Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56
  1. #1
    DPM
    DPM is offline
    Forum Regular DPM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    143

    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

  2. #2
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318

  3. #3
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085
    Count me in. Let me know if you need my address.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular Demetrio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    C.Grande, PB - Brazil
    Posts
    264
    One for me, please!!

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

    Demetrio
    progger@terra.com.br

  5. #5
    In perfect harmony DarrenH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wolverine Country
    Posts
    552
    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
    Let the midnight special shine a light on me.

  6. #6
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Yes please!

    Let me know if you need my address.

    Thanks!

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville
    Posts
    1,112

    I would like one too

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

    Dave

  8. #8
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Yes please. Not sure if I have 3&4 but I know I like 1&2. Thanks...Hyfi

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7
    You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?

  10. #10
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    Nope

    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.
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

  11. #11
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    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.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7
    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.

  13. #13
    In perfect harmony DarrenH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wolverine Country
    Posts
    552
    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
    Let the midnight special shine a light on me.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7
    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

  15. #15
    Close 'n PlayŽ user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Wellllll, there's no proof that the discs actually changed hands, is there?

    At this point it's all talk.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7
    You do understand how a lawsuit works when a big guy comes after you right?

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville
    Posts
    1,112
    There is no way in hell trading comps is illegal.

    Dave

  18. #18
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    It's no different than mix tapes that people have been making for decades.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    I'm Not A Lawyer Or An Expert Pt. 1

    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
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

  20. #20
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    I'm Not A Lawyer or An Expert Pt. 2

    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.
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

  21. #21
    very clever with maracas Davey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on some faraway beach...
    Posts
    2,916
    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

  22. #22
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    Where Were You On The Night Of January 14?

    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.
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

  23. #23
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    I Tried to Read the AHRA...

    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.
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

  24. #24
    very clever with maracas Davey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on some faraway beach...
    Posts
    2,916
    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.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular BarryL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,085

    Google is Wonderful. Read It.

    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.
    "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" - Rush

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Best of these 4 prog albums (real poll)
    By PPG in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 09:52 AM
  2. "Rites of Spring" Prog Festival just outside of Philly.
    By ForeverAutumn in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-16-2004, 10:38 AM
  3. My Cool Canadian Comp is ready
    By ForeverAutumn in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-19-2004, 01:45 PM
  4. A new batch of prog is on the way.
    By DPM in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-09-2004, 08:21 PM
  5. 14 Prog albums worth losing your "indie cred" over
    By -Jar- in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-04-2004, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •