Subject:
|
Re: Intellectual Property Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 03:25:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
226 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> For purposes of this discussion, let's posit that music companies *have* the
> right to control distribution and to make copies of their products, and also
> that the consumer is granted the "fair use" right to make personal copies of
> purchased music. For purposes of this discussion, file-sharing systems like
> Grokster, the late Napster, et al, are expressly excluded.
>
> I bought a CD earlier this year at a retailer and have listened to it frequently
> since then. A week or so ago I noticed that the disc has suffered some kind of
> incurable damage that makes playback, duplication, or repair impossible.
> However, a friend happens to have purchased this same CD from the same retailer,
> and his copy works fine. Since I have paid for a single copy of the disc, am I
> legally entitled to make a duplicate of my friend's CD? Or have I merely
> purchased the right to own and make personal copies of one particular disc,
> meaning that my right to the CD is voided when the disc breaks? For that
> matter, if the latter is the case, can I still retain my own burned copy of the
> disc after the original is lost, or must I destroy that copy?
Isn't the whole point of making a copy so you can still use the material even if
the original is damaged. Unless the record company can prove you did not
purchase the CD in the first place they should not have a case against you.
>
> Just wondering. I maintain a pretty strict interpretation of intellectual
> property protections and fair use, so I'm particularly intrigued by discussions
> along these lines. Thanks for your input.
I think the real reason the recording industry is freaking out about file
sharing is because people can actually listen to the stuff before purchasing the
CDs. That means people aren't going to buy the crap anymore. Of couse they
started all of this because the [rate of increase] in sales is lower than they
expected. Hmmm, couldn't have anything to do with the economy now could it.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Intellectual Property Question
|
| Welcome to 20 minutes into the future, people. Copyrights are dead. Patents are dead. IP is dead. Digital means infinitely reproducible. And as William Gibson has observed: "the street has its own uses for things." It's not a matter of what is right (...) (21 years ago, 23-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Intellectual Property Question
|
| For purposes of this discussion, let's posit that music companies *have* the right to control distribution and to make copies of their products, and also that the consumer is granted the "fair use" right to make personal copies of purchased music. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
