On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:18:28 -0700, "^^indifference^^"
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0700, ^^indifference^^
wheredothebirdsgowhenitrains wrote:



"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message
...
Aren't we all very concerned with the issue of piracy, and how the
record labels are dying from internet file sharing? Aren't owning
and
trading used recordings a form of piracy, as it steals sales from the
artists? Shouldn't we destroy our out-of-print albums as possessing
such is akin spiritually to bald-faced theft of potential cd sales?

It is not illegal.
This is a really, really, lousy troll.
You can do better.



He makes a valid point. Why is it illegal to give away something via file
sharing but legal to sell a used record or cd?


file sharing isn't a transfer of property. It is an unlicensed
duplication.
If it involved destruction of your original copy, then you might have a
valid point.

Why is it legal to sell blank tapes and cd's then?

Because they're exempted due to the fact that there are other
potential uses for such blank media other than the duplication of
copyrighted material. In the case of CDs, they actually tried to
address this by manufacturing data *and* music (?) discs. In some
countries, there's a licensing fee already tacked on to the price of
the disc which covers the royalties (although I don't think that's the
case in this country). In those countries, you are expected not to
use the data discs for music, although enforcement is obviously
non-existent.

Think about it this way. If you are found to be selling burned copies
of the new Kronus Quartet CD out of the back of your car, you are just
as liable as if you distributed the same item through file sharing,
even though you're using "legal discs". However, if you sell your
actual copy of the same CD, as long as you didn't keep a burned copy
of it, it's quite legal for you to sell it because you own both the
physical and the non-physical license, and, in most licensing
agreements, that license is transferrable as long as you don't retain
a copy of it.

it all stems, IIRC, from the old Betamax decision in the 60s. The
courts allowed the sale of recorders and blank media to allow for
personal "time-shifting" of TV programming, and this time-shifting was
extended to cassettes so that people could "time-shift" to listening
in their autos. Later decisions firmed up the rights of people to make
personal copies on various media, as long as they weren't given away
or sold to others. Now, you find all sorts of restrictions in
licensing here in the digital age, far more than in previous years.