[HairOfTheDog]

Ease, expense and quality of the copy prevents widespread copying of books. The distribution is limited and not a concern. It is not nearly in the same league as instant worldwide access of free copies of works that are indistinguishable in quality from the original.

[babygene]

I think that's bologna.

I dont know how often you search the internet for things and how usefull that is to you, but "everything" out there worth searching for is copyrighted.

It is just as Illegal for you to download a graphic or an article and read it or use it, as it is to download music. Why shouldn't you pay for this material?

I would contend that if copyrighted stuff was removed from the internet, you would get rid if your internet connection. As would we all.

Even Freerupublic couldn't exist without fair use provisions.

[babygene]

"free copies of works that are indistinguishable in quality from the original"

I would argue that...

If you had store-bought coppies of the latest CD's and tried to sell them at a yard sale, you would probably sell them all.

If you had copies that you burned onto a CDR, they would be worth NOTHING, and you would sell none of them.

[babygene]

Did you know that the author to the lyrics to a song is paid up to 200 time as much (typicaly 20 times) as the artist that provids the vocal (the part that sells).

The reason the artist doesn't get paid anything much is because it isn't worth anything.

How many people would download lyrics to a song and think nothing of it?

If your mother coppies a recipe from a book or newspaper and sends it to a friend or uses it herself, should that be illegal?

IMHO, this intellectual property crap has gotten way out of hand. And that comes from a guy that has both patented gadgets and written and published music.