Posted on 03/24/2009 9:47:56 AM PDT by max americana
Not if you leave his private property (tomatoes) alone. The issue is paying the producer for his private property.
but now they are saying the 3d printer will be able to produce THE ACTUAL END PRODUCT.
as the article in my post 50 said, forget your toothbrush and it will create one on the spot.
No more distribution needed for small scale objects. Just the copiable template code.
Only now does it hit me - razorboy talking about a steely dan tour.
I’m with you ... I have thousands of lps and cds. I can’t think of any with only two good songs on them (unless it’s live Coltrane with only 1 song per lp side).
Eventually I’ve just lost interest in music altogether - I don’t need it.
____________
I have never read a sadder statement.
If you broke the encryption, you violated the DMCA.
Huck, I record my old albums....the song I want, into my computer, them make cds . See DAK.com ..........they also has a depopper to eliminate the hisses of the old albums
Uverse has already blocked Limewire. So I switched to Frostwire.
actually it is taking the distribution not the song.
At common law there was no taking of an intelectual property. There was none. Copyright law is a new legislative creation.
Mark Twain was plauged by people SELLING illegal copies of his books and he used to resort to signing every copy to distinguish the authorized from the unauthorized.
Copyright is also limited in scope, hence the fair use rules, educational use rules, and the limited time of the actual copyright exclusivity. (hence Disney keeping the steamboat willie copyright alive by lobbying for copyright extensions. I think 90 years now)
I saw Steely Dan in Phoenix recently. It was a jazz concert. No “Do it again.” No “Reeling in the years.” No “Rikki.” No “Deacon blues.” Very pc, aside from whispering the “f” word during “Show biz kids.”
>> If you broke the encryption, you violated the DMCA.
The fair use doctrine of copyright law allows me to transfer purchased intellectual property between formats for my own personal use — encrypted or otherwise.
SnakeDoc
I denied that stealing produce is analogous to obtaining free music because the provider loses stock in the former case but not the latter. You replied that it is stealing because the provider is not compensated. I am pointing out that a "stolen" song and a non-sale are, in practical terms, exactly the same thing as far as the music label is concerned (in both cases, they lose nothing and gain nothing). If you're going to let them prosecute for the former, why not the latter?
In this example you provide, the person driving by without stopping is not enjoying the fruits of the farmer’s labor.
How do you know? Maybe he enjoys the smell of the fresh produce wafting through his vents. Maybe he stops on the side of the road and takes a photograph of the beautiful fields. Anyway, since when is 'enjoying' something a crime? People enjoy listening to songs they don't pay for on the radio all the time. Are they stealing?
In the case of an illegally downloaded song, the person is enjoying the fruits of the artist’s labor, and for reasons known only to themselves (we have read a number of justifications on this thread), they choose not to compensate the owner. How is that not stealing?
Because the artist loses nothing, zero, zilch, nada?
I purchase CDs for my Jeep, but then I download the same songs for my iPod workouts. I’ve already paid for the music so I have no problem downloading songs I’ve paid for.
Exactly, Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick and Passion Play clearly only have 1 good song each. But outside of the jesting part, I can think of a couple, Frank Zappa’s Man From Utopia would be high on my list of albums with a couple of good ones but mostly junk. But if people really think that’s the norm for the music they buy they need to think that through, it’s like the girl that doesn’t understand why all her boyfriends are jerks, there’s a common denominator here they’re not paying attention to.
What, exactly, is "unjust" about copyright law?
30 years ago I could go down and for $1 buy a 45 of the latest punk or new wave band that hardly anyone had heard of. The internet should now be the equivalent
______
It is. You just have to work at it, kind of like a virtual dig through the record bins.
Folks, get thee over to rrradio.com and download Richard Taylor’s roots rock podcasts. He does them a couple of times a month. 12-15 indy roots rock songs per show. web addresses for the artists given, so you can look ‘em up and buy ‘em as you see fit.
And no, I’m not saying this just ‘cuz Richard has produced my band’s (blue crab’s band too) first cd, and previewed the cd on the show in January.
Pragmatic Programmers maintains errata files for the paper copies and online ZIP files of the example code where appropriate to the book. I sometimes download the examples to decide whether I want the book. Most of the time I do. Crappy workmanship in the example code is frequently a presage of the quality of the book. Fortunately, the editoral staff does a very good job of minimizing that issue.
No. "Intellectual property" is a fictional concept. Property is tangible. If you steal some, there is less of it left than before. You cannot steal what does not exist.
20 years ago...I used to make hundreds of tapes of music I liked and give them to friends. They would do the same for me. This is essentially the same as is going on now.....now it is just more efficient.
Now, here is my experience. 20 years ago, a friend of mine gave me an Enuf Znuf CD on tape and Janes addiction on the other side. I fell deeply in love with Enuf Znuf....didn't really like Jane's Addiction. As a result, I have bought 11 or 12 Enuf Znuf CD's since that time. I think Chip, Donnie and the guys would say that is a fair trade-off for the "original" stealing....as I would have never heard of them otherwise.
Next, I am now almost 50 years old - and I still love and listen to LOTS of music. I do not have time to go searching for free crap and download it and burn it...blah, blah, blah. If I want it - I buy the CD. Unfortunately, the record companies prefer to cater to Teenagers who have nothing better to do than sit around and download....so they produce crappy music I don't want to buy in order to cater to folks who are going to steal it from them - pretty damn stupid business model if you ask me.
Third, take the Grateful Dead....they ENCOURAGED people to "steal their music"....taping live shows and trading. And, I don't think any of them ever went broke because of it.
Last, I am also a musician. And, although I make a little money on the side, I really do it because I love music. I write originals. I share them. I encourage folks to give them to others. Because, what I found is that - if you make GOOD music - people will buy it. If you make crap... people won't - they'll just steal it. So, if one is not making any music off of one's music strictly due to online piracy....then you probably ought to find another vocation anyway....
No, fair use does not allow you to tamper with a copyright management device. That is a violation of the DMCA, fair use or not.
I was at that show, it was great. They never do Deacon Blues in concert (to my eternal chagrin, probably my absolute favorite of theirs), or Rikki. In general they like to stick to the jazzy stuff, they put together a good band that can actually play the tunes. Not sure about PC, you can’t really do 2 hours of Steely Dan without singing songs about junkies losers and scum. Hey Nineteen gets a little less PC every year (as the idea of them hitting on 19 year olds gets a little creepier every year). Black Friday, Aja, FM, Kid Charlemagne, Royal Scam, not much PC there. Plenty of killer stuff though.
The previous tour with Michael McDonald was even better. Just getting the velvet fog doing his part on classics like Peg was really awesome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.