Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Only Music?

Posted by michael on from the don't-try-to-use-logic-against-me dept.

The Importance of writes "Last week, Slashdot readers provided a number of answers to the question "What is Music?" in the context of compulsory licensing. Now LawMeme asks another question about compulsory licenses: Why Only Music? Many compulsory licensing schemes have been proposed to cover music alone, but most of the arguments in favor of a compulsory license for music apply equally as well to other media types. Millions share movies, P2P can't be stopped, the MPAA hasn't provided legitimate alternatives for what consumers want, etc. If music should have a compulsory license, why shouldn't movies, software, ebooks and other media also be covered by compulsory licenses?"

4 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Limitations of broadband by KrizDog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Takes me about an hour to download a movie from Movielink on my cable broadband connection.

  2. Compulsory License by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you were as confused as I was reading the article, check this out:

    Verizon's Solution in the Napster Debate

    It gives a good overview of what "compulsory licensing" means:

    The scheme Verizon proposes is known as "compulsory licensing." A compulsory license forces a copyright (or patent) owner to permit someone else to use the work for a predetermined fee. Accordingly, it precludes the owner of the copyright (or patent) from refusing to license her work to other people in certain, specified circumstances.
    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  3. Re:The moment.... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope, by tearing open the wrap, you give up the right of first sale to the book. Ie; you cant sell your used copy when your done with it.

    Go down to borders and see for yourself

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  4. Re:The moment.... by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    There was a case regarding this (can't remember the name) almost 75 years ago. The outcome was that this was illegal. The only reason some book publishers are doing this is because they see software distributors doing it. But while software distributors claim that they aren't really selling the software, only "the opportunity to enter into an agreement to use the software under limited circumstances", a book publisher would have to be nuts to claim the book wasn't actually being sold.

    Your bill of sale takes precedence over the shrink wrap.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!