On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:43:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short
> and hit them real fast.
> >
> >Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of
> >sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual
> >copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented.
>
> Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical
> artists.
Why and how do you make the distinction. Surely the music a musician writes
/ produces is just as much his intellectual property as say software a
computer software (games or business) programmer / company produces.
> It was established to "promote the progress of science and
> useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
> exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Aaah - see "respective writings and discoveries", "useful arts", "authors",
who's drawing the line here for music and other copyright material, here,
you?
And don't say the AHRA - it's simply not as specific as you would claim.
> >By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs
> >you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that
> >copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also
> >completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional
> >freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two.
>
> Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should
> treat different media differently,
Where and why?
And more importantly why should it? Just simply because you or others may
want to copy music?
Why shouldn't a musician have just as much protection and rights for his /
her intellectual property as say a software writer, or a video production
company, or a cable or satelite vendor?
What's this difference you're alluding to that me and others aren't getting?
Simply the desire that some may have to copy some music they're not prepared
to pay for? What makes this any different than being not prepared to pay for
a video tape, or DVD, or computer game, or business software, or encrypted /
pay cable / satelite productions?
Explain, please.
> and it must,
Why? Simply the desire for some that they don't want to pay for it?
> because the media can
> be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media
> don't hold up.
Sorry, Steve, you're really gonna have to explain that one.
What so different from music on a CD, to say a computer game on a CD? Or a
video on tape, or on DVD?
An encrypted, pay, musical event on cable / satelite?
*What* is the *tangible* difference?
> Music and books and computer programs are all very
> different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair
> use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to
> be conceptually and practically impossible.
Hardly - what *is* the *tangible* difference?
> >Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy
> >the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit
> >royalties they get from the sales of that album?
>
> In some very limited cases, yes.
What *limited* cases, and where do you draw the line? Is there a ratio
between pirated copies (done simply for home use, honest! ;-)) and the legal
ones?
Is it completely legal to record copies of say CDs from a music library? Why
would you ever by an original - I mean after all - just copy the original
(probably copyright, too!) artwork.
> As a general rule, no.
Explain.
And then explain the difference.
> >There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has
> >been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree
that
> >it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when
> >people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial."
>
> I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD
> once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial.
Of course it's commercial, because otherwise you'd have no option than to
commercially procure a legal copy yourself.
What you're suggesting is that so long as you can access and original legal
copy, people would never need buy it themselves.
Where would you draw the line with this?
Neil
_______________________________________________________
Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com
The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
