Yeah, just like 'possession of [insert drug here] with intent to resale'?
'Intent' from a legal perspective does not equal 'intent' from a common sense perspective. Intent can be legally shown even when the accused HAS NO INTENT to do whatever they are being accused of.
How would you like a regime where merely owning a blank CD is a misdemeanor? Where merely owning more than an arbitrary number of blank CDs is suddenly a felony, because the number of blanks you have shows 'intent' to induce copyright infringement.
If you're not worrying about this, you soon will. And if you don't at least make an effort to stave this off by writing to YOUR elected officials, then you will have NO right to bitch when this law bites you in the ass. And it WILL bite you in the ass. If the US has shown one thing, it's that it has no qualms about enforcing laws in the most jackbooted ways against its own people, even when state law expressly permits the behavior that they are going after.
My point is, for whatever reason, if their sales go down, it's automatically blamed on piracy, regardless of the real reason. Literally EVERY CONSUMER COULD BOYCOTT and they'd still scream 'PIRACY, PIRACY, KILL, KILL'.
Not that you can't boycott, of course, that's entirely up to you. Just letting you know that it might not do as much good as you might have thought.
The way I look at it, it's not right to assume everyone is a criminal just to pay for the ones that really are breaking the law.
As long as I am within the law, I will continue to buy data CD-Rs, and if I hear plans of them actually adding a 'music tax' to data CD-Rs, then I'll stock up on a few spindles before they can sink their claws in.
It's going to be a while before digital will surpass analog as an *acquisition* format. The benefit of analog for acquisition is that you can transcode it later to most any digital format with the highest quality that digital format can offer. But, if you acquire in digital, then you're limited to only the bits that you originally recorded - if a higher quality format comes along, you won't get full use of it.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. So, if you download the Debian x86 ISO set (which is, I believe, 7 ISOs plus the update one), part of the money you pay for that data should go to the RIAA?
What if I'm using blank CDs to transfer content THAT I AUTHORED, to a mastering plant? Besides, they already get their money from Music CD-Rs, leave my Data CD-Rs alone plz.
I think most technically savvy people are like this nowadays - I have probably upwards of 500 CD-Rs in my vehicle, and ALL of them are disposable. Someone could bust my window, steal my CD cases, and I'd be more pissed about the broken glass than the CDs.
What I don't understand is why they are insistent on applying their DRM corruptions to an existing format that wasn't designed for it. When more people get pissed off because these so-called CDs are less resilient, the RIAA will end up shooting themselves in the foot (like they've not already done so).
The RIAA *should* be focusing on the NEXT format, and realize that they lost the war over CD copying.
In the future, the RIAA will lobby to make digital and analog signals 100% incompatible by LAW - that will mean no possible legal conversions, and the only allowed legal tools to do so will be within professional equipment. Hell, they might even try to get it made illegal to own non-consumer equipment.
Welcome to the new class war - 'content providers' vs 'pirates', er I mean 'consumers'.
With EAC and the drive I am using, I can rip nearly ANYTHING. The only way they can make it unrippable is to mung the ECC so much that it won't play on anything.
Stupid bastards. They don't think anyone has the right to duplicate anything, AT ALL, unless THEY say so. Which, of course, they'll never do, they don't like people being able to repair heavily scratched CDs with EAC and some time. Hell, I just fixed a CD for a friend of mine.
Won't work, because for averaging to work, the video needs to be otherwise IDENTICAL, for the most part. Especially in terms of framing - if one camrip is perfectly squared off, and another one is rotated 2 degrees clockwise, then averaging would be useless.
First of all, if you're using selfmod code on a modern x86 machine, then you're a fucking idiot.
In modern architechtures, NX makes sense. 15 years ago, it would have flopped. Back then, you didn't have the luxury of separating code and data in such a fashion, due to the nature of the machine.
Fair use doesn't say ANYTHING about whether the copy should be 100% accurate.
People forget quickly, if it's not specifically illegal, then it's legal. Just because there's no written law that says 'fair use allows access to 100% accurate signals', doesn't mean that there is somehow a difference.
I reiterate - IF IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL, THEN IT IS FULLY 100% LEGAL.
No, but if I do access the 100% digital source, as long as I don't redistribute, I HAVE NOT BROKEN THE LAW (or, some people would argue, I have still technically broken the law, but in a way that is defensible).
You still haven't stated why there should be a difference between a variable analog voltage, and digital 0s and 1s. They both should get the same legal protection, and fair use rights should be applicable to both.
And, I'm sorry, but I think that the "loading software into RAM" bit is loopier than the rest.
It might be loopy, but it's case law. Ever heard about MAI v. Peak?
Quote from above link:
We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only memory ("ROM"). [b]However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.[/b] We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as well as the permanent injunction as it relates to this issue. {FN33: 991 F.2d at 518-519, 26 USPQ2d at 1463-1464 (citations omitted)}
So you're telling me it's a BAD thing to have a processor that can prevent itself from executing code in a region CLEARLY MARKED AS DATA?
Unless you write all your code yourself, then SOMEONE else besides you technically has control over your computer. And that includes Linux and other F/OSS code.
Fair use isn't qualified by 'if you paid cash money for a license'. Fair use applies to ALL copyrighted content, period. Yes, there are limitations. But redistribution and commercial intent are two of the BIG ones - if I'm not redistributing, and I'm not profiting commercially in any other way, then I am LEGAL, whether you think I have 'rights' or not.
If they broadcast it, I can exercise fair use rights.
As long as I don't distribute, I have the right to make a million copies if I want, in any form.
At least that's the way the law used to be, before the ??AA thugs sunk their teeth in.
Think about this - if you are watching it, you are inherently making a copy of the tape, since it exists in two places at once - the tape, given that tapes don't auto-erase when they play, and the analog output of the VCR (sure, only one frame is copied at any instant in time, but over the course of the whole program, the program is 'copied' from the tape to the TV screen.
And before you scream how loopy that sounds, consider that loading software into RAM, to execute, is legally considered 'copying', in the same vein,.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, just like 'possession of [insert drug here] with intent to resale'?
'Intent' from a legal perspective does not equal 'intent' from a common sense perspective. Intent can be legally shown even when the accused HAS NO INTENT to do whatever they are being accused of.
How would you like a regime where merely owning a blank CD is a misdemeanor? Where merely owning more than an arbitrary number of blank CDs is suddenly a felony, because the number of blanks you have shows 'intent' to induce copyright infringement.
If you're not worrying about this, you soon will. And if you don't at least make an effort to stave this off by writing to YOUR elected officials, then you will have NO right to bitch when this law bites you in the ass. And it WILL bite you in the ass. If the US has shown one thing, it's that it has no qualms about enforcing laws in the most jackbooted ways against its own people, even when state law expressly permits the behavior that they are going after.
Um, it applies because the EU wants us to adopt their rules, even though we can't
Only if RIAA-owned music is played.
Holy shit, I know you. ^_^
My point is, for whatever reason, if their sales go down, it's automatically blamed on piracy, regardless of the real reason. Literally EVERY CONSUMER COULD BOYCOTT and they'd still scream 'PIRACY, PIRACY, KILL, KILL'.
Not that you can't boycott, of course, that's entirely up to you. Just letting you know that it might not do as much good as you might have thought.
Good for you. Now you count towards their 'piracy' statistic since you caused their sales to go down.
Only in America do we have an industry where boycotts are practically meaningless.
And what's sad is, it took our shitty generation to let them get so entrenced.
How many other big industries would have LOVED to have this kind of control?
It would have been like Bell/Watson lobbying to make it illegal to yell across the street because that diminished the use of his phones.
The way I look at it, it's not right to assume everyone is a criminal just to pay for the ones that really are breaking the law.
As long as I am within the law, I will continue to buy data CD-Rs, and if I hear plans of them actually adding a 'music tax' to data CD-Rs, then I'll stock up on a few spindles before they can sink their claws in.
Digital better than analog? What are you smoking?
It's going to be a while before digital will surpass analog as an *acquisition* format. The benefit of analog for acquisition is that you can transcode it later to most any digital format with the highest quality that digital format can offer. But, if you acquire in digital, then you're limited to only the bits that you originally recorded - if a higher quality format comes along, you won't get full use of it.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. So, if you download the Debian x86 ISO set (which is, I believe, 7 ISOs plus the update one), part of the money you pay for that data should go to the RIAA?
Yeah, right.
Occasionally, my ass.
What if I'm using blank CDs to transfer content THAT I AUTHORED, to a mastering plant? Besides, they already get their money from Music CD-Rs, leave my Data CD-Rs alone plz.
I think most technically savvy people are like this nowadays - I have probably upwards of 500 CD-Rs in my vehicle, and ALL of them are disposable. Someone could bust my window, steal my CD cases, and I'd be more pissed about the broken glass than the CDs.
What I don't understand is why they are insistent on applying their DRM corruptions to an existing format that wasn't designed for it. When more people get pissed off because these so-called CDs are less resilient, the RIAA will end up shooting themselves in the foot (like they've not already done so).
The RIAA *should* be focusing on the NEXT format, and realize that they lost the war over CD copying.
It'd be cracked within a week of release.
Maybe not publically released, but it WILL be cracked.
In the future, the RIAA will lobby to make digital and analog signals 100% incompatible by LAW - that will mean no possible legal conversions, and the only allowed legal tools to do so will be within professional equipment. Hell, they might even try to get it made illegal to own non-consumer equipment.
Welcome to the new class war - 'content providers' vs 'pirates', er I mean 'consumers'.
With EAC and the drive I am using, I can rip nearly ANYTHING. The only way they can make it unrippable is to mung the ECC so much that it won't play on anything.
Stupid bastards. They don't think anyone has the right to duplicate anything, AT ALL, unless THEY say so. Which, of course, they'll never do, they don't like people being able to repair heavily scratched CDs with EAC and some time. Hell, I just fixed a CD for a friend of mine.
Won't work, because for averaging to work, the video needs to be otherwise IDENTICAL, for the most part. Especially in terms of framing - if one camrip is perfectly squared off, and another one is rotated 2 degrees clockwise, then averaging would be useless.
First of all, if you're using selfmod code on a modern x86 machine, then you're a fucking idiot.
In modern architechtures, NX makes sense. 15 years ago, it would have flopped. Back then, you didn't have the luxury of separating code and data in such a fashion, due to the nature of the machine.
You did. According to what you bolded, it won't even apply to XM or Sirius. Looks like it will apply only to digital TERRESTRIAL stations.
Fair use doesn't say ANYTHING about whether the copy should be 100% accurate.
People forget quickly, if it's not specifically illegal, then it's legal. Just because there's no written law that says 'fair use allows access to 100% accurate signals', doesn't mean that there is somehow a difference.
I reiterate - IF IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL, THEN IT IS FULLY 100% LEGAL.
No, but if I do access the 100% digital source, as long as I don't redistribute, I HAVE NOT BROKEN THE LAW (or, some people would argue, I have still technically broken the law, but in a way that is defensible).
You still haven't stated why there should be a difference between a variable analog voltage, and digital 0s and 1s. They both should get the same legal protection, and fair use rights should be applicable to both.
- And, I'm sorry, but I think that the "loading software into RAM" bit is loopier than the rest.
It might be loopy, but it's case law. Ever heard about MAI v. Peak ?Quote from above link:
What?
So you're telling me it's a BAD thing to have a processor that can prevent itself from executing code in a region CLEARLY MARKED AS DATA?
Unless you write all your code yourself, then SOMEONE else besides you technically has control over your computer. And that includes Linux and other F/OSS code.
Fair use isn't qualified by 'if you paid cash money for a license'. Fair use applies to ALL copyrighted content, period. Yes, there are limitations. But redistribution and commercial intent are two of the BIG ones - if I'm not redistributing, and I'm not profiting commercially in any other way, then I am LEGAL, whether you think I have 'rights' or not.
If they broadcast it, I can exercise fair use rights.
As long as I don't distribute, I have the right to make a million copies if I want, in any form.
At least that's the way the law used to be, before the ??AA thugs sunk their teeth in.
Think about this - if you are watching it, you are inherently making a copy of the tape, since it exists in two places at once - the tape, given that tapes don't auto-erase when they play, and the analog output of the VCR (sure, only one frame is copied at any instant in time, but over the course of the whole program, the program is 'copied' from the tape to the TV screen.
And before you scream how loopy that sounds, consider that loading software into RAM, to execute, is legally considered 'copying', in the same vein,.