MD: Titling MD via Newton
Is there any software for titling a MD deck on a Newton PDA? via IR? I have a old 3 year old Newton 2100 w/ 8MB of ram. This is my main mobile computer as I check my email and use the web on this thing. tk - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MD binder sheets
Does anyone know where I can get those plastic sheets that hold MD disk? The sheets have 3 holes so you can place them a standard 3 ring binder. I have a couple of these and need some more. Where can I purchase these? tk - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: DAT Store Year-End Super Sale!
The DAT Store in Santa Monica, California is having its most super end-of-year demo sale ever! Lower prices than ever... FREE SHIPPING on any item ordered in 1999...(in US) Full manufacturer's warranties on all new demo items... And... many of these demos are like new! Sony MiniDisc MDS-JE700 home recorder demo $194 MDS-PC1 computer-controlled recorder demo $294 MDS-B1 PRO STUDIO (NO SCMS) demo $494 MDS-JE510 home recorder demo $94 MZR-55 portable recorder demo $244 MZR-37 portable recorder demo $174 MZE-35 micro-portable player demo $194 MZE-33 micro-portable player new $134 MZE-P11 portable player demo $94 MZE-40 portable player demo $94 ZS-M1 MD/AM/FM remote controlled desk system demo $194 MXD-D3 CDMD recorder /w 4X dubbing new $394 demo $294 PRO CD Recorders Marantz CDR-630 new $594 demo $494 Tascam CDRW-5000 new $694 demo $594 used $494 Tascam CDRW-4000 new $794 demo $694 used $594 (4X pro duper) Tascam CDR-D-400 new $394 demo $294 (computer 4X CDRW writer) Marantz CDR-640 new $1394 demo $1294 (CDRW /w remote) Marantz CDR-620 demo $1294 (w/ remote and SCSI port) Pioneer PDR-500 new $394 demo $294 (consumer, works /w swap trick) Philips CDR-765new $394 demo $294 (consumer 2x duper) Portable DAT Recorders Sony PCM-M1 new $654 demo $594 Sony TCD-D100 new $644 demo $594 Sony TCD-D8new $594 demo $494 used $394 Sony TCD-D7 used $294 Studio DAT Recorders Fostex D5 new $594 demo $494 Sony R300 new $594 demo $494 Sony R500 new $994 demo $894 Sony DTC-A5ES new $794 demo $694 (consumer/5-year warrantee) Sony DTC-700 new $494 demo $394 (consumer) Panasonic SV3700 used $594 Panasonic SV3800 demo $794 used $694 Tascam DA30mkII used $494 Tascam DA20mkII demo $594 Tascam DA-302 demo $994 (2X dual-well DAT recorder) *wow!* Tascam DA-40 demo $894 (replacement for DA30) Tascam DA-45HR demo $994 (24-bit recording) Sony Digital-Dolby 5-Channel Stereo Receivers (all 100WPC) STR-DA30ES demo $394 (5-year warrantee) STR-DA50ES demo $494 (5-year warrantee, touch-screen remote) STR-DB830demo $394 (2-year warrantee) STR-DB930demo $394 (2-year warrantee) Plus special year-end prices on accessories, headphones, cables, lank DAT tape, MD's, CDRs, mini-DV tape, digital cameras and DV camcorders, DVD changers, and everything else in the store! The DAT Store (310) 828-6487 11am-5pm Mon-Fri pacific time or email[EMAIL PROTECTED]for orders or more info Thank you! --Gary __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Legal issues aside, you're wrong about this. People *are* losing money. If you record a friend's CD onto an MD, you're getting the album for free. Forget about the record company for a minute: the *artist* is losing money. The "fine" you keep ranting about is completely irrelevant because even when a fee is included in the cost of a MiniDisc, the artist whose album you just copied will never see the money. So people *are* clearly losing. No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. If I buy the CD the artist makes money. If I copy someone elses the atist makes *no* money. If I don't copy someone elses but don't buy the CD myself-- the artist makes *no* money. So the artist loses nothing. Thats what I was talking about originally. Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music helps CD sales rather than hurting it. I agree with that. I never for one minute said doing so was legal, just that theres nothing wrong in my opinion. It's not impossible that I might, having played my MD copy a few times decide that I do actually like it enough to buy it (but honestly, I'd more likely buy a different CD by that artist and return the favor to my friend :) I agree with the guy who suggested copying each others discs may well increase overall sales, instead of buying 1CD and having 1 album, you buy 2 instead and have 4, 6 or however many including the copies. In effect, copying makes 'em cheaper so you buy more... Thats how I like to justify it to myself anyway. As to why other people feel differently than you, I know I personally make income from computer software. When people copy it they are stealing my hard work. If I made music instead of computer software, the situation would be much the same: whenever someone copied my album without paying for it, they would be stealing from me and my hard work. It doesn't appear that you have ever created a product that is license-based and that people can easily copy/pirate/steal. If you had, you might feel differently (and I promise none of us would call you an "idiot" ;-) ). Well I have written software and made money personally from it, not a lot but enough to make it worth releasing and peeps will doubtless have hacked through all the protection I put in the registration and other bits of code. If they're prepared to go to all that trouble, they obviously have no intention of buying it, so I haven't lost any money. Of course I still hope they'll burn in hell but thats another story :-) Good to see the old topics still "light up the list"! PrinceGaz -- "anyone fancy chatting about En..." [joke, guys, Joke!] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on SNIP the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. Right. The use of the device is covered. What we're discussing is what happens to the recording *after* it's made. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. You don't know that you wouldn't have eventually decided to buy it; I know that many times, I'm bought music several years after first hearing it. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Dropouts using Prism Series Sony discs
I strongly recommend he sticks to using TDK's. I used to experience the same hassles with a batch of 20 Sony MD's (purchased from retailers in both the US as well as locally). Same results, particularly with my Sony 8900 car system not wanting to play them at all unless I reinserted the disc a few times. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David W. Tamkin Sent: Monday, 27 December 1999 5:12 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: MD: Dropouts using "Prism" Series Sony discs Nick wrote, | To date, I have recorded on 10 of these discs, and so far two of them have | started to give brief dropouts at certain points on the disc. | Are dropouts a risk of using MD that you just accept and try to live with, | or are they not meant to happen at all, possibly indicating a bad batch of | discs? Dropouts are not normal. It sounds as though you got some bad discs in that batch. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Sony MDR-E888LP Earbuds
I know several people who listen through cheap-ass speakers that I can't stand and yet they think that their speakers are the best because they got the sound they wanted without paying big bucks. Just because I don't like them doesn't make them the shittiest speakers you can buy. It just makes them a speaker that I don't like personally. At the end of the day, all audio-visual stuff is subjective no matter how convincing the objective side of it is. If you think what you have is the best money can buy, then so be it. But at the end of the day, the caveat to one and all out there asking about what's good and what's not is that you should only use other people's comments as guidelines and not gospel. Trust your own senses. They will be the only things to lead you to the product that suits you, but at least you got your starting point. Sorry, but you are being facetious about it all. Make your recommendations, but don't preach that it is impossible for a pair of headphones to be good just because you didn't like them. I'm no big fan of the 888's personally. In fact, I'm very pleased with the 868's even though I need to put my megabass on the first setting. But then again, I do spend more time in the car than I do with my portable. But that is just my opinion and if someone asks for it, I'll give it to them. But they also need to be their own judge once they've gotten their pointers from all the people who they asked. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Monday, 27 December 1999 11:13 To: MDList Subject:Re: MD: Sony MDR-E888LP Earbuds That may be true, but there is no way -- *no* way -- that a pair of Sony earbuds are the "best sounding headphones that you can buy." Only someone with bad hearing that couldn't really hear differences between bad, fair and good 'phones would think so (I'm not being facetious here -- there are lots of people who really can't tell the difference, and for them, audio is a much cheaper hobby :-)). - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
- Original Message - From: J. Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 5:18 AM Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD somebody didn't read section 1008 correctly. Here it is again. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. Read this for MD and tape and you get: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a Minidisc recorder, a blank Minidisc, a cassette recorder, or a blank cassette, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analogue musical recordings. So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. It is therefore a commercial action. The fact that it is such a small increase in assets it would probably be counted as "insignificant" doesn't change the fact that it is a commercial action. Even arguing that it may have benefits to other people does not discount it as a commercial action. The only reasons I would not get prosecuted for this is that the people who are effected by it either consider it "not worth pursuing" because of the insignificance of my action, or that they see my action may have a beneficial impact to them. There's also the public impact to consider. If a band prosecuted an individual for making a copy of their album, they would probably be seen as being "petty" and their reputation would be damaged, which would in turn do more damage to their album sales than if they had just turned a blind eye to the copying. Another point: Think of the cost involved in a prosecution over a few dollars (or pounds)? Would you prosecute somebody if they swiped a couple of dollars from your pocket? I doubt it. If it were lots of people you would need to recoup the losses, but unfortunately you can't do that unless you get everybody together that would have to be one super-size court room... how about hiring a stadium or three? All you can realistically do is try to come to some agreement over a way to recoup those losses, which is why the AHRA was conceived. The AHRA does not say it is legal to pirate CDs, it is a method which in some small way compensates the industry for it's loss. To me the AHRA is very flawed because not only does it seem to give the wrong impression that you can pirate music as much as you like, but that the artist is in no way compensated for their loss of revenue. If the AHRA paid out direct to the artist rather than the record companies then this would probably not be such a hot topic! In reality all it does is reduce the "fine" an artist ends up suffering due to pirate copies being made of their work. Regardless of whether you conclude that pirating a CD is made legal by the AHRA providing you don't sell it is really almost irrelevant. The real issue is that by copying the CD, you are depriving the artist of money they have worked hard to earn through sales of their music. This damages the future of their work because if they are really depending on those sales, they may decide it is not worth producing more music. You can take this a stage further, and this is only my theory: The reason so much mass-produced rubbish is released nowadays is that there are very few artists to pay. The record companies can produce most of the stuff themselves, and as they are compensated by the AHRA, they don't worry too much about pirating - they're interested in the sale of one single and nothing else - unless it's really popular in which case they may re-release it with slightly different backing and new words. With that type of music, pirate it as much as you like, nobody will care. No longevity, no career to consider, no artist! No artist means nobody gets really hurt by the pirating, so no problem. The real musicians become uncommon because they are not "economically viable" - the music gets pirated so much (the industry becoming more starved of "real music") they can't afford to release another album, so the record company has no vested interest in them. Piracy results in the removal of the real musician who's only source of income becomes live performances - meaning the musician has
Re: MD: US MD Copyright issues
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 2:15 AM Subject: Re: MD: US MD Copyright issues Please! I just want to read about MDs and Japanese Love Holidays! It's the same people expressing the same opinions over over (notably Salzberg, the Rat, and Magic). No, this is a good debate! :o) To me this paragraph makes noncommercial consumer recording unactionable. You're saying if I as a consumer used a MD device _commercially_ to copy copyrighted material the manufacturer, importer, or distributor would be liable? (I know I would be.) No it says you can't prosecute for use of the device. Exchanging the copies you have made is the offence, not the actual action recording itself. It only becomes illegal when You pass me the copy of your CD. The actual act of you recording the CD is not illegal. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
- Original Message - From: goobster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:46 AM Subject: Re: MD: MD Trading Let's look at reality: please cite a single case (documented, so we can all look it up) when law enforcement could prove copyright violation without defining it as an intent of making of profit from copying a work of art (CD, etc), be my guest. I have not looked for them yet, but I know there are a number of cases involving just this, most noticeably the recent cases where Fox proceeded to have numerous internet sites shut down, despite the fact they were non-commercial fan sites, relating to it's TV series X-Files. Fox went as far as to threaten court action in these cases, and I'm sure I remember a case where Fox prosecuted somebody for distributing free copies of the X-Files theme music which had been recorded from one of it's videos. I am not sure where I can get copies of these cases, as I have yet to find them on the net (other than the individuals concerned own accounts on web sites) and I do not have direct access to various establishments in the US which would allow me to gain access to this information. As I was one of the people whom Fox contacted relating to the closure of an X-Files fan site I had, I may still have the letter they sent, in which case I could scan this and upload it - assuming I can find it in the attic. If the laws in this country did not prohibit me from doing so, I would also post the minutes of a court case I was involved in where I sued somebody for swapping copies of a recording of my band in exchange for "rare recordings of popular artists". Whilst the distribution of these discs may have been beneficial to the band for getting them well known, I resented the action because the person concerned was getting a lot of recordings which I would have liked myself, was making a recording freely available which my band had just paid £500 to have duplicated from our master copy with the intention of selling them, and was also passing our band off as something we are not (he claimed we were a "rare band of international acclaim"). What I hated most of all was that I had been the one working my guts off on stage to make this recording a really good one, and then we would not make a penny from it because this "person" had dished copies out. At the moment we are now a non-performing band because the money we wasted on CDs resulted in us not having the funds to replace the damaged P.A. equipment which has now given up on us and is uneconomical to repair. Almost all the people who were going to buy the CD have got a copy "from a friend". Maybe that is why I resent piracy so much, but even so, it is still illegal. My personal feelings make me think that I would like to see the so-called "people" who claim copying CDs doesn't hurt anyone lined up on death-row, but that would go against my beliefs. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
I have been sitting silently here reading all of the posts and "interpretations" regarding the AHRA, copywrite, ethics and such. It has been quite an interesting little thread. I have read some more intelligent posts, great BS posts, and down right idiotic posts. We have not yet heard from any lawyers yet, which may be quite interesting, but I thought I would give a little insight from the "other" side of things. Not an artist, not a huge record company, but the "middle" man. An independant studio. I have done the actual recording for quite a few artists. Some bigger ones, alot of "no-names". I will not give any names because they are irrelevant to the conversation. == First things first: The AHRA and copywright laws are written to be interpretted either way. Most laws are. But in reality, they will be used against any individual who violates them. You can argue that the AHRA gives you the "right" to copy, blah, blah, blah... and maybe it does. The copywright laws however, do not. If I copy a CD that I borrowed, I am in violation. Will I be sued, no. If I set up a trading ring to trade pirated copies (that is what an illegal copy is), will I get sued? Maybe, if I get noticed. If I am discovered, I most definitely will get legal notice to stop. Whether they go so far as to sue me is a matter of money. Don'y forget, they don't pay legal fees, you do. Any judge will most likely side with the copywright holder. As for it being "commercial" and such, it is simple. You did gain when you received something in return. That is a gain. A blank, another recording, ANYTHING! Again, if it is pushed to court, you will lose. So it is illegal. But so is driving 56 MPH in a 55 MPH speed zone. Most of the time, no one cares - including the police officer. Lets talk about bootlegs. Recording a bootleg (the actual process of recording the source show) is not illegal at all. It may be prohibited at the venue that the artist is playing at, but it is legal to do so. Distributing it is illegal, however. If it is done for profit, expect to have a possible lawsuit. Again, trading those shows is most of the time ignored. Get an artist who cares, and the legal notices start. The key words in both these instances is distribution. That is what draws the attention. === Next I would like to address "Magic": I have not looked for them yet, but I know there are a number of cases involving just this, most noticeably the recent cases where Fox proceeded to have numerous internet sites shut down, despite the fact they were non-commercial fan sites, relating to it's TV series X-Files. Fox went as far as to threaten court action in these cases, and I'm sure I remember a case where Fox prosecuted somebody for distributing free copies of the What does this have to do with the AHRA? If the laws in this country did not prohibit me from doing so, I would also post the minutes of a court case I was involved in where I sued somebody for swapping copies of a recording of my band in exchange for "rare recordings of popular artists". Whilst the distribution of these discs may have been beneficial to the band for getting them well known, I resented the action because the person concerned was getting a lot of recordings which I would have liked myself, was making a recording freely available which my band had just paid £500 to have duplicated from our master copy with the intention of selling them, and was also passing our band off as something we are not (he claimed we were a "rare band of international acclaim"). What I hated most of all was that I had been the one working my guts off on stage to make this recording a really good one, and then we would not make a penny from it because this "person" had dished copies out. At the moment we are now a non-performing band because the money we wasted on CDs resulted in us not having the funds to replace the damaged P.A. equipment which has now given up on us and is uneconomical to repair. Almost all the people who were going to buy the CD have got a copy "from a friend". Maybe that is why I resent piracy so much, but even so, it is still illegal. My personal feelings make me think that I would like to see the so-called "people" who claim copying CDs doesn't hurt anyone lined up on death-row, but that would go against my beliefs. Hmm, touching story. The laws do allow you to post the final judgement, however. You can also post the case number publically. I would like to see this very information. Why you ask? Because I doubt you. You sound like you want to blame someone for the fact that you made a few CDs and tried to make it big, but it did not go anywhere. You act as though those few copies, that the person traded away, is the cause of the failure. Please do not interpret this as me insulting you by calling you a failure or anything,
MD: OT: [non-flame] gun control (was Re: MD trading)
In the U.S., we let wackos carry guns, we let hate groups babble on incessantly, and we let home MD users record CDs they don't own. The first two are obviously unethical, you think the third is unethical and I don't. But all three are legal in the U.S. (unless the wacko has a criminal record or something). As a practical matter, I just We've had this flame-war before (re: Guns). There is nothing unethical about carrying or operating a firearm. Also, not all gun carriers are wackos. If you really feel like starting flame wars about gun control on a list that has nothing to do with it, please look at the archives and read what's already been said. /Andrew - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? That's not part of the AHRA as you imply it is, see http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html for the full text. Here's a big clue, 'phonorecords' is a little dated language don't you think? I never claimed it was part of the AHRA; my post was a direct response to the previous message which quoted part of US copyright law. I was pointing out that he was not quoting all relevant portions, and then quoted those portions. As for "phonorecords," it sounds dated, but it means a recorded copy of a musical work. It's an all-encompassing term. It doesn't mean an LP ;-) The text you quote doesn't distinguish whether you own an album or not (neither does the AHRA). The text you quote implies any copying is illegal. As you say, "note the words 'exclusive rights'". 1) It doesn't have to distinguish whether you own the album or not. It says that the person who owns the copyright to the work has exclusive rights on copying and distribution. That means that to copy it and/or give that copy to someone else, you need their permission. 2) In the second part I quoted: unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording... and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. It clearly says that unless the owner of the copyright gives you explicit permission, you cannot provide a copy of the work "by rental, lease or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending." It would be difficult to convince people that giving someone a copy of an album you have is OK under the above. The interesting thing I've found in this discussion is that all of the regulations have been aimed at the person who owns the CD/tape/etc. I haven't seen anything that says "you can't record a copyrighted work owned by someone else"... - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
"PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. If I buy the CD the artist makes money. If I copy someone elses the atist makes *no* money. If I don't copy someone elses but don't buy the CD myself-- the artist makes *no* money. So the artist loses nothing. Thats what I was talking about originally. I understand the argument, but I've never bought it ;-) For two reasons: 1) If you want to copy an album, song, etc., you must like it. There must be some desire to have it. If recording devices did not exist, who knows if you might eventually have bought it in some form. While I agree that there are some albums we might never buy, there are also those we don't think we'll ever buy but we end up buying later. It's difficult for us to objectively differentiate between the two. 2) Every time someone copies an album, book, software program, they are eliminating a part of the market for that work. Just because you can't point to physical money doesn't mean no one has lost anything. Our legal and economic systems are full of examples of this type of "loss." Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music helps CD sales rather than hurting it. I agree with that. I've never seen such a study, but I doubt that "Congress' studies" actually show that. I would like to see the text of those "studies." I would buy the assertion that people recording music off the radio might help album sales, but I doubt that people copying whole albums helps album sales. I agree with the guy who suggested copying each others discs may well increase overall sales, instead of buying 1CD and having 1 album, you buy 2 instead and have 4, 6 or however many including the copies. In effect, copying makes 'em cheaper so you buy more... Thats how I like to justify it to myself anyway. But Gaz, think about what you just wrote mathematically ;-) Copying makes them cheaper, so you buy more? It doesn't make them cheaper -- CDs cost the same. If you and your friends buy CDs and then exchange copies, you're each getting more albums, but between all of you you're actually buying fewer albums. If there are four of you, and you each buy two CDs and copy everyone else's, you've bought a total of 8 CDs but each of you has copies of all 8. (I know, I know, that sounds great... grin) Now, if you didn't copy each others' CDs, you'd still have purchased 8 CDs, but you'd each only have two CDs. You might all go out and buy another one that one of your friends' bought that you really wanted. So if anything copying them provides a disincentive to both buying CDs in the first place, and buying more later. Well I have written software and made money personally from it, not a lot but enough to make it worth releasing You might have a different view if it was your livelihood ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
In the U.S., the IRS has decided that in-kind trades of services are taxable income (you fix my car, I'll chop down your tree), and the IRS has won on that point. This would favor Jeff's point to some degree -- if in-kind trades are a form of income, they are commercial activity. It is absolutely clear in the U.S. that money need not be involved for commercial activity to take place. However, I still think he's wrong -- I still think a court would find that two people trading two legally recorded MDs with one another would not constitute commercial activity. The original MD recordings were legal and there's no strong showing that anyone lost any income. Prince Gaz's point that you don't know if someone would have bought the CD is an excellent one, and might hold sway in an American court. People are just sharing each other's musical tastes on a very small scale for exploration and entertainment, and the minidisc equipment has facilitated this form of sharing and enjoyment. If you could show the other person would definitely have bought the CD otherwise (which is pretty near impossible, I think), the case for copyright prosecution would be much stronger. However, the odds of prosecution based on small-scale one-on-one trading of MDs is very near zero, and questions of constitutionally protected freedoms would come into play in the U.S. It's an area frought with risk for the recording companies if they ever want to pursue it. If they lose, it's a disaster; if they win, little is gained. In my view, if someone really likes the MD of the CD, there's a strong chance he'll go out and buy the CD. The original question was about trading of recordings. My reading is that trading of a non-commercial nature (i.e. not for money) using AHRA compliant devices is protected under the AHRA. I'd be happy to read a section of law that you think refutes this. Best wishes, Rick I think the ethics debate is inextricably intertwined with the legal debate. Because whether trading MDs is legal is a grey area in the U.S, the question of right and wrong becomes relevant, especially where we are deciding if someone's a crook or not. I personally don't think it's wrong for two people to trade MDs on a small scale to explore each others' musical tastes, though I've never done it, because I have no other personal acquiantances with MDs. Whether trading MDs is legal is such a provocative subject becuase it hits a grey border of the law in the U.S. and a border which divides people based on their values. The values of a person on either side may be admirable. p.s. I would like to add that I think ethics issues are present when copying a CD you didn't buy, but that we should leave ethics alone since personal beliefs also enter the picture and we will never settle those here. We do however, have a slight chance of settling the legal status of home taping and trading in the US. Let's stick with that, okay? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Sony MDR-E888LP Earbuds
"Tony Antoniou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know several people who listen through cheap-ass speakers that I can't stand and yet they think that their speakers are the best because they got the sound they wanted without paying big bucks. Which is exactly what I said ;-) At the end of the day, all audio-visual stuff is subjective no matter how convincing the objective side of it is. If you think what you have is the best money can buy, then so be it. But at the end of the day, the caveat to one and all out there asking about what's good and what's not is that you should only use other people's comments as guidelines and not gospel. Trust your own senses. They will be the only things to lead you to the product that suits you, but at least you got your starting point. Believe me, I'm all for inexpensive audio. I completely agree that each person needs to decide what *they* like, and that audio is highly subjective. I love to find $200 speakers that to me sound as good as $1000 speakers. And I think that there is often substantial overlap in quality between audio products in different price ranges. But I also realize that a) at the extremes, money buys vastly different quality; and b) certain components can/can't do certain things. A pair of $200 PSB Alpha speakers doesn't compare to a pair of $5,000 BWs. A $275 Yamaha CD player doesn't compare to a $3,000 Marc Levinson CD transport. Similarly, a pair of $65 earbuds don't compare with a pair of $300 Sennheisers. In the latter, it's not only a matter of price and component quality -- it's also a matter of the physical abilities of the components. The drivers in a pair of earbuds cannot produce the full range of audible frequencies properly. The only ones that have come close have been the Etymotics, which do so by coupling to the ear canal to use it as a sort of "port" for reproducing low frequencies. That's why a pair of Grado SR60s provide much better sound than the 888s for the same price. I strongly agree with those who vigorously advocate for subjective evaluation in audio. I think that too many people rely on specs and price. But there needs to be some realism in there, and there's nothing wrong with us pointing that out. Heck, even Sony will tell you that the 888s don't compare sound-wise to their full-sized headphones. And give me some credit -- I didn't simply slam the 888s. I tried to point out that the downside to getting bigger, better-sounding 'phones is that you lose out on the true benefits of the 888s: size, weight, comfort. Sorry, but you are being facetious about it all. Not at all. Facetious means "to joke." I made a comment that only someone who couldn't really hear big differences between different qualities of headphones would think a pair of earbuds like the 888s are the "best headphones you can buy." I was completely serious. There are lots of people who can't tell the difference, and there is nothing wrong with those people. In fact, it is often argued that those people enjoy music more because they aren't worried about sound quality so much. Make your recommendations, but don't preach that it is impossible for a pair of headphones to be good just because you didn't like them. I (and others) simply were not preaching at all. We were replying to a post claiming that the 888s are the "best sounding headphones you can buy." If the person had said "I really like these Sony 888s!" no one would have said a word. Please keep that fact in mind. We replied that the post a) sounded more like an ad than anything else; and b) really wasn't close to being accurate. We explained why we thought so. Is it the pre/post-holiday blues that's making everyone so pissed off the last few days? ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: All this half OT stuff.. Copyright law pahhh! Can we stop it?
Hey all, It's obvious to anyone who reads this list that copyright law is in a mess, and more so it differes from country to country. We also know that a lot of people don't care about copyright law. We also all know that if record companies charged less for CD's and gave more to the artis we'd all probably buy more of them. It's kinda MD related, but kinda not. It's just turned into people arguing a law area which is quite grey and there is no diffinative answer or maybe there is see my next paragraph. (Why do you think we need courts apart from to decide punishment and if guilty?). As one person said a judge will sometimes lean in favour of the defendant, instead of the record company. So if you really want to know that badly take this onto a law/copyright mailing list or go ask your lawer or the next door nieghbour judge (we have one ;). Please ? ;) Peter. - Wishing you a happy new year ;). Hey is my MD Y2K compliant? -- "We do not ask for money, only knowledge." -- Me 1998. Peter Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Visit my Sharp 7XX homepage (http://www.wood-soft.co.uk) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
My God, someone else knows what they are talking about. I feel almost giddy. I love the e-mail address. I might try setting up a new separate e-mail for MD-L only so I can speak the truth without people on the list harassing me through personal e-mail. It's a real problem!!! I tried to explain why the below was so (having a formal law school education on the subject and having practiced copyright law to a limited extent) and how it came to pass, and found myself the subject of scurrilous attacks from all corners. This man speaks the truth, ladies and gentlemen You can argue with it, but you can't defeat it You'll just prove you don't honestly know what you're talking about!!! It's unethical to e-mail someone when they ask you not to!!! It's unethical to personally attack someone when you're too lazy to verify whether they are right or not!!! It's not unethical to copy a CD to MD!!! THINK. Regards to the list, Steve On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:56:46 -0800 (PST), in you wrote: Hey list, I haven't posted in a long time, but some of you who go way back will remember me and the many flame wars I got into over this issue and others. I think it's time someone cleared the air here. It seems that every so often we have to go down this road of "Illegal Copying" and point out what the law actually says. I find it ironic how such terms as "ethical" and "legal" are so easily tossed around by fellow list members. The law is simple and straight to the point. It is neither illegal or unethical to copy CD's to MD or nearly and other derivation involving copying or recording. There simply is no ethics or legality questions involved. Have any of you bothered to read the American Home Recording Act of 1976 and it's 1992 Ammendment before showing the list your ignorance regarding the issue? Judging from most of your posts it would seem to me that you haven't only not read it, but you haven't a clue what it says. Let me quote it for you, (and in case you don't believe me look it up at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html ) "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Note, that from the previous sections of the AHRA which you can look up yourself, only home recording equiptment that contains SCMS and analog devices that comply with the law are covered by the previous quote (this excludes MP3's and computer CD-R drives). However what it does say is that you can't be prosecuted (no action may be brought against...). It covers all noncommercial use of MDs, Audio CD-Rs, Audio tape, ect. This means you can borrow your friends CDs and copy them to MD (that's not commercial). You can copy your own CDs to MD (that's not commercial). You can record just about anything with a covered device and not worry about anything. Copying tapes is legal, Copying CDs to tapes is legal, Copying a CD to a CD (using a home Audio CD-R deck) is legal, Copying CD to MD is legal, Copying a MD to a MD is legal, Recording off the radio is legal. I think you are beginning to get the idea. Maybe some of you would like to argue that even though it is legal it's still unethical, but good luck with that one. You pay a fine (tax) for my "breaking the law" on each blank tape, Audio CD-R, and MD I buy and you should resent that. The fact is we all should be outraged that we are assumed to be criminals by the US government and as a result we are fined up front for what we are "going" to do. So go ahead and Copy and record to your hearts content, Seth p.s. It's legal _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Trading
An X-Files fan site shut down by FOX was mentioned here. FYI, the case was won by FOX based on the concept of "trademark dilution" (a very valid concern), not on copyright issues per se. It had to do with the context where copyrighted work was used, and with the "message" that could be interpreted differently from the "message" contained in the series and the official web site. Again, you might hear about an mp3 server shut down by an ISP for mp3 files trafficking, but it's more than likely a preemptive action on the part of an ISP who are wary of *possible* legal action against them. In general, undercover agents approach traders with an intent to *buy* a copy of a work of art, only then the arrest could be made. In case of doubt, read KW Jeter "Noir". It includes a rather graphic description of an arrest of a copyright violator. __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
C'mon - if you copy a commercially released CD from a friend, you're pirating it. It was put out on the market for the record company and (hopefully) the artists to get compensated for their work, i.e. entertaining you. This is why I get so pissed off when people confuse the trading of boots with pirating. It ain't the same thing. Don't get me wrong - I don't feel that bad for the record companies; I think they rip the artists off far more than a home pirate doesthis is why MP3 scares the shit out of record companies - it makes them obsolete. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
- Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Seth [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 3:34 AM Subject: Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying) "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." OK, it says that you may transfer devices and media; now quote the part where it says you may transfer *content*. ".for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Hint: you can't. I beg to differ - what is a musical recording if it isn't content? This is the wrong point to argue anyway - it's the exchange of the content that causes the problem, not it's duplication. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
- Original Message - From: Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MDList [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 6:07 PM Subject: Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying) It clearly says that unless the owner of the copyright gives you explicit permission, you cannot provide a copy of the work "by rental, lease or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending." It would be difficult to convince people that giving someone a copy of an album you have is OK under the above. The interesting thing I've found in this discussion is that all of the regulations have been aimed at the person who owns the CD/tape/etc. I haven't seen anything that says "you can't record a copyrighted work owned by someone else"... Curious isn't it. It is breach of copyright for you to give me a copy of the album, or to lend it to me, but not illegal for me to record it if you lend it to me - you are breaking the law and not me. not exactly true. Technically I would be guilty of receiving stolen property - that property being the intellectual property of the artist to whom copyright belongs, If you thought copyright laws were flaky, try arguing that one! You actually have to first prove that a theft took place. Would it be legal for me to stock up on every CD ever made and then proceed to set up a free service to copy all the discs to anyone who wants them providing that you cover my costs (i.e. pay for the electricity used and supply the media needed). As I would not apparently be making a profit from this and I would be doing it from home, the AHRA would surely protect my actions wouldn't they? Strange then that public lending libraries have to have a special license to do this, and they prohibit copying too saying it is "breach of copyright". A little experiment for the brave: Make a copy of a Nirvana album and put it on a web site. Contact Courtney Love (widow of Kurt Cobain - Nirvana's lead singer, now deceased) and tell her what you have done. She is very vigilant about copyright and has lawyers shutting down sites all over the net. - Source: The Cook Report (British Television inside documentary program). Others also doing this include agents for bands such as Killing Joke, R.E.M., artists Joe Satriani, Eric Clapton and Marilyn Manson, Sherman Robertson and even Stevie Ray Vaughan. Steve Vai was so concerned with the issue he put a clause in the contract of the people designing his official website preventing them from using any musical clips, allegedly to prevent any fans falling prey to the "greedy record company wanting to enact copyright law". - Source "The Recording Industry - Music Management - Open University". The most interesting comment I have found so far relating directly to the AHRA is this: "Contrary to popular belief, the AHRA does not entitle you to breach copyright. The AHRA is in itself a very debatable article" [ha! no kidding!] "which allows users of home audio equipment to duplicate material. It does not state the material may then be exchanged with another person. The main distinction we are making here is that recording is not illegal, but the act of giving a duplicate of a copyrighted work, or lending the copyrighted work is. The ARHA makes it legal for you to record material you are in possession of, but it does not attempt to challenge or justify the way that material came into your possession." -Source "The Music Industry At Work - Chapter 10 - Copyrights and the AHRA" Author "Dan Shaler" Publisher Maxwell MacMillan. I tried to find this book on Amazon for you to refer to but it seems it went out of print 3 years ago - you may get lucky and find it in a library. I found mine at a book store, but never expected to be using that section as it is relating primarily to American law - pointless if you live in the UK. I have a feeling this thread will probably go on for days without ever getting resolved, so my final statement on the issue will be this: Regardless of whether the act of copying a copyrighted work is illegal or not, you are undoubtedly getting something for free which you would otherwise have had to pay for. Because you did not pay for it, that has reduced the amount of money the artist will get for their work. I personally cannot see how this can be right, it is my belief that if an artist has taken the time to create the music either in composing or performing it, they should be able to reap the rewards of this so that they can go on producing more for us to enjoy. You may argue whatever points you like, but one thing I feel puts it into perspective. If somebody fixed your car or put your computer together for you, you would not dream of refusing to pay them for their hard work. An artist puts a lot of effort into producing the music you hear regardless of what format it is on or what you use to listen to it. I cannot see how refusing to pay them for their hard work can be justified. Whether we
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately I can only point you to the HRRC's summary of the OTA (Office of Technology Assesment) study being referred to. This study was commisioned by Congress during the AHRA legislation process. In introducing their summary the HRRC writes: The OTA determined that "evidence" that home audio taping displaced sales of prerecorded material was, at best, inconclusive, and that home taping practices actually stimulated sales. The summary is here: http://www.hrrc.org/otasum.html . It makes good reading actually. Rick: 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 ;-) In fact, after reading the entire summmary at the above URL, nowhere does it explicity summarize a section of the OTA study that comes to the conclusion that home taping practices actually stimulate sales. And as a statistician I found no conclusive evidence that supports that assertion. In fact, several times the summary states that the most frequently recorded material is the user's own CDs or LPs. 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" ;-) ). - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Aiwa AM-F70 blip at end of last track!?
Hi Matt I received an Aiwa AM-F70 for a christmas gift. Today I've listened to a couple of MDs all the way through, and after the last track on the disc, it seems to have a short, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 second blip of sound, after the track is done. Most portable MD players / recorders tend to beep once the end of the recording has been reached - I know my Sharp does. It won't do anything to your recordings, and if it is bothering you, it might be possible to switch the beeps off. Again, I know this is possible on the Sharp units. All the best Ian PS Any chance that we can drop the copyright thread yet? It is starting to get really old === "Nullus Anxietas" e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website : http://www.btinternet.com/~ighorsey ICQ : 41782725 - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
I'm a lawyer. Magic's definition of "commercial" is silly. It is not commercial activity if I find a penny on the sidewalk. But really, that's just common sense isn't it? If you trade enough MDs for the wrong reasons it would be commercial activity. God only know how many it would take. It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Otherwise, though, this has been an utterly fascinating thread. I was wondering why Eric The Man Woudenburg (honestly I do admire you) was holding back for so long. You've been scoring major blows to the opposition with your recent posts It's a delight to see you enter the frey, and on the right side too. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. Thanks, Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
Subject: Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying) (1) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? That's not part of the AHRA as you imply it is, see http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html for the full text. Here's a big clue, 'phonorecords' is a little dated language don't you think? I never claimed it was part of the AHRA; my post was a direct response to the previous message which quoted part of US copyright law. I was pointing out that he was not quoting all relevant portions, and then quoted those portions. That's just not so! Your original post started out: Seth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have any of you bothered to read the American Home Recording Act of 1976 and it's 1992 Ammendment before showing the list your ignorance regarding the issue? So the discussion was specifically about the content of the AHRA, and then you wrote 'other sections that you didn't quote (see below)' and 'here's a part you didn't quote' as if Seth were being deceptive (which really got to me), and proceeded to dredge up older portions of the copyright law as if they were part of the AHRA or somehow superceded the AHRA. (2) The text you quote doesn't distinguish whether you own an album or not (neither does the AHRA). The text you quote implies any copying is illegal. As you say, "note the words 'exclusive rights'". 1) It doesn't have to distinguish whether you own the album or not. It says that the person who owns the copyright to the work has exclusive rights on copying and distribution. That means that to copy it and/or give that copy to someone else, you need their permission. _You_ are the one who commented "It is *very* clear that copying an album you do not own is violating the rights of the owner of the copyright". By the way, md-list, can anyone quote me any of the US copyright law that implies owning a copy of a work gives you some sort of extra right to make another copy? That notion has been expressed here more than once but I haven't seen that in any of the legal quotes so far. (I know for computer software it is customary for the copyright holder to license the owner to make a backup copy.) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Add fuel to fire.....
Well, I am NOT a lawyer :) I enjoyed very much reading the hot discussions about copyright and so on lately. Well, let me add some fuel to the fire :) It's a case study: Mr. Xyz bought and owned a CD, he made a digital copy to his MD for personal use. One year later, Xyz found that he is running out room and he wanted to sell his CDs, including which were digitally copied to MD. hmmis it legal or illegal to sell those 2nd hand CDs? Happy New Year to all! warmest regards Wailun Kwok Steve wrote: I'm a lawyer. Magic's definition of "commercial" is silly. It is not commercial activity if I find a penny on the sidewalk. But really, that's just common sense isn't it? If you trade enough MDs for the wrong reasons it would be commercial activity. God only know how many it would take. It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Otherwise, though, this has been an utterly fascinating thread. I was wondering why Eric The Man Woudenburg (honestly I do admire you) was holding back for so long. You've been scoring major blows to the opposition with your recent posts It's a delight to see you enter the frey, and on the right side too. Regards to the list, Steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
In my humble opinion (and this is not legal advice), with a few dramatic and severe exceptions (for example, child pornography) if you are an American citizen, you can record just about any damn thing you want in your home, at least once. You don't need the AHRA to do this. Copyright law won't hold you back. Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas, to be able to act with autonomy and privacy. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. And yes, that $1.50 is very speculative. Come on, use some common sense. You can copy your mom's old mickey mouse club record or your niece's spice girls album in your home. That's the way it was before the AHRA, the way it is now, and the way it will always be. And no, recording someone else's CD in your own home is not in and of itself commercial activity. Receiving a gift is not commercial activity. Inheriting money from your rich uncle is not commercial activity. There are TONS of things which increase you assets which are not commercial activity. Why do you think they had to make a law called the American Home Recording Act in the first place? Because the copyright laws, if not interpreted in full view of the Constitution, left open the possibility of serious violations of your Constitutional rights. Look at the name, it says it all, in America, you are free to make home recordings. Period. You are, you were, you will be. It's THE AMERICAN HOME RECORDING ACT, PEOPLE. Congress could not have passed the AHRA if you weren't always allowed to make such recordings under the Constitution in the first place, because the Constitution didn't change, and the ultimate source of copyright law is the Constitution. The AHRA is not a Godsend, it's a ripoff. Your right to make such recordings (including those of other people's CDs) for your listening pleasure in your own home trumps copyright law. It ain't a close call, folks. Yet now the recording industry gets more of your money for some reason. Isn't anybody mad about that? Damn. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. Thanks, Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
