Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Copyright law is governed in the U.S.by the United States
>Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.  Statutes are
>merely congress' implementation of the constitution.  There is a
>provision in the Constitution dealing explicitly with copyright law.
>It trumps all else.

A law cannot violate the Constitution. That's it. If that's what you 
meant by "trumps all else" you are correct.

>Result:  as a constitutional matter in the U.S., benefit of the doubt
>will often go to the MP3 manufacturer, the college kid running the web
>site, the hobbyist trading MDs, the music fan recording music off of
>the radio, the television viewer taping a TV show, etc. etc.  That's
>how it works in the U.S., over and over and over, despite ne'er do
>wells yelling THIEF at every turn.

Lawsuits against MP3 playback devices and the like will lose not because 
of "copyright law" but because the devices are not inherently illegal, 
and while they can be used for illegal activities, they can also be used 
for legal activities. On the other hand, lawsuits against people 
bootlegging concerts and illegally copying and distributing copyrighted 
music will (and have, over and over and over) win because they involve 
explicitly violating the copyright of those works.

>The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is 
>taking anything from anyone when you trade an MD.

They are taking away a potential customer. This is a free market system. 
Everyone who doesn't own a particular album is a potential customer for 
that album. It doesn't matter if you would have bought the album or not 
-- you are still a potential customer. If a recording medium didn't exist 
for you to copy a CD, you might actually buy the CD. If you wouldn't buy 
it, then you must not really want it.

The theory of "potential customers" and "potential markets" are 
cornerstones of our economic system. You can dislike the system, but 
right now we live in it, and under that system, copying an album, 
photocopying a book, copying software... all of these acts *do* take 
things away from people.

>People use and build on each others' ideas all the time in the 
>U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes creativity, 
>freedom and economic growth.

It's legal as long as they aren't blatantly copying someone else's work. 
If they are, and the "inventor" was smart enough to patent their work, 
stealing other people's unique ideas is grounds for losing a patent law 
suit in the U.S.

>In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas.  It
>is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry.  All the edges
>are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal is.
>As I mentioned above, the issue has very often been resolved in favor
>of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free flow of
>information and ideas.  That's the way our Constitution was meant to
>be construed.  

You do realize, of course, that everything you have said about the 
Constitution is solely your opinion, and that there are thousands of 
legal scholars who know more about these issues than you or me who spend 
their lives debating the meanings of and interpretations of the 
Constitution?

>It bothers me when someone gets on their moral high horse and acts
>like copying someone else's CD is like shoplifiting.  It's not, either
>in the mechanics of the deed, in law, or ethically.  It's simply not
>stealing.  It's recording a CD.  Stealing and recording a CD are two
>different things.  It's really quite simple.

You're right -- it really is quite simple. As simple as stealing. The 
only difference is that stealing a CD off a shelf deprives the store 
owner a piece of inventory, as well.

>And recording a CD at home, even if it's someone else's, is not 
>illegal in the U.S, if you don't sell it to someone else.

Clarification: it isn't illegal if you are recording a CD *you* own. 
Recording a CD someone else owns is illegal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to