[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That's just not so! Your original post started out:
[snip]
>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 (wh
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
- 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 e
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:27:46 -0500, in you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Does that mean makin MP3 versions and copying a CD
>> using CD-ROM recordable drives is, strictly speaking,
>> illegal?
THE MAN, Mr. Woudenburg, writes:
>
>Yes, it would seem so (CD-ROM recorders are not AHRA com
[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 prev
Dan Frakes joins the fray:
(talks about the AHRA)
>Here's a part you didn't quote:
>
> Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under
> this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
> the following:
>
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted w
