Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
I would argue that a photocopy is nowhere near a "perfect" copy. It's bulkier, uglier, etc. That's why it's perfect for "fair use": copying the little smidgen of the whole that you want. And there's a significant cost associated with it: 5 or 10 cents a page.
|
Well, if we're going to get that deep into the analogy, it's worth pointing out that mp3s and wmas are far from perfect copies of CDs. So what we have is akin to illegal copies of legally duplicated material in the public library--an illegal xerox of a legal xerox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
With digital files, you copy the entire thing, it's free, and it's a perfect copy, identical to the original. It would be like the library having a digital on-demand press in the basement, cranking out bound copies of books and giving them away to whomever wanted them.
|
Actually, the analog of the digital on-demand press would be widespread transfers of very large cd-image ".iso" files... (of which I've never seen on a p2p network) complete with liner notes in .pdf format. Like a xerox copy of a book, a bunch of mp3s still falls far short of a perfect copy of the original CD.
Quote:
|
I think that will be a fascinating discussion. I also wonder at its relevance: how does "the good outweigh the bad" have any bearing on whether the described activity is legal or not? That seems to indicate a decision based on outcomes, not on interpretation of the law.
|
When the Sony Betamax was challenged under similar grounds, the courts found that the primary (legal) use of the recorders (to delay programming to be watched at a later time) outweighed the potential for the device to be used illegally. This was part of the justifcation for deciding in favor of Sony, and one of the points raised by the current Supreme Court when questioning the p2p lawyers in the present lawsuit.