|
Do you really think there is a public need for free music? That's not a guaranteed right, the ability to hear music created by others.
There is no common law remedy to copyright law, these are mostly things that are established by federal statute, and the courts mostly fill in the gaps. Thus, you're not going to get out of breaking the law simply by saying that a lot of people think you should be able to. There is nothing unconstitutional about copyright law. Which means get your legislature to change it before you break it or understand that you are bearing the risk.
|
Don't get me wrong, I think artists should be paid for their services, and I don't have any delusions about whether popular opinion
is law or not. My point was only that it
influences and sometimes informs law.
I
don't think the solution is to keep the public uninformed about what exactly they're buying. MP3s are the best possible solution to that right now, since many labels refuse outright to have streaming versions of the whole albums available to listen to, or other alternatives that allow people to preview what they're paying for. There seems to be a movement against informed consumers, which, as a music enthusiast, ticks me off, and certainly doesn't make me want to spend any more money unless I know where it's going. (Relatively speaking.) I mean, I pay for CDs all the time. I fully plan on buying Alter Bridge's new CD the next time I'm at Best Buy because I listened to the album beforehand. But only because I like it enough that I think the artist and the people who support that artist deserve my 13 bucks.
As it stands, copyright law is not unconstitutional. You're right. But "copyright law" as a monolithic entity may well form into "physical media law" and "electronic media law," each with its own set of rules and regulations. If it ever comes to pass, this will not have been done in a vacuum.
Most amazing jew boots
85241
35212
Skexis