Replies

You're attempting to make a one to one analogy again and I've already stated that this is a flawed analogy. For historical and philosophical reasons, the written word (news articles would qualify) has always been afforded a more liberal dissemination than has music, especially contemporary pop music. Hence the wide availability of literature loaned and distributed by libraries. Would you suggest that this is somehow a violation of copyright law?

I guess you think you're trapping me into an ethical contradiction, but until you come up with a more valid analogy, you're not.

For historical and philosophical reasons, the written word (news articles would qualify) has always been afforded a more liberal dissemination than has music, especially contemporary pop music.

I could argue that "pop music" back in the mists of time was MUCH more liberally disseminated than the printed word, but that, of course, predates copyrights.
Do you mean to say that you think the copyright laws regarding print are open to "interpretation of intent" whereas those regarding other media are not? Or merely that violation of the strict reading of copyright law regarding print is ok because "everyone does it"? It would seem to me if the producers of the written material in question had not cared about the "liberal dissemination" of their product they wouldn't have worded their copyright laws to limit it, particularly in the case of the internet. What am I missing here?

Hence the wide availability of literature loaned and distributed by libraries. Would you suggest that this is somehow a violation of copyright law?

Absolutely not. I am aware of no copyright law which prohibits a public library (or an individual for that matter) from loaning a book or periodical or even music CD. I fail to see the connection with the established copyright law which, in your own words, prohibits the dissemination of copies of full articles vs excerpts on the internet.

I guess you think you're trapping me into an ethical contradiction, but until you come up with a more valid analogy, you're not.

The issue is copyright law in both cases. The violation of one, you appear to condone, excuse, or ignore, while the other you do not. To me, that's a contradiction.