3 ms·
Couldn’t one argue that while there’s _minimal_ commercial viability of this work now, it’s still not zero? And that by making these available they could make i
by ramraj07 3y ago
Couldn’t one argue that while there’s _minimal_ commercial viability of this work now, it’s still not zero? And that by making these available they could make it zero?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoZero and minimal are the same thing when it costs non-minimal resources to bring something to market and reach potential customers through advertising etc. When it costs you $15 to make a $10 sale you are not losing money to abandon the market.
- mlyle 3y agoThe test doesn't require there to be no impact on the commercial viability of the work; rather, benefits exceeding the loss in commercial value of the work is one (important) factor arguing in favor of fair use.
- HWR_14 3y agoIf there is value to them, why are the copyright owners not offering a way to pay them?
- rwmj 3y agoBe interesting to know if Sony et al are selling these songs (as MP3s, rather than 78s, I'd assume) and if so how much they make. That would presumably be used to judge the actual commercial value. And this would only apply to the songs which are still in copyright - sadly not zero given they're all by definition at least 70 years old.