Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03951.html --- From: "Duplantis, Ron" <Ron.Duplantisat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> Subject: A few words from another perspective Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:36:02 -0700 What a bunch of hair-splitting cry babies. I'm not happy that my freedoms are limited by laws such as the one that requires me to wait at a red signal light at 3 a.m. despite the fact there is not a pair of headlights within miles, but the proximate cause for the creation of such laws are negligent actions of the kinds of rabble crying about Berman's proposed legislation. I have no doubts at all that the language in Berman's bill is hiding some sneaky methodology the copyright holders are planning to use without penalty. That's what legislators like Berman do: protect their contributors. I also agree that legislators often write legislation for problems that don't exist, granted. But as a writer, I can see a real problem here. I'd like one of the cry babies who responded here to answer a couple of questions for me: 1. Do they think that "sharing" copyrighted materials without compensating the authors -- as defined under all laws including fair use ones -- should be illegal? Don't play word games, you know what I mean: if under present law, a copyright holder wishes to be compensated for each copy of his work, should the "sharing" of such a work with someone who does not compensate the author constitute an illegal act by BOTH the sharer and the sharee? Put even another way, if a rock group releases a new CD, you alone buy it, and you "share" it with the world (without compensating the rock group), should any of those actions be considered illegal? If the answer is no, ignore question #2 and feel free to continue to believe in an anarchical world that will never exist. 2. Technologically-speaking, how would you suggest that those copyright holders stop the illegal "sharing" of their work? As the saying goes, "It's always easier to be an editor than a writer." If you don't like the side-effects of Berman's bill, propose something yourself. My sense is that few, if any, of the cry babies who responded to French's reply ever got to question #2 because they don't think any author should be able to demand compensation for his work. That everything should be public domain, no matter the amount of time and work put into it. Those who stand in the way of attempted solutions, pointing out incredible side-effects and creating fantastic scenarios, and not offering another solution of their own, in my view typically don't see a problem. "But suppose I have non-copyrighted material in my P2P share folder and whine, whine, whine...." Please! If you don't want some DoS or other methodology hindering your legal P2P offerings, put the copyrighted material in a non-P2P share folder. Duh! Ron Duplantis Huntington Beach, CA --- Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to Rep. Berman on anti-P2P piracy bill Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:36:52 -0700 From: David Lawrence <davidat_private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> On or about 9/5/02 8:27 PM, a certain Declan McCullagh [declanat_private] wrote: >blah blah blah don't use my e-mail I find it really interesting that the people who respond most negatively to Rep. Berman's efforts to educate the subscribers of your list are least likely to stand up and be counted. The level of (ir)rationalization demonstrated by most of your respondents boils down to: a) screw big corporations b) screw the RIAA c) fair use rulz, d00d. Can't do much about ill-placed feelings towards organizations that until a few years ago were considered neutral if not admired. But, as to fair use...feel free to re-publish my Radio and Records column from last week on your list. Oh, and feel free to publish my e-mail address - I have nothing to hide. David Lawrence Online Tonight The Net Music Countdown --- NMC/R&R eChart main column - 8/30/02 FAIR USE? It seems as though every time a defender of our right to share files on the Internet runs through the litany of reasons why the government/media giants/mean old labels want to limit our choices, the phrase "fair use" comes up. To hear some promoters of file piracy sites talk, "fair use" is all about the people being able to access what the horrid copyright owners want to completely control. That's not fair use. Take a look at the four tests that are implicit in Section 107, Title 17 of the US Code that is so freely tossed about, sometimes by people who should know better. Once you understand that although fair use is something that is still left up to the courts to interpret, it's not nearly as hard to understand as it appears. >From the code: ...In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the case of (1), the law is promoting the reference and use of pieces of the work in research, criticism, news stories, and the like. The law is decidedly not promoting the opposite: commercial exploitation or the replacement of a potential sale of the original. It is with (3) and (4) that every single instance of piracy masquerading as "sharing" fails. "Sharing" an entire musical work, as opposed to a clip of it, is not fair use. You want to let someone know how much you like that new Eminem cut? Fair use means sharing 30 seconds or so of it, more along the lines of a callout hook, not the entire Track 7, ripped from The Eminem Show CD. And "sharing" the entire single in a format (128k joint stereo MP3 or higher) that is good enough for most people to re-burn on CDs provides an excellent "sales replacement" on a mass basis. If CDs are truly unaffordable, as some vehemently argue (despite the fact that CD prices haven't changed in over 20 years, meaning with inflation, CDs are less expensive today than when they were introduced), then how does it follow that downloading 6,000 MP3 files will somehow alter the purchasing power of file sharers? It doesn't, but free MP3 files, put up en masse on the Internet, is a powerful competitor to CD's available at any price. --- .............................................. David Lawrence : Host, DC Radio 700 WGOP : 1p-3p ET M-F : vox: 800-396-6546 : Host, Online Tonight : 10p-1a ET M-S : vox: 800-396-6546 : Host, Net Music Countdown : check listings : fax: 509-479-6695 :............................................:................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 23:20:33 PDT