Re: copyright under stress

On 6/19/2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

This question of scarcity is interesting. Our economic system is based on supply and demand. Until the Internet, supply and price were set by publishing companies, based on a number of things, including price of materials, labor costs, demand, etc. Is this "artificial scarcity?" With the coming of the Internet, supply is no longer in the hands of publishers. Consumers are suddenly saying publishers are capitalistic money-mongers who are setting up "artificial scarcity" because unlimited supply is now within everyone's reach. This is equivalent to expecting our wildlife to adjust to developers encroaching on their hunting grounds and blaming the wildlife for not evolving fast enough. The Internet has changed our environment so rapidly that publishers are scrambling to adapt, sometimes in ways that are not good for anyone because they see their way to make a living being taken away in ways that are clearly illegal. Are we willing to help these people adapt so they can win also? or shall publishers join bread lines, along with others who are now out of work? Is this what we mean by liberty and equality for all?

Pat Roshaven
<roshaven[_at_]fau.edu> Received on Tue Jun 20 2000 - 14:27:24 GMT