Quote:
Originally posted by wst3
Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use.
|
Fair Use provisions were provided because they were part of case law; the statutes were updated to match that. If I quote a NYT article and the NYT sends me a threatening letter, said letter will go straight to file 13. If I don't send it to the EFF instead.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The labels typically still own the copyright on the recording itself. Metallica is an exception there.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If you're going to rely on the law (written by the entertainment industry lobbiests), you're going to have to drop that word "steal". It's a loaded term that copyright law does not use.
Quote:
Quote:
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. [/b]
|
The last Supreme Court case on that was Quill, in 1992. It wasn't an Internet case, and the states lost. As they have before.