Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com>
>
> >Yes, that's true. Here's the issue, say that I trust anyone who
> >borrows my copy not to sell it to anyone, nor to send it to anyone
> >else without destroying the copy. If I do that, then it is an
> >honest and legitimate transaction, and as long as it is reasonable
> >that it is not observed simultaneously, then the copyright has
> >been preserved and I can send my friend an mp3 (MPEG I Layer III
> >audio).
>
> Putting on my juror hat (large black cone shaped wizard thing with
> starts and planets).
>
> Yes, you may loan it to your friend even as an MP3, You may not
> give your friend a copy, it must be loaned with the intention of
> returning it. You may make one copy only, any additional copies
> will be violations, and yes, copies of a copy are also violations.
>
I still maintain that one can make as many copies as they want, they
just can't use more than one at one time, or a copy and the original at
one time.
I am thinking that there is a right of a purchasor of an album to make a
copy for themself. That might not be the case. If someone can make a
personal private copy they can make as many personal private copies as
they want, barring alternative agreement.
>
> >There is an issue about it being copied, but it appears that the
> >issue is how many people are listening to it at the same time.
> >Consider, for example, if I had a collection of Savoy Brown
> >albums, which perhaps few these days spend much time playing, or
> >perhaps not, I do not track them. I might make ten thousand
> >copies yet only one or less are listening to a copy at a time.
>
> >So, it is about the music being freely copied, which is allowed as
> >we see by the availability of VHS and cassette tape recorders,
> >along with the various other forms of audio dubbing, and
> >satisfactory precedence.
>
> >So, as long as any number of people make any number of copies of
> >any recorded music that they have purchased and they make an
> >effort in good faith to ensure that it is not being overplayed,
> >then they can trade their music.
>
> I don't agree as I stated above, one copy for personnal use only.
> The issue is indeed copying and distribution. It is my current
> interpretation that existing copyright law permits neither without
> permission.
>
> Brian
>
> Member:
> Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
> Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
> Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
> National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
> Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
> Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
We have yet in this thread to quote any law relating to what is being
the ability or right of the purchasor of unlimited play rights in the
form of physical media of the album to make copies for any reason.
Section 106 of Title 17 specifically says all rights reside with the
copyright holder (not artist, copyright holder) and that there are
exceptions in the following sections.
People do copy their their music for many, various reasons. One was the
convenience of playing a cassette tape in the car. It is certain that
people can copy music that they have purchased for their own uses,
otherwise there would not be CD-ROM burners with that in their
commercials.
Most softwares that are licensed (not purchased) have specific user
agreements that allow one backup copy, although rotation of tapes
probably leads to unintentional infringement.
In regards to Napster, Napster is an Internet Service Provider (ISP).
They do appear to be geared towards the distribution of media files many
with attached copyright encumbrances, yet they have in good faith
removed users upon request, thus in my view satisfying ISP role, and if
they are enjoined from operation then so should be IRC, AOL, etc.
Whether Napster is a RIAA production is an open question.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:17 MDT