Replies

You bring up interesting points ; however, the intent of copyright / patent laws is to protect the originator of a work for a set period of time , in order that the originator may reap any potential benefits of what has been sown for that specified period. It was never intended to prevent folks from reading passages from a work, making limited quotes, whistling or singing ,or playing a catchy tune, etc. - with a BIG exception : If you get up on stage, for pay, or at an event in which admission is charged, and perform somebody else's work, you are not allowed to pass it off as YOURS, and you may be liable for royalty payments ( which are, in essence, rent paid for the temporary use of the work for commercial purposes. ) Is "file-sharing" a commercial performance ? At the moment, the courts seem to feel it is- I think, because the technology now available permits the creation of "counterfeit" CD's , which are being sold in competition with the originals. The "reasonable use" of a work does not,and should never include the production of competing counterfeits.

I think we mostly agree, but I would argue that current copyright law is straying further and further from the original intent towards an ownership of the work that is absolute and transferable in perpetuity (if you extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion).

I think its reasonable to say that at some point, the public will be justified in using technology to reclaim their ability to access works which they own. I think some would argue that point has been passed, I'm not so sure. I definitely don't think that the act of exchanging MP3's is, in itself stealing. (I have downloaded MP3s for songs which are on albums that I own) It certainly can be, but what bothers me is the same logic that would outlaw an act just because it can be illegal would outlaw all kinds of activities (guns are the first that come to mind, but there are others).

An analogy (to what the original article is asserting) would be authors trying to get private printing presses banned because they could be used to make unauthorized copies of their works.