Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 October 21

= October 21 =

Downloading deleted albums
OK, I'm asking for opinions here – sue me. What are some of the ethical considerations regarding downloading an album that has been deleted, i.e. is not currently available? There are many mp3 blogs and torrent sites that specialize in offering such rare records for download. I've heard various arguments being brought into play. First, the artist and record company are not losing out financially, since there is no official product to be bought. Indeed, in many cases it's unclear exactly where the copyright resides – the artist may be dead, the record label may no longer exist, and so on. Some would also say that such blogs help to keep the music alive in a way that wouldn't otherwise be possible. On the other hand, it could be argued that making such albums available should be discouraged, since it could hurt the potential future revenue stream of the artist and record label in the event that they decide to reissue the album at some point in the future. Comments? --Richardrj talkemail 11:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be anyone's concern "where the copyright resides." That there is a copyright is all that matters.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of online debate about Google Books digitising out-of-print books and what the copyright issues are regarding that, which raises many of the same issues as with deleted albums, so you could read some of the coverage of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement here and on news and comment websites. --Lesleyhood (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The copyright holder has the right to produce copies of their own work for their own profit. If it were suddenly availible for free, that would have a direct negative impact on that right.  That it is not availible now does not diminish the fact that they have the right to produce it tomorrow and any copyright violations today would infringe upon that right.  -- Jayron  32  13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly related: contrary to popular perception Hitlers "Mein Kampf" is not actually illegal in Germany. Rather the current copyright holder (the State of Bavaria) has decided not to re-publish (while pressing charges against anyone who violates their copyright). So in the case mentioned by the OP: there is clearly a copyright infringement, the chance of this being followed up when no monetary (or other) interests are at stake is probably small.195.128.251.53 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethically, I think in the cases of seemingly "abandoned" works, a small amount of illicit distribution is probably not a bad thing. In many cases one can argue that it actually has more of a chance of benefitting the original author in the long run than the contrary, and that in the case of very old works, the ethics does not follow a blind following of copyright law in the first place (as the law itself is rather transparently bent towards the rights of content producers and not content users, as was originally intended by the idea of copyright). The tricky part is whether it is really abandoned or only appears to be. The law, however, is pretty clear... but legality and ethics are not the same thing! --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron32 and with LarryMac. I disagree with Mr.98's clause, "as was originally intended by the idea of copyright".  Obviously copyright law exists to benefit the authors.  That's why it exists.  Before copyright existed there was no check on 100% legal piracy, and it was rampant, and the authors earned doodley-squat.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Valeria's Grand Finale
In the grand finale of Valeria, which one of the inmates were making fun of Miroslava Montemar de Riquelme when she was crying in the mental institution? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Champions League Scheduling
Does anyone know why Champions League games in Russia tend to be played a couple of hours earlier than the rest of Europe? I imagine it is the time difference, but I was wondering if there was another reason. Thank you, 66.108.41.65 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For other Champions League matches, kickoff time is 20:45 CET (19:45 GMT/22:45 MSK). If that same kickoff time was kept for games played in Moscow, the players wouldn't finish playing until after midnight (local time) causing all kinds of problems for the fans (the cold, transport, kids going to bed, bars closing, etc.) plus potential additional expenses for late-night police/security and unreasonable disturbance to people who live near the stadium - how would you like thousands of fans passing your place at 1am?  By shifting kickoff to 18:30 CET, the local kickoff time is a much more reasonable 20:30 MSK.  The change to 18:30 CET is probably one of the exceptions made by the UEFA Administration as is permitted by the competition's regulations.  Astronaut (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as a side note...in Spain there are quite regularly games that kick off at 10pm (e.g. Sevilla vs Espanyol tomorrow night). This will result in thousands of fans passing people's homes at around midnight. It realy depends on the culture of the place as to what is going to be an appropriate kick off time - in Spain they play games in the evening - I suspect they would consider it crazy to have a game kick off at 12.15 when everybody is taking a Siesta (or at least the sun is at its highest in the sky). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)