cmturner2 Wrote: > Indeed, that is what the RIAA would like you to believe. The point is, the document you quoted is moot on this point.
You are chosing to interpret it in a way that is favourable to you. But the quoted document doesn't say what you're claiming it says. In the case of software, a similar enough situation, it says the courts have disagreed and so there is no clear cut "law of the land" at this point. It also says a supreme court ruling will likely be necessary to resolve the disagreement amongst the lower court decisions. Rather than relying on narrowly construed legal decisions, why don't you use common sense? If the law were truly to be construed in the way you describe, each artist might have only one sale, to you, say, who would copy it to their hard disk and sell it to their neighbour, who would do the same and sell it to their neighbour, etc. In this way, the artist would be paid only one royalty. Clearly this would not be enough to live on, the artist would have to move on to another line of work, and no music would ever be recorded again. If the law were to be construed as you say, artists would get no royalties and the business of recorded music would collapse (live performances might still sustain some artists). At which point the law wouldn't matter because there'd be no recorded music to copy. So it's a wonderful rationalization, (perhaps) narrowly within the law, but when all is said and done, both morally wrong and non-self-sustaining as a business model. Michael -- Michaelwagner _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
