Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MPPP - MP3.com -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dumbmoney who wrote (994)	4/30/2000 3:06:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1116

Dumb, Fair use applies in cases that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Dumb, allowing the duplicating of information given the author's permission applies in cases that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Similarly, fair use is not copyright infringement. It's not a loophole, it is explicitly NOT copyright infringement by design. The rule doesn't apply in the cases you mentioned, so obviously the exception is irrelevent. Well, it would be more accurate to say that you haven't grasped the cases I mentioned, therefore you find them irrelevant. You didn't grasp the irony in my example. That was the whole point. Let me clarify this for you: the makers and sellers of scanners and copiers profit from the ability to reproduced copyrighted information. The makes and sellers have the potential to impact sales of that same information. THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CREATING THE COPIES, RATHER, THEY ARE SUPPLYING THE EQUIPMENT. Now, I know you agree with that last statement, and by extension you have to at least consider, whether you can comprehend this or not, that MP3 is supplying the equipment while the end-users are creating copies for fair use. To argue that's not fair use is to re-invent the definition. I wasn't suggesting copier manufacturers were violating the law, YOU implied that with your poorly thought out example. You were suggesting MP3 was violating the law using facts that applied perfectly to the makers of scanners and copiers. Now, if you want to argue that the initial set of CDs that MP3 bought and stored on their servers was copyright violation I am open to that. Right now, I disagree that it is copyright violation. They bought the CDs and used that information to optimize the upload process for users who themselves also had the right to that information. It's a matter versus information argument, again. That alternative requires that you suspend common sense and embrace stupidity rather than refute it. The alternative implies that you do not understand the nature of information and that you can't comprehend the distinction between matter and information. The alternative is to waste the user's time and the public's bandwidth by transferring the same information, even though it is known to identically exist on the host machine. We're talking information here: it's not just an equivalency, it's an IDENTITY.