You speak as though all three examples are subject to the same laws; they are not.
A: A puppy can pee on a newspaper because in doing so, it doesn’t reduce or alter the quality of imparted information. It does not challenge the words of the author. It does not change the meaning or articulation of the writers words. It merely renders the delivery mechanism unusable. It does not incur loss to the newspaper owner, and written news has a very limited scope of copyright anyway.

B: You already have the right to modify the sound of the music so long as it does not compromise the messaging in the music. The right to change bass, treble, or do simulated encodes for surround are compulsory and do not need to be covered by law, because it does not take away profitability, ownership, nor expression as pertaining to the artist. You also have the right under the DMCA and Fair Use to make a copy of a song and compile it onto one CD for your own personal use, so long as you don’t duplicate that CD for the benefit of others or at a profit to yourself.

C: You may buy a book and start ripping out pages. You may scribble in the margins. Because neither infringes on the writer’s right to free speech, nor does it alter the meaning and intent behind the words in the book. Were you to take the book and EDIT the book and then pass it on to others to be copied, sold, or any other form of redistribution, then it’s illegal because you’ve altered the writer’s words, expression, and intent, and stolen their right to free speech.

In all of the above cited examples, different copyright laws apply. The DMCA doesn’t apply to news or books anyway. But the bottom line of all three is that the embodied property remains that of the writer regardless of what you do to your copy of it. Remember, that’s all you have is a copy of their work. And you don’t own that, you merely have permission to use it based on your purchase. EULA spells out pretty clear on software that you may not modify the software. (or even decompile the code)

How can there be too much protection for ownership of property, physical or intellectual? I don’t understand that concept. If I own it now, I should own it forever. As far as I’m concerned, for as long as someone can profit from my creative work, it should be owned by someone that I designate.
My Voice, My Choice. Authors of any art possess and should continue to possess the right to always control their expressions. Paintings, sculptings, written word, film, video, music; these are all expressions of emotion, political leaning, outrage, beauty, and experience on the part of the author. To modify that is to steal their experience and expression of that. No one has the right to do that.
In America, you may say ‘tom-aaay-to’ and I might say ‘tom-aaah-to’ and that’s OK, and a good thing. But when you force me to say ‘tom-aaay-to’ or worse, steal my right to say either one, then it’s not America anymore.
The moment you take away that right from one, you must take it away from all. Otherwise, words like the “N” word would be illegal, and not even African-Americans could use it. Why not pass a law against speaking Spanish, Navaho, or French in the US? After all, it’s the US.
Why not take Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and edit it’s meaning so that it benefits his enemies? Why not take a great film like American History X and modify it so that it’s no longer an anti-hate film but rather becomes a recruiting tool for the KKK?
Because to do so violates free speech. No matter how much you hate what someone has to say, you always have the right to:
>Not bring it into your home
>Turn your head
>Argue with them
>Boycott them
But you CANNOT remove their right to say what they wish to say. And that includes deleting scenes because YOU deem them offensive, or deleting words because you deem them offensive or unnecessary to the picture or music. We went through this same thing in the 50’s folks! Book burning was very popular. Thank heaven Congress acted upon it. No group without undergoing due process has the right to determine what is or isn’t offensive. Just because we have the technology doesn’t make it right.
In the case of my former web home, I had a choice; put up with my words being modified to suit someone else’ agenda, or walk away. I ran away. It cost me dearly, cost me many friends and people I considered family. But principle wins out over profit any day for me.

Walmart refused to carry certain artist’s music. Therefore, because of the power of Walmart, artists now do a “W” mix for Walmart, and a mix for the rest of the world. The ARTIST chooses the content, not Walmart. The ARTIST is given the responsibility and right to make those decisions IF he/she wants his/her music to be sold in Walmart. THAT is what it’s all about. Perhaps, one day, Spielberg, Lucas, Soderbergh, Cameron will do a Walmart edit of their films. But not until it’s profitable to do so.
Everyone likes a car wreck. Everyone slows down to see the mangled steel, gore, perhaps the bloodstained sheet, and then they go home and tell everyone “ooohhhh, I can’t even tell you about it, it was so terrible.” If it was so terrible, then why do people look?? Because as a society, we are fascinated by tragedy. So Hollywood panders to that and expresses in very real ways, what people want to see based on their daily and buying behaviors. Real life directs Hollywood and then Hollywood directs real life. If you (as a society) don’t like it, don’t buy it. If enough people cast their financial vote, Hollywood will change. Witness the disappearance of cigarettes from most films and almost all televisions shows.
C’mon guys, you can all see the danger and logic in this frame of mind. If we let the camel get his nose into the tent, who is to say where it stops? If it happens, it grants a foothold to the group with the most money to start determining content, ala the Moral Majority. They might have a point, but I sure don’t agree with everything they say.
Yes, JR, I’ve given this a lot of thought. Growing up in a small culture and having been a member of the Association for the Prevention of Racism for the past 18 years has given me much reason to consider this long and hard. I’ve been a victim of hate crimes more than once. I’ve seen the severe damage of hate crimes to families. At a certain point, I lost my son as a result of hate around him when he was 14 years old. So yes, I’ve thought long and hard about this.
I don’t care for what my enemies say, but have to defend their right to say it. Because I never know when they might take steps to silence what I have to say. Freedom sometimes hurts.
But it’s my voice, and should always be my choice.


Billy and John, this discussion has been pretty civil, and it should remain so, please? Otherwise it spirals off into nastiness and both of you are better than letting that happen. Could we kill the name-calling? Passion doesn't require provocation.

Actually, it's 70 years, and you aren't understanding the laws correctly.
Right to copy music is one right. The right to sync it to video is a sync license, and those are not compulsory. The publisher has the right to determine whether they want to issue a sync license. We recently won a lawsuit against my former publisher for allowing an HBO sex show to use my music in the background. I would never have allowed a sync license for that show had I been notified. But, when BMG bought myformer label, Windham Hill, they didn't take into account that some publishing deals were not pro forma, and so allowed the license. Even though my agreement with Windham Hill prohibited it.
My voice, My choice.

You again confirm what I've said about YOU John. In my opinion you're an obnoxious bore that likes to pretend that he God's gift to video editing.

Your constant grandstanding which you engage in is obviously some vain effort to impress. Your instance to engage in personal attacks time after time shows you to be both to be petty and vindicative.

Unfortantely for you, I detest people such as yourself. Always have. Because you're a bully, and you obviously enjoy attacking people verbally. I on the other hand enjoy dethroning crackpots, blowhards and buffoons. Which best describes you, I'll let others decide. Till now I've been gentle with you. No more.

Obviously you don't like me. You never have. I recall your first unprovoked attack where you ripped into me when I expressed my thoughts on some things I didn't like about DVD-A in that fourm. Odd that you found it necessary to attack me, since you yourself engaged in some antagonistic, hostile, rancorous, virulent language about DVD-A yourself shortly after. That does make you a world class hyprocrite in my book.

That you willingly engage in confrontations encouraged by other posters (if true) as you claim is a sign you haven't grown up John. While I'm guessing you are as old or older than I am you are very much the little boy hell-bent on revenge. I will defend myself anytime you or anyone else posts the kind of self-serving crap you just did.

Just so you know John, let me make it crystal clear. From the beginning I noticed that there are many smart experienced people posting here. Some are "professionals" others hobbyists and still others somewhere in the middle.

While I have the highest respect for true professionals like DSE (SPOT) I hold windbags like yourself in contempt because there is nothing professional in how you conduct yourself with you constantly injecting you have 30 years experience and always talking down to people and assuming few if any know what you know.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you do know a lot about video editing. Somewhere along the line you got it in your head us mere mortals should bow down and worship what you say because you keep telling us you know so much. Sorry, my prayer rug is at the cleaners. I haven't and won't worship you or anyone else. That I reserve for God, and God you're not.

What I know I share. I post here simply to help people and I do try to focus my answers more towards those that are just starting or don't have a big budget to blow on equipment and software. It seems to me you post here only to stroke your ego and constantly remind us about your 30 years experience. Sorry, I'm not impressed by blowhards.

Contracy to what you claim you DO seek out and attempt to nitpick what others say. Now you stoop to posting the contents of some claimed email you claim you got that's also critical of me. I thought GG had a ego problem. Actually he does. Compared to yours, you're in a league of your own.

Hi SPOT. I understand why you try to stand between John and myself, when we seem to be butting heads way too often. Its just that I've had it with the John's unprovoked and constant personal attacks. Enough is enough.

Back on topic.

I think we agree more than disagee on copyright issues. What opened my eyes was the thread some time back about Happy Birthday of all things. To me its mind-boggling that such a "song":

Happy Birthday to you...
Happy Birthday to you...
Happy Birthday dear XXXXXXX
Happy Birthday to you.

Count them that's 5 words repeated. Sung by millions everyday around the world. That such a ditty ever enjoyed copyright protection and that it still does and that the owner expects a royality if sung in public is so far beyond common sense its hard to believe anyone can support or defend it even on principle.

So that in part is why I think current law is so absurd and totally ridiculous. That doesn't mean I think a song you wrote or say something like God Bless America shouldn't have protection.

What I see is a crying need for better defining FAIR USE. Someone ripping-off a real song (sorry, nobody will ever be able to talk me into accepting Happy Birthday or others like it is a "real" song) is one thing. real music is something else.

Also any artist taking the extreme position that hey you don't like it don't buy it or don't listen and no you can't ever change it also I think anyway is way out there. Because we both know what we're really talking about is MONEY. As I asked you in another question the other day if Artist A records, and then B, C, D, records they all make a buck and everyone's happy and I bet most times Artist A don't give a rat's ass if the song changes tempo, whatever, as long as he profits.