AM to operate after July 14?

[jtmckinley]

Originally Posted by lotus

Do we really have a problem with this, unless our normal listening sw copes with it? I do not need the recording feature, although I used it to listen to shows I was not able to attend "live".

I guess my beef with it is that in the US (and probably elsewhere as well) we have the right to record broadcast content, I think VAX cited the relevant law earlier. It's just another fair use right the media companies are trying to take away IMHO.

They've already succeeded in basically extending copyright indefinitely, which pretty much removes the public domain for future works in my view. I have no problem with content creators receiving compensation for their work during their lifetime, but nowadays corporations who purchase the rights to the works are basically able to retain rights to the content ad infinitum, I have a problem with that, they didn't create it, they just purchased the rights to it and I think there should be some limit on that lest the classics die.

For example, if that had always been the case, it's quite possible that most of classical music would not be performed today since it might be cost prohibitive for a symphony to play it if they had to pay some corporation for the right to perform it. Similarly, libraries might cease to exist. It wouldn't surprise me if they go after that next.

Another thing music publishers are doing is trying to shut down sites that collect guitar tablature like http://olga.net which I have contributed to in a small way. Even tho I figured out the tune on my own and provided a description of how to play it (perhaps incorrectly), their desire to prevent me sharing that information undermines the sharing of knowledge that the internet facilitates so well. Of course if anybody thinks I'm full of it, I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

I guess my beef with it is that in the US (and probably elsewhere as well) we have the right to record broadcast content, I think VAX cited the relevant law earlier. It's just another fair use right the media companies are trying to take away IMHO.

True. There is much case law regarding the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law -- USC 17 §107. The general consensus reported from and about this case law is that it is OK for "personal use". Now, of course, the lawyers will argue what the term "personal use" and what the word "is" means! :P

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

They've already succeeded in basically extending copyright indefinitely, which pretty much removes the public domain for future works in my view. I have no problem with content creators receiving compensation for their work during their lifetime, but nowadays corporations who purchase the rights to the works are basically able to retain rights to the content ad infinitum, I have a problem with that, they didn't create it, they just purchased the rights to it and I think there should be some limit on that lest the classics die.

Scary eh? Glad you too are abreast of what they are trying to take from us -- basic freedoms and privileges! Yessir! This is the good ol' US of Eh?.

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

For example, if that had always been the case, it's quite possible that most of classical music would not be performed today since it might be cost prohibitive for a symphony to play it if they had to pay some corporation for the right to perform it. Similarly, libraries might cease to exist. It wouldn't surprise me if they go after that next.

Next?

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

Another thing music publishers are doing is trying to shut down sites that collect guitar tablature like http://olga.net which I have contributed to in a small way. Even tho I figured out the tune on my own and provided a description of how to play it (perhaps incorrectly), their desire to prevent me sharing that information undermines the sharing of knowledge that the internet facilitates so well. Of course if anybody thinks I'm full of it, I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Now that is just completely wrong. To me, that is a violation of free speech doctrine.