----- Original Message -----
From: J. Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
>
> somebody didn't read section 1008 correctly. Here it is again.
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
>
> Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based
> on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio
> recording device,
> a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
> analog
> recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of
> such a
> device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical
> recordings.
>
Read this for MD and tape and you get:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright
based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a Minidisc
recorder, a blank Minidisc, a cassette recorder, or a blank cassette, or
based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for
making digital musical recordings or analogue musical recordings.
So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank
discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets
increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken
as "commercial".
If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This
has increased my assets. It is therefore a commercial action. The fact that
it is such a small increase in assets it would probably be counted as
"insignificant" doesn't change the fact that it is a commercial action. Even
arguing that it may have benefits to other people does not discount it as a
commercial action. The only reasons I would not get prosecuted for this is
that the people who are effected by it either consider it "not worth
pursuing" because of the insignificance of my action, or that they see my
action may have a beneficial impact to them.
There's also the public impact to consider. If a band prosecuted an
individual for making a copy of their album, they would probably be seen as
being "petty" and their reputation would be damaged, which would in turn do
more damage to their album sales than if they had just turned a blind eye to
the copying.
Another point: Think of the cost involved in a prosecution.... over a few
dollars (or pounds)? Would you prosecute somebody if they swiped a couple of
dollars from your pocket? I doubt it. If it were lots of people you would
need to recoup the losses, but unfortunately you can't do that unless you
get everybody together.... that would have to be one super-size court
room... how about hiring a stadium or three? All you can realistically do is
try to come to some agreement over a way to recoup those losses, which is
why the AHRA was conceived. The AHRA does not say it is legal to pirate CDs,
it is a method which in some small way compensates the industry for it's
loss. To me the AHRA is very flawed because not only does it seem to give
the wrong impression that you can pirate music as much as you like, but that
the artist is in no way compensated for their loss of revenue. If the AHRA
paid out direct to the artist rather than the record companies then this
would probably not be such a hot topic! In reality all it does is reduce the
"fine" an artist ends up suffering due to pirate copies being made of their
work.
Regardless of whether you conclude that pirating a CD is made legal by the
AHRA providing you don't sell it is really almost irrelevant. The real issue
is that by copying the CD, you are depriving the artist of money they have
worked hard to earn through sales of their music. This damages the future of
their work because if they are really depending on those sales, they may
decide it is not worth producing more music.
You can take this a stage further, and this is only my theory: The reason so
much mass-produced rubbish is released nowadays is that there are very few
artists to pay. The record companies can produce most of the stuff
themselves, and as they are compensated by the AHRA, they don't worry too
much about pirating - they're interested in the sale of one single and
nothing else - unless it's really popular in which case they may re-release
it with slightly different backing and new words. With that type of music,
pirate it as much as you like, nobody will care. No longevity, no career to
consider, no artist! No artist means nobody gets really hurt by the
pirating, so no problem. The real musicians become uncommon because they are
not "economically viable" - the music gets pirated so much (the industry
becoming more starved of "real music") they can't afford to release another
album, so the record company has no vested interest in them. Piracy results
in the removal of the real musician who's only source of income becomes live
performances - meaning the musician has to set themselves up as their own
business and try to raise interest and funding for a concert - which is
going to be very hard because they are unheard of thanks to the lack of
marketing through album sales.
Why don't we just go ahead and let the computers produce all the music so
you can pirate it and say screw the real musicians because they don't
matter. That's effectively what you are doing when you pirate a CD.
Magic
--
"Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound
is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration."
Location : Portsmouth, England, UK
Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
