Question about copying CDs and copyright

[jjb5985]

I just hear too much of “it’s wrong because it’s illegal” “it’s wrong because it’s stealing” “it’s wrong because it hurts so and so” which is exactly what is being fed to them, I’d by all means love to listen to their opinions if it is their own and they can reasonably offer reasonable proof of the claim or what they believe to be proof and not something spoon fed to them by other sources supporting these corporations. Often though when asked to elaborate more on their statements they are often unable to because they really haven’t thought for themselves on the issue.

Even many business claims are legit, but the ones we’re giving all the attention to in relation to file sharing and music, the artists never see any of the money won in the first place!!!

The original law no longer exists as it was intended (to protect and give credit to the original artists of intellectual creations) instead it is used to shadow a more greedy motive.

OK, how about this. I used to think it was fine and did it all the time, then I spent a little bit of time thinking about it and it became crystal clear that it was wrong.

My disclaimer is that copyright can be grey area sometimes. For instance, if a work is no longer commercially available but is still under copyright protection. I don’t want to discuss all the “what ifs”, so I’ll stick with this simple concept: If you get a copy of something for free from someone (they made a copy from you) and you avoid paying the money you were supposed to for it, it’s wrong. You are taking (or providing if you make the copy) something you were supposed to pay for without paying. You don’t own the rights to whats on that CD so you don’t have the right to freely transfer it to others. The only way you can is to sell or give the original CD used and destroy any other personal copies.

I’m a musician. If I write a song, it should be up to me whether I want to charge people money for it or not. If I WANT to give it away for free, that my right as the copyright holder. If I transfer the copyright, I’m giving them that right to charge or not.

It’s no different then if I teach a class. If I want to be compensated for it, I should be. People don’t have to pay me, but then I should have a right to refuse them coming to my class if they don’t pay. They didn’t “physically” take anything here, but they are benefiting from my service without paying me what I ask. The law protects the right to charge for goods and services.

If thinking of intellectual property as a “good” is difficult because it is somewhat abstract and not physical, think of it as a “service” that the musicians, engineers, producers, and so on provided.

Lastly, even if the musicians don’t make all that much money from record sales or lawsuits and the record companies are “greedy”, keep in mind the people that make money from cd sales are all doing a legitmate job. Whether it’s a producer or marketer, these all require work.

Greedy or not, if a greedy man gets stolen from, it is still wrong.

 

[edwest2]

Bill,

I currently work for a media company that was literally started with a small amount of borrowed money. The incentive, the inspiration, was certainly previous works, but the goal was not to copy but to build on what had gone before. Access to the public domain would not have helped.

There is no lack of incentive because I know for a fact that new authors, new artists, new musicians, etc., give it a try every year. I even have the privilege of sometimes giving these people some advice based on my years of experience. Without years of actual experience and skill, people wouldn’t buy what we do. So why did Sony pay money to buy movie rights for Buck Rogers? Why didn’t they simply create new characters in outer space chasing Oriental bad guys? They bought the memories of people who know Buck Rogers and the reputation that went with it.

Can I just hand a football to some guy in the street and tell him to join real football players in a pro game that same night? No, of course not.

I do not see quicker access to published works as an advantage and certainly not as an incentive, except to other professionals who want to make a buck without paying a licensing fee.

As far as software, how did Microsoft become so big again? They played by the rules. It was because of a guy named Bill Gates. Talent is required and it must be refined and polished before it can produce something people will pay money for.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnshark]

copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html

B. SECTION 109(a) AND THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE

The common-law roots of the first sale doctrine allowed the owner of a particular copy of a work to dispose of that copy. This judicial doctrine was grounded in the common-law principle that restraints on the alienation of tangible property are to be avoided in the absence of clear congressional intent to abrogate this principle. This doctrine appears in section 109 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Section 109(a) specified that this notwithstanding a copyright owner’s exclusive distribution right under section 106 the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord that was lawfully made under title 17 is entitled to sell or further dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

i believe this says that if you own a cd you can sell that copy but you cant make copys and sell them or give them away. that is illegal under the digital millenium copyright act (dmca)

 

[mchale]

Bill,

I currently work for a media company that was literally started with a small amount of borrowed money. The incentive, the inspiration, was certainly previous works, but the goal was not to copy but to build on what had gone before. Access to the public domain would not have helped.

There is no lack of incentive because I know for a fact that new authors, new artists, new musicians, etc., give it a try every year. I even have the privilege of sometimes giving these people some advice based on my years of experience. Without years of actual experience and skill, people wouldn’t buy what we do. So why did Sony pay money to buy movie rights for Buck Rogers? Why didn’t they simply create new characters in outer space chasing Oriental bad guys? They bought the memories of people who know Buck Rogers and the reputation that went with it.

Can I just hand a football to some guy in the street and tell him to join real football players in a pro game that same night? No, of course not.

I do not see quicker access to published works as an advantage and certainly not as an incentive, except to other professionals who want to make a buck without paying a licensing fee.

As far as software, how did Microsoft become so big again? They played by the rules. It was because of a guy named Bill Gates. Talent is required and it must be refined and polished before it can produce something people will pay money for.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

With respect, you are missing the point here. Copyright is only tangentally about benefiting the authors. That being said, you act as if a license fee is all that is required to play in another author’s back yard… Some authors will never grant another person the right to use their work, regardless of what the new author might be willing to pay or for that matter no matter how talented the author might be.

To go back to my DOS 1.0 example. Modern users essentially are forced to use a relatively recent operating system by Microsoft if they want to use any operating system by Microsoft. Why? Because Microsoft is unwilling to support older O.S.s. Now, lets suppose I did want to use Windows 95 for some particular reason? MS wouldn’t support me, and no one else could either, because MS is not going to let anyone else have access to the code, which is their “right” under a copyright that won’t expire for another 85 years.

Oh BTW, Microsoft essentially got started because the Basic Language was open, and they got their start in Operating Systems by essentially reverse engineering CP/M (If they did it today, they would probably be sued).

Now to use your Buck Rogers example… Buck Rogers has essentially become an icon of American culture. Lots of geeks, like myself, have memories of watching the 1970s version of the show, and others have memories of the comics or the old movie serials. Yet, our participation in that cultural icon is limited because even after 80 years the work is still being controled by corporate interests.

Is a great novel, or TV series sitting behind Buck Rogers? Maybe not… but you never know… and probably won’t until it enters the public domain.

One final thought, you seem to think that authors don’t need access to the public domain… yet I can name many, many works that were built on earlier works that had essentially entered the Public Domain. Sure, it requires talent and skill to successfully exploit those works… but the works wouldn’t exist at all in a world with perpetual copyright.

No Hamlet… No operas or ballets based off of numerous Shakespear plays…

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

Bill,

Thank you for your respectful presentation of your ideas. I appreciate it.

Imagine, if you will, the following. The rights to Harry Potter enter the public domain. Soon after, a book appears by a new author. Regardless of what kind of support he may have from others, including fellow writers, he is met with the following.

“Statement from J.K. Rowling related to latest Potter book not written by her”

I think it is absolutely dreadful. I do think all parties associated with the author meant well but I cannot recommend this book at all. And I would like to take this opportunity to advise all others that the road to becoming a writer is long and hard. This underscores the lack of appropriate editorial control that would have occurred under the recently abolished system. I do hope that in the future, new readers being introduced to Harry Potter do not begin with this book since it will cause them to avoid the rest. Not just anyone can place his work in an Art Gallery until it is properly vetted by individuals with the skills to judge. What is art worth showing except the finest which we can produce, carefully crafted and containing obvious signs of mature craftsmanship?

The scenario you paint of people never knowing is not an accurate one. A person I know will be allowing others to “play” in a world setting he created. He will be watching the results.

Just the other day, the head of the company I work for asked me to look over a manuscript. It was dull, disorganized and lacking focus. We both realized, however, that the writer was not far enough along to understand that. The remedy is always to keep trying and develop your skills. It takes patience, discipline and long hours. I know people for whom it’s paid off. There are no short cuts.

I will continue to point out that public domain does not change anything. Here is something I picked up from Variety: Even though we have millions of dollars to spend on advertising, we still don’t know which movies will hit and which will miss. So Hollywood has no magic formula.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

Bill,

Thank you for your respectful presentation of your ideas. I appreciate it.

Imagine, if you will, the following. The rights to Harry Potter enter the public domain. Soon after, a book appears by a new author. Regardless of what kind of support he may have from others, including fellow writers, he is met with the following.

“Statement from J.K. Rowling related to latest Potter book not written by her”

First of all, I am not advocating an elimination of Copyright, I am advocating a reform where the terms of copyright are more in line with the profitable life of most creative works (There is no point in keeping works locked down by copyright 20 years after the last time the work was in print or after the author has died).

I am also not advocating the end of publishing standards… though frankly considering how many bad books are published every year, and how many good books need to be shopped to multiple publishers, one has to wonder how good the publishers really are at picking good books.

In addition, what J.K. Rowling might or might not say about someone else’s interpretation of Harry Potter is besides the point. She might decide the work is dreadful, but others may love it.

The scenario you paint of people never knowing is not an accurate one. A person I know will be allowing others to “play” in a world setting he created. He will be watching the results.

I already know of authors who let others publish in their worlds. Eric Flint with his 1632 Universe has been doing it for some time. It has been quite a success for Baen.

My point about not knowing was that you can’t know until you let others build off of the works of others what they will produce.

Just the other day, the head of the company I work for asked me to look over a manuscript. It was dull, disorganized and lacking focus. We both realized, however, that the writer was not far enough along to understand that. The remedy is always to keep trying and develop your skills. It takes patience, discipline and long hours. I know people for whom it’s paid off. There are no short cuts.

I am not disputing that writing requires both skill and practice. That being said, this aspect of your argument has little relevance to the argument about whether copyright needs to be reformed.

I will continue to point out that public domain does not change anything. Here is something I picked up from Variety: Even though we have millions of dollars to spend on advertising, we still don’t know which movies will hit and which will miss. So Hollywood has no magic formula.

Yes it is true that the Public Domain doesn’t charge anything, it also doesn’t control it. Any work that is still under the control of anyone else’s ability to create from it. Imagine, if you will, if the Tolkien estate had rejected Peter Jackson’s attempt to make the Lord of the Rings, or if Mario Puzo wasn’t willing to let the Godfather be filmed? In both cases, we would have been deprived of some great cinema. I am sure we already have been deprived of many great works because of copyright… it has also provided incentive for many great works. The key is finding a balance that maximizes the incentive to create new works while minimizing the impact on creating other works that might be derivative in some sense.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

Bill,

I don’t understand your incentive point at all. All the writers and artists I know, and a few musicians, were inspired by somebody. All of them wanted to be the best. None of them told me, “You know, if all that copyright nonsense would change, I would have a greater incentive.” I never heard that. All I know is that they wanted to do something with their talent.

So what if the Godfather was never made? I recommend you look at the book, The Greatest Science Fiction Films Never Made.

What you’re talking about in the Baen example is a collaborative effort, that’s all. Nothing new there.

I don’t think shortening the time period for copyright will lead to any sort of incentive that I can identify.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

Bill,

I don’t understand your incentive point at all. All the writers and artists I know, and a few musicians, were inspired by somebody. All of them wanted to be the best. None of them told me, “You know, if all that copyright nonsense would change, I would have a greater incentive.” I never heard that. All I know is that they wanted to do something with their talent.

I think it is clear you are not understanding me.

Let me try breaking it down…

1. The point of copyright is to provide an incentive for authors and artists to produce works and to publish them with the ultimate destination of the work being placed within the public domain.
2. Many works that are produced draw on existing works that are already in the public domain.
3. As a result, the longer a work is under copyright, the less useful it is for providing a source for derivative works. Therefore the term of copyright needs to be balanced so as to maximize both the incentive to create works and the ability of other artists to draw on the public domain.

Now the proper term of copyright ideally probably differs with the sort of work involved. It might well make sense to for a novel to be under copyright for 50 years… but can we say the same about a computer program that is obsolete in 3 years?

So what if the Godfather was never made? I recommend you look at the book, The Greatest Science Fiction Films Never Made.

My point here is that some of the greatest movies of the 20th century have depended on the willingness of an author or their estate to authorize the derivative work. How many other good works have we lost because of it?

What you’re talking about in the Baen example is a collaborative effort, that’s all. Nothing new there.

If you think it is a simple collaborative effort you are not familiar enough with it. I am not just talking about the novels Eric Flint wrote with others but with the fan fiction that he has allowed others to write and has decided to publish and incorporate those stories into his Universe.

I don’t think shortening the time period for copyright will lead to any sort of incentive that I can identify.

Its not about creating incentive, its about making works available to others so that they can be built upon. The real question we should ask is whether say reducing copyright terms to say life plus 10 years will result in authors writing fewer novels and publishers publishing fewer… if the answer is no, then the term of copyright is too long.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

Bill,

Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think you have a case. I doubt a Federal judge is unfamiliar with the Constitution and I create concepts on a regular basis. I’ve been very fortunate to work with some very talented people. Access to public domain works was never an issue. So, in order to show harm, you’d have to convince a judge that damage has been actually done. Just saying something bad might happen is speculating about a possible outcome. It would not amount to evidence of actual damage.

So the author of a book decided to pick and choose among some fan fiction? It seems that what you call public domain represents the desire of some people who aren’t professionals to contribute to some current or recent work. We get manuscripts all the time. The vast majority are bad. Even some of the semi-professional material we get requires extensive rewrites. I’m not against the idea of fan contributions but by definition, they generally don’t have the skill and experience.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

Bill,

Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think you have a case. I doubt a Federal judge is unfamiliar with the Constitution and I create concepts on a regular basis. I’ve been very fortunate to work with some very talented people. Access to public domain works was never an issue. So, in order to show harm, you’d have to convince a judge that damage has been actually done. Just saying something bad might happen is speculating about a possible outcome. It would not amount to evidence of actual damage.

Which is why I said reform is needed. A Federal Judge is tied to the law a it is written… it is too hard for a judge determine whether or not copyright law as it states is actually fulfilling the intent as stated in the Constitution.

Just as a thought, why is it, do you suppose, that patents have retained rather tight limits on how long they last before they enter the public domain while copyright has expanded to be far longer than the original standards of copyright (14 years, renewable once for an additional 14 years). It seems that the biggest issue with patents is that more corporate interests can profit from patents expiring than from copyrights expiring.

To use your argument from earlier, every patent that expires means that lots of people get something from nothing.

So the author of a book decided to pick and choose among some fan fiction? It seems that what you call public domain represents the desire of some people who aren’t professionals to contribute to some current or recent work. We get manuscripts all the time. The vast majority are bad. Even some of the semi-professional material we get requires extensive rewrites. I’m not against the idea of fan contributions but by definition, they generally don’t have the skill and experience.

With respect, you keep taking examples of some of the things that can be done with public domain works and try to equate that with the public domain. When a work is in the public domain, it means anyone can do anything they want with it. The limits of its usefulness are the imaginations of people familiar with the work.

Yes, the vast majority of it will be bad… So what? The vast majority of original work is bad as well. But some of it will be brilliant… some of it will actually be better than the source material it is based on.

Please get this through your head – Lots of professionals have taken works that are in the public domain and adapted them, expanded upon them and created great art by building on great art and for that matter have created great art on the back of mediocre works. Many if not most of these works would not have been possible in the realm of perpetual copyright (which is a distinct possibility if congress keeps retroactively extending copyright terms).

Here is only a few examples that I can think of.

Romeo and Juliet was actually based on a work published in English about 30 years before the play was produced… and itself was the basis of West Side Story, 24 operas, at least 5 ballets…

Hamlet is known to have been based on earlier works and has also been the subject of operas…

Othello also has gone on to inspire operas and other works.

King Lear was reinterpreted by Kurasowa to produce Ran.

In fact a large part of the canon of ballet and opera are based on pre-existing novels, plays and stories. And lets not forget how many of these same have gone on to inspire paintings, movies, etc.

Would Shakespearean Theater be so vibrant and experimental if every production needed the approval of the Shakespeare estate?

Right now, if an author publishes something at the age of thirty, if we assume that he lives to be 80, his work won’t enter the public domain for 120 years (and that is assuming that Congress does not retroactively extend copyright again). This should be tolerated by the state only if it can be shown that such a long copyright term is necessary for the production of the vast majority of works that are produced today. I have yet to see a compelling case made by you or anyone else to suggest that it is.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

Bill,

Do you know why copyright exists for as long as it does?

Here’s the compelling case: If I create something, it’s mine to do with as I like, But, if nobody wants it then I can publish 1000 copies and they’ll just sit. You seem to be presenting some strange case for sifting through everything out there (a physical impossibility for one person) and saying, aha!, give this to me and I will build on it. Why not just create something on your own? Then you can tell the world they are free to send you material. Which you can then sift through. And believe me, we’ve gotten 600 pagers from one person.

Second. If I want to leave my Intellectual Properties to my kids, why not? It’s property which I can dispose of as I please.

I still don’t think you have a case Bill. The sheer tonnage produced every year would have stunned Jefferson and the founders. If you think you have such a strong case, why not present it to some legal entity?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

Bill,

Do you know why copyright exists for as long as it does?

Yes I do… because the large media companies have lobbied long and hard to get it extended. Its in there interest (not interest of the general public mind you, but their interest) to own the rights to the material as long as they can. No body lobbying for less restrictive copyright has nearly the pockets they do.

Here’s the compelling case: If I create something, it’s mine to do with as I like, But, if nobody wants it then I can publish 1000 copies and they’ll just sit. You seem to be presenting some strange case for sifting through everything out there (a physical impossibility for one person) and saying, aha!, give this to me and I will build on it. Why not just create something on your own? Then you can tell the world they are free to send you material. Which you can then sift through. And believe me, we’ve gotten 600 pagers from one person.

Sigh… not just the obscure stuff, also the famous stuff. However, I include the obscure stuff because that also has been tapped in the past to create great works of art.

Once the copyright has expired, anyone can use the work as they please to create sequels, reinterpretations, games, ballets, operas, tv shows etc. Sometimes it is obscure, other times it is famous and taps into the shared culture. It doesn’t have to be sent to me.

BTW, the model describe (i.e., I create something, put it out there, and then people can send their contributions to me…) well that model has been used very successfully for years among a certain segment of the computer community. The Open Source movement is in large part responsible for Linux (Which is still the dominant server OS out there) and a whole host of tools that I and other computer professionals use on a daly basis.

Second. If I want to leave my Intellectual Properties to my kids, why not? It’s property which I can dispose of as I please.

See property here is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, you have rights to your work and those rights can be passed on to your children. However, its not property in the normal sense. Its more along the lines of a lease. At some point, if we follow the Constitution, those rights will expire and the work will enter the public domain.

I still don’t think you have a case Bill. The sheer tonnage produced every year would have stunned Jefferson and the founders. If you think you have such a strong case, why not present it to some legal entity?

As I pointed out before, this is not a question for a court of law, but rather the Congress and the people of the United States as a whole. Do we essentially want media companies controlling all information in virtual perpetuity? Or do we want the works to be set free after a reasonable period so that the public at large can benefit?

BTW, to give an example of how shorter copyright terms could benefit the general public and in fact the legacy of many authors.

There is a small press that is run by the New England Science Fiction Association (NESFA), they specialize in republishing older SF work that has gone out of print. Having talked to them in the past, it turns out often the biggest hurdle to reprinting a book is tracking down the rights holders. Almost all of the time, the holders are more than pleased to allow them to proceed, even if they stand to earn little or nothing from the transaction. Why? Because the legacy of being in print is more important for most authors than the relatively small amount of money they might make on a book they wrote 30-40 years ago… or that their parents wrote 70 years ago.

Essentially copyright, as it now stands, protects the elite authors; the authors whose works will remain in print for decades without interruption. It does not protect the public good nor does it protect the vast majority of authors who write one or two novels or a handful of short stories and are then forgotten.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

Respectfully, I think you’ve answered your own question about why things are the way they are now. I see no harm in not being able to access any work I want. You are presenting a what if scenario that even if it does add a drop to the bucket of recently published material causes microscopic damage to the public good if any.

It’s just not compelling enough for me to be interested. And I work for a company that treats creative talent quite well.

I just don’t see this as a big problem, and it seems that the remedy would be some deep pockets.

I see new start-ups in publishing all the time, including during this difficult economic time. People can publish full color comics on the internet today for a nominal cost compared to the thousands they would have needed doing a traditional press run in the past.

The public good is being more than satisfied by a massive, spontaneous wave of privately produced and distributed material along with all of the corporate stuff. In fact, even voracious readers/listeners/viewers will not be able to access a lot of the good stuff even if the human lifespan doubles in the next 10 years.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

Respectfully Ed, you never actually answered any of my more substansive arguments. You basically will go off point (Talk about how bad most derivative work is when it is done by amateurs, talk about how plenty of work is being created now).

Lets try for some concrete answers, shall we?

Respectfully, I think you’ve answered your own question about why things are the way they are now. I see no harm in not being able to access any work I want. You are presenting a what if scenario that even if it does add a drop to the bucket of recently published material causes microscopic damage to the public good if any.

Remember the point to copyright is maximize the work that enters the public domain. Increasing the terms of copyright should ultimately only be done when it increases the incentive of authors to create more works. If it doesn’t do that, then it can be argued that it hurts the general welfare by delaying that entry into the public domain.

And mind you, you are ignoring the impact that copyright has on the software industry. Imgaine, if you will, that patents had the same length of term that copyrights currently have. Lots of relatively cheap things would become far more expensive because they would still be under patent (anyone want to pay a million dollars for a computer?). We know that such restrictions would have a burdensome impact on society if it was applied to other technology, yet with software, this burden is ignored.

It’s just not compelling enough for me to be interested. And I work for a company that treats creative talent quite well.

If you are not interested, then why debate for so long? I could point out that you in fact have a vested interest in copyright laws not being reformed.

I just don’t see this as a big problem, and it seems that the remedy would be some deep pockets.

I see new start-ups in publishing all the time, including during this difficult economic time. People can publish full color comics on the internet today for a nominal cost compared to the thousands they would have needed doing a traditional press run in the past.

The public good is being more than satisfied by a massive, spontaneous wave of privately produced and distributed material along with all of the corporate stuff. In fact, even voracious readers/listeners/viewers will not be able to access a lot of the good stuff even if the human lifespan doubles in the next 10 years.

Again, the public good must be maximized. Its not just a question of the public enjoying the works of others, but rather the interest of being able to use these works in new creations. That you might lack the imagination to see how it might be done is besides the point.

Lets go back to software for a moment.

In the current time, software is under the same copyright terms as a novel is. Since most software is created by corporate entities, that means 95 years.

Now there were many pieces of software written in the 1980s for the first home computer boom (The commodore 64/Apple II era). Most of that software is now out of print. Obviously most of it is hopelessly outdated, but some of it was innovative for its time, and remains innovative now… but it was never ported to modern operating systems because the companies producing the software went out of business. There are still copies of the software around, but they remain unavailable to the general public since most of us don’t have legally purchased copies of this software (nor for that matter the 5 1/4" disks needed to load the software on our systems). Under modern copyright law, porting the code of this 25 year old software is against the law despite the fact that it has very little commercial value today and the rights owners (if they can be identified), have no interest in maintaining it. Yet the software could be used for a variety of purposes or even updated for modern computers.

Shoot, are you claiming you have never been forced to abandon some favorite piece of software because the corporate giant that created it decided not to support it in favor of some newer software that you did not like as much?

My own personal opinion on software is that copyright should only extend so long as the company that created it is willing to support it. If it is out of support, it should enter the public domain so that other companies can choose, if they want, to support it.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know anyone whose goal is to have his work enter the public domain. All I know are people who want to make a living producing creative things. That’s it.

Software is a different story.

Finally, if you are so concerned, what do you plan to do?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mchale]

I don’t know anyone whose goal is to have his work enter the public domain. All I know are people who want to make a living producing creative things. That’s it.

Ed, broaden your circle a bit. In any case, I am not suggesting that copyright be abolished, or that the terms be shorted to such a degree as to make it impossible for an author or a publisher to make a decent return for their efforts.

However, I bet if you ask most authors if 10 years after they are dead, whether they would prefer to have their works out of print but under copyright or in print and in the public domain? I am betting most would prefer to have their work in print than totally forgotten.

What I am saying is that copyright needs to be reformed. It needs to stop treating all media identically. For novels, movies and TV shows it might make sense to have relatively long copyright terms (Though I see no justification for the excessive copyright terms that no exist), for other types of media, with shorter shelf lives, the copyright should be respectively shorter.

Software is a different story.

Which is part of my point. Yet software is treated identically to a novel.

Finally, if you are so concerned, what do you plan to do?

How do you know I am not doing something already?

–
Bill

 

[JoshR]

I asked priest this today in confession and if it is copyrighted then it is stealing.

 

[Joe_5859]

I asked priest this today in confession and if it is copyrighted then it is stealing.

Did he elaborate further?

 

[JoshR]

He basically explained it as wal mart making millions and millions of dollars a day but if you take one candy bar from there it is still stealing no matter how little it may be.

 

[Roman_Army]

you are violating the copyright laws by doing that, you are only allowed to make one archival copy of any cd/dvd you own. this is what happens to you if you illegally share your music afterdawn.com/news/archive/18683.cfm

I’m not sure about this, since when I was a member of the legal online “Rhapsody” music service, they allowed you to make more than 1 CD copy. I think it was 3 CD copies, not sure. It also allows you to put the music on 5 separate computers. Perhaps they were granted express written permission by the RIAA for this specific service. They also allow members to share songs with friends online via email or instant messenger. I’m not sure if the shared file has a bug that terminates it after a certain period of time though. Maybe some one more knowledgeable might elaborate on that here. Maybe the rule is different for digital music files bought in online services than it is for tangible hard copies bought in record stores.