Lending a book out to a friend after one has finished reading is a legitimate use of the purchased good. Once one has read the book, the book has nearly no personal use-value anymore and has some exchange-value remaining. There are many examples of friends who share books, movies, and music in this way, the only really concession is the fear of damage and so a loss of exchange-value.
Enter the modern world and digital transferance which has a higher reliability in transferance and storage than conventional physical representations. The basic idea of a legitimate Peer-to-Peer is this:
There are some movements currently to abolish the potential of such a system, but currently in Canada and many other nations, this would still be considered fair use: the exchange of one purchased good for another. The idea is that if enough people uploaded content and did not feel like watching the same movie twice, they could exchange it for something else that someone is tired of. Since Susan might not like Bob's movies, the server could arrange the exchange via the exchange credits so that Cameron gets Bob's movie, Bob gets Susan's and Susan gets Cameron's. This could all be done quickly and affordably as the number of peers in the system increases.
If there were not copies available at a time, an extra copy could be made and the right holder reimbursed at the exact cost of the original from which the copy was made. I don't personally like this idea because it would result in copy inflation at release time and then deadfall subsequently, which would complicate a simple 1-1 exchange principal. Alternatively, one could wait about 2 hrs.
Comments? Complaints?
Enter the modern world and digital transferance which has a higher reliability in transferance and storage than conventional physical representations. The basic idea of a legitimate Peer-to-Peer is this:
There are various mechanisms for accomplishing this in an effective way, but are overly technical and I would like to stay away from describing them here. It is implicit to the legitimacy of the collective (under current exclusive rights law) that the original purchaser "destroy" the original. The exact meaning of "destroy" varies by nation, in Canada for example, the original could be kept in trust for the current possessor in case of file corruption, hard drive crash, and so on.A person uploads an original paid for work into the collective, "destroys" their copy and receives a certain exchange credit. A person with exchange credit can take possession of that work at which point it becomes accessible to no one but the new possessor.
There are some movements currently to abolish the potential of such a system, but currently in Canada and many other nations, this would still be considered fair use: the exchange of one purchased good for another. The idea is that if enough people uploaded content and did not feel like watching the same movie twice, they could exchange it for something else that someone is tired of. Since Susan might not like Bob's movies, the server could arrange the exchange via the exchange credits so that Cameron gets Bob's movie, Bob gets Susan's and Susan gets Cameron's. This could all be done quickly and affordably as the number of peers in the system increases.
If there were not copies available at a time, an extra copy could be made and the right holder reimbursed at the exact cost of the original from which the copy was made. I don't personally like this idea because it would result in copy inflation at release time and then deadfall subsequently, which would complicate a simple 1-1 exchange principal. Alternatively, one could wait about 2 hrs.
Comments? Complaints?