U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - View Single Post

mpd8488 · #64 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

The difference is if you burn a CD and sell it to some who wanted to buy that music, that's copyright infringement in the classical sense. If you share your music with someone, that's sharing.
We used to tape records on cassette, and that was called fair use.
What the music and software industries are both sending boatloads of cash to lobbyists for is because they are both in the business of getting a lot of money for selling a small amount of packaged information.
They both dominate the existing marketing channels and are realizing monopoly profits. Now here comes the internet, a much better way to distribute information, and one with barriers to entry, on the internet, these companies have no advantage over anyone else.
So they try to discourage the use of the internet, by unrealistically pricing the internet product, to try to prop up the existing channels that they dominate.

The second thing that's going on is that the technology of sharing has improved. Sharing has gone from "come over and listen to this", to "here's a tape I made of that new record", to "here's the file", and over the internet you can share that file with a million people.

The old business model doesn't work, the new internet business model, is that a band will have it's own website, where people can buy t-shirts and hats, and even CDs. The Internet is all about cutting out the middleman and the Music Industry is the ultimate middle man.
But if the music goes over to the internet, then the talent interfaces directly with the public, and there is no room for the middleman, unless they construct this legal fiction, where they can charge the same for a file over the internet as they charge for a physical recording, that they produce, inventory, ship to a store, the store gets a markup, etc. How about drop all that cost structure, but still get the same money, it works in fantasy world, but not in reality.

Unenforceable laws are bad laws.

Dubbing a record onto a tape (while keeping the record for yourself) is fair use. Fair use also allows you to make backup copies for personal use or to transfer the medium on which the information is stored. It also allows you to let friends listen to your music, but you cannot give them copies of it. Sharing your music by allowing others to copy it onto their computer is copyright infringement. You do not own the music, you are purchasing a license for personal use. If you chose to give that music to another person you can, but you must erase any other copies of it that you have. These laws have been around before the internet. The only difference now is that people actually get caught doing it which never happened before. We do not have the right to give away information when other are entitled to payment for its use.

The internet in no way cuts out the recording industry. The industry still fronts the money for artists to record their music, get it produced, and promoted. The internet has not changed that. All the internet has done is to give the retailers some competition which has driven the price of music down. No major artists will be able to record and produce their own music and be able to sell it everywhere. Even if bands have their own websites, the label still makes the investment and provides the engineers, produces, graphic artists, and every other person that has a part in getting an album recorded.