DrDawkinstein Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 Just because people continue to break the law doesn't mean the legal issue isn't settled. completely not being a smart ass, but... link?
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 i really want to believe you on this. but i'd think this would have been settled back in the cassette days then? You'd think...but nope. Laws existed, I believe, but simply weren't enforced. Probably because it just wasn't as big an issue back then, for bandwidth reasons. How easy is it to share a cassette tape pre-internet as opposed to electronically now? It just wasn't as big a deal back then, because the loss (hypothetical or otherwise) wasn't nearly as great.
KD in CA Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 completely not being a smart ass, but... link? I'm not being a smartass either, but link I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was pretty basic stuff.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I'm not being a smartass either, but link I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was pretty basic stuff. lol, while i appreciate the link, im more so coming from the grey area that the consumers are caught in. you're right that is should be pretty basic stuff, but the way it has worked out over the past 30+ years, it's not. we have seen plenty of messages warning us against bootlegging the material. and i get that i cant copy and sell it. but for the most part, i'm under the impression that if i buy a cd, i can do what i want with it. im not buying a single user license like i would with software. that is not how it is packaged or sold. so if i buy a cd, i should have the right to make a copy for my friend. whats really funny is that the artists agree with this. the consumer agrees with this. the only people against it are the record companies who themselves screw anyone and everyone for as much as possible.
Pete Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Just because people continue to break the law doesn't mean the legal issue isn't settled. More laws just give cops more power. Fact
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Just because people continue to break the law doesn't mean the legal issue isn't settled. Civil disobedience. It will never be settled. I don't agree with some of the laws. If people feel the same way they too should be in active revolt against them... Whatever I get in sanction, I get.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 You'd think...but nope. Laws existed, I believe, but simply weren't enforced. Probably because it just wasn't as big an issue back then, for bandwidth reasons. How easy is it to share a cassette tape pre-internet as opposed to electronically now? It just wasn't as big a deal back then, because the loss (hypothetical or otherwise) wasn't nearly as great. Yet, the precedent has been set. They didn't care then, !@#$ them now. The more people band together... The more the courts can get tied up and bogged down to a grinding halt. Same thing with other things... Like debtor revolt. The problem is people are just to easy now... Make the scumbag lawyers work... Be a fly in the oinment.
bartshan-83 Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 As a "scumbag lawyer" (although by no means an expert in Intellectual Property), I'd say Tom's description of the situation is the most accurate. Buried somewhere in the link that KD provided, you'll find Section 106 of the Copyright Act which basically says that it is the exclusive right of the copyright owner to make copies of his work and redistribute them. You are obviously free to sell, lend, giveaway the copy you legally purchased...but you are not allowed to burn a CD for a friend. Also as Tom said, consideration is not an issue; you don't need to charge for your copy for it to be an infringement. There is a lot of litigation history on this issue...just never aimed at consumers until recently. And it's likely always been a cost/benefit analysis. Until recently the "consumer" has never posed a significant enough threat to the copyright owners to warrant expensive, individual litigation.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 As a "scumbag lawyer" (although by no means an expert in Intellectual Property), I'd say Tom's description of the situation is the most accurate. Buried somewhere in the link that KD provided, you'll find Section 106 of the Copyright Act which basically says that it is the exclusive right of the copyright owner to make copies of his work and redistribute them. You are obviously free to sell, lend, giveaway the copy you legally purchased...but you are not allowed to burn a CD for a friend. Also as Tom said, consideration is not an issue; you don't need to charge for your copy for it to be an infringement. There is a lot of litigation history on this issue...just never aimed at consumers until recently. And it's likely always been a cost/benefit analysis. Until recently the "consumer" has never posed a significant enough threat to the copyright owners to warrant expensive, individual litigation. thanks for shedding some more light on this. i appreciate the post.
Fezmid Posted April 22, 2010 Author Posted April 22, 2010 You are obviously free to sell, lend, giveaway the copy you legally purchased... Of course the RIAA tried to stop that a decade or so ago as well... I believe that's where the contempt for them as an organization began.
bartshan-83 Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 thanks for shedding some more light on this. i appreciate the post. No problem. By the way, I cut you a break and only billed you 0.2 hours for that. When you get a chance, feel free to PM me your address where I can send the bill.
bartshan-83 Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Of course the RIAA tried to stop that a decade or so ago as well... I believe that's where the contempt for them as an organization began. What are you referring to?
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 No problem. By the way, I cut you a break and only billed you 0.2 hours for that. When you get a chance, feel free to PM me your address where I can send the bill. lol, familiar, our consulting firm bills like lawyers too. ill keep this in mind for the next time you have a computer question and we'll just do an exchange of services.
KD in CA Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 More laws just give cops more power. Fact Very true, but it's not the cops that are the problem, it's the CongressCriminals. If I was Emperor, I would probably repeal >90% of the "laws" in this country.
WellDressed Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 The same folks that make the medium (DVD ROM-DVD-R) already swim in the same pool.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 So, if someone copies their CDs to hard drive and doesn't share them with anyone, just keeps them on a hard drive, are they in violation?
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 So, if someone copies their CDs to hard drive and doesn't share them with anyone, just keeps them on a hard drive, are they in violation? if it was up to the RIAA, yes, you would be. as far as they are concerned, just the act of ripping the CD is proof that you are going to copy or redistribute. they've already produced CDs that are "unrippable".
dickleyjones Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 they've already produced CDs that are "unrippable". there is no such thing, and the recording industry execs are foolish to think that they could EVER shut down piracy. Instead of suing their customers, perhaps they should find new ways of generating cash with their assets. They won't, tho, and may die in the process. Not sure what is going to happen, but there is a big movement towards artists independently releasing their own material. IMO, that is a great thing. I'd rather pay for a CD knowing that most of the $ goes to the artist and producer, instead of execs.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 there is no such thing, and the recording industry execs are foolish to think that they could EVER shut down piracy. Instead of suing their customers, perhaps they should find new ways of generating cash with their assets. They won't, tho, and may die in the process. Not sure what is going to happen, but there is a big movement towards artists independently releasing their own material. IMO, that is a great thing. I'd rather pay for a CD knowing that most of the $ goes to the artist and producer, instead of execs. one of the last CDs i ever purchased (not including those that i buy at shows directly from the band) had DRM on it that prevented it from being ripped. wish i could remember the CD, it was so long ago. but i remember that when you put it in a computer, it would load as a data disc with some crappy promotional video file only. i remember it because it was the thing that really spurned me from wanting to buy CDs ever again. completely agree with the second paragraph. that is why i try to purchase CDs of smaller, up and coming bands directly from them at shows. they usually get a much bigger cut that way. even better if they can get more of the money too.
dickleyjones Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 one of the last CDs i ever purchased (not including those that i buy at shows directly from the band) had DRM on it that prevented it from being ripped. wish i could remember the CD, it was so long ago. but i remember that when you put it in a computer, it would load as a data disc with some crappy promotional video file only. i remember it because it was the thing that really spurned me from wanting to buy CDs ever again. yeah, there are ways to rip those. of course, you could always do it the old school way and dub the CD. point is, it can't be stopped.
Recommended Posts