Meet the new boss, David Lowery tackles the internet and the past while Ted Lucas gets past around

Feels fuckin' AWESOME, bro.

Is the 'DJs post your mixes for download' thread currently in SNA illegal?

"I think the owner of the original can make backup"

i don't think this is legal, but have never heard of anyone getting hassled for it.
also those bmg/columbia house deals were probably just as bad for artists as spotify.

"i don't think this is legal, but have never heard of anyone getting hassled for it"

If you can find me a law I am happy to be proved wrong.

you can make a backup

you can't make a copy and give it to a bunch of people

Again what law is that breaking?

it has something to do with bypassing copy protection -- might be DMCA? there doesn't seem to be a minimum hurdle as to what constitutes copy protection so it makes every kind of copying illegal.

For example, if I am reading the No Electronic Theft act correctly (which I believe covers exactly this sort of case because no money is exchanging hands) in order to be in violation of that statute the copying needs to be exceed a retail value of $1000...

one ironic aspect of the DMCA thing is that if you develop some kind of nu-napster software with encryption to avoid the RIAA and RIAA dudes "infiltrate" your music-sharing club, you could theoretically sue them for breaking your encryption under the same law.

Again what law is that breaking?

If I stab you in the eye over and over again with a fork, technically, I am not breaking a law. There are no laws on the books I know of involving forks. I would probably get arrested though.

Title 17 of the US Code says that making a copy of an original work without the creator's consent is illegal--nothing specific about CD's as far as I know, but still illegal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/501

"If I stab you in the eye over and over again with a fork, technically, I am not breaking a law."

Uh no "technically" you are breaking any one of a number of laws. And yes you would definitely get arrested.

I don't see that title 17 applies in the case of personally making a copy of a CD you own and giving it to another person (RIAA would say otherwise but again I am not concerned with their reading of copyright, but rather how laws are actually enforced). If you have legal precedent which indicates otherwise I would gladly read it.

I don't think you're reading my posts. Go back and read them. You could make a backup. You could make a single copy, give it someone, and you'd probably be okay. I am not suggesting otherwise. If you made a bunch of copies and started giving them away, you would probably get sued.

there may not be legal precedent, because it's possible that no one has ever taken a bunch of cd's and copied them and given them away and then gotten sued for it. this doesn't mean that doing that isn't against the law though.

if giving them to five people is against the law, why wouldn't just giving it to one person be against the law? CDs don't usually come with a "for you and (1) pal" license (except maybe those cool vinyl releases that come with a bonus CD)

xxp Okay all of this was in the context of the original Emily White article wherein she said that a lot of her music was obtained via people copying songs on her iPod or whatever. People seemed to be making the claim that this was exactly = downloading a mess of music from the web and clearly illegal. I pointed out it isn't same and it may very well not even be against the law at all.

"If I stab you in the eye over and over again with a fork, technically, I am not breaking a law."

Uh no "technically" you are breaking any one of a number of laws. And yes you would definitely get arrested.

haha seriously what the hell even is this argument

forks

people downloading forks

"if giving them to five people is against the law"

Is it? Really? I mean the operative word here is "give" and the threshold as I understand is a retail loss in excess of $1,000.

people downloading forks

― Mr. Que, Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:36 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

uh oh th' tofu hut is in trouble

no one said five. except Philip.

bored lawyering

kinda want someone to write a piece arguing that olds want to stop youngs from easily and freely accessing music because they want to be the sole guardians of "cool music," and if kids can easily hear all the "cool music" themselves and form their own opinions about it then they won't need the guardians/gatekeepers anymore to tell them what's cool. like the flipside of a system where people have to pay for everything is going back to what travis morrison touches on in that article which is facing a huge collection of all of history's music and not being able to hear most of it (how i felt when i was a kid). so much music would fade away because people would have to choose what to buy and what to ignore. anyways i wouldn't read that piece because it would be dumb but someone should write it.

going back to lowery's article, it seems like he's "right" about most of that stuff but he's really annoying and a crappy writer

he's a mathematician!

facing a huge collection of all of history's music and not being able to hear most of it

kids today don't even face it, most of them don't give a shit

like, they know it's all out there, but they don't want to bother wading through it

oh c'mon there are a TON of wikipedia experts who think they can hear and appreciate everything worth appreciating, and try, no matter how misguided or unwittingly narrow their attempts are

if you are a little kid and your parents get you a computer and you go online and there is all this music everywhere and your friends tell you about cool sites with music you can download and you download all the music and you grow up this way why the hell would you care about anything ever? it would just be normal to download cool albums and maybe you wouldn't even know that people paid for music. it takes a village...

"no one said five. except Philip."

five feels like a bunch. like if i bought a bunch of grapes, how many grapes is that? maybe five grapes. i don' think i've ever stolen more than five grapes before.

as someone who grew up on MTV and major label CDs bought at chain outlets i personally feel no right to tell a younger generation that their way of discovering music lacks the kind of character and excitement that turned me into a sophisticated music lover

i have no ideas wtf you guys are talking about, but if i felt that feeling 20 years ago of being in a record store and wanting to hear like 100 albums that were there just based on band names and covers and vague things i'd read about them, i sincerely doubt that impulse has completely evaporated over like one generation

like the extension of what scott and shakey mo are saying is that kids nowadays don't care about music anymore? which is demonstrably untrue

kids are dumber now though. cuzza the corn syrup.

^ great post

http://www.thenoobdad.com/wp-content/uploads/Dumb-Kid.jpeg

it's not that - it's that they're largely separated/isolated from any historical narrative about music.

xp

1. that's not what you said
2. so what?

someone has his arguing pants on!

it's not that - it's that they're largely separated/isolated from any historical narrative about music.

xp

― a dense custard of infinity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:00 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if anything kids today have way too much historical narrative about music. they're up to their eyeballs in Beatles/Nirvana/Biggie lore.

plus i didn't say that kids don't care about music just that they have grown up not paying for music. its normal for kids now to not pay for music. that is the norm.

if they don't pay for music we'll make em pay for ringtones

i mean i have witnessed a decade of ilx skweeeeeeeeeeesoulseekoinkinvitespotifylastfm etc etc etc decadence. and you will all pay in the afterlife.

and before anyone gets on my case I'm speaking from anecdotal experience of course - kids don't go into a store and see things laid out in chronological order by artist, or hear about things from music "authorities" (be they Xgau or Bangs or the snobby indie guy behind the counter). The internet disperses content such that everything is available all the time, but it's largely context-free. They discover and absorb small pieces of the musical landscape but have no idea about the larger map - which is how I wind up with younger colleagues who for some reason know a bunch of old Carter Family songs but have never heard the White Album.

This is way different (not saying worse or better) from when I was younger and was accutely aware of the history of music - either from magazines, or record store clerks, or older relatives - but had limited access.

xp

and if they don't pay for ringtones we'll make em pay for zwinkies

I seriously have too many zwinkies I just need to get rid of them

if i were 14 or 15 now i would have 400 million albums on my computer. i stole everything that wasn't nailed down when i was that age. i didn't give a shit.

so you guys didn't have bmg and columbia house?

of course if i were 14 or 15 now i would never make it to 16 what with all the free porn out there on the web. i would have a serious coronary episode. jesus i was like a monkey back then i shudder to think...

it was pretty funny talking to my pre-teen cousins (who all have computers, ipads, etc.) about music a couple weeks ago. i learned that:

1. they know some michael jackson songs, but think he's "ok"
2. "rappers are really in right now", like nicki minaj, flo rida, and lmfao (?)
3. not so into adele, because too many of her songs are boring and slow

they weren't steeped in too many (any) historical narratives about pop music. one had a change jar that she had to put money in every time she bought a song off iTunes using her mom's account.

xp

between the bath salts and the meth and the porn and the corn syrup man oh man i was really lucky to be born when i was.