a fine line, which may be drawn on copying a recording, and then loaning the copy so someone can try it in order to work out if they want to buy it. This seems morally no different to sampling a recording in a record shop [which is legal because the shop has a licence which makes it so, while using an unauthorised copy for any purpose certainly is not even for private personal use, though this is generally accepted in the Courts Of Law], but provided that you buy the commercial release, or second hand example, and don't retain the "loaned" unauthorised [and certainly illegal] copy indefinitely, I cannot see that any harm is done.

George

As far as I'm aware when you buy software, you buy a licence to use it and this licence is not transferable. Why is this different when the software is music?

Why is it fair for somebody to ask for £115.99 for this album



Shirley gets nothing from the rip-off merchant asking this excessive price in the amazon.

I have my copy, which I paid a few pounds for.

I'm sure lots of people would like to hear this wonderful album. Anthems in Eden was a 1969 album by Shirley and Dolly Collins with The Early Music Consort of London directed by David Munrow. It consists of a set of folk songs with musical arrangements that include early music instruments such as viols, recorders, sackbuts and crumhorns. The musical arrangement is strikingly original, and nothing like it has been recorded before or since. Christopher Hogwood's harpsichord is quite enchanting.

Shirley Collins (vocals)
Adam Skeaping (bass viol)
Roderick Skeaping (rebec, treble and bass viol)
Oliver Brookes (bass viol)
Michael Laird (cornett)
Richard Lee (descant and treble recorder)
Alan Lumsden (sackbut)
Christopher Hogwood (harpsichord)
Dolly Collins (portative organ)
Gillian Ried (bells)
David Munrow (soprano and alto crumhorn, bass rackett, tenor sordun, treble recorder)
Chorus: Michael Clifton, Ray Worman, John Fordham) plus Royston Wood, Steve Ashley and John Morgan.

I do get frustrated that the musicians and, in particular, Shirley receive no royalties from this kind on activity. They surely deserve something. The seller has done nothing to contribute to this work. Those listed above did a great deal.

Of course making it available as a free download or re-releasing on vinyl or CD would put a stop to this. It is not as if the seller is offering the original 1969 vinyl, but a recent CD version. Of course, I could make some copies of my CD and sell them, but I'd never do that.

Maybe, I'm strange but I've had records in my collection including ones by Steely Dan, Genesis and Dire Straits that I simply don't like - so I've given them away to those who may appreciate them and received thanks. I didn't try to make a profit from them. I can understand a charity shop making a few pence for passing on a record from one who no longer wishes to keep it to somebody who would like to play it - the small donation to charity seems entirely reasonable, but the above price being asked for Anthems In Eden seems wrong to me.

Just a thought

ATB Rotf

Dear ROTF,

I have something no longer available, that you very much wish to buy. It is mine legally bought, and mine legally to sell. I know it is highly prized and rare, and I realise it has a value.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Simple as that.

Artists realise that in recording [and being paid for it], that the issued record or CD is out of their control.

They are of course entirely free to avoid recordings or broadcasts and restrict themselves to live concert giving.

It is life, and complaining about it, after the fact, is not going to alter it.

George

IMO, we can do whatever we want to do with our CDs/LPs except re-producing or duplicating it for commercial purpose - this is illegal.

quote:

IMO, we can do whatever we want to do with our CDs/LPs

fair enough - I'm keeping my Jefferson Airplane, CCR, Grateful Dead, Strawberry Alarm Clock, CJ Fish elpees, so I have something to play on my new TT - not going to sell those.

ATB Rotf

I collect a lot of film soundtrack CD's and many of these appear second-hand at very silly prices (ie. hundreds of pounds), because they have been long deleted. Also dealers openly advertise bootleg soundtrack CD's and composer promotional discs for sale, which in both cases is illegal. In fact film / TV composers are not even allowed themselves to sell their own promotional discs, as they have been paid for the music by the film / TV company, which now owns the rights. Despite all this, these discs regularly appear for sale at specialist dealers. How is it that they avoid the law?

Peter

Just in case somebody was thinking of paying a king's ransom for Anthems In Eden CD re-issue = don't just buy the normal price Harvest Years - you'll get a beautiful mastered version of The Anthems In Eden Song Story plus a whole load more great material.

Well done to Shirley for releasing this in a bargain package and giving true fans the chance to hear this wonderful music.

ATB Rotf