What this really means is that 23 percent are not changing their buying habits, and 77 percent are spending more.
And you talked to each person in this 77% (of surveyed people) and they told you this? And you are sure none of them are lying?
What this really means, is that 23% are not changing their spending habits, and that 77% are changing their habits. It in no way proves that all the people in this 77% are spending more (what you said), or that all the people in this 77% are spending less (what the RIAA wants you to believe).
Flawed conclusions are flawed conclusions. No matter what spin you are trying to put on them.
I plunk down money for CDs (even though DVDs offer more bang for your buck) because I can listen to music at work and in the car. That helps the day go by. (I buy DVDs too, but for different reasons.)
I cannot watch a movie while working, nor would I choose to watch a movie while driving. Technically, the latter isn't even an option, but for the discussion I'll pretend like it is.
I suppose I could hunt around and download a bunch of music and save the money. But then I'd either need to re-convert the mp3s to audio tracks, or buy an mp3 player for work and the car. They would probably break and then I'd end up with very little for the work I put in. Audio CDs already come in the format that is most useful for me. And while I don't like that I can't always play mix cds in the car, I can deal. I've decided that overcoming that via mp3s is not worth the effort. Yes, I could get a new CD player for the car. Somehow I find that other things are more important.
Oh, and in the fifteen years I've been buying CDs I've had to replace fewer than 10. And I rarely regret my purchasing decisions. Which means that years from now I will still be listening to stuff I bought this year. And I am still listening to things I bought years ago. $15 for 15+ years of enjoyment. Not what I would call a rip-off.
Some of the 8% aren't even interested in this. Let's see:
High speed connection...check Love movies...check Win98/Real Player 8...well, if you insist.
But, my TV is much bigger than my monitor. My stereo speakers sound a lot better than my computer speakers. My couch is a lot more comfortable than my computer chair.
So why on earth would I choose to watch a movie on a smaller screen, with lower quality sound than is readily available to me, and in less comfortable seating?
I'll stick with Netflix, but thanks for playing. Are we taking bets on how long this will last?
How is this any different than a programmer? They work hard to produce software, they don't just make one version, but usually many versions and fix bugs to provide a better program.
Career programmers (as opposed to those who do it for fun) generally make more than career artists/musicians do, as a post below mine pointed out.
Health insurance. Well, that'd be a good option if health insurance weren't so overpriced. Besides, with no valid income (can't play live) how are they going to pay for health insurance? Or do you support a national health care system which would provide them with the care they need?
I'll admit I was a bit off the mark with the taping comment. Still, radio taping is so far off the RIAA's radar that it's a moot point. But, if you want the corrected version, try this:
Listen to the radio all you want, it's still not the same thing as "trading" full, near CD-quality songs over P2P and you know it.
When making a CD, artists (even the very best) rarely play the song just once and have it recorded. It takes a lot more work. More important is the notion that musicians, if they are going to be any good at all, spend hours and hours just playing their instrument. Building their skills. Their job, if you will, is to get better and better at making music. The end result of that time spent is making music you like. So, if you buy a CD, you are not just paying the artist for doing nothing. Nor are you paying them for playing a song once. You are paying them for the hours spent getting good at their craft so that they can make music you enjoy. And you are paying them for the hours spent recording the song in a fashion that is accessible to you.
The performance aspect of being a musician must be considered. And I would agree that a live performance is almost always better than a recorded one. However, what if there is a reason you can't perform, say a broken leg? Now you've got no income (since recording isn't a valid source) and you can't play live 'cause you have to heal your body. Is that just too bad for the artist? You know, the ones who go out of their way to make something for you to enjoy. Would you help them out in that case? Would you support a tax (maybe on concert tickets) so that musicians who are unable to play live can pay their expenses until they can? The playing live aspect is important, but I refuse to believe that is the only valid way musicians should have to make income.
Which brings me to the tired, old, radio arguement. Radio stations pay licensing fees so that they can broadcast the songs you hear. The reason this works out are 1) the sound quality of radio is crap. Passable, but hardly LP, cassette, CD or mp3 level. 2) The damn DJs talk over the beginnings and endings of songs (which they are trained to do) so that you lose out on some of the music-listening experience. Tape off the radio all you want, it's still not the same as "trading" full, near CD-quality songs over P2P and you know it.
What it comes down to is greed. You are right on that part. But you forgot about (or ignore) the greed of the consumer. What you want (but won't admit to) is to be entertained for free. You aren't entitled to that anymore than people are entitled to careers in music.
If you want free entertainment, entertain yourself. Otherwise, give something back beyond snooty demands that musicians come to your town.
First, let me get the answer to the hardware question out of the way. It wouldn't matter what I was running - I don't trust hardware to not fail.:) Now, you have to put your trust somewhere so I guess I would rather trust the ability to recover the data. I am completely happy to be wrong about the hardware failure issue, but I still think being prepared for the worst is not a bad idea.
So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete your history logs daily. But I think you'd have some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you did. It would probably come up just about the time they tried to generate their monthly circulation statistics. No automation software history logs, no stats. Every library system I have worked in has reported circulation and other types of stats. Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly and daily is probably going overboard - even for libraries...) You're more likely to need to keep those logs around for a year, rather than a day. It all depends on how far back the system wants to be able to generate those numbers.
Of course, that assumes that you include the automation software history logs as part of your system backups. You know, on the off-chance that you'd need to reload everything. (There's my paranoia sneaking in again.:) )
And don't be fooled. I doubt seriously that the FBI would weed through your backups to find the info they wanted. It's more likely that they would approach the library and say "we need the circulation history for person xyz" and make the library come up with the data.
Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is possible. What I really wanted to do was point out that just because you returned the book does not mean that no one could ever find out you checked it out. How possible that is depends on the policies of the library system.
Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be interesting would be if libraries started to protest this by not keeping their history logs past what they'd need to recover the system. Stats would go out the window but that would be quite a statement.
As for the value of someone's reading history I'm with you all the way. I never meant to imply that they're on the right track by demanding reading that information. I just wanted people to know that the demands they make are not always impossible.
I could be wrong (I only know about the systems I've worked with), but I think most, if not all, automated systems log the charges made in that library system. It's done so that circulation history (read: statistics) can be recovered when there is a failure in the computer system.
Yes, I meant to say 'when.':)
It would be a chore, but you can figure out who checked out what pretty much from the time the library went live with that system. Unless the library deletes their history logs. That may or may not be a good thing to do.
This only applies to libraries using automated systems.
That said, librarians don't keep track of lending habits. The software they use logs all charges made every day. This is done in case something terrible happens (like a system crash) and they need to restore all the charges that were lost. While menial, it is not a difficult task to determine everything that has been charged out to a particular library patron. (Assuming patron barcodes are not re-used.) Most librarians won't be able to do this themselves (though I am sure some could). But their systems people can.
. . . but MTV ruined music in at least a couple other ways.
1) Control over what's popular. If you're going to sell a lot of CDs MTV needs to play your video a lot. Sad but true, a large extent of the population buying CDs has no idea there's music beyond what MTV plays. Simply by not selecting to play a video they can determine the outcome of struggling musicians' careers.
2) The cost of making videos is just astronomical. I once read an interview with Neil Finn where he talks about how they spent more money making one video than on recording the CD.
One of the reasons the record labels need the super-mega-ultra-stars is because the expend so much money. If they spent less, particularly on videos, they might find they need to earn less. They might find they could lower CD prices and with the lower prices they might find CD sales go up.
Of course, there are a lot of things the labels could do to make the music scene better. I could write an essay on that. However, rather than run off into those areas, I'll stick to the MTV is ruining music theme.
MTV, it's time for you to go. And we can throw out all the other video channels while we're at it. You have outlived your usefulness. All you do now is keep people from having a good go at making music and increase the costs of making music. The burdern of the latter being dropped squarely on the music fans.
You are disservice to people who actually like music.
"it's a simple matter to prove that any program could be reduced to a single line of code with a bug." -- Randal L. Schwartz and Tom Phoenix (Learning Perl) --
...all the music composition apps my brother uses his Mac for. Even though I'd be all over OS X, his new iBook boots OS 9 for that very reason. He's not a/.-er so I doubt he's explored every possible way of trying to run them under OS X.
Then again, why should he? They already work the way he wants them to with OS 9.
Yet you wish to speak for those who are. How exactly is it that you know what is in the heart of hearts of religious people?
If I am reading you right, you're saying that as a religious person I am either full of contempt for those not like me, or a hypocrite for not being full of contempt. WTF is that about? That's the sort of philosophy based on the idea of justifying your dislike/hatred of religious people rather than anything resembling real life.
We're not all like the religious people who did terrible things to you. If you have faith in humanity, have faith in that statement. Personally, I find it harder to have faith in humanity than I do to have faith in God.
A tack of a different sort. (Unless this is very common - I wouldn't know if it is.) In St. Louis you cannot get DSL service from anyone if you don't have SBC as your local phone provider. So, while we have a choice about DSL (Earthlink and DirectDSL also provide service here) we can't use that if we wanted to join The Neighborhood with MCI. SBC had the best startup deal when we were shopping so they got our business.
'Course, I can't prove it (I think it was an Earthlink rep who told me this) but given corporate culture it doesn't surprise. Nor does it take a great leap to believe it.
Service is good though. So I'm happy to be rid of the 26K connection I was getting on dialup. (Yes, I know I could be getting 56K but the damn modem never connected at that speed.)
Going cable was never an option thanks to the buffoons at AT&T. They got run out by Charter who proved equally buffoon-ish.
Wouldn't it be just as reasonable to say that if you live in a high crime area you are more likely to have a crime committed against you? I know that would be true for me.
"High crime area" does not immediately mean there are more people committing crimes. It means that more crimes are being committed. I have a hard time jumping from one (high crime area) to the other (more people commit crimes).
I'm with you up to a point. In fact, I can easily envision people dutifully repurchasing all their Pauly Shore movies on DVD because that's the thing to do these days. But if I may, I would like to offer two counterpoints:
1. Not all of us just blindly repurchase everything. Except for situations covered by point #2, I have not bought anything on DVD that I already have on VHS.
2. The times when I do repurchase something (for example: Se7en and Twin Peaks/any thing by David Lynch) I've gotten a lot more bang for my money.
My Twin Peaks tapes look like crap. They always have. The DVDs look fantastic. And they have the Log Lady introductions. And they have commentary. And they have other cool stuff.
The same is true for Se7en. While my tape didn't look like crap the way TP did, the DVD does look better. And there is a lot of stuff on the two discs that was not on the VHS tape.
It's not like they just played the VHS tape, captured the output and recorded that on to a DVD.
We're not all lemmings. And sometimes, buying the DVD is not just "repurchasing the same content."
Maybe we shouldn't put it past them. (Never underestimate your enemies...) However, I don't think we should be worried about this anytime soon. At least not in the U.S. From Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101:
To perform or display a work "publicly" means -
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
Playing a CD on your home stereo (especially in-doors) doesn't fit the criteria.
Let's get the offtopic part out of the way. First up, the word crisis. I never said we had a health care crisis in the US. I said our health care system is fscked up. That's not the same thing. A crisis would be not having any doctors to treat sick people. Our system is screwy because at its root is the idea that if you cannot pay for health care (either through insurance or otherwise) then you do not deserve it. My belief (or model, if you prefer) is that the simple fact of being a U.S. citizen should grant you the ability to get good health care at no cost.
I congratulate you on having good health care without health insurance. But even you admit that this is rare. Incredibly rare were your exact words. Which is sort of my point. Why should it be rare to have good health care without insurance? Even moreso, why the hell do we need health insurance anyway? It's classist and designed to punish those less fortunate. Don't believe me? Go have a look at Brownsville in Brooklyn for a few months. See how those kids live. Then come back and tell me our government takes care of all its citizens.
I know we'll never reach the utopian idea I have for what health care should be. It's not because it's impossible. We can send people into space so don't tell me we couldn't make a better health care system. It's because people in America don't care about other people in America (or the world for that matter). I'm talking about our day-to-day living and would be happy to provide many examples of just how inconsiderate we are toward each other. If we made it a priority we could make it happen. We won't because no one cares.
But enough of that. On the to question of copying and distributing music for no personal gain. Fair use does not give you unlimited rights to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works just because you are not profiting. Yes, commericial vs. non-commercial (their phrase is 'nonprofit educational purposes) is a factor. But this comparison (commercial v. nonprofit) is part of the larger issue covering the nature of the use. What's the nature of putting someone else's work on a file-sharing service?
The other Fair Use factors are:
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Yes, you can copy a CD to a cassette, or mp3 or whatever for personal use. And that's fair use. Fair use might even be giving a copy to a friend. Even though I'm not a strict interpretationist when it comes to law I feel I should point out that the US Code for Fair Use does not specifically mention "giving copies to friends" as an example of acceptable reproduction.
Either way, making your copy of a song available to thousands of people (many of them you won't know) is not in the spirit of fair use.
From your comment I can infer that you feel buying the cd/tape/mp3 grants you copyright ownership and, therefore, distribution rights of said contents.
It does not. Fair use and personal use are not the same thing as putting songs into file sharing systems where who knows how many people will access them. Why do you think Diamond won the lawsuit over the RIO mp3 player and Napster lost theirs?
Libraries walk a fine line on this issue. It troubles me greatly that the book publishers and other industries (assuming the rumors are true) are trying to limit libraries' ability to provide materials to the public. More and more the U.S. drifts toward a "if you do not have money you are worthless" attitude toward its own citizens. That's why the health care in this country is so fscked up.
But I'm straying from the topic. I think the difference between a library's CD collection and file sharing is that only one person can have a copy of the cd at a time. Yes, 1000 people might check the CD out over the time it survives in the collection, but 1000 people don't have it all at once. Isn't file-sharing usage somewhere in the millions of people? That's a different scope now isn't it?
More importantly, you only get the CD for a limited time. If you don't return it you are usually charged the cost of replacing it.
Neither of those are true for file-sharing and I think they are significant differences.
And everyone who has ever downloaded an mp3 you've put in to a file-sharing system has been your personal friend? Someone you have met/spoken with frequently/some other activity generally shared among friends? Or are they strangers from around the world and you have no idea who they really are?
You are stretching the definition of "friend" just a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
What this really means is that 23 percent are not changing their buying habits, and 77 percent are spending more.
And you talked to each person in this 77% (of surveyed people) and they told you this? And you are sure none of them are lying?
What this really means, is that 23% are not changing their spending habits, and that 77% are changing their habits. It in no way proves that all the people in this 77% are spending more (what you said), or that all the people in this 77% are spending less (what the RIAA wants you to believe).
Flawed conclusions are flawed conclusions. No matter what spin you are trying to put on them.
-r
I plunk down money for CDs (even though DVDs offer more bang for your buck) because I can listen to music at work and in the car. That helps the day go by. (I buy DVDs too, but for different reasons.)
I cannot watch a movie while working, nor would I choose to watch a movie while driving. Technically, the latter isn't even an option, but for the discussion I'll pretend like it is.
I suppose I could hunt around and download a bunch of music and save the money. But then I'd either need to re-convert the mp3s to audio tracks, or buy an mp3 player for work and the car. They would probably break and then I'd end up with very little for the work I put in. Audio CDs already come in the format that is most useful for me. And while I don't like that I can't always play mix cds in the car, I can deal. I've decided that overcoming that via mp3s is not worth the effort. Yes, I could get a new CD player for the car. Somehow I find that other things are more important.
Oh, and in the fifteen years I've been buying CDs I've had to replace fewer than 10. And I rarely regret my purchasing decisions. Which means that years from now I will still be listening to stuff I bought this year. And I am still listening to things I bought years ago. $15 for 15+ years of enjoyment. Not what I would call a rip-off.
We all have our own perspective, don't we?
-r
. . . Linux had been bootable for years!
$
-r
at work and it complained about NT but not IE6.
Someone has probably beaten me to it, but here goes:
1) Start new online movie distribution system
2) Make system difficult, cumbersome and a pain to use
3) ??
4. Profit!
-r
Some of the 8% aren't even interested in this. Let's see:
High speed connection...check
Love movies...check
Win98/Real Player 8...well, if you insist.
But, my TV is much bigger than my monitor. My stereo speakers sound a lot better than my computer speakers. My couch is a lot more comfortable than my computer chair.
So why on earth would I choose to watch a movie on a smaller screen, with lower quality sound than is readily available to me, and in less comfortable seating?
I'll stick with Netflix, but thanks for playing. Are we taking bets on how long this will last?
-r
How is this any different than a programmer? They work hard to produce software, they don't just make one version, but usually many versions and fix bugs to provide a better program.
Career programmers (as opposed to those who do it for fun) generally make more than career artists/musicians do, as a post below mine pointed out.
Health insurance. Well, that'd be a good option if health insurance weren't so overpriced. Besides, with no valid income (can't play live) how are they going to pay for health insurance? Or do you support a national health care system which would provide them with the care they need?
I'll admit I was a bit off the mark with the taping comment. Still, radio taping is so far off the RIAA's radar that it's a moot point. But, if you want the corrected version, try this:
Listen to the radio all you want, it's still not the same thing as "trading" full, near CD-quality songs over P2P and you know it.
-r
OK, here we go, again.
When making a CD, artists (even the very best) rarely play the song just once and have it recorded. It takes a lot more work. More important is the notion that musicians, if they are going to be any good at all, spend hours and hours just playing their instrument. Building their skills. Their job, if you will, is to get better and better at making music. The end result of that time spent is making music you like. So, if you buy a CD, you are not just paying the artist for doing nothing. Nor are you paying them for playing a song once. You are paying them for the hours spent getting good at their craft so that they can make music you enjoy. And you are paying them for the hours spent recording the song in a fashion that is accessible to you.
The performance aspect of being a musician must be considered. And I would agree that a live performance is almost always better than a recorded one. However, what if there is a reason you can't perform, say a broken leg? Now you've got no income (since recording isn't a valid source) and you can't play live 'cause you have to heal your body. Is that just too bad for the artist? You know, the ones who go out of their way to make something for you to enjoy. Would you help them out in that case? Would you support a tax (maybe on concert tickets) so that musicians who are unable to play live can pay their expenses until they can? The playing live aspect is important, but I refuse to believe that is the only valid way musicians should have to make income.
Which brings me to the tired, old, radio arguement. Radio stations pay licensing fees so that they can broadcast the songs you hear. The reason this works out are 1) the sound quality of radio is crap. Passable, but hardly LP, cassette, CD or mp3 level. 2) The damn DJs talk over the beginnings and endings of songs (which they are trained to do) so that you lose out on some of the music-listening experience. Tape off the radio all you want, it's still not the same as "trading" full, near CD-quality songs over P2P and you know it.
What it comes down to is greed. You are right on that part. But you forgot about (or ignore) the greed of the consumer. What you want (but won't admit to) is to be entertained for free. You aren't entitled to that anymore than people are entitled to careers in music.
If you want free entertainment, entertain yourself. Otherwise, give something back beyond snooty demands that musicians come to your town.
-r
First, let me get the answer to the hardware question out of the way. It wouldn't matter what I was running - I don't trust hardware to not fail.
So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete your history logs daily. But I think you'd have some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you did. It would probably come up just about the time they tried to generate their monthly circulation statistics. No automation software history logs, no stats. Every library system I have worked in has reported circulation and other types of stats. Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly and daily is probably going overboard - even for libraries...) You're more likely to need to keep those logs around for a year, rather than a day. It all depends on how far back the system wants to be able to generate those numbers.
Of course, that assumes that you include the automation software history logs as part of your system backups. You know, on the off-chance that you'd need to reload everything. (There's my paranoia sneaking in again.
And don't be fooled. I doubt seriously that the FBI would weed through your backups to find the info they wanted. It's more likely that they would approach the library and say "we need the circulation history for person xyz" and make the library come up with the data.
Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is possible. What I really wanted to do was point out that just because you returned the book does not mean that no one could ever find out you checked it out. How possible that is depends on the policies of the library system.
Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be interesting would be if libraries started to protest this by not keeping their history logs past what they'd need to recover the system. Stats would go out the window but that would be quite a statement.
As for the value of someone's reading history I'm with you all the way. I never meant to imply that they're on the right track by demanding reading that information. I just wanted people to know that the demands they make are not always impossible.
-r
I could be wrong (I only know about the systems I've worked with), but I think most, if not all, automated systems log the charges made in that library system. It's done so that circulation history (read: statistics) can be recovered when there is a failure in the computer system.
Yes, I meant to say 'when.'
It would be a chore, but you can figure out who checked out what pretty much from the time the library went live with that system. Unless the library deletes their history logs. That may or may not be a good thing to do.
-r
This only applies to libraries using automated systems.
That said, librarians don't keep track of lending habits. The software they use logs all charges made every day. This is done in case something terrible happens (like a system crash) and they need to restore all the charges that were lost. While menial, it is not a difficult task to determine everything that has been charged out to a particular library patron. (Assuming patron barcodes are not re-used.) Most librarians won't be able to do this themselves (though I am sure some could). But their systems people can.
-r
It's just that they only play it maybe 3 or 4 hours a day. Yet one more reason to pull them off the air.
-r
. . . but MTV ruined music in at least a couple other ways.
1) Control over what's popular. If you're going to sell a lot of CDs MTV needs to play your video a lot. Sad but true, a large extent of the population buying CDs has no idea there's music beyond what MTV plays. Simply by not selecting to play a video they can determine the outcome of struggling musicians' careers.
2) The cost of making videos is just astronomical. I once read an interview with Neil Finn where he talks about how they spent more money making one video than on recording the CD.
One of the reasons the record labels need the super-mega-ultra-stars is because the expend so much money. If they spent less, particularly on videos, they might find they need to earn less. They might find they could lower CD prices and with the lower prices they might find CD sales go up.
Of course, there are a lot of things the labels could do to make the music scene better. I could write an essay on that. However, rather than run off into those areas, I'll stick to the MTV is ruining music theme.
MTV, it's time for you to go. And we can throw out all the other video channels while we're at it. You have outlived your usefulness. All you do now is keep people from having a good go at making music and increase the costs of making music. The burdern of the latter being dropped squarely on the music fans.
You are disservice to people who actually like music.
-r
"it's a simple matter to prove that any program could be reduced to a single line of code with a bug."
-- Randal L. Schwartz and Tom Phoenix (Learning Perl) --
-r
Then again, why should he? They already work the way he wants them to with OS 9.
-r
Yet you wish to speak for those who are. How exactly is it that you know what is in the heart of hearts of religious people?
If I am reading you right, you're saying that as a religious person I am either full of contempt for those not like me, or a hypocrite for not being full of contempt. WTF is that about? That's the sort of philosophy based on the idea of justifying your dislike/hatred of religious people rather than anything resembling real life.
We're not all like the religious people who did terrible things to you. If you have faith in humanity, have faith in that statement. Personally, I find it harder to have faith in humanity than I do to have faith in God.
-r
But when it starts saying thing like, "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that," I will start buying my furniture from someone else!
-r
A tack of a different sort. (Unless this is very common - I wouldn't know if it is.) In St. Louis you cannot get DSL service from anyone if you don't have SBC as your local phone provider. So, while we have a choice about DSL (Earthlink and DirectDSL also provide service here) we can't use that if we wanted to join The Neighborhood with MCI. SBC had the best startup deal when we were shopping so they got our business.
'Course, I can't prove it (I think it was an Earthlink rep who told me this) but given corporate culture it doesn't surprise. Nor does it take a great leap to believe it.
Service is good though. So I'm happy to be rid of the 26K connection I was getting on dialup. (Yes, I know I could be getting 56K but the damn modem never connected at that speed.)
Going cable was never an option thanks to the buffoons at AT&T. They got run out by Charter who proved equally buffoon-ish.
-r
Wouldn't it be just as reasonable to say that if you live in a high crime area you are more likely to have a crime committed against you? I know that would be true for me.
"High crime area" does not immediately mean there are more people committing crimes. It means that more crimes are being committed. I have a hard time jumping from one (high crime area) to the other (more people commit crimes).
-r
I'm with you up to a point. In fact, I can easily envision people dutifully repurchasing all their Pauly Shore movies on DVD because that's the thing to do these days. But if I may, I would like to offer two counterpoints:
1. Not all of us just blindly repurchase everything. Except for situations covered by point #2, I have not bought anything on DVD that I already have on VHS.
2. The times when I do repurchase something (for example: Se7en and Twin Peaks/any thing by David Lynch) I've gotten a lot more bang for my money.
My Twin Peaks tapes look like crap. They always have. The DVDs look fantastic. And they have the Log Lady introductions. And they have commentary. And they have other cool stuff.
The same is true for Se7en. While my tape didn't look like crap the way TP did, the DVD does look better. And there is a lot of stuff on the two discs that was not on the VHS tape.
It's not like they just played the VHS tape, captured the output and recorded that on to a DVD.
We're not all lemmings. And sometimes, buying the DVD is not just "repurchasing the same content."
-r
. . . and understand that you meant to say "flying airplanes."
-r
Maybe we shouldn't put it past them. (Never underestimate your enemies...) However, I don't think we should be worried about this anytime soon. At least not in the U.S. From Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101:
To perform or display a work "publicly" means -
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
Playing a CD on your home stereo (especially in-doors) doesn't fit the criteria.
-r
I mean has anyone ever been attacked by a tiger while reading something on your screen?
Nope. The tiger is for defending yourself against people attacking you with fresh fruit.
Sorry, it's been that sort of day.
-r
Let's get the offtopic part out of the way. First up, the word crisis. I never said we had a health care crisis in the US. I said our health care system is fscked up. That's not the same thing. A crisis would be not having any doctors to treat sick people. Our system is screwy because at its root is the idea that if you cannot pay for health care (either through insurance or otherwise) then you do not deserve it. My belief (or model, if you prefer) is that the simple fact of being a U.S. citizen should grant you the ability to get good health care at no cost.
I congratulate you on having good health care without health insurance. But even you admit that this is rare. Incredibly rare were your exact words. Which is sort of my point. Why should it be rare to have good health care without insurance? Even moreso, why the hell do we need health insurance anyway? It's classist and designed to punish those less fortunate. Don't believe me? Go have a look at Brownsville in Brooklyn for a few months. See how those kids live. Then come back and tell me our government takes care of all its citizens.
I know we'll never reach the utopian idea I have for what health care should be. It's not because it's impossible. We can send people into space so don't tell me we couldn't make a better health care system. It's because people in America don't care about other people in America (or the world for that matter). I'm talking about our day-to-day living and would be happy to provide many examples of just how inconsiderate we are toward each other. If we made it a priority we could make it happen. We won't because no one cares.
But enough of that. On the to question of copying and distributing music for no personal gain. Fair use does not give you unlimited rights to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works just because you are not profiting. Yes, commericial vs. non-commercial (their phrase is 'nonprofit educational purposes) is a factor. But this comparison (commercial v. nonprofit) is part of the larger issue covering the nature of the use. What's the nature of putting someone else's work on a file-sharing service?
The other Fair Use factors are:
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Yes, you can copy a CD to a cassette, or mp3 or whatever for personal use. And that's fair use. Fair use might even be giving a copy to a friend. Even though I'm not a strict interpretationist when it comes to law I feel I should point out that the US Code for Fair Use does not specifically mention "giving copies to friends" as an example of acceptable reproduction.
Either way, making your copy of a song available to thousands of people (many of them you won't know) is not in the spirit of fair use.
-r
From your comment I can infer that you feel buying the cd/tape/mp3 grants you copyright ownership and, therefore, distribution rights of said contents.
It does not. Fair use and personal use are not the same thing as putting songs into file sharing systems where who knows how many people will access them. Why do you think Diamond won the lawsuit over the RIO mp3 player and Napster lost theirs?
Libraries walk a fine line on this issue. It troubles me greatly that the book publishers and other industries (assuming the rumors are true) are trying to limit libraries' ability to provide materials to the public. More and more the U.S. drifts toward a "if you do not have money you are worthless" attitude toward its own citizens. That's why the health care in this country is so fscked up.
But I'm straying from the topic. I think the difference between a library's CD collection and file sharing is that only one person can have a copy of the cd at a time. Yes, 1000 people might check the CD out over the time it survives in the collection, but 1000 people don't have it all at once. Isn't file-sharing usage somewhere in the millions of people? That's a different scope now isn't it?
More importantly, you only get the CD for a limited time. If you don't return it you are usually charged the cost of replacing it.
Neither of those are true for file-sharing and I think they are significant differences.
-r
And everyone who has ever downloaded an mp3 you've put in to a file-sharing system has been your personal friend? Someone you have met/spoken with frequently/some other activity generally shared among friends? Or are they strangers from around the world and you have no idea who they really are?
You are stretching the definition of "friend" just a bit.
-r