My impression is that people have, but the view that prevails is that of
Disney. Microsoft, Sony, Fox and Universal. Truth is that sharing of digital
files is very easy, and does effect their sales. I have some sympathy for them,
but I don't think copyright law is working that well for them.
One of the problems with copyright law is that if the copyright owner does not
enforce their copyright on every occasion, a case can be made that precedent is
set that the copyright has become public domain. This is why amateur and
individual usage draws the reaction from copyright holders. Such use could be
used a precedent for more exploitative use. However, most Copyright law
provides for limited copying under fair use, and for example in Australia, that
includes up to 10% of the work, or one chapter. For educational institutions,
they can copy 100% of a work no longer commercially available. On the other
hand, publishers have sued a university for not adequately monitoring the use
of photocopiers and students breached the fair use provision. The solution,
post a sign informing people of the fair use requirement, and ergo, it becomes
the responsibility of the individual.
Truth is copyright law is a lawyer's paradise, everything is fuzzy and
arguments can be made.
The simple solution is for the companies to grant license for reproduction for
personal use. This is what GMT has done, but Avalanche has not. So I'd suggest
the ball rests in Avalanche's hands, but in the general interests of the
creativity, copyright law should be made much more like patent law.
--- On Sat, 22/11/08, Joel Uckelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Enjoy your copyright laws, then. It won't ever change if people don't
make their views known to lawmakers.
--
J.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
