Re: [ARSCLIST] More on the Washington Post retraction re: RIAA

[Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
   
  ***The following was sent out by Garry Margolis. Does anyone know what 
is really going on here?

I am not sure I understand your question, but if you are referring to the concerns of the RIAA, it would seem that the RIAA would prefer that if you have a CD, you listen to it in your CD player and that if you want to listen to the music on your MP3 player, that you pay for a download of the MP3.
   
  Unless I am misunderstanding...which is quite likely...notions of "fair use" aside, when you purchase a recording you are buying the object, a CD, or a "digital object," the MP3 file, and not the intellectual property contained therein. For example, if one has a book in normal size print, and you want to make it available for a visually impaired individual, you would be expected to purchase a large print edition of the same book instead of using the enlarging capabilities of your photocopy machine. As with the CD/MP3 comparison, should you want to have a digital form of that book, you would be expected to purchase an ebook or PDF of the text. I would assume that if you bought an electronic version of the text and your ebook reader would let you enlarge the size of the text, you would be free to take advantage of that capability...but in the way things are going these days...who knows...well I suppose if you are allowed to turn up the volume on your music player, (unless
 you exceed the maximum db allowed by any laws regulating the noise levels in your community) you should be allowed to increase the size of the text on your ebook reader. 
   
  Karl