Greetings Economists, On Dec 30, 2007, at 4:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What he actually argued was that once the defendant and like acting others make and convert copies of music to ".mp3" format, the preferred mode for peer-to-peer transmission, and place them into shared directories on their computers (that is, again: make them available for peer-to-peer redistribution) , those sorts of copies no longer are "authorized" because . . . guess what? . . . they no longer are "personal" (or solely "archival") copies in the copyright law "fair use" sense of that term.
Doyle; What is sharing of intellectual property? If I use photosynthe (see Microsoft Vista add ons) to unite 5 milion pictures into a single file to be viewed, is that one object or 5 million? As an object the work process to build it like a big building depends upon thousands of workers. How can anyone sit at home (small business) making single files to sell? If the government pays for public photo works (google like street information) because they are necessary to support the country in an Information technology world then what copyright does that break? The key question as an economist knows is the drop in value of a single photo to nothing in an age when copying is cheap. Bigger files are needed to make money. Files individuals can't make on their own. These escalate so that knowing single files is impossible without google or related search mechanisms. you, (since, obviously, an unauthorized copy is an unauthorized copy and those the RIAA represents do not authorize copies they sell to be distributed and made available for distribution to others in the manner at issue in these lawsuits). Doyle; Is a word an unauthorized copy? I copy your word you wrote 'an', what is your copyright on this intellectual property? Does language rest upon 'shared' Intellectual Property or on the capitalist business model marketing movies and records? You can't make language values without sharing. Without language humans can't build culture. Without culture all collapses. you, CD is a "computer program" -- re. which the Copyright Act explicitly legitimizes the "legal owner" make one copy solely for "archival purposes" (also providing, however, that such a copy is destroyed or transferred with the original once the original is sold or given away provided in an itself non-infringing manner) -- if one reads literally what "exclusive [sic] rights in copyright works" the Copyright Act has long vested in the copyright owner* and, which, correspondingly, that law makes redressable by an infringement lawsuit, the making of a copy of a copyright protected work even if by someone who lawfully obtained that copy has long been an act of infringement _especially_ if/when coupled with the additional conduct (i.e.,in effect and also directly republishing/redistributing) the RIAA sues about in the lawsuits referred to. Doyle; The value of such work is nothing compared to the value of a massively networked (shared) information. No small file can stand long in the face of massive libraries when the cost must fall to create massive networked information. No small file can demand more than it is worth in a networked Information culture. thanks, Doyle Saylor
