I agree with your interpretation of the "no longer a consumer" excuse to
crack down on mass-producing Thriller. But don't you see how this same
logic could be applied to making *two* copies? - you are now a
manufacturer, not a consumer. When they say consumer, they mean a person
who is going to use it for personal use AS A CONSUMER. This means that I
must use my dupe of Thriller for the same purpose I would use the
original of thriller - as a consumer, for my own personal use. (I know
this is a specious argument, but the record labels could argue that they
own their copyright protection under ancient elven law and still beat
you in court. They knew this when they made this phony "concession".
Don't fool yourself - they can still fuck you.)
Besides, this passage only says you can't be sued for using the machines
or the medium. But as any copyright lawyer will tell you, its the
*contents* which are copyrighted, not the medium. Thus, you could
probably still be sued for HAVING and for USING the copy, maybe not for
USING the machine to make the copy. It also says "under this act" which
could mean that you could sue under other acts. And of course, this is
only america - we have international copyright trade agreements which we
must stick to. we are not China, you know.
The rest of the Act speaks to "how do artists get paid then?"
and the answer is, essentially, a tax on all digital recording
media and
devices.
I think you mean "a tax BREAK on all digital recording media and
devices", which enables labels to pay their artists more. This seems to
work only to the advantage of artists who work for labels who benefit
from the tax breaks.
Could this act possibly mean that I have no copyright protection for the
music I make myself, put on CD, and release on my own? I doubt it. But
this interpretation implies this.
-CF
quoted 24 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam J Weitzman
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
> distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio
> recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog
> recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of
> such a device or medium for making digital musical
> recordings or analog musical recordings.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> With regards to giving away 10,000 CD-R's of _Thriller_, I imagine
> Sony
> would argue that by pressing up 10,000 CD-R's of something, you are
> either (a) no longer engaged in a "noncommercial" enterprise, or (b)
> no
> longer qualifying as a "consumer," and so you could be sued for
> infringement of copyright in this case.
>
>