Re: copyright under stress

On 21 Jun 00, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > As I recall, the LaMacchia case was about the "sharing" of
> > unauthorized copies of computer software, not books.
>
> True enough. Now, tell me how you can tell the difference between an
> electronic book and electronic software or digital music or art?

I think that the point that Bob was making (if I may presume to speak for him) was to distinguish between "sharing" in the sense of passing around a single copy, whether physical or digital, and "sharing" in the sense of distributing additional copies. I don't think that Mr. LaMacchia would be violating the NETA if he was simply allowing an unlimited number of people to access a single copy of the software (licensing issues aside, for the moment). However, the nature of his "sharing" was to allow or perhaps even facilitate the creation of a zillion additional copies. The distinction is the same as if we were talking about me lending you my copy of The Shaggs' classic recording "My Pal Foot-Foot", which I believe is perfectly acceptable under the law, or simply making you a copy. The latter case is clearly a violation of copyright in the absence of a valid statutory defense (fair use, etc.), and the analysis is the same whether the copy I make is a physical one on cassette or a digital one on MP3.

Which is why I will not distribute MP3's of "My Pal Foot-Foot" to the list participants, no matter how much they might beg.

Happy trails,
Rod

Rod McCarvel
<rod[_at_]seanet.com

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

          -Anatole France Received on Thu Jun 22 2000 - 18:15:26 GMT