the radio station pays for the song the same way that the first person did that uploaded the song, so whats the difference??
2007-09-27 13:39:21 · 6 answers · asked by MrAtt.net 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
even better -- why is it wrong to download music (which keeps the artist from receiving cash) but not wrong to get books at the library (which also keeps the author from receiving cash)?
2007-09-27 13:44:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The difference is in recording some music from a BROADCASTER and recording music from a DISTRIBUTOR.
It is legal to record from a broadcaster (radio station), but illegal to record from XM Satellite Radio (distributor), for instance. The difference is that a broadcaster does not intend to make money from the music it broadcasts...and a distributor intends to make money from the music it distributes.
Here is a website which explains a recent lawsuit involving Capitol Records, Inc. and others against XM...and the judge's ruling.
2007-09-27 20:53:53 · answer #2 · answered by artistagent116 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The issue is one of fair use. Just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean it is forever uncopyable.
There are limits and exceptions, grouped under "fair use" The entire debate surrounding music and film downloads is entirely about Fair Use.
That is where the libarary exemption comes in too. Same for xerox copies.
The purpose of copyright and other intellectual property rights, as listed in the Constitution (really!) is to grant a LIMITED monopoply in order to incent creation that is for the good of everyone.
Good places to research:
1 - Wikipedia - copyright, intellectual property, fair use, and some of the links you wil find there
2 - chillingeffects.org
My gf's niece just enrolled in the dorms of UCLA as a freshman last week, and I was appalled at the lack of information about intellectual property rights that the students are given, and the amount of big brother watching they aree willing to accept from the school as a proxy for the music companies.
2007-09-27 20:53:03 · answer #3 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My problem has always been ---why did the BIG music industry giants go to court against share wear and recording music when THEY make a LOT of their money SELLING recording devices...????? If SONY complained that it's illegal to record, maybe I should take my SONY tape recorder back? It's it a tad hypocritical for a company to sue over using recording devices that that SAME COMPANY manufactures and sells?????
2007-09-27 21:43:19 · answer #4 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Money this is the answer . Everything is converted to business.
Very Good Question
2007-09-27 21:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by Richard 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats also Illegal, just worst quality
2007-09-27 20:44:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋