Um isn't someone supposed to make a profit from copyrighted material to be classified as piracy? I don't see how people using napster to swap digital recordings of songs is making anyone a profit. As far as infringing on someone's art and making it a commodity... Lots of bands got their fame and fortune from people trading tape-recordings of songs recorded at shows or off the radio or even cheesy tapes from MTV. History will show that such free trade actually drove sales up. Banning napster and other technologies like it is just like saying I can't tape a radio show and give it to my best friend! Or even more to the point, that I can't record my favorite songs onto one tape and give them to my best friend! Anything that would limit that kind of freedom of expression is clearly opposed to the good of the people.
The argument Real used to prevent someone from creating a player/recorder client is so wrong it makes me ill. there are many reasons to want a recording of broadcasts. News commentary, education, evidence of slander, etc... all of which are fair use and aren't possible because DMCA protects the interests of content providers and not the people. Resting on one's laurels is no excuse for taking away rights from the people. If I buy a CD from a store, no one can deny me the right to do with it what I please so long as I don't try to make a profit from it. Yet the DMCA does just that for the equivelent package, should I download it and not travel to the brick and mortar record shop. No one can deny me the right to re-record the songs on that CD to a tape in whatever order I want for personal use, so long as I don't make a profit from it. So how are napster users making money? Why is it impossible for me to record Real broadcasts? Didn't we go through this already with cassette tapes and vcr's? Just my 2 cents, thanks for the audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Um isn't someone supposed to make a profit from copyrighted material to be classified as piracy? I don't see how people using napster to swap digital recordings of songs is making anyone a profit. As far as infringing on someone's art and making it a commodity... Lots of bands got their fame and fortune from people trading tape-recordings of songs recorded at shows or off the radio or even cheesy tapes from MTV. History will show that such free trade actually drove sales up. Banning napster and other technologies like it is just like saying I can't tape a radio show and give it to my best friend! Or even more to the point, that I can't record my favorite songs onto one tape and give them to my best friend! Anything that would limit that kind of freedom of expression is clearly opposed to the good of the people.
The argument Real used to prevent someone from creating a player/recorder client is so wrong it makes me ill. there are many reasons to want a recording of broadcasts. News commentary, education, evidence of slander, etc... all of which are fair use and aren't possible because DMCA protects the interests of content providers and not the people. Resting on one's laurels is no excuse for taking away rights from the people. If I buy a CD from a store, no one can deny me the right to do with it what I please so long as I don't try to make a profit from it. Yet the DMCA does just that for the equivelent package, should I download it and not travel to the brick and mortar record shop. No one can deny me the right to re-record the songs on that CD to a tape in whatever order I want for personal use, so long as I don't make a profit from it. So how are napster users making money? Why is it impossible for me to record Real broadcasts? Didn't we go through this already with cassette tapes and vcr's? Just my 2 cents, thanks for the audience.