[Groop] My Last e-mail on this. I promise!
rarellano at shaw.ca
rarellano at shaw.ca
Sun Feb 1 17:55:06 PST 2004
This will be my only public post on this topic. Therefore, I'll have to make it extra long (and likely boring)....
I don't think it is possibly to logically compare the copyright rules for various media (broadcast, audio & video recordings, print media, original works). Each medium has it's own unique particulars. The point is that when you "consume" any of these items, there is an associated copyright rule that you must abide by when you buy/rent/view/borrow it (whether you explicitly agree to it or not).
If the copyright holders have decided that they do not want their product distributed via filesharing, then so be it. That's the rule you have to follow. If you don't agree with it, then that is fine, but you should argue the point with the powers that be BEFORE you copy and distribute the media. Most people go ahead and then try to justify it, but it is still illegal.
It's not an infringement to make a copy of your own comic book for going on vacation with because it is for your own personal use (as long as it remains in your own hands). Computer software often have the same clauses; that you can make a backup copy (at least they did the last time I looked).
It's not illegal to edit out commercials of your own copy of a TV broadcast. Just as it is not illegal to put the TV on mute during commercials, or get up for a pee during commercials. Now, if a huge percentage of people stopped watching commercials by doing this, then the advertisers would have to change their strategies in order to still profit from TV commercials. I don't think it is illegal to make a copy of a TV broadcast for personal use, but it is illegal to publicly broadcast that copy or sell/rent/profit from it.
I think the music industry had to sit up and take a hard line on music file sharing because it become so prolific and accessible. If the music industry had not done so, file sharing would have progressed to the point where almost no one would buy a CD. I'm sure websites would have cropped up where you could d/l an entire CD at once as well as artwork, inserts, labels, etc. I don't think anyone will deny that it allows people access to a wider array of music, and that is a good thing, but the limits had to be enforced.
If artists want to circulate some or all of their material for promotional purposes, or as freebies, or whatever, then that is their perogative. But the copyright holders have to maintain control of their rights.
What should be illegal is allowing this much non-Groo posting to go on.
Let's Groo!
Ruben.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_189.242daf76.2d4b4ad8_boundary"
--part1_189.242daf76.2d4b4ad8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/30/2004 12:32:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
grossfam at olywa.net writes:
> As I said in the last message to you, getting up to pee during
> advertisements also negates their purpose. By your logic then, getting up to pee is a
> copyright infringement or hurts people in the same way as a copyright
> infringement..
It affects me in the same way it would affect Sergio if you photocopied his
comic so you could take it with you to read on vacation.
You are copying a legal broadcast for your own purposes. That's illegal, I
believe.
As far as the airing of commercials, I was using this in response to
something different someone mentioned. Someone said that used music/book/comic stores
aren't as bad as filesharing because the product still was paid for initally
(thus $ goes to artist) and the increased price and resale helps other
stores/employees/etc. Now, according to the other arguments going on today, I would
think people would be opposed to this as well because, technically, Sergio is
not profitting from the increased resale of the back issue. Many people were
taking the stand of artist lost royalties to filesharing because one person
buys a song, makes it available to the WWW and no more royalties to that artist.
I was making a point that if someone wants to make the case for "Used" stores
being better than filesharing because they do support businesses, employees
and such, then - by that arguement, taping a show and editing out commercials
is altering the way a program was meant to be seen: "we give you 10 minutes of
show, you check out our sponsor and buy their stuff because their stuff pays
for our show!" By editing a show it hurts all the people that bring that show
to fruition. Someone's gotta pay for the show. If people are concerned with
helping the chain of employment, I ask to please watch the commercials and buy
products.
-seth-
--part1_189.242daf76.2d4b4ad8_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"FIXED" FACE=3D"Courier New Baltic" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 1/30/20=
04 12:32:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, grossfam at olywa.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000"=
BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 F=
AMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">As I said in the last message=20=
to you, getting up to pee during advertisements also negates their purpose.&=
nbsp; By your logic then, getting up to pee is a copyright infringement or h=
urts people in the same way as a copyright infringement..</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT=
><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"FIXED" FACE=3D"Courier New Baltic" L=
ANG=3D"0"><BR>
It affects me in the same way it would affect Sergio if you photocopied his=20=
comic so you could take it with you to read on vacation.<BR>
You are copying a legal broadcast for your own purposes. That's illega=
l, I believe.<BR>
<BR>
As far as the airing of commercials, I was using this in response to somethi=
ng different someone mentioned. Someone said that used music/book/comi=
c stores aren't as bad as filesharing because the product still was paid for=
initally (thus $ goes to artist) and the increased price and resale helps o=
ther stores/employees/etc. Now, according to the other arguments going=
on today, I would think people would be opposed to this as well because, te=
chnically, Sergio is not profitting from the increased resale of the back is=
sue. Many people were taking the stand of artist lost royalties to fileshari=
ng because one person buys a song, makes it available to the WWW and no more=
royalties to that artist.<BR>
I was making a point that if someone wants to make the case for "Used" store=
s being better than filesharing because they do support businesses, employee=
s and such, then - by that arguement, taping a show and editing out commerci=
als is altering the way a program was meant to be seen: "we give you 10 minu=
tes of show, you check out our sponsor and buy their stuff because their stu=
ff pays for our show!" By editing a show it hurts all the people that=20=
bring that show to fruition. Someone's gotta pay for the show. I=
f people are concerned with helping the chain of employment, I ask to please=
watch the commercials and buy products.<BR>
-seth-</FONT></HTML>
--part1_189.242daf76.2d4b4ad8_boundary--
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Groop mailing list
Groop at groo.com
http://mailman.newdream.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/groop
More information about the Groop
mailing list