You have a very good point there micco. Backing up a computer onto CDRs can take hundreds of cds. The idea of backups you mentioned didn’t occur to me until now.
I had a different point of view on levies then you. The way I saw it, the people who are getting more music and burning more cds would pay more then the people who burned relatively few cds. The concept appealed to me because it would shift the burden of cost onto the more prolific music downloaders. Now that we have mp3 players I suppose it’s no longer as strong a point. Still, you can’t ignore the fact that sales of blank cds have jumped tremendously at the same time sales of cds have dropped. Not all of it can be accounted for by backups alone.
I’ve been looking at various ideas being discussed concerning filesharing and I thought I would toss this out to see what people thought of it. This board has the most interesting discussions. Sorry to hijack your thread though, Jinx.
Umbriel, thanks. It’s nice to hear that sometimes when you post it seems to makes sense to someone.
I think that your new example about about a file sharing service which can only play but not make copies misses a subtle point of the law.
When you buy a copy of a recording, you are only buying that mechanical copy, and the right to play that copy privately, not to “distribute” it. Such distribution could be broadcasting it, selling or giving out copies, or playing it in a public venue. Playing a recording in a public venue includes both a theater or performance space, and a bar, restaurant or store. If you look at many bars and restaurants, you will see a small green triangular decal by the door that says “ascap”, which means that the venue has paid a licensing fee to the artist’s rights organization ASCAP to permit ASCAP licensed music to be played there.
Copying a recording onto your own computer for your personal use is in a grey area and probably covered by fair use If you permit other members of the public to play the music (regardless of whether they record it), it would probably be considered broadcasting and a copyright violation without specfifc licensing from the copyright holder or its agent (like ASCAP or BMI).
I heard somewhere that the original Kazaa program doesn’t even allow large MP3 transfers. Something about a bandwidth limit.
To get the illegal files, one must use Kazaa Lite which, I’m told, explicitly says in the license agreement that it is illegal. Reason: it’s a modification of the original, and therefore a derivative work of (presumably) copyrighted material, and is a violation of the license agreement of the original Kazaa.
That’s why the big guys are powerless to sue them. Those who legitimately created Kazaa obviously didn’t intend it to be used for illegal music sharing. wink
And if they were to somehow shut down Kazaa supernodes, ordinary average users all over the place would start volunteering to fill those shoes.
And as a side note to muddy the waters:
If you buy Blank CD-R’s that are labeled “music CD-R’s” You are paying royalties to Someone. I assume the RIAA. I would love to see someone go to court and point out that they had payed royalties on music CD-R’s and therefore were intitled to download music to burn onto the CD-R’s.
Well, we know how well that tactic has worked to keep kids away from booze and pot, don’t we? If ever there was a demographic iidifferent to a general legal threat, it’s the American teenager. A big “:rolleyes:” to the RIAA. I read recently many of the record companies’ biggest executives can’t keep their own kids from file-swapping. I wonder just how many suits they’ll file before they realize it’s hopeless?
wink