On Saturday 04 December 2004 04:23 pm, Jared Anderson wrote:
> I would have to disagree with this analogy, as this represents one person
> using another's work for personal profit. Now if someone was selling their
> MP3 collection, I'd buy into the correlation.
This is allowed under current copyright law IF:
- the source of all of the MP3 files were legally purchased or otherwise
legally obtained by the person selling it AND
- the person selling the collect does not keep any copies of the files OR the
source media for himself.
> Interesting enough, however,
> someone's thesis, or more importantly, the entire education system is made
> up of the SHARED knowledge and discoveries of others throughout history.
There is a yin-yang thing between commercial and educational use of knowledge.
Copyright, patent and other "intellectual property" laws are attempts to
balance the two interests. The current implementation and enforcement of
these laws is weighted far to much on the commercial side. This does not
mean the concepts are completely bad, just that they need adjustment.
> Greed has seriously screwed up an already flawed intellectual property
> system. It is one thing to have the rights to sell something, but the way
> in which authors/companies/inventors/microsoft try to CONTROL how people
> USE their IP is not only ridiculous, but represents a poorly designed
> business model.
For instance, the GPL requires that if I use the licensed code as part of my
own work, I must release my work under the GPL. This is a control on how
people can use GPL'ed code based on copyright. Are you saying this control
should not be allowed? Why?
> For instance, DirecTV charges sports-bars more for the exact same service
> that they provide to an individual, because they are sharing the service.
> Do sports bars sell beer or DirecTV? It's a darn good thing the electric
> company doesn't do the same.
This is a flawed comparison. If a sports bar did not have DirecTV to display
sports events, they could not be in business. The bar recieves direct
financial benefit from having the DirecTV subscription. DirecTV wants a
piece of that benefit since they are providing the content.
Now, if some broadcast company said that I could not invite a few friends over
to watch a program without paying more, I'd have a problem with that.
> Should the cost of a new car be determined by how many people will be
> riding in it?
The market determines that.
> The Titanic filed a law suit against a company in Utah who was editing the
> nudity scene out of people's personal copy of the "Titanic" on VHS. That
> is plain silly. IMO, once I buy something, it is mine. For example, I
> hate logos. Anything I buy that has some advertisement on it, I remove it.
> Now should I be sued? What if I paid another to remove the logo for me,
> should they be sued?
>
> You need the written consent of the NFL to recount or discuss their
> broadcasts? That is B.S. Intellectual property too easily becomes
> resource control.
>
> It doesn't help much that the IP system is inconsistent and inconsistently
> enforced. Can I record songs legally from the radio?
Yes. The broadcaster is using a shared resource (radio spectrim) and I have
the right to record what is broadcast.
>Can I record TV
> shows?
Yep. Same reason as radio.
> Can I make copies of the songs I recorded from the radio to share
> with my friends? All those mixed tapes exchanged throughout 80s and 90s -
> damn criminals!!
Nope. You are making a copy of a copyrighted work and distributing it. You
don't have copyright of that work. All those mixed tapes were illegal, just
as using P2P sharing without license to do so.
> The fact is, people don't like being told what they can(t) do with their
> own stuff, especially when they spent their own hard-earned cash on it.
> Laws represent the people, not control them. Greedy companies with lame
> models are getting what they deserve.
That is true. But a copyrighted work is not what you are buying. You are
buying the media on which it is provided, the CD, the paper, the tape, the
canvass. You are not purchasing the right to copy it and distribute the
copies.
Are you saying that if you spent 2 years writing your first novel and asked me
to read it before sending it to the publisher, you would have no problem with
me copying the manuscript and posting it on Kazaa or in a newgroup? Or is
that only OK to do if the author is already rich or a big corporation? I
guess what I am asking is if you think copyright should be eliminated for
everything or maybe just for some things in some specific criteria.
Alan
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)