WhiteKnight: Certainly “theft” is emotionally charged. That’s specifically why I carefully chose to use it. People like you seem to think it’s OK if you make as many copies as you want and I use “theft” to make it clear that your actions are violations against the property of the copyright holder. The fact that the copyright holder still has a copy of the original does nothing to justify copyright infringement. To deny someone his rightful payment is the moral equivalent of stealing. For the legal equivalent, see the term “Theft of service,” which, like copyright violation, does not deprive the owner of anything but his rightful fee. You want to split hairs and ignore the issues involved.
They are different, and you are allowed to make personal copies on cassette because they are approved media. MP3 are not approved media.
But when you make a copy on cassette, you aren’t buying a second copy. The money for that second copy would go to the artist. So the artist loses out.
Unless you were appointed to the Supreme Court without my knowledge, your thoughts aren’t law. The law does not sanction making copies. And selling a used CD is not making a copy of it.
False, as indicated here: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/03/24/napster_artists/index.html
Also false, as the above article indicates. Relevant quote: “‘We can make a new model’ – yeah, right,” says the singer [Jonatha Brooke]. “It’s laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you’re Alanis Morissette or Dave Mathews, you’re not making money on the road. It’s all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD.”
Note that Brooke was one of the first who promoted her album online.
They have that right, just as I have the right to give away my car without payment. But you don’t have to right to decide you can take my car without payment. It’s the same with music. Some artists are happy to have their work available online. Some don’t want it at all. But it’s up to the artist to decide, not you.
I tend to agree with you that the artist should be able to make the final decision on this, not the record company. But I disagree strenously with the contention that any clod that comes around has the right to make that decision.
(BTW, the record company has rights, too. They put up their money so you’d know about the artists and buy their CDs, so it’s not unreasonable that they get a chance to profit from their efforts. You may hate them, but you’d never know about most of your favorite artists if it wasn’t for them.)
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
www.sff.net/people/rothman
