[Gllug] Re: Anti-DRM event in Central London tomorrow!

[Simon Morris]

On 30/09/06, Leo Hickey <hickey444 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Another example was someone who
> remixed Beatles tracks without permission and was not allowed to sell
> the remixes. So what? why shouldn't the Beatles be able to say they
> don't want these remixes sold? I'm leaning towards agreeing that content
> providers should not be allowed to dictate what software or devices I
> use to play music I've purchased, but Lessig does not discuss this.

In this particular case there is a slight difference. The Beatles
White album was released in 1968 and there was no US federal copyright
protection for sound recordings until 1972.

There is no legal basis for not allowing the Gray album to sample the
Beatles music but recording companies are able to enforce *their* law
through technology.

And anyway... Culture evolves rather than is invented overnight. The
Heavy Metal scene of the 1980s \m/ evolved from the Punk scene of the
1980s and Grunge music evolved from that

</discloses musical taste>

Traditional copyright law protects artists from people stealing their
work and the artists of the last few decades managed to defend their
rights using it.

DRM protects copyright law that exists now, and laws that don't exist
and also excludes fair use.

Thanks

-- 
~sm
Jabber: sm at jabber.fsfe.org
www: http://beerandspeech.org
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug