stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to Ray
Re: A few issues with that article...
I was referring to the quote that tomsprat pointed out in the followup to your comment, not to anything in tomsprat's original comments.
Man, this is starting to get too confusing for a Friday morning 
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! |
|
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| reply to Ray
quote:
Edit: Stet, were you replying to tomsprat? In any case, I agree - making a copy for someone else IS a copyright violation.
That confused me, too, so I went back and found this in the article "interesting quotes":
quote:
Zuck and Potter say such a measure would deny consumers fair use rights, which permit copying a DVD for a friend or making a duplicate CD to take to the beach.
Yes, I agree that copying for a friend would be a violation of copyright.
I couldn't find any such quote by Zuck and Potter, nor is it contained in the proposed Consumer Bill of Rights. I wonder where it originated? Pretty stupid statement, regardless.
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. |
|
Ray
Mahnahmahna
Premium
join:2001-04-02
Mesa, AZ
| reply to stet
He wasn't talking about a copy for a friend. A "personal use" copy is for self-use only, like a backup. For example, it gets really hot here so I don't take my original CDs and leave them in the car - I take copies, while my original remains safe at home.
Edit: Stet, were you replying to tomsprat? In any case, I agree - making a copy for someone else IS a copyright violation.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-14 10:26:40] |
|
