major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to knightmb
Re: They're plenty bright
Two words for this poll: OH PLEASE.
A total of 501 10th grade students were interviewed for this poll. 501 out of HOW many gajillions of people download -in the **AAs estimation- or is something like $100 gajillion dollars they're "losing" to "pirates." I keep mixing the two up.
In other news, I conducted my own poll and found that 100% of corporate executives thought that it was OK to buy off a politician to get legislation passed in their industry's favor and in an additional poll, another 100% of *AAs executives had absolutely no idea what fair rights use was.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | In looking at the poll I'd vote the same way.
Sure looks like if I own the CD, I could make a personal copy under the fair use provision as many times as I need one.
The poll makes no mention of what those copies are used for of if they imply giving it away (piracy). |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| said by Dogfather  :In looking at the poll I'd vote the same way. Sure looks like if I own the CD, I could make a personal copy under the fair use provision as many times as I need one. The poll makes no mention of what those copies are used for of if they imply giving it away (piracy). Yea this poll sucks on ice.
Fact is that as you say there is no mention of the use of the ripped copy, and honestly there is no violation of copyright in ripping the cd 100x for your own personal use.
This poll might or might not have been dictated by the RIAA but whomever created it is an idiot.
What I have been saying for awhile now is that they're beginning to make statements which call into question the very notion of ripping a CD you purchase for your own use.
They aren't saying it is "illegal" flat out yet, but as I see it they're staging things in such a way to almost make that argument.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by GlobalMind :What I have been saying for awhile now is that they're beginning to make statements which call into question the very notion of ripping a CD you purchase for your own use. They aren't saying it is "illegal" flat out yet, but as I see it they're staging things in such a way to almost make that argument. Actually, the brilliant minds at the RIAA have already said as much, but then typically backpedaled when they were collectively laughed outta the blogosphere.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
|
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Ahh, good call. Forgot that one.
I was actually referring to the recent case where initially it looked like they were suing over the guy ripping the CD, but in fact it was for his distribution of it. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
1 edit | reply to GlobalMind
Actually I *believe* there is. Most of the fair use doctrine established by the courts deals directly with ANALOG home recording technology, the use for commentary, research, and education. Making a copy for yourself crosses into the copyright holders duplication section of the law which gives the copyright holder rights of duplication. By purchasing the 'performance' the copyright holder has not transfered that right of duplication to you.
Many of the laws that deal with copyright seem to be more lax on analog technology and virtually strips the consumer of any protection on digital media. In fact, the way I read it, I'm surprised that DVRs are even legal.
I wrote my congressman about the need for true copyright reform and a 'consumer' bill of rights that define an owner's rights after purchasing a work. He replied with some 2006 brief to congress on the current state of copyright law.
Again, this is how I read what the brief (~30 pages). I'm not a lawyer. What struck me was, Ok you've looked out for the copyright holder... where have you given any rights to the consumer? |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| said by Neyland :Actually I *believe* there is. Most of the fair use doctrine established by the courts deals directly with ANALOG home recording technology, the use for commentary, research, and education. Making a copy for yourself crosses into the copyright holders duplication section of the law which gives the copyright holder rights of duplication. By purchasing the 'performance' the copyright holder has not transfered that right of duplication to you. Many of the laws that deal with copyright seem to be more lax on analog technology and virtually strips the consumer of any protection on digital media. In fact, the way I read it, I'm surprised that DVRs are even legal. Well the Sony Betamax case »www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htm···case.htm created the foundation for extending home video recording of TV programming to time-shift the program.
The media folks have also acknowledged - see major marco's post - that copying for your own use is OK (after they said it wasn't). Personally I think the intent to distribute is really the kicker in the whole thing.
What they're annoyed with is that they don't make money off the copyright when songs are uploaded or CDs copied and then distributed.
k.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
