Posted on 06/17/2003 2:54:06 PM PDT by Jean S
"Fair Use" doctrine and clauses in copyright law....
Downloading films and songs before they become available to the consumer, sure.
But what about when there is an album out there where you only like one song off of it? Why should you be forced to pay in excess of $20 for a single song?
And how about songs that are either rare (as in not available in the USA) or out of print?
If record companies are not willing to serve consumers (in fact, there is clear evidence they are doing the exact opposite, and deliberately), then they will go elsewhere to get what they want.
That is what the RIAA does not seem to understand, and by golly, neither does that moron Hatch.
Some historical works can be copyrighted, such as Steamboat Willy, but there are many others that cannot, like the works of Shakespeare.
As for historical events, a couple years back, a woman sued Steven Spielberg because she claimed the film Amistad was based on her book. Spielberg claimed the film was not based on her book, and the events that occurred actually did happen. A judge agreed, ruling the woman cannot own a historical event.
He is a musician, and it is true, he is helping out the lefties.
Destruction of personal property is not justice, it's simple revenge. It's like saying "you did 70mph in a 65mph, we are going to crush your car"
Why not treat song downloading like shoplifting? Make the downloading offenders do massive amounts of community service. I'd personally like to see the offenders clean up the cigarette butts all along streets everywhere.
It's amazing to me that there are regular posters to FreeRepublic who think Hatch's idea is a good one--
Welcome to BigBrotherRepublic.com where everyone is free to do exactly as they're told....
Let's counterattack...reduce copyrights to the limited time of Patents.
This attitude never fails to astound me. Is this really a "conservative" board?
I mean, gee, I don't know ... Why should you be "forced" to pay $75,000 for a new Jaguar? Or "forced" to pay $60 for that entree at the new restaurant down the street? Or "forced" to pay 50 cents for a pack of gum when all you want is a single piece?
If you don't want to pay what a seller is asking for an album, then don't buy it. But don't then go steal it.
At what point did people start assuming that owning music is some kind of positive right? If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't buy it. When enough of us don't buy it, prices will drop, or new sellers will rise into place to serve our needs.
The state of technology will either allow me to communicate with others freely or it won't, regardless of content.
If two concentual parties can exchange information on an encrypted channel. They can plan a revolution, spread knowlege that powerful don't want them to, conspire, or give each other media such as music and movies. PGP makes this possible even on top of open channels like email.
If information can be published and read without outside parties being able to interfere, people can publish truths nessesary for democracy, pron, or copies of media like music and movies. Systems like freenet(please look) provide for this even in hostile enviroments like China via anonymity.
Any attempt to try to control content will require submitting content to a regulatory organ like "the ministry of truth", RIAA, or MIAA and replacing our computers with an industry certified "big brother boxs". You can have my computer when you pry it out of my cold stiff fingers.
Ok "conservatives", I'm new here. You tell me what's more important. 100% enforcement of "intelectual property rights" or freedom of speech? Big Brother law enforcement or freedom of press? There's a big choice to made!!!
The original post I was replying to mentioned copyrighted material being put into the Mormon genealogical database. If a copyrighted book says that John Doe was born on May 1, 1800, is it a violation of copyright to put that historical fact into a genealogical database?
Why should I be forced to pay $40,000.00 for a SUV that I only want to drive once or twice a week?
Why should I be forced to pay for a copy of windows I only want to use occasionally?
Why should I be forced to pay for anything I want?
I think I'm a bit left of people here on some issues. I'd be a bit right on a liberal forum. You tell me if I'm a "conservative" (there are so many definitions). I try to be nice.
Did you get the point I made up there? It's something I've been taking very seriously. I hope it wasn't too complicated.
No. Copyright protects original expressions of ideas or facts. It does not protect ideas or facts themselves.
Let's say I wrote: "John Doe was born to a miserly mother and a flatulent father -- not the best of circumstances, it seemed. But his arrival on May 1, 1800, presaged the coming of a new day in politics. Little did the world know that this bald-headed baby boy would eventually transform the social landscape forever. It was as if God had captured lightning in a bottle of moonshine, giving John Doe to us all, though it would take years for the dunderheaded among us to realize that's what it all meant."
THAT, I could copyright. But I have no claim on the FACT that John Doe was born on such-and-such date, and nor does anyone else.
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.