Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:42:36 -0800, Dan Frakes wrote an excellent and someone intimidating post, which included: I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's possible for people to disagree without insulting each other. Thanks. I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short and hit them real fast. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical artists. It was established to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Actually patent law covers inventors and discoveries). See the text of the Constitution. The two are related yes, and it seems a fine distinction, but I think it's a very important one. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should treat different media differently, and it must, because the media can be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media don't hold up. Music and books and computer programs are all very different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to be conceptually and practically impossible. Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? In some very limited cases, yes. As a general rule, no. I agree with you about the greed and overzealousness of the record companies. But that doesn't mean I want to see recording artists and their careers fail just because I'm trying to strike a blow against corporate greed. Me either. MD trading rings seem like commercial activity to me. The intent of the copier is important, I think. There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial." I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial. I think it's inevitable that the term "non-commercial" in hte AHRA will be strictly construed against the government, and for the consumer, in a ciminal prosecution. I believe many of us *have* read that text, and it's not that clear, and (as you so clearly pointed out later in your message) probably won't be clarified until a case is tried and a court decides the meaning. Boy, I just think the text is awfully, awfully clear, and if a statute is too vague to tell what's illegal, it's unconstitutional to prosecute someone under it, so interpretation of what's legal and what isn't is going to benefit the "consumer." The drafters were acutely aware of this when they drafted the statute, it's very basic constitutional law. Also, the fact that "consumer" and "non-commercial" are mentioned in the same sentence seems to imply a narrow definition of the term commercial to me, such that one acting as a consumer could indeed be engaged in non-commercial activity. Otherwise, the term non-commercial would have no meaning. But we could argue that all day. Your position is well thought-out. Web sites and individuals have been prosecuted/sued for placing copyrighted work on a web site. Most of the time the case doesn't go to court because the offending parties remove the content to avoid a trial. There was a famous case where the college kid won, wasn't there? Do you know of other cases which actually reached adjudication? That's where the law is made. Most people just don't want to take the heat and test their rights. They don't have the emotional stamina, the time, the motivation or the money. Many of us have a firm grip of the big picture. Many of us actually have some degree of legal experience and/or knowledge. We just don't agree with you, and we just don't interpret the law the same as you. That does't make us wrong. That doesn't make us stupid. That doesn't make us bad people. You certainly do. I think you're an intelligent, good person with a
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
Am I the only one who sees the irony of the title to this Email? 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: Constitution Quickie
To be honest with you Neil, what speaks volumes is that you cannot answer your own questions. I just got a very mean-spirited e-mail to my personal address from Jeff Salzburg and I'm a little ticked off right now Sorry. My email client automatically replies both to the sender and to the "reply-to" address, unless I remember to manually reset it -- which I should have, but didn't. I apologize. = 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]
MD: MD to PC without having to restart recording after every track
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === Is there any freeware programs out there that will automatically start a new file (synchro recording..?) when recording through the line in from MD to PC... I've tried many recording programs but none of them seem to work very well. === MIME part removed : text/html; === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
Jeff, I wasn't writing to you, I was responding to Neil. I read this stuff in a digest, not in my personal e-mail. It's fun for me, not tiem to personally attack people. Stop harassing me Leave me alone Stop writing to my personal address The topic is over. People don't want to hear it anymore and I want to be sensitive to that. And you are just plain mean. STOP. - Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 1:10 AM Subject: Re: MD: Constitution Quickie I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was telling you about first. ; ) Since you neither quoted nor paraphrased the message to which you were replying, we have no idea who you're talking to. I've spent 20 years dealing with these issues, by the way. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was telling you about first. ; ) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
Look what this creep is sending me, to my personal e-mail address. I quit. The topic is over, to the relief of many, I'm sure. I tried do be nice. I have tried to be educational. This will be the third time I have asked this jerk not to e-mail me to my personal address. He does not respect this wish. Talk about a lack of ethics. How could anyone respect anything he has to say about ethics or the law? I am a professional attorney. I graduated with honors from a top law school. I tied for the highest grade in my class in Constitutional law, had the highest grade in my class in Criminal law, and, to be honest, I don't remember all of my other grades. I did very well. I did not do poorly in any class my entire time in law school. I've never been in one of these stupid flame wars before. I'm not a jerk, I'm not going to return fire. I just want this creep off my back. If nothing is done about this, if this is tolerated conduct for someone on the list, I am unsubscribing. Regards to the list, Steve - Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 9:57 PM Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. My guess is that you didn't do well in Copyright Law in law school. You keep saying it's legal; who knows -- maybe if you say it often enough, it'll *become* legal. Hint: it's not legal -- because if you're copying someone else's CD, your assets are being increased. . .and, legally, that's commercial. = 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: Constitution Quickie
To be honest with you Neil, what speaks volumes is that you cannot answer your own questions. I just got a very mean-spirited e-mail to my personal address from Jeff Salzburg and I'm a little ticked off right now. I am ceasing all correspondence on the subject, which will make a lot of people who are sick of this very happy, I'm sure. I have certainly learned my lesson about jerks on the internet. Very sad, all of this. US constitution stuff snipped... no surprise A few questions:- 1. Do you have any legal entitlement, constitutional right, or otherwise, to view record or otherwise display encrypted, subscription or pay events broadcast either on cable or satelite networks, when not paying for the event by either subscription or the appropriate payment? If not, why not, and what is the offence? What is the tangible difference between this and copying a copyright protected CD that you don't own? 2. Is it legal for you to make copies of copyright protected prerecorded video tapes / DVDs, that you do not own, to either recordable analogue or digital media? If not, why not and in what way does this differ from copying copyright protected music media? 3. Is it legal for you to make a copy of copyright protected computer software (ie not shareware, freeware, but software with copyright conditions similar to that of prerecorded music media), that you do not own, for the purpose of using in your own home? Again, same questions, if not, why not, and how does this differ from copyright protection on music media? A few poignant questions that I hope demonstrates the point. Where I believe the AHRA thingy comes in is in the example of say software - being able to backup the original media, or put it on different media to more suit personal needs. Similar for music media. And I suspect it also pre-empts and dubious arguments against certain audio equipment. Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was telling you about first. ; ) - 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
It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. My guess is that you didn't do well in Copyright Law in law school. You keep saying it's legal; who knows -- maybe if you say it often enough, it'll *become* legal. Hint: it's not legal -- because if you're copying someone else's CD, your assets are being increased. . .and, legally, that's commercial. = 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: how to unsubscribe?
From: "Kevin Williams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I keep getting this mailing list, I tried unsubscribed twice. Whats the = deal? don't you just mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and type unsubscribe in the = mail. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] as printed at the end of this and every message! Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "Anyone know if the world ends at the end of the Millenium in Greenwich Mean Time, or is it some other timezone?" - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell
Nearly 12 hours after 'the event' and everything's fine down under. Neat little show they put on, on the Thames. Cheers GB Melbourne Hi friends, Just in cast the net begins crashing and this is one of the last messages I get through [to Australia certainly] I'd like to wish you all the best for the new year celebrations and the future. Don't drink too much :) And if its not just the end of the 'net but the end of the world, farewell- it's been fun chatting! Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "if it harms none, do what you will" - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Using my MiniDisc as an optical to analogue converter....
Hya, That depends on the unit. Some keep the laser focused and the recording head on the disc surface during record-pause, and some don't. Perhaps what you really need is a unit that has a monitor mode, where you can use its DAC without having a disc inside. Yeah I think it does in the Service Mode, thanks I'll look into that ;) Happy new year all, Peter. -- "These days when a guy takes a girl into his room to show her his hardware, it usually turns out to be a 33MHz 486DX with 120Mb hard drive and SVGA" -- Mike Knowles Peter Wood. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - ICQ? UIN - 15779342 IRC? Doc_Z on @#3cr and #ircbar using irc.dal.net:7000 (DALnet IRC Network) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: mz-r30 vs. sharp 702 ( long post)
I disagree. The line input with a battery box is much quieter than the mic input. My experience with the same mikes and recorder are better with the line in. I just recorded a rock group outside at a New Years party last night, and I used the line in and the battery box. My levels were set at 26 and it sounds great. That left me enough headroom to compress it a bit to bring out the parts that were low in the mix. If I wasn't going to master it, I probably could have set it at 27 and come close to 0db. -- Martin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stainless Steel Rat Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 5:23 PM To: MD-L Subject: Re: MD: mz-r30 vs. sharp 702 ( long post) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Michael Hooker [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 31 Dec 1999 | first, i notice that the line level on the sharp has to be set much higher | while recording than i would with the sony. i used the line in, with a | battery box and sound pro mics, the same set up i've always used with the | sony. That is likely the problem. The impedance on the line and mic inputs is very different on the 702; they cannot be used interchangeably, even with a battery box. Try using the mic input. And don't use the battery box; the mic jack provides power, so you probably do not need it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4bSzdgl+vIlSVSNkRAureAJ0enxREeG4B+0fOAaFBBkXSW3l6gACgxnUz B7TNPs74AReb1w7G3sG0QcE= =10Rt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - 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: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over there across the pond, and here in England. Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in debate. It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. Again read the terms of the copyright agreement for clarification. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional Criminal and Civil law. You don't make the terms, Federal law does. Contract law is state civil law. Guess which one trumps? But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD? All of your barbed language aside, it's legal to copy a friend's CD to MD in the U.S. If you interpreted the term commercial in the AHRA the way you want, the term non-commercial would have no meaning, a big no-no in statutory interpretation. Could the language of the statute be any clearer? If the AHRA term non-commercial is too vague for a particalur case, then prosecution would be unconstitutional. That's how it works here. Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hm. That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author, see ya Mr. Book publisher. See the copyright notice. No autopsy, no foul - copyright owner agrees. Copyright owner explicitly doesn't agree, or decides to disallow - I would imagine they have perfect grounds. Wrong, where there is a conflict, copyright law trumps contract law. Copyright law is Federal law. You don't make the terms. The copyright terms are Federal Constitutional law, no matter what drivel you read on the back of the CD etc. Fair use doctrine is Federal Constitutional law, case law. College kid puts copyrighted information available for download on the internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it? No? See ya Mr. Prosecutor. Does he *own* it, or the copyright? No. See the copyright agreement - let the courts decide. The Courts have decided on this one. Of course I had to simplify it to get it down to 3 lines. Think I'd just make something like that up? The terms of Copyright are Federal Constitutional law. They have nothing to do with state contract law. You want the FBI to get a warrant to search your home because they have probable cause to believe you have been recording minidiscs of other people's CD's? Really? No, not at all. I think the debate is on the legality of the situation, not necessarily the practicality or the risk. It's legal to record someone else's CD for noncommercial use in the U.S. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. You want CD's with controversial political speech (and that's a lot of pop music these days) to be available only to people who buy them? Quite simply, poignantly and plainly - depends on who owns the copyright and the restrictions, or lack of, that they permit their material to be distributed with. Not in the U.S. it doesn't. Federal Constitutional law. Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to restrict and decide what can or cannot be copied in your home? No, so long as you actually have complied with whatever copyright restrictions apply. Copyright does not trump personal liberty in the U.S. Not even close. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where the highest moral value was copyright law. Would you? I mean if you own a CD, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door telling you what you can and can't do with it. That would be illegal and, if done by a government, unconstitutional, in the U.S. If you don't, and are pirating it offa friend, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door, either. But I still don't believe it's legal, unless the copyright agreement allows it. It's legal. The AHRA allows it. It's Federal Constitutional law. Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? This is a little of a strawman really. No, it's the heart of the matter. Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. No, it derives from the Constitution. The
RE: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell
I drank to the point of oblivion and enjoyed it. Only because I wanted to forget the crappy year that 99 was for me. 2000 is already looking better and I'm sure it will be for everyone. Happy new year people! May the new year bring you all that you deserve and desire. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of PrinceGaz Sent: Friday, 31 December 1999 21:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell Hi friends, Just in cast the net begins crashing and this is one of the last messages I get through [to Australia certainly] I'd like to wish you all the best for the new year celebrations and the future. Don't drink too much :) And if its not just the end of the 'net but the end of the world, farewell- it's been fun chatting! - 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
Sorry this one is a bit long, but now I think I'm done with this dead horse... ;-) I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's possible for people to disagree without insulting each other. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. A better way to say this would be "Copyright law is binding unless it infringes on your Constitutional freedoms." The most important part of that being the definition of "Constitutional freedoms." You appear to have an ultra-purist interpretation of such freedoms which leads you to hold the personal belief that anything you do in your own home is OK (although you make an exception for child pornography). That's fine; that's your philosophy. However... We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas As Neil has pointed out, saying that the theory of "free exchange of information" applies to copying CDs you didn't buy is an extremely specious argument. If the law prevents you from copying an artist's CD that you didn't pay for, your rights aren't being infringed upon, nor are you being denied access to that music. We have free radio, etc. You can go to your friend's house whenever you want to listen to it. You can go to a record store and listen whenever you want. The thing that really bothers me about these views on intellectual property is that the argument is entirely ideological and, consequently, oversimplified. I am personally a big supporter of constitutional rights. I agree with you that too much restriction of the spread of ideas is a dangerous thing. However, in *our* economic system, the other extreme is just as dangerous. Contrary to your argument -- that restrictions on copying works of intellectual property stifle the spread of ideas -- in our system it is also the *stealing* of such works that will truly stifle the spread of ideas. If you don't want to stop stealing artists' work because of legal or ethical reasons, then stop it for practical reasons: People in our society and our economy have to survive. They have to make money. And "idea people" -- authors, artists, musicians, software programmers -- make money by selling copies of their ideas and their works. For every copy of an album you buy, they make money, which allows them to continue producing their art. For every copy you don't buy but instead copy from someone, they lose money. [And forget the argument that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" for the moment, because that, again, is specious and merely convenient.] If people copy albums without paying for them, if people use software they didn't pay for, if people photocopy books... these things take away the economic incentive for people to pursue a career in those areas. Sure, a few people will try those fields anyway out of pure desire, but there are many enormously talented people that want to do something they're good at *and* make a decent living, and those people will eventually choose to do something else with their life than pursue a career where people steal the fruits of their labor on a daily basis. In older societies (and to a limited extent today, through agencies like the NEA), the government sponsored painters, authors, musicians, sculptors, etc., because of their importance to society as a whole. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. By stealing albums, while you're of course denying the megacorporate record companies some small amount of profit, you're also denying the artists their income, and that, more than anything else, will lead to a narrower spectrum of expression and ideas because only those people who can afford, in one way or another, to not make as much income will still make music. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? If so, that's the fundamental difference between both sides of this debate and no one will ever agree. 'Nuff said ;-) I agree with you about the greed and
Re: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, PrinceGaz wrote: Seems like the four riders of the apocalypse failed to show up, even the 'net which I was certain would be in tatters looks fine! I guess the y2k bug fixing really did work!!! The only Y2K "problem" I've seen on the net was the verisign certificate expiration for Jan 1, 2000 - that older browsers didn't handle properly. I got caught out on this Mac LC3 at mums (netscape 3) - when the certificate expires, it just stops, and doesn't get you a new one, you have to manually delete the certificate and apply for a new one. Nothing too serious, but it stumped every non-computer literate person in this house apart from me... :) (of course, I had just earlier read the bugtraq post about it telling how to fix it as well). those candles (unless I do a few more Wiccan rituals :) Better safe than sorry was my motto. Donate them to a church or the homeless. They're always in need... Mark - 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
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:40:49 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over there across the pond, and here in England. Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. Sorry, I should have been more clear, here, what I was still discussing was the obtaining / viewing of encrypted subscription or pay events, not general copying of publicly viewable, broadcast material. I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in debate. It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. I've read this, as no doubt you have - but it doesn't state explicitly what you state. Yours is simply an interpretation. If what you say is true, when would somebody ever need buy an original CD? So long as somebody always had an original copy, and no money changed hands, given your perspective nobody would ever need buy a copy. Don't music and video libraries do a bomb in your neck of the woods? ;-) But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD? All of your barbed language aside, it's legal to copy a friend's CD to MD in the U.S. If you interpreted the term commercial in the AHRA the way you want, the term non-commercial would have no meaning, *No* it would not. If I have a copy of the original CD, and copy this to MD in order to listen to it, perhaps on the move, or for whatever personal reason, then this is almost certainly a non-commercial activity - as I'm extremely unlikely to purchase another original copy on the MD format. So long as you don't subscribe to the belief that it would be valid for the copyright owner to impose the format or the platform with which I could use the copyright material. This is, I believe, the type of thing the AHRA appears to address, IMO, and give the vagueness of the language used, I believe this opinion to be as tenable as any other. However if I don't own a copy of the original, copyright CD, I'd have no option than a commercial one with which to use the material. It's legal to record someone else's CD for noncommercial use in the U.S. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. What is non-commercial use? Surely if I didn't own a copy I'd have no option than a commercial one with which to use the material. Given this dubious argument, where do you draw the line? Not in the U.S. it doesn't. Federal Constitutional law. You seem to be equating the aspect of the constitution that advocates the free passage of ideas and knowledge, to the free-for-all ignorance of copyright for intellectual property such as music. Quite simply you are arguing a specific from a generality, here, and there doesn't seem to be any firm details to support this supposition. Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? This is a little of a strawman really. No, it's the heart of the matter. Hardly - I simply don't define liberty and the freedom of exchange in ideas, to be the same as being free to pirate the intellectual copyright property of those that worked to produce it. What's the tangible difference between this and copying say copyright computer games software? Why won't you answer this type of question? Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. No, it derives from the Constitution. Why does the constitution define copyright? What about trademarks, patents, with your argument how can you ever class an idea or information, or material as ever being copyright restricted, if you can simply copy it in your own home even when not owning a legitimate copy. Your restrictions so to speak are a matter of contract law, and may or may not be legally binding. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional law and has nothing to do with your restrictions. Whether certain contract terms are binding is a matter of state law and varies greatly from state to state. Fairness can be a major consideration. Unreasonable terms in little print drafted by the person bringing the lawsuit
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:43:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short and hit them real fast. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical artists. Why and how do you make the distinction. Surely the music a musician writes / produces is just as much his intellectual property as say software a computer software (games or business) programmer / company produces. It was established to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Aaah - see "respective writings and discoveries", "useful arts", "authors", who's drawing the line here for music and other copyright material, here, you? And don't say the AHRA - it's simply not as specific as you would claim. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should treat different media differently, Where and why? And more importantly why should it? Just simply because you or others may want to copy music? Why shouldn't a musician have just as much protection and rights for his / her intellectual property as say a software writer, or a video production company, or a cable or satelite vendor? What's this difference you're alluding to that me and others aren't getting? Simply the desire that some may have to copy some music they're not prepared to pay for? What makes this any different than being not prepared to pay for a video tape, or DVD, or computer game, or business software, or encrypted / pay cable / satelite productions? Explain, please. and it must, Why? Simply the desire for some that they don't want to pay for it? because the media can be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media don't hold up. Sorry, Steve, you're really gonna have to explain that one. What so different from music on a CD, to say a computer game on a CD? Or a video on tape, or on DVD? An encrypted, pay, musical event on cable / satelite? *What* is the *tangible* difference? Music and books and computer programs are all very different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to be conceptually and practically impossible. Hardly - what *is* the *tangible* difference? Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? In some very limited cases, yes. What *limited* cases, and where do you draw the line? Is there a ratio between pirated copies (done simply for home use, honest! ;-)) and the legal ones? Is it completely legal to record copies of say CDs from a music library? Why would you ever by an original - I mean after all - just copy the original (probably copyright, too!) artwork. As a general rule, no. Explain. And then explain the difference. There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial." I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial. Of course it's commercial, because otherwise you'd have no option than to commercially procure a legal copy yourself. What you're suggesting is that so long as you can access and original legal copy, people would never need buy it themselves. Where would you draw the line with this? Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 12:08:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be honest with you Neil, what speaks volumes is that you cannot answer your own questions. Steve, for gawds sake, I can answer my own questions - surely the irony of what I'm asking was dropping these hints for you Puh-leasewhat I'm after is for *you* to answer these very simple questions, and then see the affects on this "It's legal to copy somebody else's CD..." argument. Where does the constitution, or any other copyright legislation draw a line between copyright music material, and say copyright computer material, games or otherwise, or copyright video material? *WHAT* - please, please, please tell me what the tangible difference is!!! US constitution stuff snipped... no surprise Answer the simple questions, Steve. For a man of your apparent legal aptitude it should just roll offa the tongue... A few questions:- 1. Do you have any legal entitlement, constitutional right, or otherwise, to view record or otherwise display encrypted, subscription or pay events broadcast either on cable or satelite networks, when not paying for the event by either subscription or the appropriate payment? If not, why not, and what is the offence? What is the tangible difference between this and copying a copyright protected CD that you don't own? Answer, please Steve? 2. Is it legal for you to make copies of copyright protected prerecorded video tapes / DVDs, that you do not own, to either recordable analogue or digital media? If not, why not and in what way does this differ from copying copyright protected music media? Answer, please Steve? 3. Is it legal for you to make a copy of copyright protected computer software (ie not shareware, freeware, but software with copyright conditions similar to that of prerecorded music media), that you do not own, for the purpose of using in your own home? Again, same questions, if not, why not, and how does this differ from copyright protection on music media? Answer, please Steve? They're really quite simple, and none of them trick questions. Why do you keep avoiding these? If you can go to such lengths with your other detail, why not the simple answers to simple questions? Surely you're not going to claim it's too difficult, or complex to address Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell
I cheated. I took my laptop with about 8 CD's full of MP3's 3#-) Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rodney Peterson Sent: Sunday, 2 January 2000 3:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell I did a New Years Party last night at a restaurant in Los Angeles using MiniDiscs. While a huge crowd failed to materialize for whatever reason (people being afraid of going out New Years Eve 1999/New Years Morning 2000) the people who were there danced and I was paid handsomely. It was a bit different as I had to buy cables at Sam Ash to run their house mixer and JBL speakers instead of my own sound equipment. Luckily, all that worked. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Happy New Year, or Farewell
I'll bet with your collection of MDs, there weren't many requests you didn't have Rodney. g Paul Rodney Peterson wrote: I did a New Years Party last night at a restaurant in Los Angeles using MiniDiscs. edit - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
