Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 28 January 2003

Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.

From: Peter
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Copyright

Your points on USA appearing to seek to dominate world
affairs are well made.

Aardvark also hopes our NZ "government remembers just who
they're elected to serve".  This is timely as our govt is
seeking submissions on digital technology and copyright law.
http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/position/index.html

There have been significant shifts in copyright law around
the world in recent decades, but these favour the big
American corporations and disadvantage consumers, artists
and artistic progress in general.

Submissions to the NZ govt review close in February, so I
encourage people to read the position paper and make a
submission.




From: Mark Ross
For : Right Of Reply (for publication)
Subj: USA / NZ Trade Deal

I'd be far more concerned about the USA pressuring NZ to
change it's stance on the nuclear issue, rather than worry
about copyrights...

In some cases, we in NZ might be better off in terms of
copyrights, if we adopted the US approach.  In particular I
am referring to the US "Fair Use" rights, which we do not
enjoy here in New Zealand.  This means if I buy a CD here
in NZ, I am NOT legally allowed to:
1) Make a backup of said CD, in case the original gets
scratched (CD's are quite fragile compared to other
mediums),
2) Copy said CD to Minidisc, which is my preferred format
for on-the-road travel, or
3) Make a mix CD of selected music tracks from albums that
I have legally purchased.

All of these activities are legal and perfectly acceptable
under US Copyright laws.

So, while I concur that the US pressuring tactics are a
concern of mine, I think we have bigger issues to worry
about such as our stance on GE food and the nuclear issue.

Aardvark Responds
What good is it being given "fair use" rights under US Copyright law when
the recording industry equips its disks with copy-protection and
any attempt to reverse-engineer or circumvent that copy-protection is
a breach of the DMCA, carrying a stiff fine and long jail term?





From: Steve
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Copyright

I fail to get as upset about copyright as you and some
others on here do. Businesses have every right to copyright
their works and expect, even demand, that users will not
copy what you have purchased.

Yes, and even if you did purchase it legitimately, you will
still need to purchase another if you dropped it and it
broke.

Like others here, I also have a good collection of music
CDs but have not copied a single one, each is purchased,
not copied.

I suggest that copyright is a good thing, not bad. It means
that people who produce CDs, whether they contain music or
a program that someone has worked years to produce, it can
be sold and they can benefit from their work.

You would complain if someone took a program you wrote (you
used to be a programmer), and made numerous copies.

As you point out, the middle man, in this case being the
record companies, will often make a bundle for their on
going investments and marketing muscle - but if the
artist / programmer / originator does his or her homework
and employs specialist advice, they will also make a lot of
money for doing nothing after handing over their works.

Supporting copyright supports the right of every person to
make something of their own hard work. Let it happen.

Aardvark Responds
If music CDs were treated like software CDs then I'd fully agree with you.
If a client was silly or unlucky enough to accidentally damage a disc
containing software they'd bought from me then I'd replace that software
for the cost of the media and handling -- thereby acknowledging that the
actual IP they'd paid for was still covered by the original purchase price.
Unfortunately the music industry doesn't adopt the same sensible and fair
attitude. Instead, they demand that you purchase an entirely new copy of
their product even though you may have only scratched the disk on which it came.

One argument proposed by the recording industry when faced with this complaint
is that CDs are like books. If you destroy a book you won't get it replaced
for the cost of the paper and printing -- to which I'd say that the difference
is that it's a thousand times harder to accidentally destroy a book than it is
to render a CD unplayable. I've lost several CDs to "wear and tear" but even
a book which has cracked bindings and coffee-stains can still be read.

What's worse, copy-protected CDs are particularly susceptible to damage from the
scratches that occur in every-day regular use, so CDs are getting increasingly
fragile. Given this, why shouldn't we have a right to make a backup copy? Some
people have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in their CD collection, don't
they have a right to protect that investment?





From: Cliff
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: MP3s and the great 'copy protection' debate.

This CD copying/MP3 issue gets up my nose. What backward
thinking.

I do a lot of cycling and my trusty MP3 player is a
constant companion whilst riding. Now as far as I'm aware,
I can not yet walk into a music store and buy a disc worth
of MP3 files. So I'm going to continue to create MP3s of
those songs which I legally obtained, and listen to them
myself in a format that is handy.

I cannot see who the hell is being hurt by me doing so. I'm
not distributing the MP3 files, I'm simply moving them into
a format that is practical for the activitiy I'm partaking
in.

I have already bought the CD to make the MP3 files, so who
lost out? The artist and record company will hopefully take
their cut from me purchasing the album.

I long for the day when the music industry decides to sell
MP3 versions of albums in store. I'd expect them to be
cheaper as the quality is a lot less than normal, and
packaging could be skimped on to save costs. Perhaps they
could have MP3s at different levels of quality (128mbps or
160 mbps etc)

I'd be happy to pay $10 for a 'no frills' MP3 version of
the albums I buy. They'd make a killing off me. So what is
the problem with doing so? If they make it cheap enough, I
wouldn't waste my time downloading files, or ripping MP3s,
I'd just go and buy the damn things.

I can hear RIANZ screaming out that

'people can copy and distribute MP3s over the internet'

Blah. People can copy ANYTHING (especially if it's
digital). At the end of the day, the digital format comes
back to zeroes and ones and there is nothing that can stop
a binary copy being made of anything. Stop worrying about
it and make it affordable enough that people wont waste
their time downloading or ripping. If the recording
industry had clipped the ticket just 50c for every MP3
download, I'm sure they'd be happy. So based on that logic,
why not sell MP3s at a low cost to take up the slack
against the 'lost' revenue.

Piracy will NEVER be fully stopped, but your average Joe
Bloggs (such as myself) is not interested in selling copies
of anything he/she owns. I simply want the freedom to hear
the music I buy in a format that I find practical.

MP3s CAN benefit the artists.
-----------------------------
I recently tried to buy an album that is now 'out of
print'. I found an MP3 version of it online, and now I can
at least listen to it. I'm sure the artist would be happy
that I got to hear his music, rather than know that I
couldn't get hold of it anymore cause the label/distibutor
didn't think it was worth printing anymore.

I know this artist is releasing a new album some time soon
and, as a result of me hearing his earlier work, I will be
buying his new stuff when it's available. If I hadn't been
able to hear those 'illegal' MP3s, I may not have decided
to part with my money.

Hit Reload For Latest Comments

Now Have Your Say