Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:42:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> a computer programmer who can only afford to buy LEGO toys because
> people don't just give away software to all their friends...
I think you must mean:
"A computer programmer who can afford to buy LEGO toys in spite of the fact
that people give away software to all their friends because corporations
have to pay for their copies."
"What is" is that information is free.
"What should be" is a more direct relationship between creator and audience.
Clear out the price of the middleman and people will pay the
artist/writer/director/programmer/what-have-you directly.
Your ideas on sharing stuff with friends seems unique to you in my
experience. Lots of people loan books, cds, records, etc. If they can
knock them off cheaply, I find that they will do so with impunity -- some
will even buy hardware devices to work around copy protection techniques. I
don't have to own everything I see or read, consequently I am part of a
casual ring of friends that loan each other DVDs, Cds, etc. Saves me the
trouble of even having to rent many things and a friend's recommendation is
better than a professional review -- well, except for this one guy I know
that seems to like almost everything; his lack of discernment throws my
review scheme out the window.
I'll just throw this last bit out as anecdotal evidence of nothing in
particular -- most of the mp3s I download are of things I already have on
either vinyl, CD, or both. Sometimes I do it because I am at a job, I
currently do it at home because many of my things are in storage after I
had to move about 6 months ago. How guilty am I supposed to feel about not
giving someone their $$$ for every copy of something that I have? I already
own every Pink Floyd disc on vinyl, I also bought the "Shine On" CD box set.
Then I bought "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" and "Atom Heart Mother" on CD. I
have practically everything of note this band ever did, twice! What are the
odds I am going to purchase mp3s of this stuff even if it were offered
somewhere? Not good...
A more difficult question arises when you consider something a little less
commercially viable. I happen to love an old 4AD 12" E.P. on vinyl from a
band called "Rema Rema" entitled "The Wheel in the Rose." For my own
enjoyment I have copied this E.P. to CD, I even scanned the artwork from the
covers for the CD cover. Yes, I have made copies available to friends, but
I would not tend to do so for people beyond my immediate circle. This disc
is of very limited commercial value. I doubt it will ever see the light day
beyond it's original vinyl release. Again, how guilty am I supposed to feel
about this? I am sure I am somewhat passed fair use, but then who cares?
There's lots of stuff out there that would land in this "commercially
unviable" category -- esp. as the means of distribution now stand.
Certainly, I have no right to distribute this material myself and I do not
(not even P2P mp3s), but it is a pity that it's not out there in some format
-- say in some kind of digital library of commercially unviable works. I
still think this music has something to say to new listeners who will
probably never hear it. And hey, it was good enough for "This Mortal Coil"
to cover...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) It is true that copyrights are dominated by corporations, but the idea that the author should have control over his work is still valid. Limited sharing with friends should be encouraged since this will entice some of them to buy the work for (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
