Would it be considered piracy...

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It's fine for a professor of literature, who has a job teaching at the university to pay the bills, to publish a sholarly work and say it "belongs" to the reader. Or for someone like Jefferson who didn't have to work to put food on the table because he had labor of human slaves to do it for him to decry the ownership of "intellectual property". But when you can't exercise your talent at writing because you aren't getting paid for it and you have to work at a diner, you don't have the luxury of such lofty principles. For those people their right of ownership to the work they produce is just as obvious.

Geoschmo

And you have just hit the real issue in this debate: money. Specifically, whether a particular artist makes enough money to support themselves. The days when rich landowners would support artists directly are gone; now, those artists must find a way to receive compensation for their talent. And our society (particularly American society) doesn't place much value on most artists. Yeah, there are lots of performers making large amounts of money by having their performances distributed by a large corporation. But most of those performers are no-talent hacks who only make money because the huge marketing machine at a record company brainwashed the general public into believing it's a worthwhile investment. And that is the other problem with this whole issue: since the record companies are making money off CRAP by investing large amounts of money in it, they certainly can't afford to have someone listen to the CRAP for free.

Anyway, this whole debate would be pointless if we could find a way to provide a decent standard of living to all people without forcing them to work in jobs they either disliked or were ill-suited for. Which comes down to controlling resources and whether or not the planet has enough resources to provide that standard of living to the current population. And, of course, the "natural" tendency of people to want their lives to be a little better than their neighbors' lives (i.e. greed).

I think I'm just rambling now, but I wanted to share some thoughts that should at least fuel some more spirited debate.

[Jmenschenfresser]

Death to the plutocrats!

[geoschmo]

[quote]Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

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

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
Death to the plutocrats!

Why do you want to kill Mickey's dog?

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
Death to the plutocrats!

Nah... let them survive and see the artists make all that money WITHOUT them. A fate worse than death!

[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 ]

[Jmenschenfresser]

Then instead of having the middle men control the world's expression, the artists do.

Sounds like no change to me. Maybe even worse. I'm sure they are every bit as capable of hiring a legion of lawyers and lobbying congress. At least middle men will give others a chance, if they see dollars coming out of it. But if the artists hold the green, who are they going to let in on the party?

[Chardo Mon]

Aaahhhh.... This is all very important discussion that I definitely have my two cents to add, and it talks about the heart of what make our culture what it is (more on that in a later post {hint: $$$'s now the only way to get food, shelter, water, fun}), but before I do that.... Did the original posters question ever get answered? He surely needs one. Can his friend run the SE IV CD while he runs the SE IV Gold CD?

[tesco samoa]

Ah. That is something that drives me crazy. Back Cataloge.
And lets just stay away from the world of broadcast Tv.

Did you know that it is illegal to watch unfilterd American TV in Canada. WE have this 10000 KM high wall. Even if you pay for the broadcast...

Copyright is destroying the internet.

[tesco samoa]

MP3's 128 kb recordings are not high quality.

I have no problem with them being traded. If you have a half decent system you will notice how hollow they sound. Highs are very flat. 320kb is where you start to equal cd quality.

CD's themsevles are finnaly starting to equal records in sound quality. what with dvd-a and scad.

Digital music is catching up. It is still young and behind tubes for quality.

Where was i going with this.....