Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> wrote:
Does this mean that enforcing copyright laws basically means dis-allowing experiences similar to those triggered by the "actual" recording?
I don't think it has to be this broad to cover the mp3=copying issue. You can draw a continuous line from the original performance through one or more automated processes intended to reproduce said performance (recording, encoding, printing the CDs), and at all steps along the way the newly-created data is said to be a "copy" of the original. There is nothing particularly special about lossy methods of deriving new data from old, since it's the fact that it is so derived that makes it a copy. It's a violation of copyright to translate a book into a different language and sell it as your own, even if the two languages are slightly at odds with regard to, e.g., their colloquialisms (i.e., the translation is "lossy" in some way). It's about the chain of derivation, not the subjective experience. IANAL, and I don't know if these arguments are "right" in any particular legal context; take this as nothing more than musings on the definition of a copy. -- Riad S. Wahby rsw@jfet.org