Sometimes, I think most people miss the most basic issue. Making the cd's better is a nice idea, but the legality of copy protection is in question.

Copy protections may be created and invoked because congress makes copy protection laws.

Copy protection laws are legal because the constitution says that congress may create laws that will protect property/etc for the purpose of promoting the sciences and arts.

Now, the music industry is trying to imply that the artists produce better art by the amounts/terms of how they are paid and/or that the music industry provides “something” that requires high revenues that promote art and need copy protection to keep it working.

I have to disagree on all accounts.

For one, artists are always saying how their best work came at a low point in their lives. We all know that this is very true at times, so there is no argument to say there is any major advantage to getting better music art by paying them more.

The record companies offer studios for recording, distribution, advertisement and other services for the making of music. Their services do not “prove” that without their existence that the art form would suffer in any way.

We do not need their distribution. The file sharing services do a faster and better job of promoting the arts in this fashion.

The advertisements that they provide are irrelevant, as it does not insure that all art be promoted. It is a conflict of interest. They will promote those titles that are of financial interest to them, which is in direct conflict to promoting all art forms in the industry. In fact, many of the industries methods have been questioned for illegal practices because they have lists in which some are excluded for one reason or another or even certain artists are promoted above others with considerable less talent and artistic ability.

The artists have stated that the contracts that they are held to, cause them distress and that they would be more creative if they were allowed to break them and leave their existing companies. It is only logical, that by their own words, they do not need the record companies help anymore, due to the invent of the Internet and other changes in the world. These services offered by the recording industry are not promoting the art in any way that is proven more effective then not having copy protection. The burden of proof is on them to show that their copy protections promote art more then not having copy protection. They know that they do not have a true legal leg to stand on and that is why they try to bankrupt and sue anyone who challenges them. The bottom line is that after analyzing all the possible options for the music art form, the evidence clearly shows that copy protections on music do promote the art form, but that not having copy protection promotes it much more. If this case was to be taken to The Supreme Court, the record companies would bring forth piles of evidence showing that copy protections do help promote the art form of music. The opposing side would have to provide as much proof that without the copy protections the art form actually improves more. This is the nitty-gritty reality of the case. What better way to stop any proof from being gathered by the competition, then to shut down all avenues that generate honest conflicting data? Remember, the companies are not guaranteed to make money off art by The Constitution. Only if the money generated is proved to provide more and better art, then money is an issue to be considered. Unfortunately, the people with the financial recourses to take this issue to The Supreme Court have no financial interest in this case. Those that do have interest, are either looking to be paid off to go away or do not have enough money on their own to peruse the case. A suggestion would be to have several of the small parties join forces and sue together. The problem with this scenario is that there would very likely be a mole in the group by the time it got to court. They would be given hidden offers they could not refuse to screw up their own case. I.E.: NAPSTER

They must show in, The Supreme Court, that their system provides more art and better art at the same time, to the public. Otherwise, the laws in which they are operating under, created by congress, are illegal. The two values must be weighed together. It is not a matter of more verses better, but the total of both more art and better art in each situation of with copy protection and without copy protection.

It is really that simple. Napster would have won if it went to The Supreme Court. I suspect that the payouts of Napster are only on paper and that there was a payoff behind the headlines in order for them to appear as if they lost the case.

Keep it simple. The case was never heard in the court in which the law was created. Any judgment by a lower court is irreverent.

Remember that and remember that the argument for VOD copy protections falls into some of the same arguments. I think that aspects of Divxnetworks VOD are unconstitutional, although I am not currently considering fighting them in court over it.

Copy protections like CSS are also unconstitutional. This could change in the future, but that is how it is today. There may have been a valid reason for copy protections of music and theatrical art at some time in the past, I am not contesting that, but from the basic, simple and undisputed facts of distribution today from the file sharing services and the creativity comments of artists themselves, copy protections of this type are, in fact, illegal today. It is just a matter of having the case heard and represented by an honest, intelligent, well-respected and well-researched attorney.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: legman on 2001-10-10 19:58:36 ]</font>