No. If it's on a shiny plastic disc, he bought the copy of the content on that disc.
Unfortunately, copyright holders do have some say about what they want to do about copying content, regardless of whose shiny disc holds the content they made. He can always sell or give away the original disc, and politeness suggests that back-ups go to the same person. But copyright holders by law have a say about what copying is legit.
I object to DRM of the sort described here because that interferes with using his copy of the content, even if he isn't making real copies.
Man, that congressman must've done something really bad. CNN's copy of the search warrant that let law enforcement find the money in the freezer was redacted!
Maybe the thieves that broke into your car didn't want to risk your big bright GPS being on. After all, look what happened to the thieves in the fine article.
Okay. Someone stole a urinal from a Southampton pub.
According to that BBC article, the whole theft was caught on CCTV.
Why would a British business put a CCTV camera in that sort of location?
That special magic propietary kit is federally mandated. All new cell phones are supposed to help give locations to 911 operators. That requires quasi-GPS.
This case does not apply to consumers.
Consumers can legally record any content they want as long as they don't break the DMCA doing it. Your recording cable programs with your VCR is fine.
Now, the makers of VCRs might be pressured to stop making VCRs that record content off cable so freely. In fact, there's a shortage of new VCRs these days.
I read about the Rio case.
The Diamond Rio was allowed to stay on the market as is because it could get its music only from computer harddrives. The AHRA specifically exempts computer harddrives because they are used mostly for things that aren't music. http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ Act
Now, the XMp3 radios gets their music from XM broadcasts, which are not explicitly exempted yet. The only uses for an mp3 deck that can only record from a radio are recording music and recording talk, which means that half the uses are ones the RIAA objects to.
So no, this is not open-and-shut...
The AHRA does cover digital content. Specifically, it says that things like digital audiotapes and minidiscs, or else their players, must be made with DRM to prevent people from making digital copies of digital copies. It allows any consumer to copy any content, but it requires manufactureres to limit the number of copies possible. That's why you see so few DATs and minidiscs.
The record labels tries to prevent their customers from preserving music beyond a certain point because they believe they're allowed to prevent such things. They hold the copyrights; that's why they think they can control the copying.
The record labels do not sell licenses for content to ordinary consumers. They sell actual content fixed in given formats. But current copyright laws allow the labels to limit the creation of new copies of any content their artists authored, no matter who owns any given fixed manifestation.
The longevity of the format isn't the issue--CDs and their copy-controlled relatives last a long time. The RIAA just wants to control all future formats. And yes, this is a problem for us.
The record labels do sell licenses for content to radio broadcasters,, inc. XM. But they object to devices that record broadcast content into a digital fixed form. Most of those devices are already exempted by the AHRA, but if XM made one that wasn't--ouch.
Listeners to XM radio are not buying anything directly from the labels. Nor do they pay for those self-destructing MP3s any further after they buy the recorder, presuming that XM service isn't more expensive for that thing. That is what has the RIAA steamed.
Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer.
I am not directly involved in the music industry. My interest in the RIAA's mindset came organically.
The AHRA explicitly states that it's okay to make devices that record content to harddrives. All DVRs store their programming on harddrives. Therefore, all DVRs are safe under the AHRA.
Broadcasting to a DVR is broadcasting. Do nothing to a broadcast running through a DVR, and it will be fixed for no longer than the length of the programming buffer. Record the broadcast actively, and the DVR will fix the content onto its disk for days or weeks.
Broadcasting to an antenna connected to a VCR is broadcasting. If the signal runs through the VCR to the TV without being recorded, it's truly epheremal. (VCRs have no buffer.) If the VCR records the broadcast, the recording fixes the content onto a tape.
Ah, but there has to be visual ID for the cow anyway, since not every rancher or rustler carries RFID transmitters around all the time. Brands are the classic method, though these days I see ear tags as well.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the same cattle brand showing visual ID had fine-detailed ID of the sort RFIDs can carry? Say, the visible brand says that the cow belongs to Bar X Ranch, and the RFID inside the brand says where BarX Ranch is and what the pedigree of the cow is.
Nice for cattle ranchers. Might be painful if they give RFID-brands to humans, though.
According to that fine PDF, America has already started to tag the mentally ill with RFID chips! Just on a trial basis, but nonetheless, already doing it.
I hope that the fine UK gov. is mistaken about this...
The American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers is run by its member composers, artists, and publishers. It looks like GEMA works that way also.
Broadcast Music Inc. is run by radio execs, which means that ClearChannel likely has a large vote. It's probably as much like ROMS as like ASCAP. Many artist-composers sign up with them anyway, esp. if they are signed to the RIAA when they start publishing.
A strike by the ASCAP caused radio to found BMI. It appears that in the '40s and '50s, ASCAP wouldn't publish music by artists who couldn't write their compositions down. BMI, as a broadcast music corp., could and did publish that kind of work; since its members could directly promote the music that they were publishing, it got a foothold.
Cites, though I did do some original research: http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/ASCAP http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Broadcast_Music_Incor porated
Forgive me for being pedantic, but "My Sweet Lord" wasn't recorded by the Beatles--just a Beatle, George Harrison. It's on his solo album All Things Must Pass.
The habitual sex offender also gets put on the list of sex offenders, and he has to stay on it for the rest of his life. He'll be banned from being anywhere near schools, churches, parks with playgrounds, and daycares. Everyone in the neighborhood will know he's on the sex offender list; many will act accordingly.
In short, four years plus the sex offender list is still a harsh punishment.
Look, if you don't want him to get out in less than 50 years, he will have to be sentenced the entire 101 years. I think that he's eligible for parole on good behavior after he's completed half his sentence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer...
"If you are in the process of commiting a crime (in this case intrawebs fraud), and know you will face 100 years in prison for getting caught, what's to stop you from killing anyone who gets in your way?"
Look, even if he does get the full hundred years, he'll still get a chance of parole with good behavior. If he's young and fortunate, it'll even happen in his lifetime. Committing murder would have added even more years to the sentence and made it less likely that he would get parole. Killing cops is first-degree murder: the sentence could be life without parole (a hard 40) or even the death penalty. So, if there is any chance at all that the whole 100 years won't have to be served consecutively and fully, it's best not to add life sentences or death sentences to them.
John David Lefebvre was in his home in Malibu, CA, when he was arrested. Yes, that's right, he bought a house in America with some of the proceeds of his stock sale. In short, he was not "travelling through." [sigh]
Stephen Eric Lawrence was in the Virgin Islands when he was arrested. Does that place get many connecting flights?
We've got to be careful writing these petitions. We don't want to include facts that can easily be looked up and disproven, or the FBI will laugh us off.
The story behind your first link is shocking. Two cops were fired simply because they spoke to one of their teenage inmates over the 'Net at work? Nothing more? Shouldn't they have just gotten off with a warning?
Story two looks pathetic. It's not like the predators actually assaulted the girls on MySpace.
Story three shouldn't injure MySpace or YouTube. As Jay Leno says, "I love stupid criminals!"
Slashdot Mirror
No. If it's on a shiny plastic disc, he bought the copy of the content on that disc.
Unfortunately, copyright holders do have some say about what they want to do about copying content, regardless of whose shiny disc holds the content they made. He can always sell or give away the original disc, and politeness suggests that back-ups go to the same person. But copyright holders by law have a say about what copying is legit.
I object to DRM of the sort described here because that interferes with using his copy of the content, even if he isn't making real copies.
Pet peeve:
Phonebooks whose only listed number for local police is 911.
That's one way to lower crime stats...
Man, that congressman must've done something really bad. CNN's copy of the search warrant that let law enforcement find the money in the freezer was redacted!
Maybe the thieves that broke into your car didn't want to risk your big bright GPS being on. After all, look what happened to the thieves in the fine article.
Okay. Someone stole a urinal from a Southampton pub.
According to that BBC article, the whole theft was caught on CCTV.
Why would a British business put a CCTV camera in that sort of location?
That special magic propietary kit is federally mandated. All new cell phones are supposed to help give locations to 911 operators. That requires quasi-GPS.
It's worth something, since Rez seemed to think the rehash would re-copyright the material. Thanks.
"It would be like the Beatles who simply refuse to permit distribution in any format except physical albums in either LP or Compact Cassette."t =rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subject=news d e.html 0 7/01/15/daily57.html
I have seen and heard Beatles Compact Discs. (And I have heard of Beatles quasi-CDs.)
I have seen and heard Beatles music on DVD. I believe that's another format.
There are now hot rumors that Apple Records will finally release Beatles music in digital form.
http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-6150862.html?par
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/01/applebeatles_
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/20
The digital Beatles tracks will be sold at the iTunes Store. That will hurt Microsoft further.
This case does not apply to consumers.
Consumers can legally record any content they want as long as they don't break the DMCA doing it. Your recording cable programs with your VCR is fine.
Now, the makers of VCRs might be pressured to stop making VCRs that record content off cable so freely. In fact, there's a shortage of new VCRs these days.
I read about the Rio case._ Act
The Diamond Rio was allowed to stay on the market as is because it could get its music only from computer harddrives. The AHRA specifically exempts computer harddrives because they are used mostly for things that aren't music.
http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording
Now, the XMp3 radios gets their music from XM broadcasts, which are not explicitly exempted yet. The only uses for an mp3 deck that can only record from a radio are recording music and recording talk, which means that half the uses are ones the RIAA objects to.
So no, this is not open-and-shut...
The AHRA does cover digital content. Specifically, it says that things like digital audiotapes and minidiscs, or else their players, must be made with DRM to prevent people from making digital copies of digital copies. It allows any consumer to copy any content, but it requires manufactureres to limit the number of copies possible. That's why you see so few DATs and minidiscs.
The record labels tries to prevent their customers from preserving music beyond a certain point because they believe they're allowed to prevent such things. They hold the copyrights; that's why they think they can control the copying.
The record labels do not sell licenses for content to ordinary consumers. They sell actual content fixed in given formats. But current copyright laws allow the labels to limit the creation of new copies of any content their artists authored, no matter who owns any given fixed manifestation.
The longevity of the format isn't the issue--CDs and their copy-controlled relatives last a long time. The RIAA just wants to control all future formats. And yes, this is a problem for us.
The record labels do sell licenses for content to radio broadcasters,, inc. XM. But they object to devices that record broadcast content into a digital fixed form. Most of those devices are already exempted by the AHRA, but if XM made one that wasn't--ouch.
Listeners to XM radio are not buying anything directly from the labels. Nor do they pay for those self-destructing MP3s any further after they buy the recorder, presuming that XM service isn't more expensive for that thing. That is what has the RIAA steamed.
Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer.
I am not directly involved in the music industry. My interest in the RIAA's mindset came organically.
The AHRA explicitly states that it's okay to make devices that record content to harddrives. All DVRs store their programming on harddrives. Therefore, all DVRs are safe under the AHRA.
Broadcasting to a DVR is broadcasting. Do nothing to a broadcast running through a DVR, and it will be fixed for no longer than the length of the programming buffer. Record the broadcast actively, and the DVR will fix the content onto its disk for days or weeks.
Broadcasting to an antenna connected to a VCR is broadcasting. If the signal runs through the VCR to the TV without being recorded, it's truly epheremal. (VCRs have no buffer.) If the VCR records the broadcast, the recording fixes the content onto a tape.
Ah, but there has to be visual ID for the cow anyway, since not every rancher or rustler carries RFID transmitters around all the time. Brands are the classic method, though these days I see ear tags as well.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the same cattle brand showing visual ID had fine-detailed ID of the sort RFIDs can carry? Say, the visible brand says that the cow belongs to Bar X Ranch, and the RFID inside the brand says where BarX Ranch is and what the pedigree of the cow is.
Nice for cattle ranchers. Might be painful if they give RFID-brands to humans, though.
According to that fine PDF, America has already started to tag the mentally ill with RFID chips!
Just on a trial basis, but nonetheless, already doing it.
I hope that the fine UK gov. is mistaken about this...
The American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers is run by its member composers, artists, and publishers. It looks like GEMA works that way also.r porated
Broadcast Music Inc. is run by radio execs, which means that ClearChannel likely has a large vote. It's probably as much like ROMS as like ASCAP. Many artist-composers sign up with them anyway, esp. if they are signed to the RIAA when they start publishing.
A strike by the ASCAP caused radio to found BMI. It appears that in the '40s and '50s, ASCAP wouldn't publish music by artists who couldn't write their compositions down. BMI, as a broadcast music corp., could and did publish that kind of work; since its members could directly promote the music that they were publishing, it got a foothold.
Cites, though I did do some original research:
http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/ASCAP
http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Broadcast_Music_Inco
Forgive me for being pedantic, but "My Sweet Lord" wasn't recorded by the Beatles--just a Beatle, George Harrison. It's on his solo album All Things Must Pass.
So the cops could've gone after DJ Drama even if he was giving all 81,000 mixCDs away...
The habitual sex offender also gets put on the list of sex offenders, and he has to stay on it for the rest of his life. He'll be banned from being anywhere near schools, churches, parks with playgrounds, and daycares. Everyone in the neighborhood will know he's on the sex offender list; many will act accordingly.
In short, four years plus the sex offender list is still a harsh punishment.
Look, if you don't want him to get out in less than 50 years, he will have to be sentenced the entire 101 years. I think that he's eligible for parole on good behavior after he's completed half his sentence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer...
"If you are in the process of commiting a crime (in this case intrawebs fraud), and know you will face 100 years in prison for getting caught, what's to stop you from killing anyone who gets in your way?"
Look, even if he does get the full hundred years, he'll still get a chance of parole with good behavior. If he's young and fortunate, it'll even happen in his lifetime. Committing murder would have added even more years to the sentence and made it less likely that he would get parole. Killing cops is first-degree murder: the sentence could be life without parole (a hard 40) or even the death penalty. So, if there is any chance at all that the whole 100 years won't have to be served consecutively and fully, it's best not to add life sentences or death sentences to them.
John David Lefebvre was in his home in Malibu, CA, when he was arrested. Yes, that's right, he bought a house in America with some of the proceeds of his stock sale. In short, he was not "travelling through." [sigh]
Stephen Eric Lawrence was in the Virgin Islands when he was arrested. Does that place get many connecting flights?
We've got to be careful writing these petitions. We don't want to include facts that can easily be looked up and disproven, or the FBI will laugh us off.
Those two ex-execs could get up to 20 years each in prison for money laundering...
Zephyr (the spyware in question) has one other feature.s pace_zephyr_dc_1
It tells the kids using Myspace that someone is using the software.
Cite:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/wr_nm/my
The story behind your first link is shocking. Two cops were fired simply because they spoke to one of their teenage inmates over the 'Net at work? Nothing more? Shouldn't they have just gotten off with a warning?
Story two looks pathetic. It's not like the predators actually assaulted the girls on MySpace.
Story three shouldn't injure MySpace or YouTube. As Jay Leno says, "I love stupid criminals!"