Re: Stallman Admits to Copyright Infringement
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 07:16:35AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> 47. How much of someone else's work can I use without getting
> permission?
>
> Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is
> permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes,
> for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and
> scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use
> of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical
> notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use
> qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.
>
> No matter how broadly you read the "fair use" exception, it does not
> cover Stallman's actions. "Fair use" applies to copies that do not
> take the essence of the work. Making a complete and perfect copy of
> the original by definition is not "fair use."
that's not strictly true. criticism and review are valid fair uses, so
it could be argued that my friend has a right to copy my CDs to evaluate
them and decide whether s/he wanted to purchase their own copy.
i must admit that (when i spent a few days playing with napster earlier
this year), this is exactly what i used it for. i downloaded some songs,
listened to them and bought my own copies of CDs containing the ones i
liked. i bought 6 CDs in about a week. by contrast, the sum total of my
CD purchases for the preceeding 5 (yes, FIVE) years amounted to 3 CDs.
i didn't buy CDs for everything i downloaded - i don't waste money on
crap i don't like. similarly, if i listened to a CD in a shop or at a
friend's house and didn't like it, then i wouldn't buy it.
using napster in this way allowed me to find music i liked, AND actually
know what the song was called and what the band's name was (two facts
which are pretty much essential when it comes to buying some music).
so, far from costing the music industry anything, napster gained them
sales that they would not otherwise have had.
i think that my use of napster definitely qualifies as fair use (i.e.
review), but i don't really care whether this is legal or not - it
is both moral and ethical, and i have no problem with doing it or
with anyone who does it. if napster wasn't such crappy software (and
a hideously crappy protocol, WTF didn't he just build on existing
protocols and use HTTP???) then i'd certainly have no qualms about doing
it again.
> Furthermore, Stallman's purpose in making the copy is not to help
> educate others on the content of what he copied.
listening to something is a pretty good education in what it is.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: