Replies

When you download music, you don't damage or destroy the original. The CD you copy still works fine. Only the MP3 is degraded in quality.

I want to pursue further the analogy between copyright of news articles and copyright of music.

Obviously, thousands post news articles on Freerepublic each day. This is just as much a copyright violation as ripping and sharing MP3's. Read the copyright notice from the Houston Chronicle in my last post, and you will agree.

I can't understand how this be justified, while music downloading cannot. Kevin Curry hasn't answered yet...

By the way, I've enjoyed the debate thus far...

OK let's try again.

look at who is harmed in the two instances you cite.

A newspaper depends on advertising for it's revenues, that in turn is affected by circulation.

Newspapers don't make money selling actual papers, It is costly and time consuming to circulate paper copies but the newspaper company does it as it was it's original method of broadcasting it's content.

If you copy and reproduce their articles they don't much cars so long as you acknowleedge the source. Some papers insist that you redirect people to their website to read the whole article so that they will get web hits which are now used in calculating circulation numbers.

So when you copy and distribute an attributed news item you are helping the newspaper reach it's goals.

The writer doesn't suffer - he was paid by the newspaper either a flat fee or a salary to write the article, his fees or salary are also indirectly a function of circulation.

The newspaper doesn't suffer UNLESS you reproduce it with acknowledging the source, and that is where they might go after you on copyright.

Now look at the music industry. A song takes considerably more time and work to bring to the market.

It is only commercially viable if you can sell multiple copies of it. The artist, the recording company et al are all directly dependant on the volume of sales, there is no residual revenue other than play royalties from radio and TV.

So if you copy and distribute their product you are in direct competition with the recording company, you have stolen their product and are depriving them of revenue.

Let's not stop at music, after all, you claim it is only a data file, lets apply your logic to all computer files.

Why don't you post a copy of Windows XP installation disk on a server for anyone to download and see how long it is before Microsoft come knocking on (or down) your door..