Gartner Survey: Consumers Don't Want Crippled CDs

robkill writes "According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention. More details can be found in this PC World article."

Comments

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the same link, but anchored for those too lazy to copy/paste:

http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/

Posting as AC to prove i'm not whoring karma ;-)

The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[LamerBunny]

In Denmark (where I live), it is legal to copy CDs for backup and personal use. Furthermore it is legal to lend your CDs to your friends, who may then copy them. It is even legal to copy CDs from your local library. All this copied music can be encoded as you choose, and as a result all my mp3s are legal.

This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...

I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.

Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library... so they DO earn some from it.

- Tha Lamer, Tha Bunny...

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[chromatic]

I'm not sure why Slashdot has rejected all the submissions for this link, its pictures, and the overall debate information.

Slashdot ran this story about it on Friday.

A common legal logical fallacy

[sielwolf]

Remember that most criminal law is built upon that x-percent minority that would be out there doing vile things if the law wasn't in place. So citing examples of Good Citizens is meaningless. Otherwise I'd be walking around with my full auto Steyr Maddi AK-47.

Another important thing: you have to show definitive proof to the extent the new prohibition will work. On the fully automatic firearm ban you can say that outside a few extreme cases, it has worked pretty damn well in restricting the weapons from criminals. Harris and Klebold didn't have them.

But then compare that to the prohibition on alcohol: a law that was almost flagrantly disregarded by most people.

Now you have to show will [fill in the name of CD copyright protection law here] will either be like the former or the latter. Laws need to be effective and constructive. People won't follow the law just because it was done with good intentions.

(Of course you could say the firearm law isn't even that useful. But then you get into a question of what is effective law and what isn't. Given enough modivation a person can break any prohbition.)

Nice idiot bait

[siskbc]

Judging from the responses you got to that one, I would say you found the 18%!

For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.

If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm

Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep01 /index.htm
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.html

I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.

But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.