Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.
you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.
i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.
bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.
i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.
|
you continue to misunderstand. When you go to see a movie, you are taking in the visceral experience of the art, not just occupying a seat. You are not just paying for velvet and air conditioning. You are not paying to look at the film canister with the studio's label. You are watching a movie - ART.
and again, the legality of making a copy of music, film, painting, etc. lies in the DISTRIBUTION, not the copying. My copy for my personal gain is acceptable and legal. It's the same as photocopying important documents, papers for my classes, family photos, etc.
I just think you are so hung up on the knowledge that not having this ease of obtaining materials is so detrimental to your comfort, that you are swimming upstream to fight it. It really is so simple.