On Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:49 AM Jesse Stay wrote:
>IANAL but it *shouldn't* be okay to download movies and music that weren't
intended to be downloaded for free, but it *is* legal. Fair use doctrine...
Actually, fair use doctrine is *not* applied to downloads. Fair use only
says that once you have copyrighted material, that ***you*** are allowed to
make a backup copy and to quote from it. It does not provide for general
purpose download sites to exist. Breaking encryption is also prohibited
unless certain conditions are met.
Here are the 2 main positions on this matter:
Position #1: Some say that it should be allowable for people having
purchased music and DVD's to then download electronic copies to their
digital players.
Position #2: Free download sites do not and can not monitor who has
purchased a licensed copy. Therefore, they cannot confirm whether they are
illegally distributing or not.
Both positions are valid. Here's the $64 question:
"How can Position #1 be protected while addressing the concerns of those who
support Position #2?"
Resolve this concern and you will become famous.
Yesterday, I was in DC, on business, and I visited the National Archives,
where I ran across the following quote:
"However combinations or associations of the above description [factions]
may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time
and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to
usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very
engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-- George Washington, Farewell Address
It seems to me that both sides of this debate are falling into this trap.
So what do we do?
We obey the law, while, if we so choose, working to change it.
The old Napster was taken down, because it participated in and facilitated
illegal activities. There are numerous individuals who participated in
those activities who have/are/will be *rightfully* sued under current US
law. In those cases, parents of participating kids were sued and forced to
repay $1000's to tens of thousands of dollars. This can be an incredible
burden on a family that can barely afford their internet connection.
The new Boy Scout patch may serve Hollywood, but it also serves to educate
in an effort to teach Scouts about the current law. The patch will help
teach scouts how not to make their parents liable for large sums of money.
The purpose of the patch is not to debate current law, but simply to educate
about it. Don't confuse your opinion of what the law should be with what
the law is...
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
