the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

I don't care how you spin it, if you are making unauthorized copies of someone's copyrighted material, you're a thief. If an artist, or other copyright owner, were to give you consent to copy and disseminate, then okay. Otherwise, it's simply wrong to share/pirate/bootleg or whatever you call it. Digitally speaking, you either have permission, or you don't.

So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Michael

So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.

I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...

Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...

First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

I'm not defending the RIAA in the 6 and 80 year olds being sued cases; however, these cases go beyond the 'fair use' doctrine of copying for self use consumption.

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.

Let's hope so. The RIAA, like the US governments, exists for its own benefit and not for those it purports to benefit.

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.

I can sum it up in 2 words: Slick Willie. First he approved PL 105-147 [H.R.2265] known as the No Electronic Theft Act in 1997 and then signed PL 105-304 [H.R.2281] known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in early 1998. These neo-socialists furtively undermine the US Constitution all the time! I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I?

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I?

As opposed to oil companies & 'security' contractors? But that's a discussion for another website.