On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:46 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Shawn Quinn wrote...
This reminds me of something else: to a computer, playing is simply a form of copying, the output is simply a video card and/or sound card. Isn't this is, in fact, what makes computers so powerful, that they simply obey instructions without asking questions? Isn't this why every attempt to block "unauthorized" copying has failed in the end, because the reality is that if it can be played, it can be copied, because playing *is* copying from the point of view of the computer programs?
That's part of my gist.
Indeed, I had wondered if that's some of the same stuff you were getting at.
I guess what I'm asking is, in the digital age does "copying" make a lot sense legally?
Maybe not.
OK, there are a few clear cases: If I take bitstream X and replicate every single bit precisely, that's "copying". If I take bitstream X and losslessly compress it and then transmit it (along with instructions for decompressing it, this latter potentially out-of-band), then I am "copying".
It need not be lossless compression and it need not be the entire bitstream.
After that I'm not convinced "copying" makes any sense. In other words, if "copying" is to mean anything besides what a bunch of Men with Guns say it is (because a big fat media company told them that), then it needs to be defined clearly. And if it can't be defined clearly then the MwG are merely MwG and the more strongly anti-state cypherpunks have a new insteresting argument: A law ain't a law (in the classic sense) if you can't define it.
As I said before, if a "sample" is copying, how small a sample are we talking about?
I think the test is "large enough to be identifiably part of another previous copyrighted work". It could even be some portion smaller than a second, if someone can identify this drum beat as being from, say, Loverboy instead of Aerosmith, AC/DC, Motley Crue, or one of a countless number of local bands. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>