Replies

No offense, but you're sort of, um, talking out your arse.

Downloading a song without permission of the copyright holder is infringement of copyright. Violating copyright is not contingent on "repackaging" or "selling a song" as one's own.

Look closely at the word "copyright" for a moment. It is the exclusive RIGHT to COPY. Downloading a song -- i.e., making a copy -- is a violation of that exclusive right. To bring it close to home: so is the rash of posting copyrighted articles that occurs here at Free Republic.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the copyright issue. But the debate would be better served if people would take the time to understand the basics of the whole thing. I don't think I've ever seen more uninformed commentary on any topic than I continually see regarding copyright matters.

Look closely at the word "copyright" for a moment. It is the exclusive RIGHT to COPY.

If a restauranteur has his employees sing a copyrighted song like the retroactively-recopyrighted "Happy Birthday" without paying ASCAP their dues, exactly what "copying" has occurred to justify ASCAP's claims of copyright infringement?

Well, dipdung, how many copyrights have you applied for and received?

I have 6 formal copyrights [full copyright process/forms completed with US Copyright Office] to my credit, in addition to a dozen non-formal copyrights (yes, dipdung, non-formal copyrights can exist too).