Sorry this one is a bit long, but now I think I'm done with this dead
horse... ;-)
I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions
aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been
disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's
possible for people to disagree without insulting each other.
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Copyright law wilts in the face of
>your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms.
A better way to say this would be "Copyright law is binding unless it
infringes on your Constitutional freedoms." The most important part of
that being the definition of "Constitutional freedoms." You appear to
have an ultra-purist interpretation of such freedoms which leads you to
hold the personal belief that anything you do in your own home is OK
(although you make an exception for child pornography). That's fine;
that's your philosophy. However...
>We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this
>culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas
As Neil has pointed out, saying that the theory of "free exchange of
information" applies to copying CDs you didn't buy is an extremely
specious argument. If the law prevents you from copying an artist's CD
that you didn't pay for, your rights aren't being infringed upon, nor are
you being denied access to that music. We have free radio, etc. You can
go to your friend's house whenever you want to listen to it. You can go
to a record store and listen whenever you want.
The thing that really bothers me about these views on intellectual
property is that the argument is entirely ideological and, consequently,
oversimplified. I am personally a big supporter of constitutional rights.
I agree with you that too much restriction of the spread of ideas is a
dangerous thing. However, in *our* economic system, the other extreme is
just as dangerous. Contrary to your argument -- that restrictions on
copying works of intellectual property stifle the spread of ideas -- in
our system it is also the *stealing* of such works that will truly stifle
the spread of ideas. If you don't want to stop stealing artists' work
because of legal or ethical reasons, then stop it for practical reasons:
People in our society and our economy have to survive. They have to make
money. And "idea people" -- authors, artists, musicians, software
programmers -- make money by selling copies of their ideas and their
works. For every copy of an album you buy, they make money, which allows
them to continue producing their art. For every copy you don't buy but
instead copy from someone, they lose money. [And forget the argument that
"I wouldn't have bought it anyway" for the moment, because that, again,
is specious and merely convenient.] If people copy albums without paying
for them, if people use software they didn't pay for, if people photocopy
books... these things take away the economic incentive for people to
pursue a career in those areas. Sure, a few people will try those fields
anyway out of pure desire, but there are many enormously talented people
that want to do something they're good at *and* make a decent living, and
those people will eventually choose to do something else with their life
than pursue a career where people steal the fruits of their labor on a
daily basis.
In older societies (and to a limited extent today, through agencies like
the NEA), the government sponsored painters, authors, musicians,
sculptors, etc., because of their importance to society as a whole.
Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of
sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual
copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. By
stealing albums, while you're of course denying the megacorporate record
companies some small amount of profit, you're also denying the artists
their income, and that, more than anything else, will lead to a narrower
spectrum of expression and ideas because only those people who can
afford, in one way or another, to not make as much income will still make
music.
By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs
you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that
copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also
completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional
freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two.
>Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor
>souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50.
Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy
the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit
royalties they get from the sales of that album? If so, that's the
fundamental difference between both sides of this debate and no one will
ever agree. 'Nuff said ;-)
I agree with you about the greed and overzealousness of the record
companies. But that doesn't mean I want to see recording artists and
their careers fail just because I'm trying to strike a blow against
corporate greed.
>And no, recording someone else's CD in your own home is not in
>and of itself commercial activity.... There are TONS of things
>which increase you assets which are not commercial activity.
There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has
been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that
it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when
people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial."
Only the most self-serving interpretation of "commercial" would say that
getting stuff for free that otherwise would have to be purchased is not
somehow commercial. Engaging in the act of buying or selling is
commercial, but it has been argued in our legal system that the act of
*avoiding* engaging in such buying or selling is also commercial
>Why do you think they had to make a law called the American Home
>Recording Act in the first place? Because the copyright laws, if
>not interpreted in full view of the Constitution, left open the
>possibility of serious violations of your Constitutional rights.
>Look at the name, it says it all, in America, you are free to
>make home recordings. Period. You are, you were, you will be.
>It's THE AMERICAN HOME RECORDING ACT, PEOPLE.
Exactly, and it says that people can make copies of material for their
own personal use. It was designed to allow people to make copies of their
own stuff -- backups, different formats, etc. People didn't want to get
sued/prosecuted for copying their LPs to cassette tapes for their
walkman. It wasn't designed to allow people to avoid buying albums. I'd
like someone to show us proof that Congress or any other agency proposed
the AHRA so that people could pirate copies of albums they didn't own.
>As far as I know, no one's been prosecuted or sued for copying a
>friend's CD to MD or trading MDs with a friend. That's the big
>argument here isn't it?
But is that because it's OK, or because the record companies would be
stupid to waste their money prosecuting my next-door neighbor for giving
my other neighbor a copy of an album? *That* is the big argument here,
not whether or not it's ever been done.
>Want to make recordings of your own or someone else's CD for
>non-commercial use in the home? Read the clear text of the AHRA.
I believe many of us *have* read that text, and it's not that clear, and
(as you so clearly pointed out later in your message) probably won't be
clarified until a case is tried and a court decides the meaning.
>Want to sell an MP3 recorder to people for very foreseeable
>copyright infringement in someone's home? Oh dear, MP3 isn't
>specifically listed in the AHRA. Well that's okay, no one's
>broken the law yet. Mr. Recording Industry, that's prior
>restraint. See ya.
Exactly. Prior restraint is the reason this isn't illegal. It has nothing
to do with whether or not it's legal/illegal to copy CDs you don't own.
>Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hmmmmmmmmm.
>That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author,
>see ya Mr. Book publisher.
You're, again, exactly correct. Keywords: "pages" and "fair use". Under
fair use guidelines you can copy a relatively small portion of a printed
work, and only for certain uses. Again, completely different from copying
an entire musical work just because you don't want to pay for it.
>Want to record obviously copyrighted information from the radio
>or TV and play it over and over in your home? Hmmm... that's
>shifted in time isn't it? We'll call that time shifting.
>Nothing's stolen. See ya.
Exactly, again. It's publicly broadcast information. You're not stealing
because it's been publicly provided for your personal, *in-home* use. Not
the same as copying a CD just because you don't want to pay for it.
>College kid puts copyrighted information available for download
>on the internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it?
>No? See ya Mr. Prosecutor.
Web sites and individuals have been prosecuted/sued for placing
copyrighted work on a web site. Most of the time the case doesn't go to
court because the offending parties remove the content to avoid a trial.
>Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to
>restrict and decide what can or cannot be copied in your home?
>Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you
>think your liberty is at stake a little bit here?
Don't you think that's just a *little* bit paranoid? No one is talking
about big brother knocking down your door to see if your MDs are "legal"
or not. We're talking about whether or not it's legal to copy albums you
don't own.
>Much of our law is not written in statutes (so many people say
>quote the exact provision that.....), but rather is developed in
>an evolving manner by the courts on a case by case basis. It's
>called case law. It causes uncertainty. It makes fellows go
>nutty. You have to get a grip of the big picture.
Many of us have a firm grip of the big picture. Many of us actually have
some degree of legal experience and/or knowledge. We just don't agree
with you, and we just don't interpret the law the same as you. That
does't make us wrong. That doesn't make us stupid. That doesn't make us
bad people.
>and someone can record just about anything in their own home
>once and they will be okay.
Once again, you're completely correct. But once they are recording
something and giving it to someone else outside their home, or bringing
something in from outside their home and recording it, the term "private"
gets much more grey than you would have us believe.
>It's not an enforceable contract just because it says so. And
>breech of contract is never, ever a crime in the U.S. That's
>against our Constitution, too. There are huge ugly books in tiny
>print about this.
Breach of contract is "never, ever a crime"? If you mean it's not a
criminal offense, you're for the most part correct. But it is *certainly*
without a *doubt* grounds for a civil suit.
And with that, Happy New Year, everyone :-) Just want to say that I've
enjoyed being on this list for the past year and a half, and it's been
both useful and entertaining. And I've also found this discussion
fascinating (apart from a few personal insults I've seen thrown around).
People have differences in opinions, and it's often enlightening to see
the views of people who take a different view on an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
