> > > I completely disagree with both copy protecting CD as > > I should be able to make a personal copy, but I completely disagree > > with Kazaa, et all, as it's just theft. > > I don't think copyright law makes much of a distinction. Fair use > doesn't seem to carry much weight these days... > > As for the emotive word 'theft', I think you're confusing bits with > atoms. You can't steal a binary number - and with p2p, you're not > even 'stealing' bandwidth from the artist. > While I understand your point of view, I will disagree and then go silent on the topic. I've been in enough conversations with folks who have the opposite point of view from me to know that neither of us will change each other's minds. That's OK. I agree to be the loser and let you be the winner in public. I won't lose a bit of sleep over it. In your binary number example above, if the license between the artist and the label/CD manufacturer says that the numbers can only be delivered to an end customer on a CD, then the end customer buys the CD, at which point I think you and I agree that fair use would allow the end customer to rip the CD and use it for his own personal, private use in whatever format he wants. Neither you nor I are going to care if he really plays the CD or the mp3 at home. That's his private freedom. He should be able to make backup CDs, put them offsite to guard against a fire killing his collection. He should be able to play the CD creating the actual audio, and he should be able to play it on one player at a time, anywhere he wants. All of that is OK. I'm pretty sure we agree with that. The problem with this whole mp3/kazaa thing is that it enable playing multiple copies at the same time by different people in multiple locations all for the price of one CD. While you may not like it, I'm sure you can see that at the cost of building a studio, recording the band, manufacturing the CD, getting radio play, etc., there are a lot of people in the process and a lot of hardware dollars that get used up. Taking the Kazaa thing to the extreme, there will be exactly one CD sold, and then copies will be given to everyone in the world for free to use whatever way they want, but none of the dollars that were used to make the CD or the studio or to pay the band are ever recovered and as a business it all just fails. In my mind, using something I didn't pay for, or didn't pay the money to the real owner, just isn't right. Theft is one word for this if you actively seek out this property. Accepting stolen goods might be another term if someone just gives it to me. In any case, I chose to take responsibility for my actions. I hope others will to. I listen on the radio. I listen on mp3.com. I listen on Radiohead's web site. Then, if I like it, I buy it. Old fashioned, 'eh? ;-) > The industry has deliberately confused the two - comparing p2p users > with shoplifters, for example. If someone gets busted for > shoplifting, it's not because of copyright infringement - it's > because of theft of physical property, or atoms. Spoken like a true 'Open Sourcer'! If you want your code to be licensed a certain way, that's you're right. If they want their code to be licensed a different way, that's their right. Hopefully the courts will protect the both of you. Hopefully it will prosecute those who harm the both of you. I think we could offer a perspective that says GPL code should only be protected if it's delivered on paper? If it's delivered over the internet, and then used in any way the person who has it wants it, then that's fair, right? ;-) > > Just suppose you hear a song on the radio - are you stealing it, if > you later choose not to by the CD? I bet there are lots of people > listening to the radio right now, who have no intention of buying the > music they are hearing. It's absurd to imagine that you could extract > payment from each and every listener in the analogue domain, so why > should the labels expect to do this in the digital one? Because > they've been sold DRM snake oil, I expect. The radio station pays a royalty to the label for the right to play the music. I think this example doesn't exactly address the issue at hand, but maybe I'm missing the point. True, a user can tape the radio, and with digital satellite radio, if you can record the digital stream, then presumably the quality could be quite good. I think you cannot record that though. (DRM again) > > Or what if you don't listen to the advertisers who pay the radio > station's music royalties bill? Are you willfully interfering with a > business model? That sort of behaviour can get you into trouble these > days... Yep. Tivo and others are basically out of business on this point... > > Cheers > > Daniel > Great ideas Daniel. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss them. - Mark
