| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:HGrsA7.BA2@lugnet.com...
> Hey Y'all:
>
> I have some scenarios for you...
>
> I just bought a VHS tape on eBay of "Neo-Tokyo" (a compilation of 3 • animated
> shorts). Now it looks as if the seller is MIA and me with no tape. Do I • own it
> already, or not until I specifically take possession of it? What if a • friend
> decided to duplicate an existing copy for me, would it be a legal copy • seeing as
> how I have already paid for the same tape but not received it? What is • the
> fairness of the law in this case?
A fascinating case. Personally, I say you own it since you payed money for
it, but I don't think the law would agree. IANAL, but I worked with them at
one time. I suspect the law will say something like "it was an invalid
transaction therefor you don't own the video, therefor you don't own the
intelectual property on the video." But it would be very interesting to see
how the opinions of a human jury would weigh in. If the guy on the other
end of ebay destroyed his copy, you could very well own it since he no
longer has it but he does have the money you gave him for it.
Who knows, maybe that's what happened? If it got destroyed in the mail, you
can just say the video tape was destroyed, but not your copy of the
Intellectual Property *on* the video tape. If I were on a jury, I'd be
willing to believe that since you payed the money, the fact that it got lost
in the mail doesn't mean you don't own it.
> Another scenario is one where I already own a CD copy of a piece of music.
> Instead of ripping the disk to MP3 myself, I download it off the internet. • Do I
> have the legal right to an MP3 copy off the internet, or must I have • ripped the
> track myself? A CD is already digital, so the transfer to MP3 is fairly
> painless -- but what if I want to rip vinyl to MP3? Is there a difference • in
> terms of my rights to a backup copy once I cross the "digital" barrier?
No question about this one. This is fair use and perfectly legal in all
senses, provided you do own the cd/vinyl. Also provided that the version
you download is the same as the version on your cd. You probably couldn't
download a 20 minute live version if you only owned the 4 minute studio
version (unless it's Dave Matthews Band 'cause they rock and they allow that
;)
> In the
> event that you think I have the right to a backup copy whatever the • source, is
> there a difference if I were to download an MP3 (a digital copy) of • something I
> only own as vinyl (an analog copy)? Again, what is the fairness of the law • in
> this case?
Another interesting question. I think the law would hold that you can do
this. Your owning the vinyl means you own the IP that is the song. You own
a copy of the music behind the medium, so I think it's perfectly legal to
download perfect digital copies (made from cd's) of anything you still own
on LP, casette, 8 track, reel to reel, or whatever. As long as you obtained
your original copy legally, you can download a digital copy legally. There
might be snags though. Perhaps if the cd has a live version and yours is
the original version, you're probably not entitled to that. Even if the cd
is just a remastered original version, that may be different enough for them
to say no. This could get messy quick, which is why it's so interesting. I
suspect in the end, the biggest problem here would not be if it's legal or
illegal. It would be the record companies trying to push it towards illegal
so that they can sell you a cd of the LP you already own.
------------------------
And now for some of my own questions: what if we had a modified
file-swapping service that was the equivalent to library lending. There
would be no copies made, at least, not in the normal sense. The moment
someone downloaded a song, they would have it and could listen to it, but
during that time, the person they downloaded it from could not listen to it
and it would be deleted from their computer. Call it a Virtual Physical
Media. In effect, you've gone to the library and gotten a cd (and libraries
really do do this). You've just saved yourself the trouble of walking to
the "library" and simply had it express delivered directly to your computer.
When you're done listening to the song, you can put the song back into the
communal library shelf and someone else can borrow it. When they get it
from you, you don't get to listen to it anymore.
Now look into the future when internet speeds are lightning fast for all.
The moment you finish listening to a song, you put it back on the shelf and
someone else can listen to it. If there are enough communal copies of the
song out there at the great library, very rarely should anyone have to wait
for a song. The only flaw (and it's not really a flaw; it's what makes the
whole thing completely legal) is that somewhere, these "books" need to be
donated to the library, and there have to be many copies donated (though the
ratio of copies to people who want a copy can be very small as it's rare
that so many people will want the same song at exactly the same moment).
I have hundreds of cd's. I obviously do not listen to them all the time and
they spend an exceedingly high amount of their time not being listened to by
anyone. So why not lend them to some of my internet friends while I'm not
listening to them? If only a small fraction of the cd owners of the world
did this, there would instantly be a huge library. So to sum it up, I'm
basicly lending my songs to a friend when I'm not using them myself. All my
friends are doing this. We go to the Great Library and trade songs. The
key is, I can't listen to my music while someone else is listening to it.
But I can listen to someone elses copy of that same song if they're not
using it. I've simply cut out the middle man of having to walk over to my
friend's house and hand them a cd in person. Intellectual Property has
taken a step closer to being exactly what it calls itself: it's become a
digital idea instead of a physical object.
This could really work if we modified our public libraries and then gave
them all a huge highspeed internet feed. Simply go to the library, donate
*all* your cd's, and wipe your drive of mp3's (that sounds bad, but bare
with me here). Then anyone can go to the library and borrow your songs via
a highspeed download. The library would keep track of what songs are
checked out. As soon as song is over, it goes back to library. In fact, we
could even cut out another middle man. Forget the download/delete time.
Simply make a request to the library to enable your copy of Song X. During
that time, anyone else who requests an enabling of Song X will be denied
untill you're done listening to Song X. (unless, of course, there's another
copy of Song X at the library). Yes, there are technical snags. This
system would require DRM on computers (so that no one could listen to a song
that's already "checked out") and DRM is bad. If someone's computer crashed
or they decided to pause the song, it would never get "returned" to the
library and would be lost (perhaps you could charge overdue fines just like
real books? ;) But all this goes to show just how rediculous the IP
system is of the world really is.
*In fact* (oh yes, I'm only getting started here... ;) I dare say that
today's file swapping practically *does* work this way. Let's assume that
there are 1 million copies of Song X out there on 1 million copies of CD X
that were sold to 1 million people. Those people ripped their cd's to mp3,
so there are 1 million copies of Song X on Kazaa. Let's say that 100
million people download Song X. What are the odds that more than 1 million
of those 100 million are listening to Song X at the same time? Given that a
typical song is at best 5 minutes long and that there are tons of songs any
one person could choose to listen to at any one time, and most of us only
listen to music for 30% of the day at most (and that's a very high estimate
for most people), I'd say the odds are rediculous that there are more than a
million people listening to any one song at a time, even if over a hundred
million have a copy of it on their hard drive. It's a formality that there
happen to be 100 million copies out there on the internet even though only 1
million were actually sold. Since far less than 1 million are being
listened to at any one time, we can just assume the other 99 million
"deleted" untill one of them "borrows" the song from someone else who just
finished listening. The original CD's? They may as well be assumed
destroyed. No one listens to them now since they can go to the Great
Library and borrow mp3's. The fact that they still collect dust in the
closet is another formality.
I'm rambling, it's 3 am, and I'm never going to get to sleep now because of
the ideas swimming in my head. And none of them are Lego ideas!!!
Yes, there's no escape. I'm definitely now part of off-topic.debate. So
this is where all the spacers go after dark, eh Hop-Frog?
-- Tom
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Possession
|
| Tom: I found much of your post deeply interesting and thought provoking. Your idea of the giant archive/database is truly compelling and shows the enormous flaw in the many schemes that publishers are pursuing. Sure, the publishers are pursuing the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Possession
|
| Hey Y'all: I have some scenarios for you... I just bought a VHS tape on eBay of "Neo-Tokyo" (a compilation of 3 animated shorts). Now it looks as if the seller is MIA and me with no tape. Do I own it already, or not until I specifically take (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
