jym@APPLE.COM (08/29/89)
> In fact, I haven't yet figured out the difference between "free > software" and "free music"; can someone enlighten me? Free software goes on disks. Free music goes on cassettes. "Free" markets are trying to ban better cassettes. <_Jym_>
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/31/89)
In article <8908282342.AA05204@nlp9> you write: >Free software goes on disks. Free music goes on cassettes. "Free" > markets are trying to ban better cassettes. > <_Jym_> Must be a free country that lets you post this nonsense and get away with it. Mart.
jym@APPLE.COM (08/31/89)
> Free software goes on disks. Free music goes on cassettes.
I've had a few comments---most private, one public---about this
statement, so I guess I'd better explain it.
We already have mostly-free music. While it is technically illegal
to tape copyrighted recording material, people do it all the time.
And it hasn't killed the record/CD industry.
Few of the people who call software pirates thieves and communists
would say the same about home tapers. In fact, I'd guess that an
overwhelming majority of people would oppose any attempt to enforce
those laws, because it would entail a great loss of freedom.
Most of the music I like is on small, independent labels, and I often
end up buying the records to support the labels and artists. But
that's my choice. If somebody doesn't like them enough to support
them---or, alternatively, can't afford to support them---should be
able to tape them anyhow. That's their choice.
A friend of Paul Simon's lent him some tapes he'd made of South African
artists. Simon listened to the tapes while driving around. The result
was _Graceland_, a pan-cultural collaboration and an international
audience for some of these artists.
If it weren't for the taping, Simon may have never heard or heard of
Zulu jive music. Those records are on the Shanachie label, which most
stores don't carry. If the music hadn't been copied in a form that was
convenient for him to listen to, he might never have listened to it.
The parallels with software should be easy to deduce.
<_Jym_>RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU ("Richard Outerbridge, Oceanography") (08/31/89)
Free Software is fine, but who needs a copy of Nelsonmandela?
jans@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) (09/01/89)
<...While it is technically illegal to tape copyrighted recording material, people do it all the time. And it hasn't killed the record/CD industry.> Re-read the Copyright Act. It is not illegal to tape copyrighted recording material for personal use. Even the powerful recording artists lobby knows this. The latest CD/DAT copy protection scheme allows *one* copy to be made of any one CD. Sounds great -- those who have a financial interest in defeating it will easily, while your average Joe will get his "extra DAT for the car" from the black market! Sigh. At least it's better than the idiotic notch previously proposed! Perhaps follow-ups belong in rec.audio? Jan Steinman - N7JDB Electronic Systems Laboratory Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077 (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703
mccoy@accuvax.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy ) (09/01/89)
In article <5858@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jans@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) writes: ><...While it is technically illegal to tape copyrighted recording material, >people do it all the time. And it hasn't killed the record/CD industry.> > >Re-read the Copyright Act. It is not illegal to tape copyrighted recording >material for personal use. Even the powerful recording artists lobby knows >this. I think that the taping that the original poster had in mind was making multiple copies or copies for friends. If you have ever made a copy of a performance and given it to a friend, you have broken the law. This is the taping that goes beyond the "free use" clause in the copyright act and that the recording industry wails about. > The latest CD/DAT copy protection scheme allows *one* copy to be made of >any one CD. Sounds great -- those who have a financial interest in defeating >it will easily, while your average Joe will get his "extra DAT for the car" >from the black market! Sigh. At least it's better than the idiotic notch >previously proposed! Actually, i think that the compromise that was negotiated between the recording industry and DAT companies was a little different. I believe that the circuit in the cassette will prevent DAT to DAT copies, but not CD to DAT. This will make mass reproduction inconvenient, but not impossible. > >Perhaps follow-ups belong in rec.audio? Probably. This is wandering a little, but current legal opinion concerning the copyright act is a very important topic for the FSF (i think :-) > > Jan Steinman - N7JDB > Electronic Systems Laboratory > Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077 > (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703 jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "...far too many notes for my taste" #include <disclaimer.h> | -Phantom of the Opera "To thine own self be true"
jym@APPLE.COM (09/02/89)
>> The latest CD/DAT copy protection scheme allows *one* copy to be made of >> any one CD. Sounds great . . . > I believe that the circuit in the cassette will prevent DAT to DAT > copies, but not CD to DAT. Either way, we're talking about a mandated electronic configuration, with the mandate specifically designed to restrict the flow of information in one's own home. That makes this subject relevant to this mailing list. Note that the FSF has always opposed these same restrictions. <_Jym_>
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (09/05/89)
Jan Steinman writes: > The latest CD/DAT copy protection scheme allows *one* copy to be made > of any one CD. Sounds great -- those who have a financial interest > in defeating it will easily, while your average Joe will get his > "extra DAT for the car" from the black market! Sigh. At least it's > better than the idiotic notch previously proposed! Buy a $2000 DAT recorder just so you can play a bootleg copy of a $12 CD? There are already vastly more affordable car CD players. Since CD's don't wear out like LP's, there's little to be gained by taping them and archiving the original. Jim McCoy writes: > Actually, i think that the compromise that was negotiated between the > recording industry and DAT companies was a little different. I > believe that the circuit in the cassette will prevent DAT to DAT > copies, but not CD to DAT. This will make mass reproduction > inconvenient, but not impossible. If true, this is terrible! If I buy a DAT recorder for my music studio to make digital masters, thanks to this stupid restriction I can't make a backup copy? Wonderful. :-(