On 25/03/2011 09:23, David Looser wrote:
wrote

Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

I keep repeating it because "No Win" keeps saying otherwise.

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or perhaps
something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think at least,
necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to persuade me that
is, I'll listen.

Commercial recordings are made to produce an income for those involved in
the production. If anyone could legally make a copy of a commercial disc and
then pass that disc on to someone else who takes a copy and passes it on in
turn, in theory an entire town could each hold a copy of a recording
obtained from just one paid-for disc. This would dramatically reduce the
income of the recording industry. Whilst you might consider the industry at
present too money focused and too greedy (and I wouldn't disagree)
eliminating all controls on copying would almost certainly result in the
collapse of the commercial recording industry. Then the only records then
made would be amateur "back-bedroom" productions, advertising funded and
vanity projects.


I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny. In fact, overall, they've done pretty well out
of me.

In my opinion copyright needs to balance the interests of the producers and
consumers of intellectual property. I've said before and I'm happy to say
again that I think currently the law is weighted in favour of the producers
and I'd like to see it re-balanced. But I do think that if copyright law
were to be simply abolished, or unlimited copying of commercial recordings
permitted, that the results would be to effectively end the supply of
recorded music to the public.

I don't agree. I can only think of Radiohead as a counter to your
reasoning, because I don't know enough about how making music works. I'm
afraid your argument won't change my behaviour. For example:

I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me
(jazz) but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue,
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy
the music. I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process.
Perhaps you're saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked
down the performer and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate?
And relied on the performer to ensure everything went to the people it
should go to? Or lent the CD, and made clear that it must be returned
after a period (3 weeks?). Or I should simply have put the CD away in
the cellar, and carried it with me for the rest of my time, or until I
securely deleted the stored copy?

Can you give me a practical steer here? I don't know quite what you're
saying.


And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which Arny
summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

If you don't want to read re-statements then don't read them! They are
addressed to "no win", not you.


OK! I thought your, and Arny's, position were quite clear by now though.

Rob