After following the thread for a little while I thought to chime in. While
I'm not a lawyer (and from what I gather, neither is anyone who's commented
on this is, either), I've done a little searching on this slow day at work.
>From the RIAA homepage (http://www.riaa.com/musicleg/ml_ol.htm):
---
Audio Home Recording Act
This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright
violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use and eases
access to advanced digital audio recording technologies.
---
And from the minidisc homepage (http://www.minidisc.org/ahra.html) :
---
RIAA Clarifies the Legality of Home Audio Recording
The following is a part of a reply from <http://www.soundbyting.com> (a
Recording Industry Association of America site) to those who enquired
whether non-commercial copying of CDs to MD constituted copyright
infringement.
...Consumers also received something. As long as the copying is done for
noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all
analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered
devices. It is important to note that the AHRA does not say that such
copying is lawful; it simply provides an immunity from suit.
The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a
computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and
DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The
specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers
devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making
digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as general computer
or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they do not
pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means that neither
the devices nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from suit for
copyright infringement.
In summary: You cannot be prosecuted for making non-commercial copies with
AHRA covered devices (e.g. MD and DAT recorders).
---
The hurdle to winning the argument that trades are legal (and not
infringement on copyright) would be to convincingly define a trade as a
"noncommercial" exchange. While I couldn't find the governmental legal
definition of "noncommercial," I know I've read somewhere of the argment
that trades in kind are considered noncommercial. This assumes that it is a
product for product with neither parties coming out ahead--i.e.
profiting--from the exchange.
Should I have more time today I'll look into it.
______________________________________
Ferris Scott Thomas
programmer
860.409.2612
McGraw-Hill Technology Division
Farmington, CT
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
Oh, mi mala vida!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
