Scyth, you're quite right.
I have to disagree with you, JS. It's time to stop beating this dead horse. Like Scyth said, Fair Use Law does not differentiate between perfect and analog copies. A copy is a copy. I think the biggest mistake people make along these lines is comparing P2P file sharing to giving a couple of copies to family and friends. This is incorrect on many levels. Fair Use applies in special circumstances. First of all, you are NOT allowed to make copies for family and friends. You ARE allowed to make limited copies (of tracks and in the form of compilations). You ARE allowed to make (unlimited?) copies for PERSONAL use (ie, for media backup, for use in car stereo, walkman, upstairs entertainment room, etc). And while I do not know the exact wording of Fair Use Law, I do know the spirit, and no where does it say you can make unlimited copies for friends, familly and half the known universe. Using this 'family and friends' argument shows either naivete, ignorance, or malicious intent to sidetrack legitimate debate. It's FUD, plain and simple.
No matter how much you'd like Fair Use to allow wide-open P2P file sharing of copyrighted material, it does not, and repeating it over and over will not make it so. The only thing it could possibly accomplish, is to push the RIAA and related interests to make the law crystal clear by outlawing all file sharing and non-explicitely allowed fair use, period (read: DRM).
|