[clue-talk] Steal this film

[Dennis J Perkins]

Bruce Ediger wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Brian Gibson wrote:
>
>> Which brings up an interesting question.  Should a consumer have to 
>> purchase
>> another copy not just to put it onto a different device but to have 
>> it in a
>> new format?  e.g., if you own a tape or LP, should you have to pay 
>> again for
>> a CD or mp3?  Should you have to pay again to go from standard 
>> definition to
>> high definition?  How about when UHD comes out?
>
> This strikes me as a dilemma for the media sellers:
>
> *If* they're only licensing it to you, then you should have the ability
> to buy music/movie/etc in another format for the price of the physical
> media.  Why should you pay for a license over and over again?
>
> *If* they sell it to you outright, you should have the ability to copy
> it to whatever media you want.  You bought it, it's yours to do as you
> see fit.
>
> And that's why the whole DRM/piracy/infringement thing seems to me
> like the MPAA and the RIAA and other *AAs want it both ways: they want
> to sell you a license, but treat it as if you bought the physical good,
> rather than a license.
>
> But still, I try not to infringe.  I am one of those all-Linux diehards,
> I have very rarely purchased music, and I don't like computer or video
> games at all.  I don't have a problem with fair use, however.
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>

That's because copyright and license are not entirely the same thing.  A 
license is a permission to do something, possibly with limitations.  For 
example, a fishing license lets you catch fish during certain times of 
the year, specifies a maximum number of fish that can be caught, fish 
under a certain size cannot be kept, etc.  A copyright is also a 
permission, but one that the author gives someone (the publisher) to 
copy his work.

A song or movie should theoretically be limited to copyright.  Since the 
consumer does not have a copyright from the owner of the song or movie, 
they cannot legally copy it, except within the limits of fair use.  
However, someone will want to buy a copy and use it to make money from 
it by charging others to listen to the song or watching the DVD.  A 
license can handle matters like this; a copyright cannot.

Now, if you buy a book and the book is damaged in a fire or flood, does 
that mean you should be able to get a free copy of that book?  Most 
people would probably say no.  But if you have an electronic copy of 
that book and it gets damaged, what then?  Is that any different than 
buying a replacement book?


None of this mattered much to most people before the means for copying 
became inexpensive and readily available via tape recorders, computers, etc.

It is understandable that the RIAA and others are upset about illegal 
copying.  It reduces their profits.  But they have also gotten copyright 
lifetimes extended to outrageous limits.  They have the DMCA which 
prevents someone from copying something after it falls into the public 
domain or even interfers with the rights of artists working with their 
own works.  They want the right to disable equipment that belongs to 
others, to be able to act independently of the justice system.

The balance has always been precarious, if there ever was a balance.  
There have always been counterfeiters and people who take the works of 
others and copy them.  The difference is it is now easy for both sides 
to trample on the rights of others.



I pay for my music, but I rarely add to my music collection anymore.  I 
don't buy movies very often anymore either... not enough time to watch 
them.  I never had much interest in computer games.  If I want 
something, I will buy it or do without, unless it is FLOSS, where people 
have graciously granted me the right to use their programs.