Quote:
|
Originally Posted by B-Line
Just to go back to the original arguement, when you buy a CD, that is what you are buying, a CD. No where in the sales agreement does it say that you are buying the use of the intellectual property in what ever way you see fit. We take for granted that in the past, we have made tapes, stored on computers, and used it in whatever way we see fit. But since that has effected the business model because of theft, it needs to somehow correct.
|
Again, I disagree. Now I'm not a lawyer (so those of you who are can chime in), but when the Supreme Court ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. the Court "seemed to imply" that copying programs on video tapes was fair use. I say "seemed to imply" because many folks have made that interpretation. [Again, we now see that the invention of the VCR, and then the DVD player, actually helped the movie industry's sales.]
Now, the makers of Napster and other similar file-sharing programs have lost their cases, even though they probably tried to compare their technology to VCRs and video cassettes. However, I would think that copying CDs that you paid for to your iPod is more analogous to the details of the "Betamax" case and should be considered "fair use".
File-sharers were probably unsuccessful in their case (and comparison to the Betamax case) for a number of reasons, including 1) you can't prove who actually paid for the song (but here, I bought the Dave Matthews CD) and 2) sending the song to someone else doesn't fit the definition of time/space shifting (the reason to record TV programs to watch another day or to put music on your iPod to take with you to the gym).