Glen "Wiley" Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:57:02 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:


Cool! Write a certified cheque for 1 dollar and send it to whomever
you think should get the royalties.

If they cash it, or not, you can produce it in court as a
demonstration of your good intentions. It's a lot more than a
legitimate owner might expect to get using a publishing company.

A co-op might pool the proffered funds, with the intention of
seeking an attourney to disburse the funds. CAPO might help. We'd
need an administrator. Copyclub.com should do.

That should assuage your concience, and Judge Judy.

Trade away! Publisher's agent's lawyers chase commercial printing
press bootleggers, not guys like you.


Your last point seems to be that it's alright as long as you don't get
caught? OK. I don't think I'll respond to that. It doesn't seem to
be a profitable avenue for discussion and I expect you didn't really
mean it that way.

This is mostly intellectual interest on my part -- I don't really care
what the OP does and I'm in no position to act holier than thou. I've
doubtless done worse things.

But I've at various times been a musician, a photographer, a writer,
and a programmer of commercial software. As such, I tend to identify
with the problems of the copyright owner more than the average guy
does. It's a little bit different when it's *your* copyright being
abused.

I will point out that there are hundreds of file traders being sued
here in the US as we speak by the studios. Sending a dollar to some
random individual affects your legal standing not one whit. When and
how a copyrighted work is released is at the sole discretion of the
copyright holder. "Good intent" and the state of one's conscience is
entirely irrelevant. In other words, Judge Judy would send you to the
guillotine. But you're probably right that the OP will get away with
it. I hope so, anyway. Right now, the punishment does not fit the
crime, IMHO.

Your co-op idea is interesting. It would only satisfy the legal
issues to the extent that studios, publishers, etc. decided to
participate. According to copyright law as laid down in the
constitution and reinforced by piles of legislation and international
treaties like the Berne convention, we don't get to dictate to artists
how their license agreements work. But it's hard to see how it would
be a bad thing for them.

I'm aware of at least one co-op run by authors to license electronic
versions of their out-of-print works at very reasonable rates.



URL?-----------------------------------------------------

Yes, all they need issue is a key number, and maintain a private key
for an account that wants permission to run it again, from the
net. Why bother with hard copies? A local copy would decrypt if it
had today's private key, and the account data maintainance would be
the responsibility of the seller. Tiny transactions is the key, a
single packet, a cookie, a penny player decoder ring, so to speak.




Seems
like a good idea. Studios should look into that. They'd get to make
a little bit of cash off their catalog without having to press dvds
and distribute them.

Right now the system is broken and being propped up by bad laws like
the DMCA and bad technology like MacroVision or the Sony root kits
that have been installed on some unknown number of PCs without the
owners informed consent. Oh yeah, and lawsuits.

Copyrights and patents are the basis of free enterprise innovation.
There needs to be incentive (readrofit) to create and publish
original works, but it makes no sense that the OP should be in
violation of federal and international law (enforced or not,
enforceable or not).

Wow, that turned into a rant. I've been thinking about this lately
and it all just spewed out. Sorry about that.

Obligatory cruising content: this discussion also applies to
copyrighted charts.

More Obligatory cruising content: under the DMCA, the shape of a
boats hull is now considered copyrighted material.

Glen "Wiley" Wilson usenet1 SPAMNIX at world wide wiley dot com
To reply, lose the capitals and do the obvious.

Take a look at cpRepeater, my NMEA data integrator, repeater, and
logger at http://www.worldwidewiley.com/

My mum used to say society was like a pendulum, first too far one
way, then too far the other.

I'm not out to steal or even trade copyrighted material, but think
there must be a way to get a working copy guilt free when the legal
avenue is a train wreck. Just try to find out where you should send
the artist's share.

Artists get screwed too much in my mind, and mostly by lawyers.
They won't chase the little guy because there is not enough in it to
make news about some rich star screwing a fan. A penny a megabyte
sound fair, or at least ball park.

The info on governemet charts belong to the taxpayer, and should be
priced to recover reproduction only to tax payers, plus a royalty
for non tax payers.

All the artists have to do is make the info available, I am sure
they would benefit from having a co-op site where their publicist
contact was available. I would be very happy to find a site where I
could download music, movies, games, recipies, whatever, and drop a
dime to the owner. Even a dime from every user would be better than
the screwing they get from most agents, etc.

They could call it the Soft store, u pick copyrights, whatever. To
combat hi per transaction fees, the enemy of penney stores on the
net, would be to maintain pay (ahead?) as you go accounts for users
willing to put in a buck to get started, or owners willing to give a
sample for free, and a secure logged in sofware button that popped
up asking "10 cents to continue?" That way, they's be doing most of
their own banking, and as we all know, the banks' charges kill small
business, like taxes.

I commisserate with you, as I am a musician and share ware guy
never-was. I would prefer to be a has-been collecting half what was
due, and frankly think that people are mostly honest, if they can
afford to be.

The perfect shape for boat hulls has not yet been discovered, and I
say discovered guardedly, as it is already defined by the logic of
the universe, considering the variability of conditions, if only we
knew where to look. Finding perfection is not the same as inventing
one step along the way, I guess. There is a hard arguement in there
somewhere. No boat shaped like any part of a fish should be patentable.

Terry K

Patents expire for a reason.

I'm just a simple guy that wants to watch a movie.
If someone (copyrightholder or studio) doesn't sell it anymore, then I
have a right to get it any way I can. They obviously have no further
interest.

Times are changing, and it serves the music industry right. They had
the option, many years ago of selling music legally, one song at a
time, so we could buy what we wanted to hear, not what they wanted to
sell us. They CHOSE not to, and artists allowed it to happen.

Thus, they lost control, and will probably never recuperate. The good
artists are managing to do just fine regardless.

We are now just about there with movies and satellite TV and software.

JMHO, of course.

The point being, I wanted to watch an old movie (Nate and Hayes), and
couldn't, because it is no longer in print, and none of the movie
rental places carry it.

So I got it, and am willing to copy and trade it for another.




On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:21:13 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:

Glen "Wiley" Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:57:02 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:


Cool! Write a certified cheque for 1 dollar and send it to whomever
you think should get the royalties.

If they cash it, or not, you can produce it in court as a
demonstration of your good intentions. It's a lot more than a
legitimate owner might expect to get using a publishing company.

A co-op might pool the proffered funds, with the intention of