Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties. Why? All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at the market price.
on 9/5/03 3:08 PM, Steve Miller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not > consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially > reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD > to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had > not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it > himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is > legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. > > Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I buy > Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. Suppose > that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original. > Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > > Steve > > on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual >>> property rights? >> >> As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. >> Owners of books may rent out the books. >> Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. >> >>> Is copying alone an >>> act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? >> >> "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. >> What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the >> author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. >> >>> What makes that sharing theft? >> >> The reduction of royalties from sales. >> >> Fred Foldvary >> >> ===== >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
