[Eriamjh]

I have wondered if one could say it is legal to own MP3s made from digital CDs downloaded from the internet IF you bought the songs on cassette or vinyl years ago.

I say yes. I paid for it once to listen to anytime. So what I now have a better copy?

At least cassettes and records didn't come with freakin' licenses like software (Can only play on one stereo at one time kinda crap).

[Zimphire]

I think you actually have to own the hard copy at the time. I also believe the RIAA is trying to stop this as well.

[G4ME]

fack that leagal ****, steel what you can get, in mass quantites!

[Superchicken]

Technically deppending on your interpritation of Canadian copyright law at least it could be considered ilegal to rip from your CDs... that said no one has stated they have a problem with this, I think the best thing for if you have it on casset, to run a line from your casset to the computer and use your own software to record it.

[thesearcher]

I'm pretty sure with Canadian law, it is legal to make MP3s from CDs etc. for your own use, it's just not legal to share them. (No, I don't have a link.)

[Mastrap]

You have the expressed right to own a backup of your music for personal use. Meaning no public performance, sharing or broadcasting. Other than that, you're ok.

At least that's the law in both the UK and Germany.

[Ken_F2]

I have wondered if one could say it is legal to own MP3s made from digital CDs downloaded from the internet IF you bought the songs on cassette or vinyl years ago.

The answer is no, even in Germany and the UK. Similarly, you don't have the right to the DVD if you purchased the VHS tape. You don't have the right to the 2000 Honda Accord just because you purchased the 1998 model.

Even for old songs, the content on CDs is digital remastered; sometimes the cost for this is low, and sometimes it is substantial. Sometimes the individual or company that had the right to the cassette or vinyl is different from the individual or company that now has the right to the material on CD; in that case, you are depriving them of the right for which they paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars.

It's reallly rather unfortunate that we are going to lose much of the fair use rights we have today in upcoming years, thanks to all this wholesale piracy on the Internet. Fair use, as it exists today, only works when the laws on the books are effective at protecting the rights of the content owners, and they clearly do not. The whole premise of current fair use law (as per provision four of U.S. fair use law) is that it allows customers reasonable freedom with their purchases, so long that it does not substantially infringe on the potential markets for the product, as seen by a reasonable person.

[Mastrap]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ken_F2:
[B]The answer is no, even in Germany and the UK.

Sorry, you're 100% right. I didn't make myself very clear.

What I meant to say what that as long as you own the original you have the right to make a copy of that original for your own personal use. For example you have the right to make a copy of a CD to listen to in the car.

You do not have the right to download a mp3 that was ripped off a CD if you only own the vinyl or MC.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You do not have the right to download a mp3 that was ripped off a CD if you only own the vinyl or MC.

That really sucks. I don't buy CDs; even new productions I only purchase on vinyl.

I have spent MORE on the vinyl album, which is not pirateable (as opposed to the CD, where it is to be expected that for every CD sold, three or four or whatever people will be using copies), so while I may not be *legally* in the right, I do feel morally legitimated in obtaining .mp3s of these albums for use on my computer and iPod.

(and yes, I do realize that production costs for a vinyl album are about eight times those of a CD, but since they cannot be easily pirated and the 12" is typically slightly more expensive, the net profit is higher)

-spheric*

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by G4ME:
fack that leagal ****, steel what you can get, in mass quantites!

What he said.

[Eriamjh]

I'll agree that sharing mp3s is probably not legal in any case, but possessing them certainly can be legal.

The answer is no, even in Germany and the UK. Similarly, you don't have the right to the DVD if you purchased the VHS tape. You don't have the right to the 2000 Honda Accord just because you purchased the 1998 model.

Be careful about using the terms "you have the RIGHT" to this or that. I'm not asking about rights. I'm asking about the legalily of the state of possessing things. The Accord example is not a valid comparison because a car is a physical thing. (You cannot COPY your car and share it with friends.) You own what you paid for. But music, especially digital music, is more abstract and can be copied in different forms. Does "fair use" as defined in the US laws mean "using the item" if it's music, or does it mean possessing the music only in forms created from use of the original purchase?

I will agree that owning the VHS copy of something may not allow you to legally posess a digital copy made from DVD. Why I think that way for video, but not for music, I'm not so sure. I guess people have been recording music for much longer more easily. Certainly, if you own a movie on VHS it probably isn't legal to posess a copy of the movie in high-definition (when it becomes available). I guess it's because you can make a decent MP3 from cassette, but not a decent AVI from VHS.

If the MP3 police came around and checked everyone's computer for MP3s, proof that one was not "stealing" them would be simply possessing an original CD of the song. One can make an MP3 from a cassette or vinyl record (having the physical connection to the computer isn't necessary) so wouldn't posessing an original cassette or record also qualify?

Sorry to reduce any responses but can we try to limit the dicsussion to US or international law (the RIAA)? In Germany, a LOT of things are illegal that are just plain silly (no examples specifically, but if you want to argue, err... I mean discuss it, we can do it in another thread).

[macvillage.net]

If you own the song as a result of buying a record/tape/cd/dvd/what ever from a dealer that bought from the record distributor, who has a deal with the record company (in other words the band got money for it):

You can make copies for *your own* personal use.

For example, you can put it on an MP3 player so *you* can listen to it on the go, or have it on your computer.

You can put it on a tape for use in the car.

The key word here is *you*. It's for your use.

The issue here is not the copying or the technology, it's the distribution.

[Tristrami]

If you have an iMic from Griffin there's free software taht'll help you covert your Vinyl recordings into MP3s. It's a little tricky at first but once you get the hang of it, the quality is pretty good.

[Ken_F2]

Be careful about using the terms "you have the RIGHT" to this or that. I'm not asking about rights. I'm asking about the legalily of the state of possessing things. The Accord example is not a valid comparison because a car is a physical thing.

My example was trying to point out that in each of those cases I mentioned, the issue is not fair use at all. Rather, it is stealing. Stealing is not covered under fair use. If replicators exited today, a la Star Trek, it would be illegal to copy someone else's 2000 Accord (if you owned 1998 model), which represents substantial amounts of intellectual property in addition to the physical.

Does "fair use" as defined in the US laws mean "using the item" if it's music, or does it mean possessing the music only in forms created from use of the original purchase?

The latter; fair use law effectively allows you to do almost anything with your purchase, so long as it won't hurt the potential market for the product (as seen by a reasonable person). But fair use only gives you rights to content or media that you have specifically purchased.

The DMCA is a separate law (but related in some cases) that restricts what you can do in terms of breaking encryption, etc. This was Hollywood's way of discouraging the piracy of DVD and other future encrypted mediums. Of course, the DMCA also has the effect of significantly limiting fair use rights for encrypted material.

If the MP3 police came around and checked everyone's computer for MP3s, proof that one was not "stealing" them would be simply possessing an original CD of the song. One can make an MP3 from a cassette or vinyl record (having the physical connection to the computer isn't necessary) so wouldn't posessing an original cassette or record also qualify?

Practically speaking, they are not going to prosecute someone for having MP3 recordings of their vinyl records. After all, the equipment does exist to digitize audio from vinyl material, and the person could argue they had done so. But purely as a matter of law, it is not legal to download MP3 versions off the Internet.

Indeed, it is illegal to download the MP3 off the Internet for a song you own, even if you own it on CD. Because again, fair use grants you rights with regard to that particular piece of media you purchased; it does not grant you any rights to what someone else has done with the music they purchased (like making MP3s). But again, practically speaking, they are not going to prosecute anyone for having illegally obtained an MP3 for a CD they already own.

Interesting points:

Vinyl is usually better quality than CD, so I don't see a problem with it unless a lot of work went into remastering the source of the MP3 copy. However, if you have the vinyl, you can make your own MP3 and control the quality, and probably end up with a better copy than those on the net, so why bother.

As for cassettes, I would say no, as you paid less money for an inferior copy.

[Eriamjh]

So there seems to be agreement.

Owning MP3s of what you have in other media is not illegal. Trading them is (in all cases).

I won't comment of "recplicating someone else's stuff" since that is just not possible.

I have made CDs from vinyl records. It is a very time consuming process. You have to "rip" the album at 1x into the computer, then either seperate or ordetr the tracks (depending on what software you have, I did this in 1998!) then burn the CD.

The results were good, but you could tell it was a CD of a record. Not bad though.

[cpt kangarooski]

With regards to the original question, you should basically consider it okay to make mp3s yourself of music you own a copy of yourself, from those copies you own. Getting copies made by someone else, making copies from copies someone else owns, etc. would likely not be ok. At least in the US. I can go through the main cases on this (Napster, MP3.com, and Diamond) if you want something more precise.

Do note, however, that it's okay to trade music via analog means or digital SCMS means, IIRC. Trading mp3s is not, incidentally, necessarily illegal. It probably is, but don't sell yourself short. One's specific situation can count for a lot.

But fair use only gives you rights to content or media that you have specifically purchased.

Bzzt, no, but thanks for playing. The fair use analysis doesn't really care whether you've purchased the copy being fairly used. Example: parody is fair use. So if I write a parody of 'Pretty Woman' I need not buy the first copy of it, and my parody still makes fun of ALL copies of it. Fair use is concerned, in part, with economic impact of the use, but not to such a stupid degree that your claim has an iota of merit.

Of course, the DMCA also has the effect of significantly limiting fair use rights for encrypted material.

This remains to be seen. Fair use is a constitutional doctrine, predating Congressional recognition by nearly 150 years, through multiple versions of the Copyright Act. It likely can trump the DMCA. The question will be how far will the courts go in standing up for the intent of copyright, as opposed to authorial interests. Personally, were it up to me, I'd refuse copyrights on any encrypted or copy protected work, as being fundementally incompatable with the goals of the system.

As for cassettes, I would say no, as you paid less money for an inferior copy.

No, you can make mp3s from tape. Or even radio, which you didn't pay for at all. The quality of the originating copy is legally irrelevant. It might play a factor as to whether or not you _want_ to do this, but you certainly can.

As for Star Trek replicators, replicating stuff is not theft. Theft is typically defined as taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. Noninvasive duplication doesn't include taking or deprivation. It may yet include copyright and patent infringement.

At any rate, replicators, if we ever manage to invent them, will result in dramatic changes to our society and economy. The world of ideas -- writings and inventions -- can be a way to practice, but if we tried to apply the laws we have now, we'd surely **** it all up, and squander the great potential that such technology would have in order to protect the status quo, with all its warts.

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Vinyl is usually better quality than CD.

I'll disagree with you to the ends of the Earth on this one, but that's yet another topic that's been rehashed so much that it's almost pointless.

As for current Canadian law: you are legally allowed to borrow someone else's CD/record/tape and copy it. We have a levy on blank recording media that supposedly takes care of any losses due to this copying. So I can lend you out one of my records, you can tape it, and everything is A-OK. I think that's pretty sensible.

[Ken_F2]

Bzzt, no, but thanks for playing. The fair use analysis doesn't really care whether you've purchased the copy being fairly used. Example: parody is fair use. So if I write a parody of 'Pretty Woman' I need not buy the first copy of it, and my parody still makes fun of ALL copies of it. Fair use is concerned, in part, with economic impact of the use, but not to such a stupid degree that your claim has an iota of merit.

My comment was in the context of music and MP3s. And yes, in every case, every single one, where the court found a substantial negative impact on the market for the product, the court has sided with the copyright holder. While the copyright law itself does not assign levels of importance to any of the four criteria by which fair use is determined, the courts have recognized the fourth provision as a "trump card" in such circumstances, as in the Napster case. Certainly, if a claimed "fair use" is deemed of sufficient value, can come at the expense of the market for the product, but only to a limited extent.

This remains to be seen. Fair use is a constitutional doctrine, predating Congressional recognition by nearly 150 years, through multiple versions of the Copyright Act.

There is nothing about fair use in the constitution, thus, how can it be a constitutional doctrine? Perhaps it is a doctrine of common law, but that does not make it a constitutional doctrine in the U.S. In contrast, the rights of authors/inventors are recognized in the constitution, and in common law many centuries before, even if some of the founders did disagree with it or its application in Britain.

Beliefs held by founders that did not make it into the constitution are not constitutional doctrine; if that were the case, slavery would be constitutional doctrine, given the exception a few wanted for blacks. And those like Thomas Jeffersion have had their quotes misused in this regard; Mr. Jefferson's reservations about potential copyright and patent law, stemmed that from his fear that it would be used to effectively keep new discoveries, learnings, and science from less privileged individuals, and that hardly seems applicable to whether one has all sorts of rights with entertainment / movies. Update: Note correction above, was thinking one thing and said another.

It likely can trump the DMCA. The question will be how far will the courts go in standing up for the intent of copyright, as opposed to authorial interests. Personally, were it up to me, I'd refuse copyrights on any encrypted or copy protected work, as being fundementally incompatable with the goals of the system.

So you think encrypted material should be treated as trade secrets? The problem with that is that material distributed with encryption can still be copied through other "less perfect" means, and copyright covers far more than simply the digital bits that make up the data.

[cpt kangarooski]

While the copyright law itself does not assign levels of importance to any of the four criteria by which fair use is determined, the courts have recognized the fourth provision as a "trump card" in such circumstances, as in the Napster case.

Then the court is misinterpreting fair use. There is no greater weight put on any of the current four criteria than the others. IIRC the 2 Live Crew case -- that the use was commercial had been used as a 'trump card' by the lower courts, and SCOTUS pointed out that they were wrong to do so. As well as that the use was in fact fair. Certainly with regards to Napster, it's not as though the other three factors were going the other way. A trump card wasn't even needed!

There is nothing about fair use in the constitution, thus, how can it be a constitutional doctrine? Perhaps it is a doctrine of common law, but that does not make it a constitutional doctrine in the U.S.

Well in that case, let's discuss the Constitutional right to privacy. Which amendment was that in again, that permitted the Court to rule as it did in Griswold, and countless later cases?

Fair Use is a constitutional doctrine because it is a governor on copyright. Copyright would not be able to satisfy the Constitutional mandate that it promote progress if Fair Use were not permitted. This has been made clear pretty constantly.

Beliefs held by founders that did not make it into the constitution are not constitutional doctrine

This is a non sequitur. I never discussed the framers, the framers AFAIK were all dead by the time that Fair Use was first set forth by the courts in 1841, IIRC. Additionally, I always though that Jefferson was the founding father (though not a framer, he did exert control through Madison, with whom he corresponded) who was concerned with this. What are these Franklin quotes? I'd like to see them.

In contrast, the rights of authors/inventors are recognized in the constitution, and in common law many centuries before,

No, the Constitution recognizes nothing. It grants power to Congress to pass patent and copyright laws. It doesn't require it any more than the power to declare war compels the declaration of war. A few boundary conditions are set on what Congress may do, and that's it. They do have a lot of freedom. For example, until well into the 19th century, foreigners weren't eligible for copyrights, so sayeth Congress. Pissed off Charles Dickens to no end. Congress could do that again tomorrow.

As for the common law, you're wrong. Copyright as we know it dates back to the Statute of Anne, passed by Parliment in the early 18th century. Prior to that all that existed was a stationer's copyright, but that's a method of government censorship and aside from the name quite unrelated to any discussion since. Perhaps you'd like to cite some English cases from the eleventh to seventeenth centuries involving copyrights? I'm always interested in this sort of thing.

So you think encrypted material should be treated as trade secrets? The problem with that is that material distributed with encryption can still be copied through other "less perfect" means, and copyright covers far more than simply the digital bits that make up the data.

Not really. I think that publication means that the work is meaningfully available to the public at large, and will meaningfully enter the public domain upon term expiration. If you have a trade secret and you tell everyone, it's simply not a secret. If you have an encrypted movie and sell it at Walmart, it's not a secret either. But it's so difficult to use and copy that it isn't meaningfully available to the public, and will not meaningfully enter the public domain. Such a work has not lived up to its end of the copyright 'bargain.' It deserves no legal protection. (and given that breaking such systems could result in a free treasure trove of content becoming available to the public, I'd hope that a small amount of government funding were used to break this stuff as a public service, or at least as a bounty for the person who does so)

Less perfect means is of course total bullshit. The copyright exists on the WORK, not specific copies of it. That means that ALL forms of the work MUST enter the public domain, and be fairly usable, or else some of those forms have unearned legal protection. VHS is not a suitable alternative for DVD. In order for the work as a whole to deserve even an iota of legal respect, it must completely be accessible, and completely be enterable into the public domain. Nothing less is acceptable.

If someone wants to take their chances and rely exclusively on self-help, I don't mind letting them, but I have no desire at all to encourage them to do so. Copyright -- in a form that serves the public to the greatest possible extent -- should be the most desirable thing to authors of all stripes.

Originally posted by ReggieX:
I'll disagree with you to the ends of the Earth on this one, but that's yet another topic that's been rehashed so much that it's almost pointless.

Analogue will always be theoretically (I say theoretically because it depends heavily on the equipment) better than digital unless your digital sample rate approaches infinity, which a CD doesn't. There's more sound recorded in a vinyl LP than on a CD. That said, you have to spend a heck of a lot of cash to get a setup that plays better than CD. Most people aren't willing to drop $10,000 for a vinyl player though.

As for current Canadian law: you are legally allowed to borrow someone else's CD/record/tape and copy it. We have a levy on blank recording media that supposedly takes care of any losses due to this copying. So I can lend you out one of my records, you can tape it, and everything is A-OK. I think that's pretty sensible.

Uhm... no, it's the stupidest thing in the world. First of all, that levy does NOT make it legal to copy other people's music. It's a pathetic tax grab. Did you also know that you pay that levy on blank CDs whether you use them for music or data?

Did you also know that Shiela Copps right now is trying to extend and increase that levy on small hard disks, flash media, CDs, DVDs, etc.? Even if you buy the disks or CDs for backing up data or flash media for your digital camera, you gotta pay that stupid levy. Not only that, if it goes though, the proposed levy on hard disks ($21 per GB) would raise the price of the 10GB iPod by $210!!! Even if you buy all of your CDs and don't download anything from the net, you still have to pay the levy.

All of that, and no law has passed making it legal to copy the music - it's still illegal. It should be illegal, and we shouldn't be paying any levies that don't specify what the media is used for, or which artists collect the levy. (FYI, the collections from the past few years have yet to be passed on to any musicians.)

Please tell me what's sensible about it?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Analogue will always be theoretically (I say theoretically because it depends heavily on the equipment) better than digital unless your digital sample rate approaches infinity, which a CD doesn't. There's more sound recorded in a vinyl LP than on a CD. That said, you have to spend a heck of a lot of cash to get a setup that plays better than CD. Most people aren't willing to drop $10,000 for a vinyl player though.

Actually, anything over about $600 (NOT including the Technics 1210, which is a solid workhorse but NOT a good turntable), the turntable will beat the CD player, dollar for dollar, in direct comparison.

At a certain point (the Linn Sondek CD12 CD player comes to mind, at about $20,000), the CD player will play back *digital* recordings or masters better than a turntable. On any analogue recording-mastering, a similarly-priced turntable will eat it for breakfast, however.

Another factor: LPs are often mastered differently from the CD version. This makes sense, as the market is a different one. I've heard a couple of recent (digitally mastered) albums that are unbearable on CD, once you've heard the vinyl master.

That said, a switch to 24-bit/96kHz (DVD-audio), should it actually happen, will reshuffle the deck entirely.

-s*

[thesearcher]

Originally posted by hayesk:
All of that, and no law has passed making it legal to copy the music - it's still illegal.

Well, I'm not sure if it is considered law or not, but the Canadian Copyright Act - Section 80 is clear cut on the acceptibility.

As for the levies, I agree, they are stupid. (They seem more like a hidden tax.)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Bzzt, no, but thanks for playing. The fair use analysis doesn't really care whether you've purchased the copy being fairly used. Example: parody is fair use. So if I write a parody of 'Pretty Woman' I need not buy the first copy of it, and my parody still makes fun of ALL copies of it. Fair use is concerned, in part, with economic impact of the use, but not to such a stupid degree that your claim has an iota of merit.

Good grief, cpt kang - ken was just addressing the fair use question in the context of the specific question asked, and his statement is correct in that regard. The original poster even asked that answers be limited to the question at hand. You're correct re: parody, but parody wasn't at issue, and there's certainly no cause to insult ken. Chill, please.

This remains to be seen. Fair use is a constitutional doctrine, predating Congressional recognition by nearly 150 years, through multiple versions of the Copyright Act.

I agree with Ken that it could be confusing to say that "fair use is a constitutional doctrine." Fair use isn't mentioned in the Constitution - in fact, the Constitution refers to the power to grant "exclusive rights" to authors and inventors.

If you mean to say that fair use is constitutional because there are no specific prohibitions against it, and/or because it fits within the overall scheme, then I think that would be correct. We just don't want people thinking that it's specifically set forth in the Constitution.

No, you can make mp3s from tape. Or even radio, which you didn't pay for at all. The quality of the originating copy is legally irrelevant. It might play a factor as to whether or not you _want_ to do this, but you certainly can.

Again, I think ken's point was not that you can't make mp3's from your own cassettes, but that one reason it might be improper to download an mp3 of something you already owned on cassette is that you would not be compensating the current copyright holder for the higher value of the downloadable mp3 version, which more than likely is derived from a CD of higher fidelity than the old cassette. That's why quality might be relevant to the legal question.

As for Star Trek replicators, replicating stuff is not theft. Theft is typically defined as taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. Noninvasive duplication doesn't include taking or deprivation. It may yet include copyright and patent infringement.

The legal definition of theft is not limited to tangible property. It can include, for example, theft of services, like cable or satellite TV delivery, which is a non-invasive taking. Thus, if there were such a thing as a replicator, it could be considered "theft."

The word "theft" has a broad, generic, ethical meaning (i.e. taking something wrongfully, even if it's non-invasive, e.g. "He stole my heart"), and a strict legal meaning (i.e. the criminal definition on the books in a given jurisdiction). Thus, if a person thinks it's unethical to download copyrighted music without paying, they have the right to call it "theft" in the generic sense of the term. Of course, others who think it's ethical to download do not consider it to be "theft." That's more a disagreement over the ethics of it than the strict legality of it. As you suggest, it remains to be seen whether the courts and legislatures will define it as theft in the strict legal, i.e. criminal, sense.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Not really. I think that publication means that the work is meaningfully available to the public at large, and will meaningfully enter the public domain upon term expiration. If you have a trade secret and you tell everyone, it's simply not a secret. If you have an encrypted movie and sell it at Walmart, it's not a secret either. But it's so difficult to use and copy that it isn't meaningfully available to the public, and will not meaningfully enter the public domain. Such a work has not lived up to its end of the copyright 'bargain.' It deserves no legal protection. (and given that breaking such systems could result in a free treasure trove of content becoming available to the public, I'd hope that a small amount of government funding were used to break this stuff as a public service, or at least as a bounty for the person who does so)

Less perfect means is of course total bullshit. The copyright exists on the WORK, not specific copies of it. That means that ALL forms of the work MUST enter the public domain, and be fairly usable, or else some of those forms have unearned legal protection. VHS is not a suitable alternative for DVD. In order for the work as a whole to deserve even an iota of legal respect, it must completely be accessible, and completely be enterable into the public domain. Nothing less is acceptable.

Playing Devil's Advocate, wouldn't it be possible to satisfy both interests (i.e. exclusivity and eventual termination/public domain) by allowing encryption during the copyright term, then prohibiting it upon termination of the copyright? I'm not saying that it's the best or the only solution (in fact, I can think of problems with it myself), but it would be one way of addressing the problem.

Would you suggest that photographers should not be able to watermark their work because, 70+ years later, it would have to enter the public domain?

It's very difficult to find a fair balance of interests in these cases (believe it or not, I once half-heartedly advocated the repeal of all copyright laws ).

Originally posted by thesearcher:
Well, I'm not sure if it is considered law or not, but the Canadian Copyright Act - Section 80 is clear cut on the acceptibility.

As for the levies, I agree, they are stupid. (They seem more like a hidden tax.)

Sorry, I was replying to someone who said copying for your friends. Yes, you are correct that the Act does make it clear it's ok for copying for personal use, but not for your friends (that counts distributing) - it's covered in Section 80, subsection 2.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Owning MP3s of what you have in other media is not illegal. Trading them is (in all cases).

That's the bottom line. You can make a billion Mp3's for your mp3 player, and computer, provided you don't distribute. You bought the music for YOUR use. Not for the entire community.

You can use one copy at a time. Hence a friend can borrow a CD, but you technically can't listen to it, until it's returned.

Trading Mp3's is illegal as long as the principle of copyright, and ownership of work exists (which will since virtually all industries rely on copyright to mantain their business, such as the media industry, software, music, internet, etc.)

So feel free to burn those old cassette's and records to mp3's. There is nothing at all wrong about that... It's when you share them with others that the problem begins. You already supported the authors of the works, and purchased the ability to listen to them.


Would be nice if the record companies teamed up for a little tradein:

Go to any participating record store, give them your old record, they stamp the paper part in the middle with a seal, and a code on it.... pay a fee of $1.00 per record.

You signup on a website for a username/password. You then have access to download the mp3's (or DRM enabled format) for the records you checkin to this program.

Would be a good way to keep people interested in the classics, and find out what to make a "best hits" of... free research, (those cd's are cheap as shtick to produce too).

Won't work until the industry sets a standard for DRM and music, and it's supported by all devices... but would be nice.

[cpt kangarooski]

zigzag--

I agree with Ken that it could be confusing to say that "fair use is a constitutional doctrine." Fair use isn't mentioned in the Constitution - in fact, the Constitution refers to the power to grant "exclusive rights" to authors and inventors.

If you mean to say that fair use is constitutional because there are no specific prohibitions against it, and/or because it fits within the overall scheme, then I think that would be correct. We just don't want people thinking that it's specifically set forth in the Constitution.

Okay, let me try to explain. Constitutional doctrine basically means that the doctrine in question is based upon a reading of the Constitution, and is not statutory or common law. For example, Congress can pass a law requiring children to have to recite the Pledge of Allegience at school. However, such a law will be swiftly overturned, because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution never says anything explicit about the pledge, but the courts interpret the Constitution to mean that such laws would be invalid because they are contrary to it.

Many, many important constitutional doctrines are based on interpretation and are not explicit; the dormant commerce clause, the right to privacy, etc. Fair use is one of these. It is not specifically mentioned anywhere, and doesn't even arise until about fifty years later. Nevertheless, the Constitution is interpreted to demand that Fair Use exist regardless of whatever Congress may have to say about it. It is implicitly set forth in the Constitution.

Again, I think ken's point was not that you can't make mp3's from your own cassettes, but that one reason it might be improper to download an mp3 of something you already owned on cassette is that you would not be compensating the current copyright holder for the higher value of the downloadable mp3 version, which more than likely is derived from a CD of higher fidelity than the old cassette. That's why quality might be relevant to the legal question.

No, quality remains irrelevant. you typically cannot download a copy of some copyrighted work you own a copy, no matter what the difference in quality is. If you attempted to assert a Fair Use defense, quality may be a factor, but frankly a Fair Use defense is likely to fail even if there was no quality difference, so the point seems pretty moot.

The legal definition of theft is not limited to tangible property. It can include, for example, theft of services, like cable or satellite TV delivery, which is a non-invasive taking. Thus, if there were such a thing as a replicator, it could be considered "theft."

Of course, there would have to be a criminal statute passed specifically doing this. We don't have criminal common law. Certainly there would not be a civil tort -- conversion and trespass to chattels both require deprivation. It's difficult to conceive of what intentional tort would apply... possibly a business tort, e.g. unfair competition? Or something based on the old common law copyrights? Seems doubtful.

The word "theft" has a broad, generic, ethical meaning (i.e. taking something wrongfully, even if it's non-invasive, e.g. "He stole my heart"), and a strict legal meaning (i.e. the criminal definition on the books in a given jurisdiction). Thus, if a person thinks it's unethical to download copyrighted music without paying, they have the right to call it "theft" in the generic sense of the term. Of course, others who think it's ethical to download do not consider it to be "theft." That's more a disagreement over the ethics of it than the strict legality of it. As you suggest, it remains to be seen whether the courts and legislatures will define it as theft in the strict legal, i.e. criminal, sense.

Using the word in the ethical sense, when discussing a legal issue, is however, confusing. And in many cases I've found that the people using 'theft' instead of 'infringement' mean it in a legal sense. If someone means that infringement is underhanded, then frankly it's pretty important for them to say so more plainly than they could with loaded, multiple-meaning words like 'theft' or 'steal,' etc.


zigzag--

Playing Devil's Advocate, wouldn't it be possible to satisfy both interests (i.e. exclusivity and eventual termination/public domain) by allowing encryption during the copyright term, then prohibiting it upon termination of the copyright? I'm not saying that it's the best or the only solution (in fact, I can think of problems with it myself), but it would be one way of addressing the problem.

Not really, no. There's no way to ensure that the non-encrypted work will survive that long. Depositing it at the Library of Congress is a good start, but many works that we enjoy now were lost, and only rediscovered in the most unlikely of places. I seem to recall that one of Shakespeare's plays reappeared in a bookstore in Europe about a century ago. Imagine if it had to be 'activated' by the bard himself.

Besides which, there is no telling what demands on the work the public, the courts, and the Congress will make in the future. Unencrypted works are the best way of preserving fair use, and adherence with new caselaw and statutory law.

Would you suggest that photographers should not be able to watermark their work because, 70+ years later, it would have to enter the public domain?

Well, remember, I don't care if someone actually does encrypt their work or otherwise add copy protection to it; I only care when they do so and have the gall to demand a copyright on it. Encrypted works that immediately and only exist in the public domain are unfortunate but we have to accept that as a consequence of the First Amendment.

To answer your question better, I'd like to know precisely what you mean by watermark in this case. I can think of a couple of different things.

macvillage.net--

Trading Mp3's is illegal as long as the principle of copyright, and ownership of work exists (which will since virtually all industries rely on copyright to mantain their business, such as the media industry, software, music, internet, etc.)

Not at all. Trading copies on analog casette is perfectly legal in the US, IIRC. The principle of copyright is that the public temporarily gives up _some_ rights in order to stimulate the production of works; not because it's good for artists, but because the public wants those new works too.

Thus, if it were felt that mp3 trading were more beneficial to the public than banning trading, then trading would be the way to go. Even if this destroyed the industries you mention, as long as the ultimate effect on the public was still beneficial, it would still be the best solution.

And there certainly is no concept at all here of owning works. Even copyright doesn't do that.

Won't work until the industry sets a standard for DRM

Well, as mentioned before, I'd sincerely hope that if they touched DRM at all that we'd start stripping away their copyrights. DRM is absolutely contrary to the purpose and spirit of copyright, and must be foiled at every turn.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by cpt

Thus, if it were felt that mp3 trading were more beneficial to the public than banning trading, then trading would be the way to go. Even if this destroyed the industries you mention, as long as the ultimate effect on the public was still beneficial, it would still be the best solution.

And there certainly is no concept at all here of owning works. Even copyright doesn't do that.
[/B]

It comes down to a real simple concept, if there is no way to make cash, people won't do it no matter how many laws congress passes to force people to do the job. Hence copyright came into existance.

And it wouldn't be beneficial to the public, since over 75% of people, are imployed by companies whose profit is made off of selling copyrighted material...

75% unemployment is not "beneficial" as you claim it is... it's the collapse of the US economy.

Remember, the industrial age is of long ago, we are in the information age, the vast majority make aprofit off of information... by removing th profit, you remove the jobs...

Going back to an industrial economy will never be successful... Hence we are stuck in the information age.

[cpt kangarooski]

macvillage.net--

It comes down to a real simple concept, if there is no way to make cash, people won't do it no matter how many laws congress passes to force people to do the job. Hence copyright came into existance.

Of course, I have never proposed that Congress force people to do any kind of creative work. I'd be appalled at that sort of behavior, in fact. And of course, you're wrong. Many people create art or devise inventions simply because they enjoy it. Or can get paid for doing so regardless of any right in it. (e.g. if you commission someone to paint you a painting) Given that people _did_ create stuff prior to the invention of copyrights and patents, it's clear that they are not necessary.

This doesn't mean that we should get rid of them, however. It is entirely within reason to expect that a well thought out system of copyright and patent laws can spur more creation on without over burdening the public, and thus yield a sizable overall benefit.

And it wouldn't be beneficial to the public, since over 75% of people, are imployed by companies whose profit is made off of selling copyrighted material...

Got some basis for this very remarkable statistic? Particularly considering that at least a number of them profit off of rehashing existing uncopyrighted material. (seen a Disney movie lately?) I have no doubt that a reduction in protection would result in not only a healthier culture, but also a healthier economy.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Okay, let me try to explain. Constitutional doctrine basically means that the doctrine in question is based upon a reading of the Constitution, and is not statutory or common law . . . [snip . . . Fair use is one of these. It is not specifically mentioned anywhere, and doesn't even arise until about fifty years later. Nevertheless, the Constitution is interpreted to demand that Fair Use exist regardless of whatever Congress may have to say about it. It is implicitly set forth in the Constitution.

It's my understanding that the first case to articulate the Fair Use doctrine - Folsom v. Marsh - did not reference the Constitution at all. However, I recognize that subsequent commentators have relied on the "Progress" language to infer a Fair Use requirement. In any case, I was mostly concerned that people would infer from your statement that Fair Use was a specific Constitutional provision.

Not looking for an argument, just clarity.

No, quality remains irrelevant. you typically cannot download a copy of some copyrighted work you own a copy, no matter what the difference in quality is. If you attempted to assert a Fair Use defense, quality may be a factor, but frankly a Fair Use defense is likely to fail even if there was no quality difference, so the point seems pretty moot.

Put in those terms, I agree with you - copying via download is probably an infringement no matter what. The "quality" argument is more in the way of a rationale for copyright protection even where a consumer already owns the work, but you're probably right that it's not needed to enforce the copyright. I wonder if any cases have specifically addressed this question.

Of course, there would have to be a criminal statute passed specifically doing this. We don't have criminal common law. Certainly there would not be a civil tort -- conversion and trespass to chattels both require deprivation. It's difficult to conceive of what intentional tort would apply... possibly a business tort, e.g. unfair competition? Or something based on the old common law copyrights? Seems doubtful.

Right - my point was that both the generic and the penal concept of "theft" can encompass the taking of intangibles in a non-invasive fashion.

However, I see little reason why existing intellectual property and unfair trade laws couldn't address the idea of a "replicator." It would, after all, be a form of unpermitted copying, just via a new technology. Where information (as opposed to material goods like Hondas) is concerned, digital technology already acts like a "replicator."

Using the word in the ethical sense, when discussing a legal issue, is however, confusing. And in many cases I've found that the people using 'theft' instead of 'infringement' mean it in a legal sense. If someone means that infringement is underhanded, then frankly it's pretty important for them to say so more plainly than they could with loaded, multiple-meaning words like 'theft' or 'steal,' etc.

I agree - lay people often use the word imprecisely. At the same time, there are those (usually those in favor of free downloading) who assert that the word cannot be used except in the strict criminal sense, and with that I disagree. If a person is of the opinion that it is unethical/wrong to download music without paying, regardless of what the law says about it, then I think they should be able to use the term "theft" if it suits them. The important thing is to understand the distinctions between the generic meaning and the strict criminal meaning.

Not really, no. There's no way to ensure that the non-encrypted work will survive that long. Depositing it at the Library of Congress is a good start, but many works that we enjoy now were lost, and only rediscovered in the most unlikely of places. I seem to recall that one of Shakespeare's plays reappeared in a bookstore in Europe about a century ago. Imagine if it had to be 'activated' by the bard himself.

Besides which, there is no telling what demands on the work the public, the courts, and the Congress will make in the future. Unencrypted works are the best way of preserving fair use, and adherence with new caselaw and statutory law

. . . remember, I don't care if someone actually does encrypt their work or otherwise add copy protection to it; I only care when they do so and have the gall to demand a copyright on it. Encrypted works that immediately and only exist in the public domain are unfortunate but we have to accept that as a consequence of the First Amendment.

Yes, registration of an unencrypted copy would be one possible solution - one that is unlikely to be lost. However, not every work gets registered, and as you say it still leaves the problem of how to allow for fair use during the copyright term. If the work can't be reproduced in any fashion during the copyright term, no one will be able to use it in, say, a review without obtaining permission or going to the Library of Congress. In this sense, I agree that encryption could pose an unacceptable problem.

To answer your question better, I'd like to know precisely what you mean by watermark in this case. I can think of a couple of different things.

I'm not well-versed in the technology - I was basically thinking of the typical digital watermark that appears unless you pay for the key to remove it. But you already answered my question - you feel that if an owner wants the benefits of copyright protection, they should put the work out unencumbered. I'm not sure if that's workable in today's technological environment, but I understand the sentiment.

I happen to think that the balancing of interests in copyright law has gone too far towards the owners and too far away from the public interest, so I'm sympathetic to your position. At the same time, I'm not unmindful of the interests of owners against wholesale copying. It will require a great deal of working out.

[macvillage.net]

The industrial age started when more than 50% had jobs relating as such...

Information age is exactly the same... more than 50%.

Your proposing to remove the income of 50% of the worlds jobs.

Granted people may continue Art for the enjoyment... but where are the new jobs?


This is a problem Solviet Russia had. They tried to make information/arts government based... Art/information was authorized/funded by the gov.... They lost all the growth, and profit that we in America prospered with.

Do you really think individuals will get together and make movies? How many have the millions needed to just throw down for the art of it? How many have those resources on hand?

How long do you think Adobe will be producing Photoshop? How long with Quark for OS X last?

Lets face it, as long as we are in this age, and as long as people make money from journalism, literature, music, software, movies, television, etc.

Then again, the Republicans are leanings towards communist teachings anyway... perhaps this is their plan?

[cpt kangarooski]

macvillage.net--

The industrial age started when more than 50% had jobs relating as such...

Information age is exactly the same... more than 50%.

Your proposing to remove the income of 50% of the worlds jobs.

Again, I'd really like to see some actual numbers to that effect. I don't believe that the employers of 50% of the world or more (you previously said over 75%) make their profits from copyrights and patents. Trade secrets perhaps, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion.

Do you really think individuals will get together and make movies? How many have the millions needed to just throw down for the art of it? How many have those resources on hand?

In an age of digicams and divx? Movies are not that large of a capital investment anymore. Big-ass summer blockbuster movies, OTOH, decidedly are. BUT, it may very well be that it is not yet possible for copyrights to be optimally beneficial to society AND spur enough development that such movies can be made.

As long as the overall cultural benefit is greater, it won't bother me much. OTOH, if the overall cultural benefit would be greatest where copyrights are strong enough to encourage billion dollar movies, then that's good too.

zigzag--

However, I see little reason why existing intellectual property and unfair trade laws couldn't address the idea of a "replicator." It would, after all, be a form of unpermitted copying, just via a new technology. Where information (as opposed to material goods like Hondas) is concerned, digital technology already acts like a "replicator."

The problem that I have with this is that a replicator could -- assuming we don't kill ourselves with it -- be amazingly beneficial to humanity. Locking its potential away because it disrupts the status quo is precisely the wrong thing to do. For example, most food industries would probably die immediately -- food, including prepared food, would be easily replicable and could end world hunger overnight. (as well as other health issues if we could tweak the output to add vitamins, remove fat, change the handedness of sugar, etc.) It wouldn't bother me. Resturants could still make do as social places, but they wouldn't have cooks any more.

Really an argument against replicators, other than one based on the ability to create weapons or dangerous things with them, seems like a coalition of buggy whip makers fighting the introduction of the automobile. People's businesses are not holy cows, to be left involate regardless of how much better life could be with something that also happens to eliminate the need for such occupations. How many family farms vanished because of better transportation and more industrialized farming? I don't see many people itching to return to a backbreaking life of planting crops and cutting hay. Likewise we may ultimately wind up not needing numerous manufacturing industries after a while because we acquire godlike abilities over matter itself. I won't complain; not for that reason.

All that said, I'd be deathly afraid of replicator technology because I would expect that someone would wind up killing us all by virtue of having it. If I had a replicator, I'd be heading out into space pretty damn lickity split until I felt that it was safe.

At the same time, I'm not unmindful of the interests of owners against wholesale copying. It will require a great deal of working out.

I wouldn't call them owners, but I'm not unmindful of it either. However, we do provide legal remedies. And better yet we have a culture that still overall doesn't much care for infringement. I think that most people would in fact be happy to operate within legal channels if they offered a viable alternative to illegal ones. In part this means copyright holders treating their customers more respectfully, and making their works more convenient. It also means accepting a certain degree of activity as a cost of doing business, as more beneficial socially than attempting to curtail it would be, and not worth pursuing. This could be non commercial copying.

(For an example of this, see the anime fansubbing community. Fansubbers acquire high quality copies of anime that hasn't been picked up by domestic distributors yet. They translate it, overlay subtitles, and distribute it, originally by VHS, and more recently over the Internet. Often this is professional quality work. Once the work is acquired for distribution here, the fansubbers shut down that project and move on. The commercial distributors know about it, and perhaps even rely on it to find out what they should attempt to acquire. But to my knowledge they don't try to stop it, and it doesn't appear to have seriously impacted their business.)

[Millennium]

It is legal to rip an MP3 from a CD you own, provided that you do not give it to anyone else. Technically you cannot give the MP3 to someone even if they also own the CD; for an MP3 you have to be legal you must rip it yourself.

If you have the cassette or record, you could probably get past most courts, provided you have equipment such that you could have ripped it yourself. This creates reasonable doubt, and requires little more than the appropriate cabling if you have a tape player or turntable). Some audio-editing software would also be wise to have on hand if you take this route, so you can claim to have removed tape hiss and such by yourself.

If you bought the cassette or record years ago but no longer have it, then you're screwed, because there is no way to establish reasonable doubt that you could have ripped it yourself.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[B]macvillage.net--


Again, I'd really like to see some actual numbers to that effect. I don't believe that the employers of 50% of the world or more (you previously said over 75%) make their profits from copyrights and patents. Trade secrets perhaps, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion.

This is considered a "common knowledge" statistic. Considering it is the information age. This would never need to be cited in any works, even academically, since it is considered "common knowledge"... similar to our current president is George W. Bush. Does not need to be cited. or France is against a war with Iraq.

In an age of digicams and divx? Movies are not that large of a capital investment anymore. Big-ass summer blockbuster movies, OTOH, decidedly are. BUT, it may very well be that it is not yet possible for copyrights to be optimally beneficial to society AND spur enough development that such movies can be made.

As long as the overall cultural benefit is greater, it won't bother me much. OTOH, if the overall cultural benefit would be greatest where copyrights are strong enough to encourage billion dollar movies, then that's good too.

Much less you find new jobs for all those involved. You have yet to clarify how we can replace those jobs. If there is no possibility for profit for more than half our popuplation, how do you intend to replace that income?

The FACT is that most people are employed by the creation and trading of information. The way that is profitable, is because someone can create and own the rights to it. Hence copyright.

If your remove the source of income for say 10% of the population, you will throw the US economy into a depression unlike any beofore (remember it took far less than 10% to throw the US into the cyclical decline of the Great Depression)...

So without a source of income... what is our economy standing on?

WHere is the benefit? Who will buy a camera to make this movie? How will they buy it? With what cash?

It can't happen. Not in this day.

Your falling into the same trap many communist creators had... that the world can easily turn into a utopia.


Until your willing to give up your job and lead the way... it won't happen

[cpt kangarooski]

macvillage.net--

This is considered a "common knowledge" statistic. Considering it is the information age. This would never need to be cited in any works, even academically, since it is considered "common knowledge"... similar to our current president is George W. Bush. Does not need to be cited. or France is against a war with Iraq.

I disagree. For starters, this is a subject I am very involved in, yet I've never heard anyone claim that over 50% of the world's workers' employers profit from copyrights and patents. And common knowledge, while sometimes correct, is not that great of a basis for argument -- I'm sure you could ask a hundred people whether a lead sphere would fall faster in vacuum than an aluminum sphere, and they'd say that it would. Your claim is, I fear, wholly unsupported and pretty unique to you and not the world. If you want to keep making it, I'm going to have to insist on some kind of serious research substantiating it or dismiss it as opinion with no basis in fact. If it is true, I'd certainly want to know about it, and since you appear to have heard this someplace, you're more likely to find that out than I am.

Besides which, it's so abominably easy to find citations to indicate that, to use your examples, Bush is the President, or France's position on Iraq, that _that_ is why there's little concern over requiring a specific citation for them. Well, if it's equally as easy to point to an actual academic or governmental study, then this request of mine should be no problem at all for you to fulfill. If it is problematic, then perhaps it is not common knowledge (or at least not actually correct, regardless of what people might believe) after all.

The FACT is that most people are employed by the creation and trading of information. The way that is profitable, is because someone can create and own the rights to it. Hence copyright.

Not at all. Firstly, creation of information does not necessarily require a copyright. Patents immediately come to mind of course, as do trade secrets. The methodology by which a company does business is not copyrightable; copyrights add nothing to that. Yet it's important all the same and can often be protected with virtually no governmental assistance whatsoever. Commissioned works, and works sold by a first mover (i.e. taking advantage of the market prior to the time when the work can be copied in such a way as to provide meaningful competition) which were the norms prior to the development of copyright also do not require copyrights to be created. Other information is decidedly valuable, but not protected at all -- weather data for example, or phone books.

Besides which, you've managed to put the cart before the horse. Copyright is roughly three centuries old, predating the Industrial Revolution, much less the Information Age you appear to know so much about. Why was anyone so concerned about copyright then? Could they envision the modern era? No, of course not. Copyright originated due to a concern for, to use the language of the Statute of Anne "public learning." That's it. Likewise, initial protections typically were concerned with books, and maps. This didn't mean that other information wasn't valuable -- if you knew something about how many ships in the China trade would make it back and when you'd stand to make a fortune beyond that of any hundred authors. But that wasn't copyrightable information.

Your falling into the same trap many communist creators had... that the world can easily turn into a utopia.

Are you implicitly calling me a communist? I'm not, but I wouldn't say that I'm a capitalist either. Economic systems are, to me, tools to be used; to be discarded if a better one comes along. Capitalism, carefully regulated to keep it functioning for human goals, is the best thing we have at the moment, but I suspect that there are better systems that are as of yet undiscovered.

At any rate, I don't think that a utopia is possible. There's a reason that the word literally means 'no place.' But I do think that it is possible to make the world as good as we can -- it'll still be imperfect, there'll still be problems, but we owe it to ourselves, to our forebearers, and to our progeny, to try to improve matters.

Is it wrong that I'm not content with the status quo?

Anyway, I eagerly await your post that backs up your, to-date, unfounded and IMO ridiculous claims about the global economy.

Millennium--

If you have the cassette or record, you could probably get past most courts, provided you have equipment such that you could have ripped it yourself.

Just as a pragmatic thing -- if you're not distributing or receiving mp3s... precisely how and why would you be sued for infringement? What would ever bring you to the RIAA's attention? And if you're just some schmoe, why would they care? If your situation is such that you're keeping to yourself (or just don't have any money) you're probably pretty much not going to be sued. Either the plaintiff will never think to do so, or there won't be any point in it for him since he'll lose money just the same.

(also, reasonable doubt is only meaningful in a criminal suit; most infringement actions are civil)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Are you implicitly calling me a communist? I'm not, but I wouldn't say that I'm a capitalist either. Economic systems are, to me, tools to be used; to be discarded if a better one comes along. Capitalism, carefully regulated to keep it functioning for human goals, is the best thing we have at the moment, but I suspect that there are better systems that are as of yet undiscovered.

At any rate, I don't think that a utopia is possible. There's a reason that the word literally means 'no place.' But I do think that it is possible to make the world as good as we can -- it'll still be imperfect, there'll still be problems, but we owe it to ourselves, to our forebearers, and to our progeny, to try to improve matters.

[/B]

Minus the last paragraph, that's the preachings of the Communists of Russia's past. They just thought it was possible.

FACT is, when you include All software companies + All Television + All Movies + All Radio + All Music + All Books + All Magazines + Everything else... people loose jobs.

AOL TW alone has 81k+ Employees, and is growing. A company that thrives on copyright. All of AOL's income at this point is based on the Turner Properties, HBO, and Warner's Movie Division. Which are 100% copyright profit based.

Where does Microsoft make it's cash? Why have they been so fierce regarding it copyright? Patents are worthless, since when something is embedded in the code, courts are very blurry on what's patent infringment, and what's fair. 50k employees, not including the fact that most of the work is done by third part firms.

Adobe?

Disney: 112k documented employees. Disney is 99% based on licensing, and owning it's own work (hence it spends hundreds of millions protecting it)



And notice how we've not even touched on most indusry leaders, just big names. And we haven't even really touched on the Music industry. AOL TW has lots of labels, but all relatively small these days... They haven't turned a profit in years, and don't have plans to. Didn't touch Radio, most of TV, most of Movies, etc. Didn't even go near publishing. AOL TW dominates in magazines, but books, not by a longshot... and books are still big bread winners. Good money in the ancient arts.

Your not talking about communism, and Bin Laden isn't talking about Terororism... he's just "Thinking Differently", hence must be a Mac guy like us

IMHO if Communism could work, would be the best economy of them all. But sadly it doesn't. Would be a great system. In basic theory and heart it was. Nothing corrupt about it. How people read and interpreted it, is how it got it's meaning.

Stalin wasn't a Communist leader, he was a totalitarian dictator. Those he is often called a socialist or a communist, he really wasn't. Not by the true definition anyway.