Post #186333 by tikibars on Tue, Sep 13, 2005 11:34 AM

On 2005-09-13 09:36, Swanky wrote:
That argument falls completely flat on it's face with one simple fact: Used record and CD sales. Loss of sound quality: Zero. Revenue to the original artist and record industry: zero.
On the copying point, there is a lot of precident for allowing copying. Radio stations broadcast and copy music all the time. It's a fair use clause. There would be plenty of room to put this sort of sampler trading under the same "benefit equals loss" paradigm. Certianly in terms of out of print material, there is no loss at all. Zero revenue is being generated in any form of music sale, so no argument can be made of loss of revenue.
There are issues in all this, but not for us swapping music at Hukilau. My opinion is that the industry is just being a big bully rather than try to adapt their business model to changes in technology and society. Billy Mure was selling burned copies of his records last year, how does that fit in? All this is for big business and other people to worry about. Remeber kids, the RIAA only sues people who share a lot of music online, not those that download a lot of music online.

The post made by me on this thread prior to this one was for educational purposes only, and as I mentioned a the beginning of the post, it was not intended to detract from (or really have anything further to do with, except in the most abstract sense) people swapping music at Hukilau.

I didn't think I'd need to respond at length again on the admittedly not-very-Tiki subject. But Tim, as much as I like and respect you, I have to say that all of your various points above are completely misguided.

Let me address them one by one.

Used CD/LP sales. Artists and labels HATE this practice, but there is nothing they can do about it. The important point is that the music is not being copied or mechanically or digitally reproduced. If you buy a CD and then sell it to someone else, it is your property and you have the right to sell it off as used goods. It is true that the artists and labels make no money off of the sale, and in the 1980s there was a big push to get used record stores closed. That push failed, of course. But the point here is that the original CD/LP is not being copied. That makes it legal.

Radio.
Radio does not fall under 'fair use'. That is something completely different. Again, radio is not copying the material and selling it. As you listen to the radio, you do not have a hard copy of what you are listening to. Record labels and bands LOVE radio because it gives them mass exposure to many many thousands of people at one time, at little cost to the artist or record label. It is like free advertising for the CD/LP not to mention concerts and other band merchandise. Again: no permenent copy of the music is being made or sold. And, the radio stations pay fees to ASCAP and BMI (as do nightclub owners, any place that has a jukebox, and other people who play records or CDs in public) so that the artists get a bit of cash from these spins. Even the Bahia Mar hotel (home of the Hukilau) pays an annual fee to ASCAP and BMI to cover royalties for all music performed or played on the premesis.

ASCAP and BMI are artist-owned organizations that exist soley to champion the rights of recording artists. They are not the RIAA, which exists to champion record companies.

Billy Mure: Tim, your argument REALLY falls apart here. Billy was selling copies of his own music for his own profit. Just becasue they were on cassettes or CDRs instead of pressed CDs makes no difference. The money was going to the artist, he wins, everyone is happy. End of story.

RIAA: whether or not they are suing YOU makes no difference - they would go after everyone, if it was feasible to do so.

The music industry IS adapting their business model to the changes in technology and society, by launching sites like iTunes where you can legally buy MP3s. People like you who insist that trading or giving away music that is available to buy legally is an acceptible thing to do, and who refuse to see how radically different it is to give away thousands of copies of an MP3 versus one or two or even five copies of a mix tape are literally killing the chances of new artists making a living from their work.

The official swap meet for all Tiki stuff is still at noon in the ballroom. The rules for acceptable music swapping are posted several posts above this one. The rules, from a legal standpoint are quite lenient, actually. I am a music fan myself, of course, and have traded MP3s, mix CDs and other stuff actively in the past (and present).

The question you have to ask yourself, honestly and ethically, is: "am I taking bread off of someone's table by giving away this music?". If you can honestly answer 'no', then proceed.

Again, this is a pretty vague and lenient reading of the law, but we rabid music fans can usually get by with using it as a rule of thumb.

If you disagree with the law, then just do yourself a favor and ask Robert Drasnin, the Haole Kats, the Intoxicators, Tongo Hiti, King Kukulele, or Waitiki how they feel about you copying their CDs, and they will all, I am sure, let you know their opinion on the subject. And it won't be pretty.

For the last time: selling or trading of digital copies of material for which active copyright can be clearly demonstrated (i.e. for sale currently by a legit source) is not acceptible, at Hukilau, or anywhere else.

This means that about 15% of all classic Exotica and 10% of all classic Hapa Haole is off limits.

Is this too restrictive for you, Tim?