Canada deems P2P downloading legal

TalkBack 9 of 41:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Only Buys Government Beuracrasy at Your expense

without taking the risk of being competitive in the use of digital utility within copyrighted works.
Supposing your band a,and you want to market YOUR music as a given class of digital feature.This is unique to YOUR music,YOUR set up,YOUR publication to the outside world. Then you have another band b-z that does none of this type of feature set (given ANY of the rhetoric about copyrighted works used from their own resource EVER gets out).

What this sais is that band a no longer has any feature within its relationship of its chosen marketability.And that its capacity to equivalize its own relationship to the digital utility against those b-z artists that don't position the same as band a within that 'creation of itself.(although most likely they are going to anyway when they take a listen to themselves).

It is said that through this law -its aboriginal makeup,is that the connection between the utility digital offers,and those that choose to compete through it no longer exists to artists,or consumers who would choose to participate through that advantage.

Instead,the law simply goes on to have everybody pay these monies for something that in fact should have the copyrighted works paying them for ! Copy to an MP3 - the artist pays the patent portion of that.Copy to hardrive - the artist pays the IP on that. But mostly the ideal is kind of certain bliss because it inevitibly sais that communication in kind is dependent on a part of a majority who is willy to have there relationship monitored for the copyright agenda wich has yet to face a reality of competitive advantage within the digital realm,other than the same monopoly of communication for those who should have the choice of reaching that goal of advantage in communication.

Maybe this agenda fits the copyright 'class '' of communication. But it doesn't fill the relationship of the person in the choice of it when they have one. None for the person of use of copyrighted works,nor for the person of the copyrighted works (the authors) as well.

Because maybe some authors would choose their own way of distributing the new relationships outside of the 'managed business liscence concept.RIAA is conducting this business relationship as long as the technology is based on something RIAA recognizes - and this has never been in the interest of those that would choose to use them.It would be in the interest of those that choose NOT to use them.

So the idea then is to victumize communication on the basis of creating a 'class of innocent priveledge via an over every 'royalty that could be assumed as one. Perhaps that 'class exists,perhaps its doesn't.

There is more meaning to this than meets the disc,or the retail store. If the market does not offer copy as a feature of the copyright - then way should the market pay for something they have only a demand for and no control or representation for.

Hopefully that market gets some of that representation. Maybe some of that stuff will go around.

But it wont be at the back of hodepodging our communication so that security equals guilt before innocence.

The reason there is to 'include artist (download) and include artist (upload),which representation is illegal through copyright law to those copyrights that would choose to do so ?

The reason there is to 'include person of use (download) and include person of use (upload),which representation is illegal through copyright law to those copyrights that would choose to do so ?

Nobody has to read the relationship of the IP involved within MP3s . The idea is do you or do you not have the right to communicate the performance of copyrighted works.? Is the work going to choose that for anybody ?

Only written law is making this apharent to artists through copyright law.Right and Wrong.And with this the law is creating the person of use Right and Wrong.

But it couldn't be any clearer that a monopoly exists for the preposition of royalty against value in wich the relationship is as well clearly on the persons of uses side.

This is fact.Is there fault in this ? Maybe you better get some representation for your money. Cause if you just want a meter maid in your headset this is everything you could have made for yourself.

None of this technology is from a past preposition of any of those (if not many distributers). And ALL of them are listening.

Copy as a feature of the work.Communication as a feature of the work.Storage as a feature of a work. All of this now is a detail of where the meter is running ?

For what the artist,the consumer,or the government beauracrosy.

There is just no level in the law for copy as a feature of the work.And their isn't any level within the law for rational fair-use for esthetic performance of works. Nor is a person of use decided by law to be representative of a law. It is only law that is making these royalties !

It should be the artists,the digital utility,and the works themselves composing what the market is asking for .

This cures representation out of peoples pockets alright.No reason to pay for your stuff anymore.Their uniqueness in their utility is represented by what the government says they are.

I could query for less.But I can still ask for more.


-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 12/12/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now