Dan Frakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem I have with that, and the reason I would like to see the
> original text, is that this summary is prepared by the "Home Recording
> Rights Coalition" -- not exactly a neutral party. Having a career in
> public policy, I frequently see such "summaries" by advocacy groups, and
> often their summary conclusions are completely the opposite of the
> original conclusions. So it's nothing against you or the HRRC; I'd just
> like to see the original study. Call me a skeptic ;-)
Yes, I agree, there is an inherent bias and I apolgize for not being able to
provide the orignal report.
> [...]
> I did find the following in that summary, though:
>
> >Congress explicitly stated that it did not intend to restrain
> >home recording of broadcasts or prerecorded records or tapes for
> >private use.
>
> It seems to me that the pro-copying people here are trying to claim that
> copying a CD and giving that copy to a friend (or vice versa) is
> therefore not "restrained" because it is "private." But let's be honest
> about what "private" really means. Private is in your own home. Private
> means not accessible to other people. Private isn't "with your friends."
> You have sex in private, and that doesn't involve your friends (OK, it
> does for some people, but I don't think we'd call it "private" ;-) ).
Well, I think "private" includes people whom I visit and people who
come to visit me. I agree though that web based MD trading groups
stretch the definition of private (though the actual trade might still
be a personal, private exchange). So I am willing to concede that
Congress probably wasn't considering the publicly noticed, private
recording opportunities that the web allows when the AHRA was written.
Rick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
