Prog Attack IV is ready.

Finally, I got around to making the fourth in my series of prog comps. Prog Attack IV is comprised solely of music I've acquired since Nearfest 2003. Some of the disks were purchased at Nearfest, while others came later. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I had to leave some artists (Anekdoten, Nathan Mahl, Pychotic Waltz, OSI, Devin Townsend) off this comp. Oh well, maybe next time. Here is the track list.

Prog Attack IV

1) Prolog by Anglagard (Epilog)
2) Tales Of The Great Wars by Glass Hammer (Lex Rex)
3) Skin Game by Arena (Contagion)
4) Remote Control by After Crying (Show)
5) Horla Rising by Ars Nova (Android Domina)
6) The Silk Road by Steve Hackett (To Watch The Storms)
7) Inferno by Symphony X (The Odyssey)
8) Idea by Isildurs Bane (Mind Volume 4)
9) Gagutz by Frogg Cafe (Creatures)
10) Gudamy Le Mayagot by Thinking Plague (A History Of Madness)
11) Kivitetty Saatana by Alamaailman Vasarat (Kaarmelautakunta)
12) Ayo Aise by Woodenhead (Perseverence)

OK, progheads. Who wants a copy?

Dave M

hit me!

paiva@designshed.com

Count me in. Let me know if you need my address.

One for me, please!!

Email me if you don't have my address anymore, ok?

Demetrio
progger@terra.com.br

I'm interested. Some of that I already have but what self respecting progger wouldn't. :)

Let me know if you need my home address again. I think you've sent me stuff before.

Thanks Dave,

Darren

Yes please!

Let me know if you need my address.

Thanks!

I would like one, I don't think you know my mailing address?

Dave

Yes please. Not sure if I have 3&4 but I know I like 1&2. Thanks...Hyfi

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

---

Here's my understanding of this issue.

1. At least in Canada, we pay a royalty to the Performing Rights Organization on ALL blank CDs sold in this country, whether they are for recording music or not. That royalty is there to compensate musicians for home recording. That means that in exchange for those "royalties" the consumer has purchased the right to copy. What we have not purchased is the right to resell. I don't know if this is the same in the U.S.

2. According to the RIAA, the copyright laws in the U.S. are such that you have the right to copy for relatives and friends, but not the right to resell copies.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the legality is a blurry issue, but from a practical standpoint people trading comps around here is a boon to the recording industry. The folks posting on here buy far more music than the average consumer and generally use the comps to discover new bands they would like to explore sooner. It's not like you're talking about a group of kids that download free music exclusively and never pay for squat. You're talking about people who are big music fans, who spend big bucks each year on music, and are simply trying a new method to discover more music to buy.

If any business intrest has a problem with that, frankly, they're idiots.

You have the right to personal use, you do not have the right to make and give away or sell copies to other people. The folks trading music on P2P systems are not making money and they are being pursued and fined in droves by the RIAA. You are opening yourself up to seriously large fines and by putting it out in the open like this you are making it very easy to be tracked down and the RIAA seems to really enjoy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

---

Maybe, maybe not but I don't look at that way. These comps are a source of new music for all to hear. It's a great way to introduce yourself to music you otherwise never knew existed. I have acquired a new appreciation for music and I owe it all the generosity of the people who have taken the time (not to mention spending their own money) to prepare and send these out. And I can assure you, if I like what I hear, I will seek out legitimate CD's. I have spent thousands over the last few years because of these compilations. Money the artists (or record companies or whatever) never would have seen.

Darren

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

I think the legality is a blurry issue, but from a practical standpoint people trading comps around here is a boon to the recording industry. The folks posting on here buy far more music than the average consumer and generally use the comps to discover new bands they would like to explore sooner. It's not like you're talking about a group of kids that download free music exclusively and never pay for squat. You're talking about people who are big music fans, who spend big bucks each year on music, and are simply trying a new method to discover more music to buy.

If any business intrest has a problem with that, frankly, they're idiots.

---

I see this kind of justification all the time, but it doesn't make something legal. It's not at all blurry, it's only blurry because you don't want to see it for what it is.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with your basic premise, I think that originally Napster did a lot to boost album sales, but I think now you have a whole generation of kids who think it is their god given right to get it for free, and in that case I think the RIAA is justified in putting the fear of god in them. The problem with this trading is that you don't know where it ends, it could get copied and handed off for 10 generations and then end up on the P2P systems.

Personally I use internet radio to sample new music, there are lots of good stations, the one I like is progrock.com

Wellllll, there's no proof that the discs actually changed hands, is there?

At this point it's all talk.

You do understand how a lawsuit works when a big guy comes after you right?

There is no way in hell trading comps is illegal.

Dave

It's no different than mix tapes that people have been making for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You have the right to personal use, you do not have the right to make and give away or sell copies to other people.

---

For reasons of my own, I have in front of me a court document with the title: "Apellee's Opposition to Appellant Napster Inc.'s Emergency Motion for Stay Puruant to Rule 27-3 And Motion to Expedite Appeal." This is Appeal No. 00-16401, with the Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals date stamp of July 23, 1990, at 9:48 a.m.

This document was filed by the recording industry against Napster. Napster was found to be infringing the plaintiff's copyrighted works and were asking for a delay in the proceedings, and the plaintiffs were rebutting the request for the delay.

The claim of the plaintiff's is that "Napster expressly designed a system to make available to millions of users unlimited copies of what Napster itself accurately labeled 'pirated music.'"

The plaintiff's assert: "Virtually every recording copied using Napster is subject to federal copyrigh protection (recordings fixed after February 15, 1972) or state law practices...."

Given the millions of downloads and the growing popularity of Napster, the Plaintiffs write that "the Court expressly found that plaintiffs are likely to be injured by 'reduced CD sales and impediments into entry to the digital download market.'" That is, the Plaintiff's argue that the court has found that the Plaintiff's were being damaged materially by Napster's activities. They are trying to establish that Napster has no grounds for further delays and that the court should dismiss Napster's delay tactics.

They then go on to argue that The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) is irrelevant and inapplicable to the Napster case. The crux here is that Napster was trying to claim that computers are covered under the AHRA as home recording devices. But the industry raised precidents showing court rulings that under the AHRA's definitions, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sytems Inc.)

Why is this important? Because the issue with Napster had to do with computer downloading, not copying music as covered under the AHRA. What we are dealing with in copying music we own and sending out a few copies falls under AHRA. So what does AHRA say consumers can do?

I haven't read the AHRA, but we have some clues in this document.

Continued

Continued from Pt. 1.

The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) appears to cover the conditions under which purchasers of music can engage in home recording. It appears that the Act was an attempt to establish legal entitlement for certain aspects of home recording and the legal use of copying and distributing copyrighted works.

The AHRA appears to endorse the following: "Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights."

The Plaintiff's submission to the courts says: "The AHRA balances the interests of manufacturers, consumers, and copyright owners by 'plac[ing] restrictions only upon a specific type of recording device,' specifically defined in the statute, requiring such devices to be equipped with copy protections and that royalty payments be made based on their sale, and exempting consumers from copyright infringement lawsuits for private uses of AHRA-covered devices:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for the making of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." 17 U.S.C. 1008.

In other words, the Plaintiff's are arguing that a computer is not a covered device under the AHRA: "Thus, under Diamond, a computer is not a covered device, and a copy made by one Napster user of an MP3 file residing on another Napster user's computer hard drive is not a copy of a 'digital musical recording,' and is not covered by Section 1008" of the AHRA. So copying from computer to computer is not covered under AHRA. But it appears that copying from a CD which you own to a "medium for the making of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings" is. That is, making CD or Cassette copies or comps.

The Plaintiffs continue: "Moreover, even if it applied, Section 1008 exempts only "noncommercial use" by consumers, i.e., private copying -- not the wholesale distribution of music files among millions of anonymous strangers. Contrary to Napster's contention, the AHRA's legislative history fully supports this conclusion, providing that "home copies are used privately within the household (including personal vehicles) and are not used for implicit or explicit commercial purposes. Admission is not charged and users are a household and its normal circle of friends, rather than the public."

So here we have the Plaintiff's, which is essentially the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) representing all of the major labels, including Geffin, Sony, MCA, Atlantic, Motown, Capital, BMG, RCA, Universal, Elektra, Arista, Sire, Polygram, Virgin, and Warner Bros., arguing that Napster isn't protected by the AHRA, but that the AHRA does provide for home copying for private use and the sharing among the normal circle of friends of the household. This is where it gets pretty vague, but in my opinion, this means that the accepted wisdom of some that ALL COPYING IS ILLEGAL is not true. The AHRA makes copying legal under some circumstances.

The main worry of the recording industry in this document is that Napster had that ability to do huge amounts of damage because it basically allowed unlimited distribution and copying of copyrighted material and effectively removed control of sales and distribution from the legal owners of the material.

I would argue that the very limited nature of distribution among a small community of internet friends constitutes an extension of the household, and that as long as the original sender of the material owns the CDs from which the material is copies, it appears to be perfectly legal.

We should all do ourselves a favour and read the AHRA for ourselves. That may clarify the situation further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarryL

We should all do ourselves a favour and read the AHRA for ourselves. That may clarify the situation further.

---

Well, the RIAA clearly and unambiguously does view it as copyright infringement so it's probably best to make sure that if you are offering compilations for trade on a site like this that they don't contain any RIAA member content. Fortunately, that's not too hard for most of us indie hipster elitist (and prog) snobs :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

---

By the way, welcome to our community of music lovers.

Given that your first four posts are about the illegality of comp trading and being sued by record companies, are you in any way connected to, or have professional relationships with, any record companies or law firms currently doing work for record companies?

I'm just curious about your motivation, given that you could have posted about anything music related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

Well, the RIAA clearly and unambiguously does view it as copyright infringement so it's probably best to make sure that if you are offering compilations for trade on a site like this that they don't contain any RIAA member content. Fortunately, that's not too hard for most of us indie hipster elitist (and prog) snobs :)

---

...and it don't clarify nothing. No wonder this stuff ends up in court. Who the hell knows what any of it means. That's what gives those with deep pockets (record companies, Elliot Spitzer, etc.) encouragement to vigorously prosecute their interpretation of their rights under the law. Legislators should be more responsible and do a better job putting out less defective product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarryL

I Tried to Read the AHRA...and it don't clarify nothing.

---

Yeah, but I don't think your umbrella extensions of the fair use provisions to all of your family, friends and internet buddies is gonna hold up in court. There were actually quite a few newspaper articles about exactly this type of internet group trading of compilations following the one in the New York Times early last year. I think I posted one from the local paper, but you can easily look up the NYT article entitled "For The Mix Tape, A Digital Upgrade And Notoriety" to get some views of people like us as well as from the RIAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

Yeah, but I don't think your umbrella extensions of the fair use provisions to all of your family, friends and internet buddies is gonna hold up in court. There were actually quite a few newspaper articles about exactly this type of internet group trading of compilations following the one in the New York Times early last year. I think I posted one from the local paper, but you can easily look up the NYT article entitled "For The Mix Tape, A Digital Upgrade And Notoriety" to get some views of people like us as well as from the RIAA.

---

Actually, that article isn't that helpful. We're given two opinions.

1. Mr. von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asserted that making a noncommercial mix CD was probably legal under the "fair use" provision of copyright law, but that notion has not been tested in court. He said that because of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, people who use blank audio CD-R's were probably in the clear legally because a portion of the price of those discs goes to the music industry.

2. Mr. Creighton of the recording industry association disputed that. Someone who is openly swapping CD's might get a cease-and-desist letter that could be followed by "more aggressive deterrence" if the activity does not stop, he said. "If there isn't any fear of repercussions, it's just going to continue to expand," he said, "while we try to give consumers legitimate alternatives." Copyright holders, not consumers, should decide whether certain kinds of copying are promotional or not, he added.

Of course, if the recording associations go to the government and get them to add a royalty fee to blank CD-Rs to pay artists for use of their copyrights, they are in effect sanctioning use of those copyrights. Why else would they be collecting the fee? Given that I paid the fee, I am entitled to copy my own CDs. Now, whether I can distrubute them to others may be in dispute, but surely they can't have it both ways. If they have forced me to pay for the right to copy, they shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim they weren't compensated. I don't know whether in the U.S. you have to pay for blank CDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarryL

Actually, that article isn't that helpful. We're given two opinions.

---

Actually, I thought that's why it is helpful. It seemed as though some in this thread were only viewing the situation from one perspective when there are clearly two sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

Actually, I thought that's why it is helpful. It seemed as though some in this thread were only viewing the situation from one perspective when there are clearly two sides.

---

Yeah. Helpful to know there are two sides, which suggests caution, especially for those who think caution is not required. Not helpful in that it doesn't provide guidance.

But thanks for the reference. I don't know how you did that so quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

---

Don't worry, I called the police! You're all safe now, go back to what you were doing. The threat is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

It's no different than mix tapes that people have been making for decades.

---

Tapes sound like caca to begin with, then when you start making copies, they sound even worse.

If you make a copy after copy after copy of a disc, well, you know what that sounds like.

fp <--- thinking: how many CDs have I bought cuz of comps I got in here??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarryL

By the way, welcome to our community of music lovers.

Given that your first four posts are about the illegality of comp trading and being sued by record companies, are you in any way connected to, or have professional relationships with, any record companies or law firms currently doing work for record companies?

I'm just curious about your motivation, given that you could have posted about anything music related.

---

I'm a software developer and a musician and I'm very sensitive to piracy and have spent a lot of time researching it. I'm a huge fan of progrock and I do everything I can to spread the word, and try to keep things legal. I found a new site recently for electronic distribution www.mindawn.com and while it isn't fully online yet, when it is their site is supposed to allow you to play any song 3 times for free as a demo, which is another way to sample music in addition to my previously mentioned point about internet radio.

I know Clive Nolan and I know he would absolutely pop a cork to find out an Arena track is on this compilation and being passed around. I'm afraid no one here is really looking at the bigger picture, and that is what happens after you hand out that initial copy, when they tell two friends, who tell two friends and now suddenly there are hundreds of illegal copies and the musician has never been compensated for their material that they spent hard time and money to write, record and release. Keep that in mind next time you think it's fine to hand it around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

I know Clive Nolan and I know he would absolutely pop a cork to find out an Arena track is on this compilation and being passed around. I'm afraid no one here is really looking at the bigger picture, and that is what happens after you hand out that initial copy, when they tell two friends, who tell two friends and now suddenly there are hundreds of illegal copies and the musician has never been compensated for their material that they spent hard time and money to write, record and release. Keep that in mind next time you think it's fine to hand it around.

---

Hey Crux-

I'm a photographer, illustrator and writer. I've experienced theft of intellectual property first hand. This is different. CD comping IS no different than making mix cassettes in the 80s.

Tell Clive that there's people hearing one of his songs who wouldn't otherwise hear it. Some of them that liked the songs went out and bought an Arena CD of his because of it. Clive should LOVE what we're doing.

Hell, if you can even FIND an Arena CD in a store, why would I buy it for $18 without trying it? I'm way too old and wizened (been burned too many times) for that sorta behavior.

It should be considered ADVERTISING. FREE advertising. And 20 years ago it would have been. I guess the world has changed and now everybody is struggling to make it in a world with extremely tight profit margins.

I just don't see how a song on a comp mix by way of introduction to an unknown new artist is taking food off that guy's table. You can say that there are multiple generations of duping songs (2 friends begets 4 friends begets 8 and so on), but that is not what goes on with these comps. The comps go out and are nopt re-reproduced. You are thinking in a very pessimistic manner.

This attitude of not allowing us to share music we buy with our friends (so that they may brought into the fold and buy it too) cuts your nose to spite your face, dig?

You wanna get pissed at someone for theft of intellectual property? Go after the piracy in Asia of EVERYTHING. Go after the people CHARGING for dupes of stolen material. That's where the real problem is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarryL

Yeah. Helpful to know there are two sides, which suggests caution, especially for those who think caution is not required.

---

Even if it IS illegal, there's no PROOF that music actually changed hands. It's all just talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

Even if it IS illegal, there's no PROOF that music actually changed hands. It's all just talk.

---

Let me see if I can put this in terms that make sense. The discussion has already occured on here for the offer and acceptance of this media. How hard do you think it is to track down the people who accepted it and have a search warrant issued if the RIAA wants to do it? There is enough evidence here to provide probably cause. Do you really want to go through that anal exam? What your saying is just ignorant and delusional. There is an amazing degree of self-justification going on with most of these reponses, it's really stunning to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

Let me see if I can put this in terms that make sense. The discussion has already occured on here for the offer and acceptance of this media. How hard do you think it is to track down the people who accepted it and have a search warrant issued if the RIAA wants to do it? There is enough evidence here to provide probably cause. Do you really want to go through that anal exam? What your saying is just ignorant and delusional. There is an amazing degree of self-justification going on with most of these reponses, it's really stunning to me.

---

Well, unlike open internet file transfer which can be kept track of with invasive spyware by interested third parties, the mail service is still private and not subject to inspection by private parties.

The people talking about trading comps on this site- it's just hearsay. There's NO way to concretely prove that anything actually changed hands.

People have been trading music like this since the 60s. The RIAA has never tried to stop it in the past. They don't have a case and they know it.

Rather than beating this dead horse, try and beat some of the ones in my previous post about the ethics of doing this instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

---

I'd say 90% of the comps I've made are primarily composed of tracks I've gotten off of free compilations I've gotten at record stores.

Yeah, we can argue all we want for our case(s), but it's pretty much been proven that record companies don't see it our way- they see it in a way that really doesn't work.

fp

so Troy, I'm trying to distill down what you're saying, and this is what I figured out:

1. You don't think what you're doing is illegal
2. Even if it is illegal, no one can catch you and prove you did it.

That's a very nuanced set of principles you seem to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crux

That's a very nuanced set of principles you seem to have.

---

Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?

At the risk of buying contraband (though I do live in Canada now and from what I've read, should be protected by the laws here), what have I got to do to obtain your intriguing comp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slosh

Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?

---

You can be rude in a much more polite manner.

I think Clive Nolan is an outstanding musician and has done wonders for the resurgence of progressive rock music. I also am a musician and believe strongly in intellectual property rights. In fact, I issued a brief to the performing rights organization in Canada about 15 years ago - it was then called PROCAN, now SOCAN - not to go forward with the tax on blank cassettes to be paid as royalties to musicians. Why? Because it legitimizes copying. The went ahead and did it. Maybe they were more prophetic than I was, because copying has taken off. But now they are in the postion of trying to eat their cake and have it to. They still collect the royalties, and now want all computer buyers to pay a royalty on computer hard drives to compensate them for their perceived loss of royalties.

But I still stand by my contention that you can't charge me for the right to reproduce and then criticize me for reproducing. I have paid for that right. So in Canada, at least, I can reproduce for non-commercial purposes with the full moral sanction of the Canadian performing rights society and the Canadian Government.

As for Troy's post, I agree that technology is out of sync with the business model the record companies are still trying to operate to. People understand that artists don't get paid when their work is copied, and in spite of what the RIAA wants to claim, most people who hear copied work wouldn't want to buy those albums anyway. Most mainstream albums have one or two good songs and the rest is crap. Frankly, there is an oversupply of mediocre music, which drives down the value. IMO, the big record companies and the radio stations have created this problem, and now they want to legislate guaranteed profits. That's B.S. Steve Jobs was genius enough to see the future and take a chance, and it has paid off well for Apple. That is to allow people to pay for just the music they actually want. That way you can get those two great songs for $2.00 rather than $15.

Now, you might think that that is going to hurt artists. Yeah, it will hurt those who sell primarily on hype. But an artist now has global distribution and can make a lot more money if consumers really like that artists work. The record companies are screwed though, because they no longer offer a valuable service. Look at prog bands. They are almost all on independent labels, recorded in home or small studios, and they manage to eek out a living. With the Internet, life for these fringe artists will only get better. For one thing, they have complete control of their own artistic and business destiny.

In the business world, many businesses no longer file for patents because it doesn't really protect them, and they have to disclose their new ideas ahead of time. The world is changing, whether we like it or not. I agree with Crux that we need to consider that when we copy, artists don't get paid. But artists and RIAA need to understand what is really going on with copying and whether it helps them or hurts them in the long run. Also, let's be clear that the RIAA represents big music companies, not musicians directly.

Artists will benefit from downloading, IMO (there won't be any other way to buy music in ten years), but record companies will not. At least not the big crybabies of today. I don't know what Virgin is doing in the U.K., but at least someone like Branson has the balls to do it differently and change the model if he wants to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slosh

Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?

---

ROLMAO...Slosh, buddy...stop, you're killing me!!! You're not one to pull moral punches, are you??? :D
If we ever meet...I owe you a beer!!!

P.S. Kexodusc neither endorses nor condones any of the preceeding comments of this thread.