On 25 Dec 1999 08:48:01 -0500, in you wrote:
>You obviously feel strongly about this, but are somewhat misinformed. Take
>a look at the Berne agreements on international copyright law, which in the
>US is known as the Copyright Act of 1976, and is the core of US copyright
>law. They were not laid down by our founding fathers. They were not
>purchased from the US congress.
The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down
by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or
the United States Constitution. See below.
>
Copyright law is governed in the U.S.by the United States
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Statutes are
merely congress' implementation of the constitution. There is a
provision in the Constitution dealing explicitly with copyright law.
It trumps all else.
Our founding fathers sought the free flow if information as the
economic oil that would promote our economy, and it worked gloriously.
Intellectual property rights are the EXCEPTION to this free flow of
information. They were meant to be narrowly construed.
Result: as a constitutional matter in the U.S., benefit of the doubt
will often go to the MP3 manufacturer, the college kid running the web
site, the hobbyist trading MDs, the music fan recording music off of
the radio, the television viewer taping a TV show, etc. etc. That's
how it works in the U.S., over and over and over, despite ne'er do
wells yelling THIEF at every turn. Federal judges understand this
very well. Other nations were not founded on this principle in the
way the United States was.
The American Home Recording Act (AHRA) makes things explicitly legal
which would have been legal anyway if anyone was ever dumb enough to
prosecute a home recordist. The powerful and wealthy recording
industry managed to get SCMS and the extra fees from MD sales out of
the deal though.
Read the AHRA, not a summarization of it or someone else's
interpretation of it. It means EXACTLY what it says. It contradicts
what you are saying.
>None of this has anything to do with copyright law. And it has not stopped
>artists like Amie Mann from forming their own labels.
All of these issues derive from copyright law. The power of the
recording industry derives from copyright law. The recording industry
has manipulated the laws in its favor. Recording artists have fought
long and hard to even the playing field. The internet may finally
even the playing field. Thank God.
>
>| Please think. Recording a friend's CD is unethical? Think about what
>| unethical is. The law is not ethics, the law is not morals. Ask
>| Muhummad Ali. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>I thought we were discussing a point of law, not ethics. But if you wish
>to discuss ethics and morals, so be it. Do you really believe that it is
>ethically and morally justified to STEAL the ARTIST'S $1.50 per cd sold
>because you do not like scummy practices of his record label? Do you
>really believe it is RIGHT to take from the artist what little he does get
>from the work he has done? Is it FAIR that you and your friend get the
>artist's work and he gets NOTHING?
The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking
anything from anyone when you trade an MD. Think about it literally.
In the United States we want to exchange ideas as freely as possible
and still promote creativity. Thus the NARROW exception of
intellectual property laws, as it puts an economic damper on the
free-flow of information, though it provides an economic incentive for
creativity. People use and build on each others' ideas all the time
in the U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes creativity,
freedom and economic growth.
In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas. It
is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry. All the edges
are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal is.
As I mentioned above, the issue has very often been resolved in favor
of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free flow of
information and ideas. That's the way our Constitution was meant to
be construed.
It bothers me when someone gets on their moral high horse and acts
like copying someone else's CD is like shoplifiting. It's not, either
in the mechanics of the deed, in law, or ethically. It's simply not
stealing. It's recording a CD. Stealing and recording a CD are two
different things. It's really quite simple. And recording a CD at
home, even if it's someone else's, is not illegal in the U.S, if you
don't sell it to someone else. Read the AHRA. Not what someone says
it says, not the summarization of the statute, but the actual words of
the statute. It means exactly what it says, no ifs ands or buts.
Hopefully I've opened someone's mind, but I doubt it.
I should have been a little less abrasive in my previous post. My
apologies.
To those of you who have implied I don't know what I'm talking about,
well, maybe, but just maybe I do, maybe you don't know me very well...
; )
Happy holidays to all. Please be nice.
Regards to the list, Steve : )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
