6 ms·
Don't they, though? (Within copyright limits) If you buy a cassette, the quality and experience is much different than something more contemporary. Doesn't the
by dgzl 8y ago
Don't they, though? (Within copyright limits) If you buy a cassette, the quality and experience is much different than something more contemporary. Doesn't the work of data-conversion and remastering warrant additional funding?
> How many times have these people paid for this song?
You're really only paying for the medium, and renting the music.
- jjeaff 8y agoCassette to CD, I agree or record too. But once I buy the CD, I can rip it losslessly and it is the exact same ordering of bits no matter where or how I play it.
- dgzl 8y agoWhat about if the artist changes the music, like Yeezy did on TLOP. Would you pay again for a new version of the music? What about in the future, when we add new dimensions to our music, that requires additional remastering? Our current music formats are really great, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another transformation before too long. Maybe downloadable VR concerts, or some integrated rumble data to assist with bass boost. Or possibly holographic versions of the artist performing. You'll be buying the same music for as long as the industry can keep turning the knob, just enough to bring new interest.
- kbutler 8y agoA concert recording is a separate work. A music video is a separate work. An online stream of an existing audio recording is not a separate work.
- dgzl 8y agoBut three different masters of the same song is three different pieces of work, right? A remix is different work, right?
- kbutler 8y agoA remix is a different work. A different encoding of the same piece is not a different work. If by "different master" you mean a separate recording of a different performance of the song, then yes, it is a different "work" - a separate copyrightable sound recording, but it is the same work of the song writer. Re-mastering may or may not create a separately copyrightable work, depending on the creative expression that goes into the re-mastering. Encoding to cassette, CD, mp3, audio stream in various formats is a mechanical process, not a separate "creative expression" that receives or deserves separate copyright protection.
- eesmith 8y ago"... and renting the music." That is not a correct interpretation of the first-sale doctrine. Someone who purchased a cassette, CD, etc. has the legal right to, among other things, rent the medium to others. For example, if I want to start a cassette tape rental company I can buy cassette tapes and rent them to the public, without seeking permission from the copyright holder of the music or other content on those tapes. (Some exceptions apply, like the Record Rental Amendment of 1984.)
- dgzl 8y agoI don't see how that's different than what I said? The only difference is that there's now a middle man. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the middle man can't make copies of the work and rent them out, right? They're just passing the rental to another person, who definitely can't make copies of the music.
- eesmith 8y agoHmm. I think I got mixed up when you wrote "medium". I associated it with a recording medium, but I think you meant it more like access medium? If it were recording medium then there are two issues at play: the right to make a copy, and the right to distribute. A rental agreement can exclude the right to sublease/re-rent. However, the copyright owners, by selling a copy of the work, have given up that right to prohibit further redistribution. The middle man may not make copies of the work but may rent them out. It is not "passing on the rental" because there was no rental in the first place; legally speaking. OTOH, since streaming isn't covered under first sale doctrine, such distinctions are not relevant.