Yes but if I read the book or listen to the CD that I aquired from the library, I've already made a copy of it with the neurons in my brain -- it is called remembering. I believe the point he was making is quite valid. If I check out a book by Stephen King, read it and return it to the library, and this action deprives the publisher of a sale that I would have otherwise made at a bookstore, then how is that any different than the RIAA's assumption that every song downloaded is a song that otherwise would have been purchased at a CD store.
I thought this royalty was only on those discs labeled "Music" cd's. These will work in copying machines whereas regular cd-r's will not.
Under this theory, you couldn't let your wife read any book you bought. The fair use doctrine says otherwise.
Isn't fair use related to excerpting copyrighted works for the purpose of reviewing or quoting? Also, the point about the library is that if you copy a book or CD for yourself or your friend you are breaking the copyright law. If you then post this copy for 1000's of people to take, you are just breaking the law but on a much bigger scale, thus with commensurately larger potential criminal penalty. But it isn't any more legal to copy for your friend than it is to do so on scale.
This isn't a theory, it is a fact. I am sure that publishers are losing sales due to the fact that public libraries exist. The point I am making is that fair use laws and copyright laws in general are just not working as they were intended to when first written. Did you know it is technically illegal to play your CD's at a party since this is defined under copyright laws as a public performance and therefore against specific copyright laws that cover certain provisions of fair use. Perhaps the RIAA should look at it from this perspective -- no matter what the law currently says, a majority of people are now breaking the "law." Downloading a song from Kazaa gives me as much moral guilt as doing 65 in a 55. I am not alone. There are millions just like me. Instead of suing me and millions of others, perhaps they should get off their asses and figure out how to run their business in changing times instead of resorting to antiquated laws to "teach me a lesson." If they can get a court clerk to issue a subpoena, why can't I? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. They have gestapo like powers right now.
and, they've been trying to get it legal for them to put a virus on your machine if they suspect you've been downloading ANY music - legal or not. don't forget, a few years back, garth brooks (with the backing of the RIAA / major labels) tried to go after used CD stores. one of the claims was that people were buying the new CD, burning 20 copies, and then selling it to the used CD store. so, they tried to strong-arm those stores, by withholding the cooperative advertising dollars from the used /new CD stores, to get them to stop selling used CDs. you can see how well that worked, since now many of the music stores sell used CDs. (most mall music stores will NOT allow the 'promotional/cutout' CDs in their stores. again, the RIAA has a stamp that isn't legally enforcable on there...and has gone around trying to stomp out anyone who does anything with them).
that is lending a single copy - I believe that has nothing to do with "fair use" as the term is used in the copyright statute.
Not sure that's accurate. Generally, a performance is considered âpublicâ if the performance is at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside a normal circle of family and social acquaintances is gathered. Playing a CD (or the radio, for that matter) during a private party at your home where family, friends, and social acquaintances are gathered is not a "public performance".
As far as the radio, generally that's allowed. The publisher of the song gets a royalty every time its played on the air or a jukebox.
Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000 By TED BRIDIS AP Technology Writer WASHINGTON -- A 12-year-old girl in New York who was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music over the Internet is off the hook after her mother agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000 to settle the lawsuit, apologizing and admitting that her daughter's actions violated U.S. copyright laws. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/enterta...94048.story?coll=sfla-entertainment-headlines