Skunk;211676 Wrote: > Even that requires authorization from the copyright holders, no? I was > under the impression that we were only 'allowed' to make analog tape > copies, and that "The making of back up copies for personal use has > never been held to be a per se noninfringing use. 2003 Rec. at 106-08." > (i)
That's why I said "the contention is..." The reality is that there's no specific grant of rights to make an MP3 (or FLAC or OGG, etc) copy, just as there was no specific grant to make a tape copy of an LP to play in your car. The premise is that you paid for right to play the song and the medium for playback is NOT part of copyright, so transcribing/translating the work so you can benefit from your purchase was not considered to have infringed on the rights you were granted. You would violate the law if you gave the copy to someone for them to use. It's the big pink elephant that no one wants to talk about. Current copyright laws are not designed for a global, interconnected economy but the RIAA, MPAA, etc. don't want to mess with them, for fear they might lose the pretty tight control they have. If you read about the debate that went on around copyrights, Congress was well aware of the monopoly they were granting, which is how the whole set of fair use provisions found their way into the law, as well as the statutory rights grants for things like performances (including radio). If copyright were to be revisited, depending on the makeup of Congress at the time, it could be significantly altered in ways that would not be a benefit to current copyright holders, who actually have it pretty good under the current law. -- JimC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JimC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9428 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36487 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
