[babygene]

" 1. Sorry, the educational argument doesn't work. Entertainment is a commercial -- not educational -- activity, and whether or not the kid was running a profit enterprise is not the question.

2. The fact that music is broadcast on the radio does not mean it is "given away for free". Sorry, try again.

3. Each song IS a "work". A CD is a compilation of works. To qualify under this standard, the files downloaded would have to consist of mere snippets or a couple of lines from a song -- not the whole song. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

4. To suggest she did not affect the market is like suggesting that a shoplifter who just steals one pair of jeans doesn't affect the market. Sorry, but again the
argument fails."

So you have your view, same as the recording industry...

I am representing another possible view. It is my understanding that the USSC has not ruled on this yet, so neither view is cast in stone.

Let me ask you this. It's a little off topic, but not much.

Why are copy machines allowed in libraries? How many times have you and I and everyone else copied a page out of a book or magazine rather than buy a copy of it?

It’s the same copyright law… The library even SELLS photocopies for 10 or 20 cents a page.

[afz400]

"1. Sorry, the educational argument doesn't work. Entertainment is a commercial -- not educational -- activity."
Not necessarily. I could be downloading music as part of a book I am writing on the history of folk music, for instance. A case could be made that my use of the MP3 files was for educational or research purposes, not entertainment.