Official Luthiers Forum!

I have all of Robbie's dvd's and all of John's except his latest, which I will get soon. They are worth twice the price, and I feel bad that they do not get royalties or profit when these videos are rented. Legal or not, I think it is less than ethical. Comparing a Hollywood movie dvd to a Mayes dvd is not really accurate in my view. John's are much better!

Only my opinion.

Jeff

[QUOTE=James Orr] I'm apalled that someone would burn one of John's
dvd's, then tell him so
AND ask for him advice. That's absolutely obscene.

At church we can only show certain DVD's. We have a license (kind of like
a CCLI for movies I think), and if they're not on it, we can't watch it. It
doesn't have anything to do with the number of people seeing it, but the
fact that we're an organization. John, would you like me to look into the
details?[/QUOTE]

I was rather appalled too, but the damage was already done and I just
answered the questions and moved on.

I would be interested in any details if they pertained to the particular
situation. I have no money to hire any lawyer, and I'm not sure if I would
want to even though I do feel slighted in a sense. I hate to curb the flow
of information about lutherie in the world, but at the same time I still
have 4 mouths to feed in my family. (myself included, and one look at me
should tell you I like to eat :) )

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

[QUOTE=Jeff Doty] I have all of Robbie's dvd's and all of John's except his
latest, which I will get soon. They are worth twice the price, and I feel bad
that they do not get royalties or profit when these videos are rented.
Legal or not, I think it is less than ethical. Comparing a Hollywood movie
dvd to a Mayes dvd is not really accurate in my view. John's are much
better!

Only my opinion.

Jeff

[/QUOTE]

And your continued support is most appreciated. I'm sure I speak for
Robbie as well.

My videos better? hah.. now that's laughable. they are only better if you
like some nerdy spoof comedy of white men can't dance.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

John your videos are better. So much so that I've forgotten and ordered a couple of them twice.

_________________
Don Atwood
Arlington, VA

John Mayes, I have 6 of your excellent dvd's in my collection and refer back to them regularly. Regarding your brand of nerdy comedy, this world needs more of that. Keep it up!

You know John... (and I guess this applies to you too Robbie), you might want to include a little synopsis on the front and end of your videos that "speak" to the customers of these services or to anyone who has borrowed the videos -- explaining to them that "you are not in this for the money" and that "your continued support, makes more dvd's like this one possible. So, if you watched it and got something of value out of it you might consider buying your own copy to help support the time and expense that was involved in making it."

I am sure that everybody realizes that you are not getting rich on these and I think a personal approach like that might go a long way to get people to buy their own copy.

Then the DVD rental guys would be a source of advertising... (although I recognize that there is still a risk of someone copying them)

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

I know I'm a little late on this topic but...

I own all of John's videos and have found them to be well worth the
money. Money is definitely tight for me, and as cheap as I am would
never consider something as low as selling/renting bootlegs to make up
some of the cost or attempt to profit from it. Whatever happened to
SUPPORTING the things that people do....FOR US MIND YOU!

Call me old-fashioned, but it really bothers me to know others are doing
this. What really gets my goat is the fact that those idiots have had the
audacity to trouble him for questions......taking not only his money, but
also his time...which is just as bad.

Sorry to vent. I will continue to proudly support people like John and
Robbie. Their knowledge has undoubtedly benefitted us all.

Thanks for listening.

Jordan Jordan Bunte38879.9826157407

[QUOTE=Don A] John your videos are better. So much so that I've forgotten and ordered a couple of them twice. [/QUOTE]
Maybe you could rent the extras! JUST KIDDING!

Look, if you think "free" internet downloading or DVD burning isn't wrong, consider this: Suppose one of your buddies offers to rent you his prized John Mayes guitar, and after playing it you think, "Man, this is a great instrument! I want one just like it!" Would you then go to John's shop when he's not there and take a finished guitar to keep as your very own? Most people wouldn't, because it's obviously stealing. Why would you think the theft of his intellectual property is any less wrong? You might as well be reaching into John's bank account and lifting out a couple of twentys. It's just wrong--legally and morally.

As poor and broke as i am, i agree with Jordan and Carlton, C'mon guys, at least have the respect for those who make a living out of this, it is stealing from people who are always there to help us freely here and who are trying to cover some expenses with these productions.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=Don A] John your videos are better. So much so that I've forgotten and ordered a couple of them twice. [/QUOTE]
Maybe you could rent the extras! JUST KIDDING!

Look, if you think "free" internet downloading or DVD burning isn't wrong, consider this: Suppose one of your buddies offers to rent you his prized John Mayes guitar, and after playing it you think, "Man, this is a great instrument! I want one just like it!" Would you then go to John's shop when he's not there and take a finished guitar to keep as your very own? Most people wouldn't, because it's obviously stealing. Why would you think the theft of his intellectual property is any less wrong? You might as well be reaching into John's bank account and lifting out a couple of twentys. It's just wrong--legally and morally.[/QUOTE]

There is one massive, significant difference between the two; a copy of intellectual copyright does not affect someone's ability to still own and use the item stolen. So, y'know, as far as analogies go, I think that one remains terrible. Fact remains that much downloading (for me) falls squarely and legally under the fair use laws of this country. But it certainly never stopped me from paying for a DVD or CD of a TV show or MP3 I found I actually liked, because I do believe owners of intellectual property deserve compensation (although I'm somewhat less clear on why their descendants should...)Mattia Valente38880.0861689815

John, when you answered the guy's questions, you should've taken a lesson from Peggy Hill...she was tutoring LuAnne's boyfriend for his GED...didn't want him to pass, and taught him that the 3 states of matter are "solid, liquid, and GEL!".... I know, you're too classy to sabotage a guy's guitar, but it woulda been fair!

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente] a copy of intellectual copyright does not affect someone's ability to still own and use the item stolen.[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]Fact remains that much downloading (for me) falls squarely and legally under the fair use laws of this country.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but I'm talking about the people in the U.S. who feel it's their right to copy and distribute (and, by extention, to download) any recording with impunity. Here's my thinking: Suppose someone puts his blood, sweat, tears and creativity into making a CD or DVD. He then makes his first sale, and, feeling that his product is good, expects many more sales. Then suppose the next day he finds out that everyone in the country has a copy of his creation; they didn't pay for it, they just downloaded a copy, or got one from their friends. Is that fair use? How about if only a quarter of the country did this; or 100 people; or ten? Is it fair if even one person does this? I don't think so. It's always been understood in the music business, for example, that some people will make dubs for their own use, or give one to a friend, but it has just gotten too easy to make quality dubs and distribute them internationally, not just to your buddy. It's not right, and I would encourage anyone to not participate.

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]I do believe owners of intellectual property deserve compensation (although I'm somewhat less clear on why their descendants should...)[/QUOTE]
If you've built a good life through the sweat of your brow and the determination of your mind, wouldn't you want to leave its fruits to your family when you die? Wouldn't you want your grandchildren to benefit as well--even your great grandchildren?

For various reasons I agree with Mattia on the rights of others to exploit copyrights of dead artists. Generally, with the rare exception, the rights to recordings lie with the companies who recorded them and I don't think Sony should be able to keep classic jazz (or whatever else) recordings out of the public domain for 95 years after the artist's death.

As an illustrative consequence of this sort of thing, if I am to believe SPEBSQSA (the worldwide society in charge of barbershop music) then it is -illegal- to perform a song penned after 1918 without buying a copy of the sheet music from whoever owns said copyright. This is even if you learn it by ear. And I'm sure the 95 year term will be re-challenged, re-bribed, and end up at 120 years come 2013 when it starts expiring.

Imagine what would have happened if this sort of corrupt thinking started in the 1500s and the law was enforced! Sorry, Johnny, you can't learn or play -any- music unless you pay the original songwriter's descendents/record company $7 for each song. It'd cost a garage band $1000 in royalties just to play a set!


As for what Mattia meant, Carleton:
The difference between physical property and "intellectual property" is that if you take my loaf of bread then I cannot sell that loaf of bread. If you copy my CD, I can still sell ten million copies so long as I retain the master. When I sell you bread, I sell you a literal loaf of bread. When I sell you a recording of me singing a song, what I'm really selling you is one blank CD and the -right- to own a recording of that song.Bob Garrish38880.8085300926

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

John,

I do not think you look like a jackass in this situation. None of us can speak for others but there are certainly ethical concerns here to be considered. I think people should be paid for their intellectual property and their hard work. Although I don’t know much about the rental business I do feel you should get something. More importantly, is the ability that some have to make duplicates of DVDs/CDs. This is most likely a much bigger area of loss for those who make recordings. As we are well aware of some people have a way of bending ethics to fit their needs. Making duplicates of DVDs and CDs is pretty simple and I have no problems as backups. When you make copies and either sell them or give them to others then you are stealing from those who produced the intellectual work. If you rent a DVD/CD or borrow one from a friend and then make a copy for yourself then you are again stealing. If you do the work you should be rewarded with proper payment and I would never be ashamed of thinking that. I put together a CD as a Christmas gift to all my administrate assistants (40). It would have been so easy to rip the songs from my record collection and create my CD. Instead, I worked much harder and purchased the songs with rights to produce additional CDs (not for sale). Even this was limited and I had to purchase some songs mutual times. I ended up with a nice CD that, although it didn’t have all the songs I would have liked, was legal. Sorry, I’m going on an on. If you do the work you should be paid and your work protected.

Philip

_________________
aka konacat

If you think my playing is bad you should hear me sing!
Practice breeds confidence and confidence breeds competence. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in practice.

John, your acting talents are huge! I mean I'm talking Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey, and Patrick Swayze all wrapped up in one, with killer sideburns to boot! (Ever thought of making your own version of "Point Break"??)

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

John, I agree! You have talent. You make nice guitars and ukuleles but maybe you should reconsider if you plans include rapping or dancing. Just kidding...you crack my up. I appreciate someone who can have fun.

Philip

_________________
aka konacat

If you think my playing is bad you should hear me sing!
Practice breeds confidence and confidence breeds competence. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in practice.

[QUOTE=John Mayes] [QUOTE=James Orr] I'm apalled that someone would burn one of John's
dvd's, then tell him so
AND ask for him advice. That's absolutely obscene.

At church we can only show certain DVD's. We have a license (kind of like
a CCLI for movies I think), and if they're not on it, we can't watch it. It
doesn't have anything to do with the number of people seeing it, but the
fact that we're an organization. John, would you like me to look into the
details?[/QUOTE]

I was rather appalled too, but the damage was already done and I just
answered the questions and moved on.

I would be interested in any details if they pertained to the particular
situation. I have no money to hire any lawyer, and I'm not sure if I would
want to even though I do feel slighted in a sense. I hate to curb the flow
of information about lutherie in the world, but at the same time I still
have 4 mouths to feed in my family. (myself included, and one look at me
should tell you I like to eat :) )[/QUOTE]

John just wait until your videos are offered via p2p networks !!- and they will eventually end up there believe me - I have seen many of Dan Erlewines videos available to freely download on p2p and bit torrent sites, and many ampbuilding and repair videos, speaker reconing videos, etc. Nevermind the multitude of instructional materials {literally 1000's of vhs and dvd copies}!!
Regardless of your or my feelings on the matter the fact is if there is sufficient demand for them in an open market - they will eventually be pirated and distributed on p2p - then the author/maker producers/retailers/rental[ers] will make even less money still.
Cheers
Charliewood
John - PS: By the same token if this eventually happens - or perhaps mabye even as a way to circumvent this from happening, you could stop making dvds and start offering downloads with DRM digital rights management encoding, allowing people to download and view the materials on thier computer, but they would never be able to make copies - its cheaper to run a server than make a dvd copy anyway, plus you get the copy protection!
There is even a way to give ppl a liscence to watch the vids for a certain amount of time{your own rental to them!} and then they{the copy} will not work after that! Perhaps this would be more lucrative for you John - its only fair that you should make some money for your efforts of putting these films together!
I wouldnt feel bad about feeling short changed! mabye you should look into this?
Cwcharliewood38881.6141898148

[QUOTE=charliewood] [QUOTE=John Mayes] [QUOTE=James Orr] I'm
apalled that someone would burn one of John's
dvd's, then tell him so
AND ask for him advice. That's absolutely obscene.

At church we can only show certain DVD's. We have a license (kind of like
a CCLI for movies I think), and if they're not on it, we can't watch it. It
doesn't have anything to do with the number of people seeing it, but the
fact that we're an organization. John, would you like me to look into the
details?[/QUOTE]

I was rather appalled too, but the damage was already done and I just
answered the questions and moved on.

I would be interested in any details if they pertained to the particular
situation. I have no money to hire any lawyer, and I'm not sure if I would
want to even though I do feel slighted in a sense. I hate to curb the flow
of information about lutherie in the world, but at the same time I still
have 4 mouths to feed in my family. (myself included, and one look at me
should tell you I like to eat :) )[/QUOTE]

John just wait until your videos are offered via p2p networks !!- and they
will eventually end up there believe me - I have seen many of Dan
Erlewines videos available to freely download on p2p and bit torrent sites,
and many ampbuilding and repair videos, speaker reconing videos, etc.
Nevermind the multitude of instructional materials {literally 1000's of vhs
and dvd copies}!!
Regardless of your or my feelings on the matter the fact is if there is
sufficient demand for them in an open market - they will eventually be
pirated and distributed on p2p - then the author/maker producers/
retailers/rental[ers] will make even less money still.
Cheers
Charliewood
John - PS: By the same token if this eventually happens - or perhaps
mabye even as a way to circumvent this from happening, you could stop
making dvds and start offering downloads with DRM digital rights
management encoding, allowing people to download and view the
materials on thier computer, but they would never be able to make copies
- its cheaper to run a server than make a dvd copy anyway, plus you get
the copy protection!
There is even a way to give ppl a liscence to watch the vids for a certain
amount of time{your own rental to them!} and then they{the copy} will not
work after that! Perhaps this would be more lucrative for you John - its
only fair that you should make some money for your efforts of putting
these films together!
I wouldnt feel bad about feeling short changed! mabye you should look
into this?
Cw[/QUOTE]

This is a very intriguing idea. And I do like it, but I'm not the most savy
when it comes to this kinda stuff. I would not know how to DRM encode
stuff, and also it would leave the people out in the cold who were on dial
up trying to download a 3GB file, but never the less if you know spefics
on how to do what you suggest please do e-mail me and give me some
info, because I'm always open to ideas....

And speaking of videos..I'm going to be working on a new video very
soon. It will cover Cutaways, both sharp and soft, on how to bend, and fit
to rims, and make the neck and such work with the differences.....

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

John,

Alright! Bring it! I'm ready to Paypal!

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=Mattia Valente] a copy of intellectual copyright does not affect someone's ability to still own and use the item stolen.[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
[/quote]

Basically: you steal a guitar, it's gone. You copy a DVD, the original is still around. There's a difference, so comparing the two is problematic.

[quote]
[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]Fact remains that much downloading (for me) falls squarely and legally under the fair use laws of this country.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but I'm talking about the people in the U.S. who feel it's their right to copy and distribute (and, by extention, to download) any recording with impunity. Here's my thinking: Suppose someone puts his blood, sweat, tears and creativity into making a CD or DVD. He then makes his first sale, and, feeling that his product is good, expects many more sales. Then suppose the next day he finds out that everyone in the country has a copy of his creation; they didn't pay for it, they just downloaded a copy, or got one from their friends. Is that fair use? How about if only a quarter of the country did this; or 100 people; or ten? Is it fair if even one person does this? I don't think so. It's always been understood in the music business, for example, that some people will make dubs for their own use, or give one to a friend, but it has just gotten too easy to make quality dubs and distribute them internationally, not just to your buddy. It's not right, and I would encourage anyone to not participate.
[/quote]

Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if downloading has lead to increased, rather than decreased sales; wittering by big bands and record companies leaves me entirely cold, given their profits have, far as I know, always risen/gone up, and while there's plenty (personal experience, friends I see around me, experiences of artists who do offer free downloads) of anecdotal/empirical evidence that providing free downloads generates sales, the opposite hasn't been proven to anyone's satisfaction. The 'we're losing X billion per year in revenue' argument is nonsensical.

[quote]
[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]I do believe owners of intellectual property deserve compensation (although I'm somewhat less clear on why their descendants should...)[/QUOTE]
If you've built a good life through the sweat of your brow and the determination of your mind, wouldn't you want to leave its fruits to your family when you die? Wouldn't you want your grandchildren to benefit as well--even your great grandchildren?
[/QUOTE]

See, if you've done it right, you've still got significant personal wealth accumulated during your lifetime that you can leave to your children. Its fruits aren't goin' anywhere. I find the idea of copyrights supporting future generations who had nothing to do with their creation to be somewhat at odds with the ideal of making your own wealth/success/etc. There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere; after someone's death, descendants making a living off of other artists who want to perform tracks created by someone no longer alive? Thanks, but no.Mattia Valente38881.6721643519

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]Basically: you steal a guitar, it's gone. You copy a DVD, the original is still around. There's a difference, so comparing the two is problematic.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you still have to manufacture and package a disc to sell--and now it won't sell because a potential buyer got it for free. Add those up into the hundreds, thousands or millions (or, in the case of niche marketers like John, even just a few), and you can see that the loss of intellectual property can be just as devastating as the loss of physical property. Besides, it might be argued that a guitar maker could build another guitar just like the one that was lost, so I still think that my analogy holds.

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente] wittering by big bands and record companies leaves me entirely cold, given their profits have, far as I know, always risen/gone up, and while there's plenty (personal experience, friends I see around me, experiences of artists who do offer free downloads) of anecdotal/empirical evidence that providing free downloads generates sales, the opposite hasn't been proven to anyone's satisfaction.[/QUOTE]
I haven't really been thinking about the top dogs during this discourse, but really, stealing from the rich is still stealing.

You're correct that evidence has shown that offering free downloads can increase sales (or so I've read), but the key word here is "offering"--it's the artist's choice. If he or she choses to not offer them, one shouldn't feel that it's his right to upload or download them anyway.

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente]See, if you've done it right, you've still got significant personal wealth accumulated during your lifetime that you can leave to your children. Its fruits aren't goin' anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Unless all your work has been taken for free.

Seriously, though, I see intellectual property as being just as significant as physical property regarding inheritance. Suppose you built your family house, or, through your efforts, were able to buy one. Shouldn't generations of your family be able to inherit that house? Suppose you built a song, or a catalog of songs. Shouldn't your children, and their children be able to inherit it? I think so. Picasso's children inherited his paintings (minus taxes--another topic). Shouldn't Paul McCartney's, or Kurt Cobain's or Hank Williams' or John Mayes', children inherit their father's copyrights? After all, those copyrights represent their work as much as Bill Gates' bank account represents his.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=Don A] John your videos are better. So much so that I've forgotten and ordered a couple of them twice. [/QUOTE]
Maybe you could rent the extras! JUST KIDDING!

Look, if you think "free" internet downloading or DVD burning isn't wrong, consider this: Suppose one of your buddies offers to rent you his prized John Mayes guitar, and after playing it you think, "Man, this is a great instrument! I want one just like it!" Would you then go to John's shop when he's not there and take a finished guitar to keep as your very own? Most people wouldn't, because it's obviously stealing. Why would you think the theft of his intellectual property is any less wrong? You might as well be reaching into John's bank account and lifting out a couple of twentys. It's just wrong--legally and morally.[/QUOTE]

While I dont like the idea of John getting ripped off - your analogy is technically flawed, because the copying of a DVD is more like someone seeing an original guitar design, and liking the design, and then taking the dimensions/material list and making a clone of the instrument for themselves.
The original guitar isnt taken, only the original idea.
The copying of a DVD is technically the same amount of effort as the printing process of creating the actual DVD.
The difference is - the person/author who concieved of the original design, drew up the plans and sweated the creation of the instrument in the first place, and isnt compensated in the replication of the copied instrument.
Analagous to the conception of the film, the writing of the script and the filming and editing of the eventual DVD.
If someone went in and stole Johns flm/hard drive and backup copies of the DVD - then it would be the same as stealing the instrument itself.
This is not to say its not wrong - its just a slightly different level of theft than you are suggesting with your guitar theft depiction.

John: I downloaded some motocross videos encoded with DRM liscences for a friend who didnt have a computer so he and his sons could view them,
I can go back there and contact the owner of the site and see whats involved in getting videos distributed in this manner. You can then dfecide if this is too much trouble.
The files werent actually DVD quality though - but were MPEG `or AVI quality, which is still very good and quite watchable and definitely suitable enough for luthiers to get the picture of guitarmaking steps thats for sure.
But Digital Rights Management can be encoded onto saleable DVDs as well! so even if you sell them they cannot be copied.
I will look into and contact you.
Cheers
Charliewood

[QUOTE=charliewood] [QUOTE=CarltonM]Look, if you think "free" internet downloading or DVD burning isn't wrong, consider this: Suppose one of your buddies offers to rent you his prized John Mayes guitar, and after playing it you think, "Man, this is a great instrument! I want one just like it!" Would you then go to John's shop when he's not there and take a finished guitar to keep as your very own? Most people wouldn't, because it's obviously stealing. Why would you think the theft of his intellectual property is any less wrong? You might as well be reaching into John's bank account and lifting out a couple of twentys. It's just wrong--legally and morally.[/QUOTE]

your analogy is technically flawed, because the copying of a DVD is more like someone seeing an original guitar design, and liking the design, and then taking the dimensions/material list and making a clone of the instrument for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Charlie, I must respectfully disagree. A copy of a CD or DVD is the thing itself. It's no different than a guitar. Just as much, and often more, time and effort goes into "designing" and "building" a recorded project as goes into designing and building a guitar, except it's not done at that point. The master copy is the equivalent of a guitar builder's wood stash. It's nothing until a product is prepared for sale. If that product is circumvented in some way (downloading or copying illegally), then someTHING has been stolen, not just an "idea." The master copy is only the materials from which a product is produced, and is, frankly, of little value to its creator if he can not sell the product made from it.

If your above guitar/recorded material analogy were to hold up, then the "copier" would have to view or listen the original, then recreate it himself from scratch--get a studio, microphones, cameras, recording system, etc., then hire someone to perform the music or video, or do it himself. Then guess what--if he distributes it, it's plagiarism! Still illegal.

In America, its illegal to download and make copies of copywritten or protected materials - but its not that way everywhere. Some countries allow the downloading and making of a personal copy of materials available on the internet, despite US copyright, as long as its not distruted for profit, some countries have even less stringent laws in connection with copywritten/protected material.
In Canada for instance, the majority of recording artists making serious money in the industry are lobbying for free usage and unhindered downloading of thier recorded music, artists including Bare Naked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, and Treble Charger, Sum 41, etc.
So your broad blanket statement that its "illegal" is made from a strictly American perspective and is not neccessarily applicable elsewhere.
While I still disagree with your analogy in certain aspects, and can see your arguements for certain positions - I agree to disagree with you, and hope you will do the same.
Cheers
Charliewood

[QUOTE=charliewood]   While I still disagree with your analogy in certain aspects, and can see your arguements for certain positions - I agree to disagree with you, and hope you will do the same.
Cheers
Charliewood [/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Thanks, Charlie.