It's illegal to rent music and computer software (other than console games) without permission of the copyright holder. Guess who probably wouldn't be stupid enough to give permission for it.
The problem is that you -- assuming you're in the US -- have no right to reproduce copies of music you buy from allofmp3. And reproduction occurs when you, e.g. download music to your RAM or hard drive.
allofmp3 might be great, but Americans just cannot use it legally here since our laws apply to what goes on in our borders, and whatever they're selling, they're not selling in accordance with US law.
Why must the Constitution be flawed before we amend it? Isn't it enough that it could be better? For my part, I think enshrining copyright restrictions/clarifications right into the bloody document might do wonders to overcome the corrupting influence of campaign contributions.
Because a lot of the success of the federal Constitution has been that it lacks a lot of detail. This allows it to be read in different ways with the times. Most amendments have either been the bill of rights or have dealt with voting in some fashion. They tended to address extraordinarily serious issues. The last thing we need is a hyper-precise constitution that locks us into one plan of doing things instead of allowing us freedom in our governance.
Take a look at state constitutions sometime; they're often long and overly detailed and tend to get trashed and totally replaced every 50-100 years. IIRC a few years back an amendment was added to the FL constitution that dealt with how sows on pig farms can be treated -- it's probably important to someone, but it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
The problem with the DCMA and related legislations and copyright protection schemes is that they are not put place in to protect people from physical harm, they are put in place to protec (cough) the artist (cough) and the media conglomerates from losing out on their investment in intellectual property.
And? Copyright as a general matter is put in place to benefit the public. Perhaps current laws do a shitty job of that, indicating that some reform is needed, but the overall concept still fits into the realm of that the government can limit people's freedom -- the more important the freedom, the harsher the onus put on the government. But for relatively minor stuff, it's not a big deal. Copyright is a fairly minor regulation as these things go.
I don't get it. It's YOUR property, YOU own it. How can the government tell me what to do with the stuff I own.
So you're saying that you don't understand how the government can tell you that when you build a building it has to comply with fire codes? Or that when you own a car, you can't drive at 150mph through red lights? Or that when you own a chemistry set that you can't use it to make drugs?
Most people understand these things, I've got to tell you.
That is incorrect. Your rights are determined by four things: the right of free speech, the law of personal property, other relevant law (including copyright), and contract.
Where there is no contract of course, only the law is applicable; this is the case in the vast, vast, vast majority of sales of copies of works. N.b. that just because something may attempt to state a point of law, that doesn't make it a contract; the warnings at the front of videos, for example, are not contracts.
Note also that copyrights are limited in scope. For example, until sometime in the mid-late 19th century, copyright didn't cover derivative works. Therefore, to the extent that you were making a derivative work, there was no copyright on the original work. Likewise there is no copyright on privately reading or viewing works -- so the copyright holder as copyright holder has no ability to interfere with you doing that; only the law might do so, e.g. if it was a military secret or something.
Well, that's true, but it's very fussy. If you do buy a copy of a work, you may nevertheless have the right to make more copies of that work, because a work is only copyrighted to the extent that it provides the right to exclude others from various acts, e.g. reproduction.
I'm thinking here of, say, 17 USC 117, which says in part that copyright does not preclude the making of backup copies of purchased copies of computer software -- to the extent that 117 applies, the work is not in fact copyrighted. It's copyrighted as to other things, since copyrights are enumerated and limited.
Given that copyrights are a negative right -- the right to exclude, not the right to positively do things (as anyone who writes a copyrighted libelous work will swiftly discover) -- I think it would be more accurate to say:
Everyone has the inherent right to reproduce a work into new copies, even regardless of whether or not they own a copy of the work to begin with. However, that right may be limited by applicable law. One such law is copyright, which temporarily permits copyright holders to bar you from exercising your right in certain respects.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Fair use was not enacted statutorially until 1976. However the courts have consistently created fair use despite it directly contradicting the language of copyright statutes since as far back as 1841. It derives from the constitution in that copyright exists to promote the progress of science, and without the equitable remedy of fair use, copyright would suffer from excesses in certain situations which would directly oppose its sole constitutional purpose.
Furthermore I do not think that an Amendment is appropriate. Copyright is an important issue, but there are no flaws in the Constitution; the problem lies in getting Congress to do things right and getting the Courts to curtail Congress when they're getting things grossly wrong.
I've seen a number of posts already that seem to indicate that copying of music (without payment or compensation) is just fine and dandy.
I don't see how payment is the essential factor. I can copy Shakespeare without paying, and that's fine and dandy. And I can videotape stuff off of TV, and that's fine and dandy. I agree that there may be a problem with copying music indiscriminately, but I don't think that it hinges on payment. It's probably something else.
Using a device like Pocketster Pro to actually copy music without payment is no better than shoplifting at FYE or Best Buy.
Morally? Meh. Maybe, maybe not. Personally I find infringement to be amoral, and copyright to be amoral.
Bullshit. As long as you're on your mighty moral high horse, tell me which moral code you follow that says copying is wrong. My Bible doesn't mention it anywhere, and neither does my neighbour's Talmud.
It's ironic that you chose that example, because IIRC there is in fact a rabbinical law to the effect that people should not make copies of various important works (e.g. the Talmud) so that a monopoly on such copying can be given to a single source, lest there be no source willing to copy them at all. It's a fairly dumb law, but I have it on good authority that it's there. Perhaps some learned scholar can find it?
Copying is merely outlawed because the music industry finds it's easier to buy politicians than to produce a product you're willing to exchange money for.
This is untrue. What if, for example, I could prove to you -- and don't seriously examine this, just assume that I could for sake of argument -- that if you didn't copy something for the first 24 hours after it was first published, that you would, I don't know, automatically get a $1000 back on your taxes.
I bet you would be willing to abide by those provisions since they obviously benefit you -- whatever else might be going on -- and are more beneficial than they are harmful. This is more or less the logic behind copyright; that by refraining from copying and gratifying yourself immediately, you can encourage more production and THEN copy it, benefitting more than you otherwise would've. Kind of like planting corn and getting a crop later, instead of eating your seed corn and having no crop.
Copyright might not be doing a good job anymore, it's so fucked up, but there is a clever logic behind it that is intended to benefit the public. Hopefully we will soon reform copyright law so that it actually does result in a public benefit once again.
I don't mind turnover, but it should arise because people vote for different elected officials. There will be times when that is a bad idea; being unbeholden to special interests is good, but so is being experienced. All told, I'd prefer to have officials that are both.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong about floating a proposal. Congress is a deliberative body. You would punish people for making a suggestion, even if it was immediately shot down by everyone and never was any 'danger' at all.
Secondly, Congress is not the ultimate judge of what is and isn't constitutional. So why would they have any idea whatsoever? The courts fulfill that role, and it is so difficult that not only are there several ranks of courts each of whom is able to correct the mistakes of their inferiors, which are easy enough to make as many constitutional issues are the farthest thing from clear-cut as you could imagine, but there is also the possibility of a court later reversing itself because it was wrong the first time, or it later turned out that a different answer was called for than the original one. Plus of course, which court can decide? Most every court in the country is capable of deciding a case on constitutional grounds. They often don't agree. Do you propose that the question be left to languish for many years until it can reach the federal Supreme Court? At that time, wouldn't the result of your stupid idea be a) to make the Court superior, instead of equal to, Congress, throwing the entire system of checks and balances out of whack, b) irrelevant since by the time the case could finally be decided on the merits, the particular member of Congress might be gone anyway, c) overwhelming, in that now damn near everyone would have standing to bring a case, resulting in either the courts being flooded with more litigation than they can handle, or having to deny these cases standing, d) antidemocratic in that all the vacancies in Congress would routinely be filled perhaps by appointment when possible, thereby not even giving voters the satisfaction of knowing that it was their choice as to who would represent them in Congress, e) antidemocratic in that it would discourage lawmakers from making laws that ARE constitutional, but where it is not absolutely clear-cut and obvious.
Frankly, your suggestion is about the stupidest thing I've seen this week. But chin up -- something stupider might yet come along.
See, the thing is, we have two great solutions to this already. 1) voters can elect someone else, 2) the courts can overturn unconstitutional laws, being very good at the job, and having an entire branch of government that deals with that sort of thing all the time.
I won't say that the government is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything you seem to be able to come up with.
Well, the first Mac that I know of that did this out of the box -- given multiple video cards -- was the Mac II. It shipped with System 4.1 and Finder 5.5 back in, what, 1987?
No, I think you're probably wrong about it. It's not a virtual desktop so much as it's a convenient way of getting at DAs. The DAs right now generally suck. The calculator takes time to launch (which is absurd given what it is) and doesn't stay launched when closed. The stickies are mildly annoying to get at now that bringing one window forward doesn't bring them all forward.
But it's not even intended to be like a virtual desktop.
Plus of course, you're forgetting a major tenent of the Mac: there should be more than one way to do things. I loathe the dock and avoid using it as much as possible. I hate the fact that it keeps appearing when I don't want it to, and that it's a mild pain to get rid of. I'd be happier without a dock at all -- the old application menu worked just fine for me.
Thus, just because you like the dock, that doesn't mean that everyone will, and that therefore no alternatives should be available. Likewise, I hate the dock, but that doesn't mean that you should be put out just to accomodate me.
No, a lot of those choices were made during the 80's, when no one else was doing anything like what Apple did, at least not to a significant enough degree to matter.
SCSI was adopted in 1985 for the Mac Plus. ATA was just being developed at about that time, and certainly was no standard (nor all that good).
The single mouse button was settled on sometime prior to mid-1981. The reasoning was basically that the three button mouse on the Xerox Alto had been confusing -- none of the buttons had any standard uses, apparently, and they were called the Red, Yellow, and Blue buttons, but the mouse had black buttons. A one button mouse simplified use and documentation.
As for multitasking, the Mac was never really designed to do that to begin with. So it was always something of a hack. That being said, most personal computers didn't multitask, or likewise had cooperative models, at the time these decisions were made.
You youngsters -- you don't realize that a lot of important things happened in the 70's and 80's that still strongly influence what we've got now.
Giant Robo is only a 7 part OAV. It's not like trying to sit through Legend of the Galactic Heroes or anything. And it gets _really_ good towards the end. What version do you have? The Korean DVDs on ebay are probably the best that's available right now, though it has been picked up for licensing again in the US.
Escaflowne does something similar -- by the 2/3rds point, it's just awesome.
If they're used right, sure, why not. But that doesn't sound like a good stink bomb. Why not spray large quantities of putrescine, cadavarine, or ethyl mercaptan?*
There's not much that smells worse, and honestly, who would want to be in charge of finding out what does?
*Do not really do this unless, I dunno, you're really into projectile vomiting.
Re:Problem with Paying a Monthly Fee for file-shar
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, there's a fairly simple solution to that.
Expand the issue to not being merely file sharing (which is an issue of reproduction and distribution) but expand it to the entire scope of copyright (so that this scheme would also apply to creating derivatives, and some public distributions and performances and such), and then instead of paying a monthly fee, don't pay at all. But rather than make this available altogether, which would merely be the abolishment of copyright, instead only permit natural persons to be shielded by this, provided they are acting noncommercially.
Then things become pretty simple: ordinary people don't pay artists at all, unless either a) they want to (because they feel charitable, or can't find an alternative source for the works) or b) they're using it commercially. Businesses would of course have to pay regardless of whether or not they're using the work commercially.
How that money is allocated would be just as it is now: up to the various parties involved to hash out.
Well, I read through the pertinent US laws, which are what's controlling when you're in the US.
17 USC 106 tells us that it is infringing to reproduce the work in copies or phonographs. 17 USC 101 define those terms specially, overriding any lay definitions. The MAI v. Peak case and various cases that derive from it (e.g. Utah Lighthouse v. Intellectual Reserve) interpret the law and, although I disagree with them, tell us that downloading is infringing reproduction unless specifically exempted elsewhere in the law, or otherwise authorized by the US copyright holders (who are the only ones that matter, since US law is controlling). 17 USC 106 and 602 tell us that even if this were importation -- which it is not -- it would still be illegal, since it could not be legally done in the US under US law. And 17 USC 107, and countless cases interpreting it indicate that while it is possible to claim that this is a fair use, there is really no chance in hell of such an argument succeeding.
I've gone into all this at greater length before, so feel free to search for posts on the subject, or better yet, take a look at the law itself, which is a pretty authoritative source of information on the subject.
The only version of Robotech there ever was was the sanitized US version (which was itself, ironically, sent to other countries later). It is distinct from Macross, however, which predates Robotech, and only compromises about a third of it anyway, more or less.
So you just need to be clear as to which one you're referring to. Especially since there's a slew of other, wholly unrelated Macross spin-offs: Macross: Do You Remember Love, Macross II, Macross Plus, Macross 7, and the very recent Macross Zero. (DYRL is ok, II is not good, Plus is very good, 7 is not very good, Zero is good)
Of course, this was a relatively minor faux pas -- imagine if you'd started praising Warriors of the Wind.;)
What else is good?
Dirty Pair: Project Eden (probably helps to know the premise of the Dirty Pair beforehand, however)
Wings of Honneamise (avoid the US DVD release)
FLCL
Any damn thing by Miyazaki -- it's all good.
Damn, I wish I was at home, I could just consult my collection.
Slashdot Mirror
It's illegal to rent music and computer software (other than console games) without permission of the copyright holder. Guess who probably wouldn't be stupid enough to give permission for it.
The problem is that you -- assuming you're in the US -- have no right to reproduce copies of music you buy from allofmp3. And reproduction occurs when you, e.g. download music to your RAM or hard drive.
allofmp3 might be great, but Americans just cannot use it legally here since our laws apply to what goes on in our borders, and whatever they're selling, they're not selling in accordance with US law.
Why must the Constitution be flawed before we amend it? Isn't it enough that it could be better? For my part, I think enshrining copyright restrictions/clarifications right into the bloody document might do wonders to overcome the corrupting influence of campaign contributions.
Because a lot of the success of the federal Constitution has been that it lacks a lot of detail. This allows it to be read in different ways with the times. Most amendments have either been the bill of rights or have dealt with voting in some fashion. They tended to address extraordinarily serious issues. The last thing we need is a hyper-precise constitution that locks us into one plan of doing things instead of allowing us freedom in our governance.
Take a look at state constitutions sometime; they're often long and overly detailed and tend to get trashed and totally replaced every 50-100 years. IIRC a few years back an amendment was added to the FL constitution that dealt with how sows on pig farms can be treated -- it's probably important to someone, but it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
For what you want, I suggest statutes.
The problem with the DCMA and related legislations and copyright protection schemes is that they are not put place in to protect people from physical harm, they are put in place to protec (cough) the artist (cough) and the media conglomerates from losing out on their investment in intellectual property.
And? Copyright as a general matter is put in place to benefit the public. Perhaps current laws do a shitty job of that, indicating that some reform is needed, but the overall concept still fits into the realm of that the government can limit people's freedom -- the more important the freedom, the harsher the onus put on the government. But for relatively minor stuff, it's not a big deal. Copyright is a fairly minor regulation as these things go.
I don't get it. It's YOUR property, YOU own it. How can the government tell me what to do with the stuff I own.
So you're saying that you don't understand how the government can tell you that when you build a building it has to comply with fire codes? Or that when you own a car, you can't drive at 150mph through red lights? Or that when you own a chemistry set that you can't use it to make drugs?
Most people understand these things, I've got to tell you.
That is incorrect. Your rights are determined by four things: the right of free speech, the law of personal property, other relevant law (including copyright), and contract.
Where there is no contract of course, only the law is applicable; this is the case in the vast, vast, vast majority of sales of copies of works. N.b. that just because something may attempt to state a point of law, that doesn't make it a contract; the warnings at the front of videos, for example, are not contracts.
Note also that copyrights are limited in scope. For example, until sometime in the mid-late 19th century, copyright didn't cover derivative works. Therefore, to the extent that you were making a derivative work, there was no copyright on the original work. Likewise there is no copyright on privately reading or viewing works -- so the copyright holder as copyright holder has no ability to interfere with you doing that; only the law might do so, e.g. if it was a military secret or something.
Well, that's true, but it's very fussy. If you do buy a copy of a work, you may nevertheless have the right to make more copies of that work, because a work is only copyrighted to the extent that it provides the right to exclude others from various acts, e.g. reproduction.
I'm thinking here of, say, 17 USC 117, which says in part that copyright does not preclude the making of backup copies of purchased copies of computer software -- to the extent that 117 applies, the work is not in fact copyrighted. It's copyrighted as to other things, since copyrights are enumerated and limited.
Given that copyrights are a negative right -- the right to exclude, not the right to positively do things (as anyone who writes a copyrighted libelous work will swiftly discover) -- I think it would be more accurate to say:
Everyone has the inherent right to reproduce a work into new copies, even regardless of whether or not they own a copy of the work to begin with. However, that right may be limited by applicable law. One such law is copyright, which temporarily permits copyright holders to bar you from exercising your right in certain respects.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Fair use was not enacted statutorially until 1976. However the courts have consistently created fair use despite it directly contradicting the language of copyright statutes since as far back as 1841. It derives from the constitution in that copyright exists to promote the progress of science, and without the equitable remedy of fair use, copyright would suffer from excesses in certain situations which would directly oppose its sole constitutional purpose.
Furthermore I do not think that an Amendment is appropriate. Copyright is an important issue, but there are no flaws in the Constitution; the problem lies in getting Congress to do things right and getting the Courts to curtail Congress when they're getting things grossly wrong.
I've seen a number of posts already that seem to indicate that copying of music (without payment or compensation) is just fine and dandy.
I don't see how payment is the essential factor. I can copy Shakespeare without paying, and that's fine and dandy. And I can videotape stuff off of TV, and that's fine and dandy. I agree that there may be a problem with copying music indiscriminately, but I don't think that it hinges on payment. It's probably something else.
Using a device like Pocketster Pro to actually copy music without payment is no better than shoplifting at FYE or Best Buy.
Morally? Meh. Maybe, maybe not. Personally I find infringement to be amoral, and copyright to be amoral.
Bullshit. As long as you're on your mighty moral high horse, tell me which moral code you follow that says copying is wrong. My Bible doesn't mention it anywhere, and neither does my neighbour's Talmud.
It's ironic that you chose that example, because IIRC there is in fact a rabbinical law to the effect that people should not make copies of various important works (e.g. the Talmud) so that a monopoly on such copying can be given to a single source, lest there be no source willing to copy them at all. It's a fairly dumb law, but I have it on good authority that it's there. Perhaps some learned scholar can find it?
Copying is merely outlawed because the music industry finds it's easier to buy politicians than to produce a product you're willing to exchange money for.
This is untrue. What if, for example, I could prove to you -- and don't seriously examine this, just assume that I could for sake of argument -- that if you didn't copy something for the first 24 hours after it was first published, that you would, I don't know, automatically get a $1000 back on your taxes.
I bet you would be willing to abide by those provisions since they obviously benefit you -- whatever else might be going on -- and are more beneficial than they are harmful. This is more or less the logic behind copyright; that by refraining from copying and gratifying yourself immediately, you can encourage more production and THEN copy it, benefitting more than you otherwise would've. Kind of like planting corn and getting a crop later, instead of eating your seed corn and having no crop.
Copyright might not be doing a good job anymore, it's so fucked up, but there is a clever logic behind it that is intended to benefit the public. Hopefully we will soon reform copyright law so that it actually does result in a public benefit once again.
Meh. I always thought of 'Think Different' as meaning 'Think about "different."'
That is, not so much 'think big' as 'think God.'
If you're going to use allofmp3, why not just use Usenet? It's generally cheaper.
I don't mind turnover, but it should arise because people vote for different elected officials. There will be times when that is a bad idea; being unbeholden to special interests is good, but so is being experienced. All told, I'd prefer to have officials that are both.
That would be an amazingly bad idea.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong about floating a proposal. Congress is a deliberative body. You would punish people for making a suggestion, even if it was immediately shot down by everyone and never was any 'danger' at all.
Secondly, Congress is not the ultimate judge of what is and isn't constitutional. So why would they have any idea whatsoever? The courts fulfill that role, and it is so difficult that not only are there several ranks of courts each of whom is able to correct the mistakes of their inferiors, which are easy enough to make as many constitutional issues are the farthest thing from clear-cut as you could imagine, but there is also the possibility of a court later reversing itself because it was wrong the first time, or it later turned out that a different answer was called for than the original one. Plus of course, which court can decide? Most every court in the country is capable of deciding a case on constitutional grounds. They often don't agree. Do you propose that the question be left to languish for many years until it can reach the federal Supreme Court? At that time, wouldn't the result of your stupid idea be a) to make the Court superior, instead of equal to, Congress, throwing the entire system of checks and balances out of whack, b) irrelevant since by the time the case could finally be decided on the merits, the particular member of Congress might be gone anyway, c) overwhelming, in that now damn near everyone would have standing to bring a case, resulting in either the courts being flooded with more litigation than they can handle, or having to deny these cases standing, d) antidemocratic in that all the vacancies in Congress would routinely be filled perhaps by appointment when possible, thereby not even giving voters the satisfaction of knowing that it was their choice as to who would represent them in Congress, e) antidemocratic in that it would discourage lawmakers from making laws that ARE constitutional, but where it is not absolutely clear-cut and obvious.
Frankly, your suggestion is about the stupidest thing I've seen this week. But chin up -- something stupider might yet come along.
See, the thing is, we have two great solutions to this already. 1) voters can elect someone else, 2) the courts can overturn unconstitutional laws, being very good at the job, and having an entire branch of government that deals with that sort of thing all the time.
I won't say that the government is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything you seem to be able to come up with.
Well, the first Mac that I know of that did this out of the box -- given multiple video cards -- was the Mac II. It shipped with System 4.1 and Finder 5.5 back in, what, 1987?
It's an OLD feature.
No, I think you're probably wrong about it. It's not a virtual desktop so much as it's a convenient way of getting at DAs. The DAs right now generally suck. The calculator takes time to launch (which is absurd given what it is) and doesn't stay launched when closed. The stickies are mildly annoying to get at now that bringing one window forward doesn't bring them all forward.
But it's not even intended to be like a virtual desktop.
Plus of course, you're forgetting a major tenent of the Mac: there should be more than one way to do things. I loathe the dock and avoid using it as much as possible. I hate the fact that it keeps appearing when I don't want it to, and that it's a mild pain to get rid of. I'd be happier without a dock at all -- the old application menu worked just fine for me.
Thus, just because you like the dock, that doesn't mean that everyone will, and that therefore no alternatives should be available. Likewise, I hate the dock, but that doesn't mean that you should be put out just to accomodate me.
The great apes include gorillas, orangutans, chimps. Bush would not qualify under this definition.
;)
Well, we all know Bush isn't great.
No, a lot of those choices were made during the 80's, when no one else was doing anything like what Apple did, at least not to a significant enough degree to matter.
SCSI was adopted in 1985 for the Mac Plus. ATA was just being developed at about that time, and certainly was no standard (nor all that good).
The single mouse button was settled on sometime prior to mid-1981. The reasoning was basically that the three button mouse on the Xerox Alto had been confusing -- none of the buttons had any standard uses, apparently, and they were called the Red, Yellow, and Blue buttons, but the mouse had black buttons. A one button mouse simplified use and documentation.
As for multitasking, the Mac was never really designed to do that to begin with. So it was always something of a hack. That being said, most personal computers didn't multitask, or likewise had cooperative models, at the time these decisions were made.
You youngsters -- you don't realize that a lot of important things happened in the 70's and 80's that still strongly influence what we've got now.
Giant Robo is only a 7 part OAV. It's not like trying to sit through Legend of the Galactic Heroes or anything. And it gets _really_ good towards the end. What version do you have? The Korean DVDs on ebay are probably the best that's available right now, though it has been picked up for licensing again in the US.
Escaflowne does something similar -- by the 2/3rds point, it's just awesome.
If they're used right, sure, why not. But that doesn't sound like a good stink bomb. Why not spray large quantities of putrescine, cadavarine, or ethyl mercaptan?*
There's not much that smells worse, and honestly, who would want to be in charge of finding out what does?
*Do not really do this unless, I dunno, you're really into projectile vomiting.
Well, there's a fairly simple solution to that.
Expand the issue to not being merely file sharing (which is an issue of reproduction and distribution) but expand it to the entire scope of copyright (so that this scheme would also apply to creating derivatives, and some public distributions and performances and such), and then instead of paying a monthly fee, don't pay at all. But rather than make this available altogether, which would merely be the abolishment of copyright, instead only permit natural persons to be shielded by this, provided they are acting noncommercially.
Then things become pretty simple: ordinary people don't pay artists at all, unless either a) they want to (because they feel charitable, or can't find an alternative source for the works) or b) they're using it commercially. Businesses would of course have to pay regardless of whether or not they're using the work commercially.
How that money is allocated would be just as it is now: up to the various parties involved to hash out.
Well, I read through the pertinent US laws, which are what's controlling when you're in the US.
17 USC 106 tells us that it is infringing to reproduce the work in copies or phonographs. 17 USC 101 define those terms specially, overriding any lay definitions. The MAI v. Peak case and various cases that derive from it (e.g. Utah Lighthouse v. Intellectual Reserve) interpret the law and, although I disagree with them, tell us that downloading is infringing reproduction unless specifically exempted elsewhere in the law, or otherwise authorized by the US copyright holders (who are the only ones that matter, since US law is controlling). 17 USC 106 and 602 tell us that even if this were importation -- which it is not -- it would still be illegal, since it could not be legally done in the US under US law. And 17 USC 107, and countless cases interpreting it indicate that while it is possible to claim that this is a fair use, there is really no chance in hell of such an argument succeeding.
I've gone into all this at greater length before, so feel free to search for posts on the subject, or better yet, take a look at the law itself, which is a pretty authoritative source of information on the subject.
Eva is a bit overrated, IMO. I'd prefer Escaflowne to Eva.
Giant Robo, OTOH, kicks ass. Not the dub, of course, but it's awesome when watched through to the conclusion.
The only version of Robotech there ever was was the sanitized US version (which was itself, ironically, sent to other countries later). It is distinct from Macross, however, which predates Robotech, and only compromises about a third of it anyway, more or less.
;)
So you just need to be clear as to which one you're referring to. Especially since there's a slew of other, wholly unrelated Macross spin-offs: Macross: Do You Remember Love, Macross II, Macross Plus, Macross 7, and the very recent Macross Zero. (DYRL is ok, II is not good, Plus is very good, 7 is not very good, Zero is good)
Of course, this was a relatively minor faux pas -- imagine if you'd started praising Warriors of the Wind.
What else is good?
Dirty Pair: Project Eden (probably helps to know the premise of the Dirty Pair beforehand, however)
Wings of Honneamise (avoid the US DVD release)
FLCL
Any damn thing by Miyazaki -- it's all good.
Damn, I wish I was at home, I could just consult my collection.
Out of curiosity, what is the other version of Robotech? I hope you don't mean Macross, because it would hurt my ears if you call Macross 'Robotech.'
I guess I am still an Anime vigrin
No shit.
Planetes
Patlabor 2
Cowboy Bebop
Vision of Escaflowne
Castle of Cagliostro
Porco Rosso
Macross Zero
Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex
Giant Robo
That'll do for a start.