response 74 of 206:

Sep 11 14:39 UTC 2000

Well, that's the whole problem.  The current terms are, on the whole,
neither reasonable nor good for society.  And they're steadily getting
worse, not better.  I unfortunately don't see this situation improving any
time soon, because the people who have the money are the ones with a vested
interest in having information be restricted as much as possible.  And it's
the people with the money who write the laws.

response 76 of 206:

Sep 11 15:42 UTC 2000

        I can't think of a single society where people produced just because
other people might think their work is cool.  I mean, "labour" is the right
term.  How would you feel if your employer decided paying you was optional?

response 78 of 206:

Sep 11 16:43 UTC 2000

        There are a few artists who've done just that - Ringley from the
Toasters formed the Moon Ska label, and Alain Jorgensen from Ministry formed
the Wax Trax label.  Both of which have been accused of perpetuating the
exact same kind of nonsense the major labels have, but they're at least more
broad-minded about who they'll pick up.

response 80 of 206:

Sep 11 17:08 UTC 2000

So do most inventors/artists, I expect - but they don't like having
thier stuff stolen, which seems pretty rational to me. If they want
to give it away, they will. That's their decisions, not the decision
for the thieves to make.

response 82 of 206:

Sep 11 18:11 UTC 2000

That's what I said. Did I slip in?

response 84 of 206:

Sep 11 18:40 UTC 2000

Has nothing to do with "thieves" rights.  Take for instance, an art gallery
that shows an artists work, but charges no admission.  Are they stealing the
work of the artist for not paying to get in, but however are viewing their
work, and can in turn share the experience with others?

response 86 of 206:

Sep 11 19:46 UTC 2000

Okay. Suppose I am a museum. I buy the artist's work. Whatever it is. Then
I start making copies of that work and selling them to the public in my museum
store, without paying the artist anything for the privilege. Is this theft,
considering that most museums are non-profit organizations and that they do
own the work?

response 88 of 206:

Sep 11 20:04 UTC 2000

        Since Napster copies aren't sold, I'd assume you mean giving away
copies (or at least selling at print cost).

response 90 of 206:

Sep 11 23:31 UTC 2000

Is a print of an artwork really a "copy"? Is a photocopy really a "copy"?
I guess "close" counts in more than just horseshoes and hand grenades.

re #86: When you bought the artist's work, did you buy the right to reproduce
        and distribute copies? Maybe not.

response 92 of 206:

Sep 12 05:43 UTC 2000

Museums pay a great deal of money to estates of artists for the privilege
to show their works. Of course, the copyrights have expired on a great
deal of art. 

I am sure that all the reproductions of art works, especially of current
artists, are done with royalties and other contractual terms with
the artists or their agents. 

Re #85: if an artist sells a work of art to a museum, this may or may
not include an exclusive license or a nonexclusive license to make
copies, or even a restriction that reproductions may not be made.
Any object of property, tangible or intangible, has many possible
"rights" associated with it, each of which can be independently
marketed or reserved. For example, for real estate, there is the
right to own the land, a right to own the minerals on the land, a
right to cross the land with vehicles or utility lines, a right to
build a house, etc. All of these rights are separable and can be
owned by different persons. The same is true of any work of art,
with rights to display, to make reproductions, to *own*, etc, all
separable.

response 94 of 206:

Sep 12 16:25 UTC 2000

That's what I said.....  :)

response 96 of 206:

Sep 15 13:46 UTC 2000

I'm terrified. I never thought this day would come:
I agree with Rane and disagree with Ashke.

Listen. theft is theft. Justify it all you want, but theft is theft.
People have said things about the RIAA's pricing scheme. I know that when I'm
hungry, I sure don't like the "pricing scheme" in the snackshop in the
building where I work. I don't use that as justification to steal food.

I continue to think that people who defend Napster to the death are a bunch
of spoiled, arrogant, American brats who are not just stealing, they're
justifying the current religious right argument that shoving Xian morals down
our throats is justified because we really HAVE lost our sense of moral
direction.

As a side note, every piece of music created in the last 80 years or so is
copyrighted. The relevant distinction is what rights have been released to
the public. There are certainly tracks available on Napster which have been
totally or partially released to the public domain.

response 98 of 206:

Sep 15 15:25 UTC 2000

I checked the Home Audio Recording Act and this is one interpretation I found:
           RIAA Clarifies the Legality of Home Audio Recording

     The following is a part of a reply from http://www.soundbyting.com (a
     Recording Industry Association of America site) to those who enquired
       whether non-commercial copying of CDs to MD constituted copyright
                                 infringement.

   Personal use copying was considered by Congress when it enacted the Audio
   Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). The AHRA was a legislative compromise
   to deal with certain, specifically defined, categories of digital audio
   copying. Attempting to balance the various competing interests, among
   other things, the AHRA required the manufacturers of covered devices to
   (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty on
   each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement what is known as
a
   serial copyright management system (or SCMS) which prevents all but first
   generation copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the
   devices, which might have otherwise found themselves subject to liability
   for contributory copyright infringement (among other things), received a
   statutory immunity from suit.

   Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for
   noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all
   analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered
   devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such
   copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.


   The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to
a
   computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc
   and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not.
   The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers
   devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making
   digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as general
   computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that
   they do not pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means
   that neither the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity
   from suit for copyright infringement.

     In summary: You cannot be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies
            with AHRA covered devices (e.g. MD and DAT recorders).

    Further information on the Home Recording Rights Act is available from
the
    Home Recording Rights Coalition

While I haven't been able to find the actual act (so far), this is an
interesting interpretation. So I can record all I want on a cassette, or
an MD, but burning a CD is infringement, according to this!