At 09:24 AM 1/13/99 -0500, Jon wrote:
Dan said: >>... But if
>>Garth can name for me any other industry where the manufacturer is able to
>>keep his or her hand in the revenue stream on 2ndhand, 3rdhand and beyond
>>transactions then he's smarter than I am at this early hour. Houses, cars, books,
>art, clothes, furniture, old P2 printouts, sex
>>toys....err...uhh...strike that last one.
>
>OK, consider it stricken, but with none of those things - err...uhh...
>except for old P2 printouts - can you sell the item in question and still
>retain a reasonably faithful, functional copy thereof
What do you mean -- I don't get this? Everything wears out, yes --
including cds. But (IMHO) used houses are better than new ones. Used
cars could be better because the previous owner already took the depreciation loss --
and until they cease functioning, they are exactly
the same item they were when manufactured. Used clothes fit better than
new ones, and often were made of higher quality materials. Old furniture increases in
value. Books retain the exact faithful copy, but
functionality goes down with age (as will happen with compact discs,
btw).
All of the items Dan mentioned are generally one of a kind objects,
though, except for books and cars. So I guess books would be the
nearest equivalent to cds.
>(and why the issue
>gets sharper as home recording technologies improve).
Wouldn't this be in the area of: illegal copies being possible (but
not assumable) -- kind of the equivalent to photocopying a book?
There's already a law against that, so additional "penalties" by way
of proposed "royalties" being demanded is not needed. Just because it
COULD be copied illegally doesn't mean that the record companies need perpetual
control (ownership) over the product once it leaves their manufacturing plant. I
believe that they own the rights, but the
consumer who purchased it owns the product (i.e. one copy). Even
software (I believe) you can legally re-sell (as long as you delete
all traces from your computer) without paying a further royalty. Of
course, software becomes obsolete so fast that the royalty issue is
probably a moot point.
On the other side of the coin -- since there's an assumption that
the creator owns the copyrights to their creation in perpetuity
(essentially -- since copyrights last past the creator's lifetime) then perhaps there
should also be the assumption that the purchaser of a
copy of that creation should own the right to be able to hear that
piece of music in perpetuity, too? As it is, recordings wear out and
aren't available to hear, either because of changes in technology or
because the piece of property (i.e. tape, record, cd, etc.) has
deteriorated.
Back to Garth and used cds... If the anti-used cd people were arguing
for additional royalties on vinyl records and tapes, too, then maybe
the issue would be about royalties -- but they're only picking on cds.
This means that the issue is greed, not underpaid artists and
songwriters. If Garth really wanted to help songwriters, he would use
some of his clout to make the record companies pay fair royalties to
the artists in the first place.
Lianne
