Re: copyright under stress

On Fri, Jun 16, 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> While the scarcity premise in a previously offered post is perhaps
> part of the equation in copyright, I don't agree that it's the core
> factor in the "intent of copyright" discussion. I can borrow a
> book from a friend without infringing copyright. In fact, if I
> wished, I could purchase "Book A" or "Movie Video B" and loan it to
> one person at a time until every member of my 45,000-person town had
> seen it/read it. As long as none of them make a copy, no one has
> infringed. In this scenario, they've all had access to it. There's
> no difference between this example and posting something on the net,
> save for increased scope of access.

Would you say that this argument also applies in the case of copyrighted music, as for example Metallica's songs being shared between friends, from one hard disk to another's sound card and speakers, via Napster or Gnutella or another service which only locates the parties?

In fact, the act you propose, sharing books for free over the Internet, was brought up as a successful defense in the LaMacchia case in Boston. Quickly, Congress plugged that hole with the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, which outlaws the sharing you propose, even with no commercial gain, as long as the retail value of the work is over a certain amount.

"Sharing a book," as Richard M. Stallman forecast, became a crime.

What is the justification for such a law, except that a state of artificial scarcity is thereby maintained?

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf