🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.003412.10710@news.columbia.edu>,
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>
>    I believe that copyright must be anchored in the concept of harm, or it is
> of no value to society. We believe that copying and distributing other's work
> is bad. But when it is bad, it is so because of harm, and not because of some
> idealized model of human behavior.
>
> This, of course, is not a legal argument.  [...]

Sure isn't. Copyright is founded on property law - i.e. right to own something.

>  However, noone obeys all laws all the time. I feel that copyright law
> should be treated as every other law. If you feel that what you are doing
> does not harm anyone, then  continue to do it.

You may argue that I'm not harmed by you using my house when I'm not (and
let us assume you don't generate any bills for me to pay  :-)   ).  Does
that analogy make the argument simpler to understand.

Anyway, the right to claim that using something is harmful stays with the
owner of that something. You may of course have a different view, but you
cannot claim that the argument isn't a legal one.

>   To show harmlessness, I hope to show that the images posted to a.b.p.e 
> are not really in competition with the works they originate in. The first
> feature is completeness.
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>   A.b.p.e doesn't compete with Playboy (for example) because noone ever
> posts the whole magazine. Or even a whole pictorial. [...]

First, some of the pictures are copyrighted by someone other than the magazine.
Some magazines also make business by selling pics to others. Thus you may harm
the copyright owner even if you don't harm the magazine by reducing the number
of sold copies. Second, you cannot compare copying pictures with copying text. 
Third, to claim "fair use" when distributing a picture on the net (i.e. very
different from making a few xerox copies) requires that you use it as a part of
something. Posting just the picture is not, even if you spent a lot of time
scanning the image. You may, however, include a copyrighted picture in for
example a critique of a magazine and survive in court.

>   The second feature is market coverage. I want to compare this with posting
> commercial software to the net.
>   The users of the net are very interested in pornography. This shows that
> the demographics of porn users covers that of usenet users (predominately
> young males). But the demographics of usenetters(computer nerds) doesn't
> cover pornography. The percentage of users of pornography that have access to
> usenet (even indirect) is small.
> [...]

Assuming your analysis of the Usenet readership is correct I cannot see how
your argument is valid. Usenetters are a potential group of buyers. And more
important, publishers are users of the electronic media. If the copyright
owners would never use the net you would actually have an argument.

>   The third feature is timelyness. Compare and contrast a.b.p.e to a generic
> book, and to clarinet.
>   Pornography by it's very nature is ephemeral. [...]

Not true. Pictures, pornographic as well as others, are recycled and the good
ones will have a long lifetime. A picture may be used by several magazines in
several countries for a long time. A picture is indeed long lived.

I do not claim much knowledge of the porn industry, but these people have made
an investment paying models, studio rent, photographers et cetera. They want to
maximize return on investment. If they can reuse pictures or film footage they
sure will. You may feel that it's a rip off, and you're probably right. It's
probably the essence of the business.

News from a news service is different, and copyright law in at least Norway
deal with this kind of property separately.

> Exactly how much value is in last month's Playboy?

Don't know about the magazine, but for the pictures you can call a picture
bank and ask them.

>   Fourth is the physical state of the copied work. [...]

The correct term is medium and I mentioned this above. First, the publishers
do use the electronic media themselves. That means you're competition. Second,
the reduced quality of a scan does not remove the copyright. It's derivated
work.

>   Last is unorganization. Anybody still here?
> [...]

Didn't get the last argument, but the `net' isn't an organization that can be
made responsible - sure. You cannot sue, but there are a lot of sites out there.

---
Haakon Styri				*** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research