[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
This sounds great. In fact I would be in favor of a "Fair use" clause, but (there's always a but) how does that apply to the "sharing" of it. I think almost any reasonable person would agree that if you bought a copy and wanted to give that copy to someone you'd have that right. But does that translate into the right to copy it and give the copy, or give the original and keep the copy? That is the whole crux of the dispute as it relates to Napster.

Would giving copies away qualify as fair use in your mind or exploitation? With technology advancing to the point where a copy is for practical purposes indistinguishable from the original that becomes a problem.

Geo

Well, the copies have to come from somewhere... so this would amount to a special exemption for private individuals to copy things, yes. There would have to be conditions on it, but in general the law's bias should shift from the copyright holder to the public after this deadline/limit. Yes, this could 'hurt' the income of the publisher if the person who gets a free copy might have bought one instead. There just has to be a limit placed on how long the original publisher can expect to make income from the work.

And then the final deadline where even commercial exploitation is prohibited has to have a real limit, too. Notice the "15 Library Associations" that signed on to the petition. Libraries cannot make archival copies of works that are slowly crumbling away because of fear of being sued. Again, because it might hurt someone's income! Even if the works are out of print and cannot be purchased anymore! Old novels, magazines, textbooks. Artifacts of our history and culture are being lost. There has to be a limit to copyright so we can preserve this.

[ June 27, 2002, 21:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]