Quote Originally Posted by noddin0ff
I disagree; they are not restricting your right to make copies. As Bacchanal suggested there are other ways to make copies. These are the same methods that have always been available for making copies...recording the analog output. Having or making copies is not illegal nor is it being criminalized. The music industry is, however, actively restricting the methods available to you.

Plus, the intent of copyright is not to create a right for individuals to freely and perfectly duplicate an artist’s work. No one expects to be able to manufacture duplicates of books they buy or art they own, or repress more LP's whenever one gets scratched. The only reason we expect to make perfect digital copies is because it is so very easy.

The purpose of copyright law comes from the U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 “Congress shall have the power to…provide for the general welfare of the United States… --To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” This clause is the only power granted to Congress in the Constitution that has a stated purpose – to promote science and art.

The exceptions to an artist’s limited use (i.e. your right to copy) are granted primarily to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts, by promoting education and learning. Not necessarily to promote your ability to create a perpetual archive of all the music you ever purchased.

Fair use is evaluated by four criteria
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Probably #2 and #4 really pertain to the digital age. Digital file sharing certainly hits these points. I confess to having lots of burned copies of CD’s that I don’t own. Maybe up to 100, I don’t know, I’ve never counted. I have 3 boxes in the basement with several hundred cassette copies of stuff. But I bought more music because they all let me hear stuff I liked, more than I would’ve bought otherwise. So maybe that means more support for artists. I don’t know. I never really considered it ‘fair use.’ I’ve always felt that I should really be buying albums and supporting artists.

As a person who has an avid copying history, I don’t like encryption or copy protection schemes. But I don’t begrudge the manufacture protecting their business by using them. I don’t think that ‘fair use’ as the law intended it is really impaired by copy protection schemes. The public has access to these materials in libraries and such.

But, Copy Protection is not the same as copyright. I pointedly disagree with criminalizing the defeating of encryption schemes. In my mind they are not the same thing. And impedes progress in science and art.

Oh, and IF you bothered to read this far…you might enjoy reading this
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
An article on the development of copyright law and the difficulty in balancing the interests of the creators vs the public and the profit motive.
NoddinOff,

What color is the sun in your world? You seem to be noddin off right here. If I can't make a fair use didgital copy to enjoy the music in a different setting (let's say because I can't really play my turntable in my car, duh), then that's insane. I've made didgital copies of analog sources (mostly to fix the pops in out-of-print LP's) and you're telling me I shouldn't have the right to do this because it is now a digital copy. And yes, I use the MP3 file on my portable player and on my computer at work too. And now I'm a criminal?

This is just one of the many scenarios where your argument doesn't wash. Fair use is not just "to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts," whatever that means in practice, and that should be obvious, if not to you, then all the RIAA members who's music I'm no longer buying.