The Audio Home Recording Act directly says that noncommercial copying by consumers is lawful.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Even if there were no illegal copying, the advent of digital distribution will put a lot of stress on the movie and music industry. When the distribution costs comes down, that puts more price pressure on the rest of the cost.
Actually, attorneys say, copying a purchased CD for even one friend violates the federal copyright code most of the time.
Given that you'll never be able to prevent copying, the question is, what can you do to minimize it? What can you do to make consumers happy enough with legitimate use of the system that they'll be willing to pay for it?
There's no harm being a copycat. If someone else is doing a good job, copy. It's free.
We need to differentiate between commercial piracy - where criminal organisations produce illicit DVDs on a huge scale - and domestic, unauthorised filesharing, which may or may not be detrimental to overall sales.
Napster's only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster's users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.
People should just buy a CD and rip it. You are legal then.
People who get to express their voice are paid by the people who make profit from it. So they're going to make you believe you have to spend your money buying these products otherwise you won't be happy. This is really wrong. Especially the implication it carries.
There's this thing called compulsory licensing law that allows artists through the record companies to take your music at will without your permission.
Hollywood and the recording industry argue that current law permits the copying of songs and movies, and sharing them on the Internet. This enables young people to grow up learning how to steal.