Is there an exception in the Copyright Act for public institutions. IF so couldn’t libraries offer songs on the Internet (they already offer CD’s,DVD’s ect at their branches). Also, couldn’t a group of Napster lovers get together to form a “public” swapping service organized under the bylaws of a specific locality in order to take advantage of any legal exceptions? If the issue of “borrowing” verses “swapping” is the hangup, then “users” would be required to not copy, AND return files within a specified timeframe (after all people fail to return CD’s, books, ect all the time to the library). Let’s take it one step further into the rhelm of Sci-Fi…
If in say two hundred years if we have to ability to “neurogenically” transfer information, sounds, sensations ect. would copyright holders claim the right to “scan” our brains in order to verify that we are not in posession of illegally copyrighted material? After all when I hear a song, or attend a lecture I create a sort of “copy” within my brain. Furthermore, when I tell friends about my experience I am in a sense sharing the “memory file” with others. It’s only a matter of time until we are able to do this technologically.
Copyright is exactly what it sounds like: The RIGHT to make a COPY of something. When you download a file off a P2P network, you’re making a copy of an existing file. When you borrow a book from the library, no copy is made. As such, copyright law doesn’t come into play.
I’m sure someone will come along later and give a more detailed explanation, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Sort of. It seems that libraries and archives can make a single copy of a copyrighted work that may be loaned to the public. They may also make up to three copies for preservation purposes, but those copies cannot leave the premises. Also, they may make copies to replace stolen items.
No, as that would be creating multiple, uncontrollable copies.
Ah, but that’s not the hangup. The hangup is with making copies. The library, while having a bit more freedom than your average Joe when it comes to making copies of copyrighted works, still isn’t allowed to make multiple copies for loaning to patrons.
(obviously you would have to log in to prove you were a card holder) and anyone could listen to, but not copy the songs, books, ect. For instance there will often be an audio file online that you can “open from the source”, but you don’t make a copy. For the average Napster user this would be almost as good since they could still listen to their favorite music whenever they felt like doing so (unless the server was overloaded like Straight Dope sometimes is).
First, sending the file to you technically is making a copy, since the data is still on their server, and now also resides on your computer (even if only temporarily).
Second, they’d have to lock the file every time someone accessed it, meaning that only one person could listen to the song at a time. This would not be convenient for the users, especially if this library became very popular. Imagine 10,000 kids all trying to listen to the newest Britney Spears single at the same time. The library would have to pay for thousands of copies of the file just to keep their patrons from having to wait in a queue for hours – or even days – to listen to one song.
North Sea or my dream land in the Kergulen Archipeligo on Desolution island (we would just pay Chirac off to leave us alone with a cut, after all that’s what Saddam Hussein probably did with the oil for food program ).
Indiana University’s Music Library has a system similar to this. Sorta.
On any computer in the music building (i.e. you can’t do this from the dorms…), you can pull up any song from their over 7,000 CD library, and listen to it (not copy it) on your particular workstation.
They’re currently developing a system to serve up music, digitally scanned scores of the music, and see all kinds of background information about the particular piece or composer.