re:new bill reduces our rights

[Hope.Munro@mac.Dartmouth.EDU]

> From: Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU
> Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
> Subject: fwd: new bill reduces our rights
> Date: 2 May 89 09:39:21 GMT

Since I work in a music library which does not circulate non-public
domain software, I feel obliged to respond to this article, excerpted
below:

> Hatch's position is that people rent software only in order to copy
> it.  I'm told this untrue--people often rent software to decide
> whether to buy it--but even when people do want to copy it for their
> own use, they are only trying to exercize another traditional right
> which had existed in copyright law for hundreds of years and was
> taken away from us fairly recently.

> It seems that there is a continuing effort to restrict or eliminate
> traditional rights of "fair use" of copyrighted works.  Whenever
> people start really using these rights, and deriving a lot of benefit
> from them, publishers try to take them away.

I was always my understanding that what they mean by "fair use" is
that a person can make an "backup" copy of a piece of software or a in
order to preserve the original.  This does not, and I don't think ever
has, allowed for a person to make as many copies as he or she desires
to distribute freely.

> The reason given by the publishers is that they make less money than
> they would if people did not have these rights.  In other words,
> they think the law should be designed to maximize their profits, and
> the interests of the users are secondary.

You must realize that when you make an illegal copy of a piece of
computer software, you are taking away part of another person's
livelihood.  I know it may seem that *the publishers* are playing the
heavy here, to *maximize their profits*.  But don't you think they are
trying to keep the best interests of their clients - ie.  software
designers - in mind?  If you had designed a $500 piece of music
software, how would you like it if the average person to be able to
walk down to the public library, borrow the program and make a free
copy?

      [	Yes, and when you check a book out of the library and read it,
        you have paid nothing to the author -- you have stolen his
        livelihood.  How would you like it if you wrote a $20 novel and
        the average person could just go to the library and read it,
        without paying you a cent?  -- |>oug ]

As for being able to *test drive* a program - most libraries have
facilities where you can do just that.  Or you can go to the
demonstration area of any software retailer.

> They have their priorities backwards.  The purpose of copyright
> (stated in the constitution and by the Supreme Court) was to benefit
> the public in general--helping publishers is just a means to an end.
> We must not let the means wag the end.

I think you've got it backwards.  The law was designed to protect the
interest of the copyright holder, not the public in general.

     [ You are wrong.  The copyright laws were distinctly formed with
       the idea of helping the public in general -- not just the
       copyright holder.  When something is copyrighted, the public is
       given certain rights to the material, as well as the copyright
       holder.  -- |>oug ]

> eventually, public libraries could be forced out of existence by
> limiting them to media which by then have become obsolete.

Are you talking about books and magazines becoming obsolete?!  I
really doubt that's going to happen anytime in the near future!

> The bill is S.198, the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act, and
> is being considered in the Copyright and Trademarks Subcommittee of
> the Senate Judiciary Committee.

You forget to mention whether or not this act involves just computer
software or if it includes recorded media.  I have a feeling that you
might be getting it mixed up with the infamous home taping act, which
I am of course against.

Rebuttals invited,
Hope
Hope.Munro@mac.dartmouth.edu