> Difference: If you distribute material for free, you can make an argument > (often not accepted by the courts) for "fair use." Please get yr terms straight. "Fair use" refers to the use of copyrighted material in a manner which does not attempt to sabotage the commercial viability of the original "owner" of the material. The most obvious example of this is the band Negativland, who create songs which liberally sample commercial advertisements and commercial music without permission. The argument for "fair use" is that creating such sound collages is in no way infringing upon the sales of the original material. For more information on this, refer to the Negativland website, www.negativland.com - and while yr there, order some of their music, as they are one of the most essential artists of the past two decades. Russ is distributing material for free, some of which really is copyrighted. The Japanese EP, for example - just because it isn't available commercially in America does not mean the copyright does not still extend to it. This would be a good time to point out that importing a CD is illegal, period - even though almost any record store will order imports for you, it is technically quite illegal. I'm not some big advocate of copyright laws - I very much support Negativland and their attempts to reform "fair use" laws. However, copying an entire commercially available song and distributing it for free IS something I am against in principle. In practice, yes, if these are tracks which are nearly-impossible to buy, I don't have a problem with it. But it's a free world - if someone is enough of an idiot, and has enough cash to spare, to pay $50 for a CD of rare Modest Mouse tracks, I say let PT Barnum's Rule stand: There's a sucker born every minute (and why not take their money?). np:Flaming Lips, "The Abandoned Hospital Ship" -- Hard like Tarot cards, behold the one-man million man march. Rev. Jack Godsey. http://spill.tripod.com Spiritual counsel and webmaster for Pegasi 51. http://pegasi51.tripod.com
