[wst3]

Originally posted by richlevy

No but there is the concept of "fair use", which was an attempt by the court to prevent abuses by copyright holders. If you copy a part (not the entire) of an article for commentary, you are protected. This does not mean that lawyers cannot threaten you, but it does mean that they have a very poor foundation for their case. (disclaimer-I AM NOT A LAYWER).

We've been through the fair use provisions earlier in the thread... and there is simply no way that I can understand how anyone can justify stealing copyrighted material via Napster as fair use.

Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use.

Originally posted by richlevy
The past few years has seen content providers in all media attempt to weaken this concept, using the Internet as an excuse. I say excuse because these issues have always existed and were addressed.

One of the ironies that few seem to appreciate is that the same vultures who would give away other's intellectual property guard their own pretty jealously!

As a "Content Provider", Napster lacks the authorization from the holder of the intellectual property to distribute the intellectual property. They provide the means for these illegal transfers, and they whine that it isn't their fault. They've gone on record, however, stating that their software is their intellectual property, and that they will prosecute anyone who violates their rights.

Originally posted by richlevy
It is just recent legislation which in many peoples opinions gives too much power to the holder of the copyright. Remember, there is right and wrong on both sides of this issue. Piracy is wrong, but so is the use of trademarks and copyrights in a predatory manner or to establish a trust (remember that trusts are also illegal).

No one has ever accused the music business of playing fair. But these days they don't own the rights to the vast majority of their libraries... the artists do. Artist's have gotten smarter, and they don't give up nearly as much as they once did. The labels have agreements with the artists for the exclusive right to distribute... otherwise they probably wouldn't care too much about Napster.

My point is that even if Napster hurt the record companies, it hurts the artists more! If an artist does not wish to have their material distributed over Napster then Napster, and the public should respect that.

Originally posted by richlevy
The record industry holds up artists as the losers, but the reality is that most rights are held by corporations. Read Courtney Love's dissection of anti-artist financial practices,

Actually most artists are savvy enough to hold on to the copyrights... they usually have to give up a portion of the publishing and mechanicals, but the smart ones maintain ownership.

As far as Ms. Love's infamous article... very little was news to anyone who has been around for a while... the record companies have a great scam going, of course they want to keep it that way.

A friend recently pointed out that the current state of affairs is not what bothers most of the executives. While Napster is a problem, it isn't what many thing. The real issues are more likely two-fold: first, Napster seems to make stealing more acceptable to some who might not otherwise steal, and two, stolen or not, a new channel will cut into their overall control. The later is probably what keeps them awake at night.

Funny thing is, new distribution channels are already here. Anyone who has the stamina can establish a publishing company, label, whatever, and distribute their material, for a profit. They don't necessarilly need the web, but it is convenient.

Originally posted by richlevy
or the recent successful (only recently recinded) attempt to define all creative works under contract as "works for hire", which would strip the artist of any rights to work developed while under a contract to a record company, even though they do not work for a salary and through creative financing might never actually get paid.

This one was truly ugly. I never expected it to stand, but it says something about the level of greed we as a society have reached that it was even attempted.

I've done work as both a writer for trade journals, and as a composer, and I am quite familiar with the work-for-hire statute. It bugged me a little that the articles I wrote belonged to someone else, but I would never stand for that when it comes to compositions... which is one of the reasons I don't make a living as a composer.

Originally posted by richlevy
An interesting example is the sales tax intiatives by states against online purchases. Sears and Roebuck started mail order 100 years ago, and 800 number catalogues have been a major industry for at least 20 years, yet it took the Internet to provide the excuse states needed to assert their sales tax rights.

That one has me baffled... I know that e-commerce has turned up the heat, but I was quite surprised to see just how much more interstate commerce occurs as a result of the net.