August 10, 2004

• Welcome to the monkey cage. As long as we're talking free-and-legal, don't forget to feed the wiki.
• Mickey, have you met my friend "http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/3404">forksclovetofu?
• Fuck. In a hurry. I go work now.
• Wolof, difference is, almost every single one of those links violates copyright infringement law. Believe it or not, some people try to avoid that.
• Is it not (I ask seriously) still an open question as to whether MP3 blogs are just "fair use", given the short time the file is available, and the commentary that is frequently given?
• It is, as a matter of fact. Different people read this different ways, understandably.
• Alright, let's start a friendly conversation on this: mick, when you state that you "question the morals of illegal, copyright infringing MP3's", precisely what do you mean? You question the morality of their EXISTENCE (i.e., you have moral issues with anyone who would rip a cd and then distribute the track without express permission from the copyright holder), you question the morality of sites that DISTRIBUTE these tracks or you question the morals of the MP3's themselves? (somewhat unlikely; "bad audiofile! bad!) Can you explain your position in greater detail? Because while I suppose there's some leg to stand on in the question of LEGALITY, I can't imagine what you would find MORALLY objectible to in posting a track that you love, without intention of profit.
• Because while I suppose there's some leg to stand on in the question of LEGALITY, I can't imagine what you would find MORALLY objectible to in posting a track that you love, without intention of profit. And, to take this further, with the express intention of promoting the artist, and encouraging readers to in fact buy said artists products. I'm not saying that what I do is strictly legal. But I do believe it's 100% ethical, and as I start to be contacted by more artists, and more labels (steadily growing numbers of both), it's becoming increasingly believable that I may someday be able to 'go legit' without having to submit myself to the fundamental problem I have with strictly legal mp3 blogging - the restriction of choice to 2 or 3 songs, usually singles, by any given artist. Part of what I love about running my blog is that it gives me a chance to spotlight random album tracks that people would otherwise miss, having heard the "label approved" single, and deciding it to be one thing, only to find an album that sounds quite different. That independence, and that level of editorial control is what I feel makes blogs like mine special. I don't let artists choose the tracks of theirs that I post, because I see myself in the role of a critic, as much as I am in the role of a DJ. My Editorial control is my own, and to go legit by focusing on artist website tracks would, IMHO, inherently compromise that.
• To respond to ilyadeux, in the United States, no, it is not a gray area. I have a photo copy of the law, and it is explicity a felony, which caries very serious penalties. If you don't believe that these penalties are being inflicted upon people, I suggest you dedicate some time to reading Cybercrime.gov. To forksclovetofu: nowhere in my post did I indicate my moral standing at all. It's unfortunate that you read it that way to post such a long challenge to argue. I simply stated that some people do have a moral objection to illegal MP3's. A) Many people consider anything illegal to be instantly immoral. B) Many people do not see any difference between MP3's and the stealing of physical, tangible items. And no way, there is no way to question the legality. If you're questioning the legality -- you're not reading the law. It's as simple as that. I didn't start this post on any sort of moral crusade, and I do not want to incite an ethics debate. I simply want to provide a resource for people who are interested in these things, but among the vast sea of MP3 blogs, finding completely legal ones is a somewhat daunting task.
• Actually (not so) modestmickey: according to Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 the posting of copyrighted materials in many MP3 blogs is perfectly acceptable legally so long as there is criticism or comment: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
• Mickey: first off, one of the nice things about mofi is that we're all friends here. Look back at my comment and I think you'll notice that I said "let's start a friendly discussion". I know you're new to the community and that's not anything negative towards you, but you should be aware that in MoFi we strive to keep things on the NICE side. So if you bear in mind that I'm not looking to "argue", but rather DISCUSS, we'll be two cool little kittens. I'm not looking to break anybody's arms, I just wanna talk. Okay? Okay. Now with that said, I feel obliged to point out that I mentioned morality as a direct quote from you. Furthermore, you were not talking about "some people", you said "lots of us question the morality". That implies that YOU question the morality. I don't and as I'm under the presumption that you do, I'm curious to understand what your reasoning is. Stating that illegal = immoral is a tremendously spurious argument. What if a law has no grounding in morality (see also: slavery, prohibition, the drug wars, the patriot act, add your favorite here). More discussion later. I'm having a bit of a breakdown. I'll see your cybercrime and raise you a Downhill Battle.
• but for those who are searching for uncopywritten or copyright cleared material, I recommend googling Kingblind, fingertips, weed music, better propaganda and disquiet; just for starters. Lots of places specialize in this type of musicblog.
• If you're really curious, I can post a list of at least ten privately run musicblogs who clear all their sounds prior to posting and add another fifty artist or label run sites that do the same.
• No person who is remotely serious about sound quality is interested in an mp3 except as a taster to the actual source material. I have had email from Janis Ian. I know I have said this before on this board, but I have had actual email fron Janis Ian on this actual issue. Thank you in public, teh Janis Ian.
• PS, if Janis Ian reads this, feel proud!
• And join up!
• Go to this page and have a read of Lawrence Lessig's book 'Free Culture' (legal to download in case anyone was worried). Find out how corporations are doing their best to destroy the public domain (and the practice of 'fair use'), and indefinite copyright is unconstitutional, (and in a better world everything from at least the first half of the 20th century would be public domain by now). Destroying the public domain is a morality issue, Mp3blogs are a minor legal issue. I see nothing immoral about them, especially after reading this book. In fact the only problem I have with them is that they've actually made my spending on music increase (which I didn't think was possible).
• hey Janis! At Seventeen is like, one of my favourite songs ever! You are so cool. Also, thank you ISlut - I recognise that the US government has a stance on what the interpretation of the law should be, but I was fairly certain that 'fair use' provided for more scope than the government's position allowed. [forks, y'all all right?]
• The problem with 'fair use' is that the company holding the copyright might take you to court to prove 'fair use'. The costs of this will most likely discourage you from attempting to claim 'fair use'.
• *repeats fantasy of Janis Ian joining Mofi. Hey, maybe if I linked, she'd read it in her linky logs. Hey Janice, I dare you to join!* *encourages monkeys to click that link like mad in order to get Janice's attention* *is mad*
• *and can't spell "Janis"*
• Wow, Janis Ian is super cool! And she has some very good essays on MP3 sharing from an artist's point of view. Incidently, I am now a music fan because of the free MP3's on her site, as I am too young to have heard her music on the radio. Which goes to prove her point.
• I fail to see what this thread has to do with the mp3 music blog of Max Hedgeson's "Spasm of the Christoppotamus" in which bloody, torturous revenge is taken out on the audience in exchange for the price of permission.
• il: i guess i'm okay. I'm seriously looking into medication or something. Life's a bit of a bummer these days.
• There are provisions for fair use, and let me tell you this: nobody has succesfully fought a copyright infringement charge (dealing with MP3's, warez, etc, similar things. Copyright infringement also refers to things such as illegally photocopying books in a library) and WON. Only two have tried, and they were both found guilty. Everyone else has plead guilty. If anyone wants to stand up and act like a crusader against the immoral industry who is seeking to destroy the public domain, fine. Do it. For people who don't want to take the risk, I was just trying to provide some good resources. If you do choose to take the risk, as forkslovetofu is suggesting, goodluck not becoming one of these guys. I don't care what you think is the 'moral' thing. The punishment isn't fun. Is free music really worth all that? The decision is yours. Take it from someone who can speak with some authority (although I will choose not to discuss it) that you may want to reconsider your stance. That is all. Have a nice day.
• Oh, and if you don't think the DOJ will ever go after MP3 blogs because there's so many worse (by your standards) issues, so did the warez scene. Then a lot of them ended up in prison (refer to link). So did the newsgroup users. So did the IRC channels. So did the (non-blog) webpage owners. How long do you think before you get noticed? Don't act surprised. Like I said, the risk is yours.
• Um. We ARE noticed. Warner Brothers just contacted a site I contribute to (the excellent music for robots asking if they could hype a new release. So they know we're here. I also think that they realize that we're not trying to start shit. Virtually EVERY blog on that "wiki" has a disclaimer stating that they'll happily take down a track if asked by the artist or the copyright holder. Quite a few of us (not me, most of what I post is too obscure I guess) have received C+D letters and we remove the track. That's it. If someone blatantly released a whole unreleased album (which most of us COULD do), I'm sure we'd get shut down. As we tend not to even release a single, I think everyone has drawn the obvious conclusion: we're not detrimental to sales and we might well help. Conflating an MP3 blog with a warez operation is nice incindiary rhetoric but false on about a dozen different levels, all of which are so obvious I'll abstain from listing them. Nothing personal Mickey, but your... um, let's say "cautionary stance" has a whiff of narc about it. What IS your background on the subject? Have you had negative run ins with copyright holders? Do you have some useful insights? Mostly what I'm hearing from you is vague and threatening and (again, no offense) but sort of patronizing. If you think the musicblog community hasn't considered what you're talking about (at length), you're mistaken. I also note that you haven't chosen to respond to igslut's comments RE: fair use. All you're saying is "They can CRUSH you!" I'm asking, why would they even bother?
• I've been spending a lot of time looking at musicblogs lately (for good reason, thanks again for the millionth time to you moneys), and I think the ones I read (which I've mostly found through the Tofuhut) are doing more good than harm, since the tracks are fairly obscure and I for one certainly plan on tracking down albums by some of these musicians to buy. They get a lot more exposure in the international scene than they'd get otherwise. (There was a Christchurch band whose mp3 was linked on one blog just recently that I hadn't even heard of: now I'm going to one of their live shows at a pub in town.)
• Would that be The Shocking Pinks trac? i posted them a while back, and I know they're christchurch...
• Why am I not surprised that modestmickey has chosen to abadon the monkey haus?
• That's the ones, Cap'n. Come to think of it, I only got half the track. Must check whether it's still up later.
• Damn, I really need to disable the "Delete Account" button. Really.
• wrote a long rant about copyright, and how it's screwing up academic institutions and students. Decided not to post it. But I'll post this bit. It's cute how Wolof's spelling goes out the window when he gets excited :)
• I like that too, Alnedra. :) <--matching smiley
• I really need to disable the "Delete Account" button. Cool - good idea. *checks own profile* Oh - have you done it already?
• I have a question about copyright - so if it's under fairuse to photocopy something (like an article or a chapter) for teaching purposes, why am I paying through the nose for photocopied class readings? Also, is there a difference in this bit of the law between Canada and the US?
• when he gets excited I think you mean "when he gets drunk". Or "drunk while smoking pot and posting on the goddam net". Or "not enough coffee". Or "does anyone have a spare bottle of sambal oelek and a way to shove it down the quid's gmail box?"
• Actually, sorry, but ModestMickeyKaus seemed to be a single-issue poster, so if he wanted to do a drive-by I guess that's OK. Myself, I prefer the forkster.
• does anyone have a spare bottle of sambal oelek and a way to shove it down the quid's gmail box? Oh yeah that's right, stuff me with chili. Well let me just make my entire point in this one scenario: Imagine yourself sitting in prison. Your cell mate is Wolof. You will spend half a year there. You have been expelled from your university. All your base are belong to us, and you will never get it back. You will have a very difficult time finding a job with a sauce stains on your CV. Same goes for finding a home. Why did this happen? Because you misspelled "Janis" on the internet.
• No, it's worse than that.
• *puts on Janis Ian voice* Now, watch this drive!
• Wow. Weirdest one-sided flameout I've seen here. Um, *only* one-sided flameout I've seen here.
• Damn, I really need to disable the "Delete Account" button. Really. :| ;) KGB? No! RIAA!
• jb, I don't know why you would equate the cost of photocopies with the fair use provisions of the copyright laws. Photocopies cost money. Are you paying exorbitantly high fees? I was a Kinko's monkey for longer than I'd care to admit and they have copyright policies which are even more stringent than the copyright laws. So it is possible that in some/many cases permissions (which, depending on the source, may cost $$) were required in order to make the duplicates. Additionally, depending on the amount of a work being copied, permission may be required. In either case, it still costs money and time. But I'd still guess that there is some padding going on and it's probably a profit center for many universities. Give me some more info and I'll try to answer more clearly.
• Sorry - I will be more clear. Course packages, aka kits, cost more than simply having the pages photocopied by the place - in Canada it is explicitly stated that is because copyright is paid (though a professor once mentioned that he had seen no royalties for a chapter he knew was in someone else's kit.) I once asked a professor why photocopies of readings have to appear in kits, and they explained that professors used to hand them out free (photocopying was paid by the department), but then the publishers got very upset, and now all copies for teaching purposes must go through official copying businesses that pay thr copyright. This was all in Canada, and there may be different laws there, of course. In the States, kits cost somewhat less, and it may be that is just the cost of photocopying (but I also suspect the local place of not paying copyright whether they are required to or not). But there still seems to be the impression that professors and TAs are not allowed by law to just do the photocopies themselves. I am going to be a TA myself this fall, and wouldn't mind spending time photocopying in the department to save my kids the expense, if it is legal. Basically, I'm interested in knowing whether the whole kit/course package monopoly thing in the States is a result of copyright law, or universities passing more of the cost off to the student. /also I hate kits, because first they charge a great deal, and then they screw up the photocopying, and chop off all the references, and don't cite properly, and I have to rephotocopy the damn article anyways.
• jb - I can't speak toward the Canadian situation, but I can tell you this much: In the states in the 80s it became common practice for students, professors and universities to copy entire textbooks as well as excerpts from same to save money. Kinko's saw this trend and started working with the universities to create the coursepacks. Problem was that no one was getting permission. And as this was clearly profiting Kinko's it was expressly forbidden. In 1989 eight major book publishers brought suit against Kinko's. Kinko's lost, paid roughly $2m as a result. Kinko's was prohibited from copying and selling said coursepacks without the permission of the publishers from that point forward. Mind you that this doesn't mean they can't copy and sell coursepacks, but they now require proof that the permissions to do so have been granted. The publishers of textbooks not only sell the textbooks, but they sell the rights to reproduce portions of them. I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess those permissions are more expensive than the average permissions charged by newspapers and magazines. I would further guess that the professor who saw no royalties from his chapter being reproduced in another coursepack is not entitled to them per his contract with the publisher of his book. Finally, regarding your upcoming TAship - depending on what you're going to be copying and to what extent, you can claim fair use without needing to secure written permission. I don't know if I still have all of my Kinko's copyright materials (yes, there were *many* hours of training and refresher courses on the subject), but I'll look when I get home tonight. If your use meets the Kinko's criteria you can rest assured that you can feel safe in copying your materials. If in doubt, contact the publisher. Feel free to email me if you want more information.
• And I found the University Readers site with Guidelines that are pretty easy to follow. The Guidelines and Definitions , as well as Prohibitions.
• I had a philosophy professor who posted some readings online (yes, illegally), because he didn't want us to spend fifty damn dollars for photocopies of a dozen essays and couldn't find a textbook that included all of them (and there was another required textbook for the class, as well). Now, I'm all for protecting IP and copyrights and seeing to it that authors are compensated for their work, but on the other hand, it was refreshing not to get screwed by the college textbook racket industry for once.
• keep it down in here, or bees will start charging us for reading the 'bashi thread. shh!
• Gotta say not sorry to see whatshisface or the other whatshisface go. That's all. That and I'm learning a lot watching, so.
• IgSl - thank-you very much for the information - this clears up a lot for me. So if I read you correctly, making copies without making profit is alright, so long as it is only a portion of the original? (not the whole book of course). In my field (British history), the readings tend not to come from textbooks, but from journals and monographs (which is why I am annoyed by the copy-companies cutting off references), which sort of puts it outside some of the main textbook industry, but the publishers are stil just as anal (probably because they actually make much less money per book). I don't know what the first professor's deal was with his publisher (it could also have been an article, and then copyright would rest with the journal), but I did have another professor who was told that while she was allowed to have 3 chapters of her own book in a kit, 4 was too much, and she would have to have the students buy the whole book. (Then the publisher screwed up the orders, and she ended up photocopying anyways). Personally, I hope academia leaves the publishing industry altogether, in favour of peer-reviewed online publishing and other free forms, for everyone's sake (I've heard physics is going this way, because paper is just too slow), but there is too much wrapped up in the prestige of having a physical book in many disciplines.
• jb - you've got the basics. Keep in mind that there are some companies that are *way* more protective of their copyrights than others. Think the Disney company, who has a standard letter that was issued to Kinko's stating that only five people in the world had the rights to copy their materials without written permission. Also remember that the amount of work considered a 'portion' varies based on the material; whether it's a journal, newspaper, magazine, book, poem, etc. You can get into some fun legal arguments when you get into the MP3 sharing arena if you consider that an entire album is 'the work' in question versus an individual song. Finally, I need to state for the record that I am not, nor have I ever been a lawyer. On your side note: I do think that eventually as online learning grows we will see more and more texts available and properly licensed online. It's probably not going to be happening in the next 10-15 years, but I do think it will happen.
• only five people in the world had the rights to copy their materials without written permission. i'm sure it's hyperbole but on the much hoped-for chance that it isn't - *who* are the five people?
• Satan, and the four horsemen
• pete_best: It's not hyperbole at all. Kinko's was sent a letter from Disney legal that in essense said that (I believe) Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenber, Roy Disney and two other names that escape me at the moment, were the only people who were not required to have written permission for duplicating Disney copyrighted items at Kinko's locations worldwide. All they had to do was present photo ID. I wish I still had access to it. Funny stuff.
• Satan, and the four horsemen Well played sir!
• In Singapore, under the Copyright Act, the amount allowed under fair use is quite clearcut. 10% or 1 chapter of a book (whichever is more), and no more than 1 article of an issue of a journal (there's one exception for journals, which is if the subsequent articles are one the same subject, but that doesn't get much publicity, since it's a very sticky issue to deal with). Newspapers have another requirement, but it escapes me for the moment. I imagine that UK laws (which much of our Singapore laws are derived from, being Commonwealth and all that) are similar. Perhaps American and Canadian laws too have this requirement under 'fair use'?
• this musical site may or may not be fair use, but it cracked me up.
• Mirman rocks my socks. Can't believe I've forgotten to add that for so long.