1) Copy music CDs for personal use: legal Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I think you're wrong on this one, although you should be right. Copyright Law states that the copyright holder has the sole right to make / allow copies (section 106(1)). It also defines Fair Use (section 107), but Fair Use does NOT explicitely include making backup copies of anything. However, the section on Computer Software (117) does. I've not yet found anything that says you can, for personal archival purposes, make backups of music or video (although libraries and public archives can-- section 108).
Well, nothing it stopping you from making a backup copy of your pager, right? But in that case, anyway, with a pager you purchased hardware-- a physical thing. In the case of a DVD, you purchased a licence to view the contents, in perpetuity. So they damned well either have a way for you, the consumer, to make a backup to protect yourself, or replace the media at a fair cost (which shoud include only the cost of the media and duplication). Otherwise, they've broken the licence, haven't they?
If I get a copy off my brother to replace them, is it really breaking the intent of the law?
Depends on who you ask.;)
If you're talking to the RIAA, damned straight you're breaking the law, son! If you're asking me, no way are you breaking the law. But, I think due to the ambiguity of Fair Use, there's a discrepancy between the letter of the law, and the intent.
The intent, I think, would be to protect copyright holders from loss of income-- though I don't see this explicely stated. The law makes certain allowments, many of which fall under Fair Use (section 107). In particular, the law says that one may copy for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", under certain situations. The problem is that making backups isn't listed. If this law comes from 1978 (I think I read that somewhere), making backups may not have been much of an issue, and therefore not included.
See, it seems that the letter of the law isn't complete enough to explicetely allow making backup. I think the MPAA / RIAA takes this side, and therefore can demand that you not have free access to copies (from your own collection, or from someone else's for recordings you already own a copy of). See Copyright Law section 106 - 106(1):...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 work in copies or phonorecords.
There are sections on libraries and archives, but those archives, it would seem, must be open to the public, and only one copy may be made. So your privately owned collection would not count.
Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use.
Actually, Fair Use states that copying is allowed "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". I don't see "making a backup" listed, which is tragically said, and may be the MPAA's silver bullet.
Well, I don't know about that. And here's where my understanding of copyright law breaks down.
Section 106 - 106(1) states: Subject to sections 107 through 121, 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 work in copies or phonorecords;
So this says that the copyright holder's the only person who can make exact copies (barring limitations later defined). Now, we have Fair Use, Section 107, which is the most commonly used deflection of the law. In particular, it states that copying is permitted... but not for backup purposes. As a counterpoint, Section 117 on Computer Software explicitely states that copying for archival purposes is allowed (Section 117(a)(2)). I have yet to find a similar declaration for books, music, or visual (stillframe or moving) works.
So it seems that, yes, there is a law sayig you can't Xerox your book. In practicality, Xeroxing a whole book is a time-consuming and tedious affair, so it hasn't been hilighted (well, recently, anyway). Digital media is quickly and easily copied, thus all the hooplah.
That said, do I think there should be an amendment stating that making archival copies of any such media should be allowed? Hell yes! I think that's 100% within the right of the consumer. If someone could point out explicitely where is it already a law and prove me wrong, I'd be very grateful.
Basically, you come to a level with basic education where you can get by through the day, but in order to progress economically or socially you are faced with systems that require more advanced literacy.
Fantastic answer! That clears everything up! Thanks!
A business with no profit can survive only by drawing revenue from somewhere else.
Not true. Profit is positive net income. You can have an organization which survives on zero net income-- all it's gross income covers costs and nothing more.
Furthermore, you can have an organization whose goal is not to make profit (rather, to distribute free software, plant trees, etc.), but still generates income to cover costs and continue its existance. Any actual profit is incidental.
The whole revelation about how people slip BACK INTO illiteracy is most telling.
That was something I didn't understand in the interview. How does one who finishes school "return to illiteracy"? Does this actually mean that they forget how to read, or is there another meaning that I'm not grasping? (Honest question.)
There is a disturbing trend, to label without thinking any question about other people's living conditions as offensive. This is itself prejudice of the most destructive type, as it prevents the basic communication from whence understanding follows.
If I had mod points, I'd throw you a few. That said, the questions could have been somewhat better phrased.
They don't care who downloads or trades the live recordings, period.
Out of curiosity, since tGD are often mentioned as being so open to sharing, what do they think about sharing the studio albums, where they have to make back the record company's dime?
Students would also only be able to download songs while they are on the school network. Once they leave school their music disappears.
Just to clarify this, I think the contract states that as long as you have your student account, you can download your music from any location, on or off campus. Once you are no longer a student, your music is no longer available (unless you sign up for an alumni account).
I'm not a student there, but this is what I've inferred from the poll's statements.
The RIAA doesn't sue customers, it sues pirates who are avoiding paying for their copyrighted materials, violating copyright holder rights. If you're a customer, you've legally paid for the material in some way and aren't on Kazaa ripping artists off.
Although it's not been tested as far as I know, what if I purchase an RIAA CD, but it's at home and I'm at work. Am I infringing on copyright by downloading a copy? I wouldn't think so, as the music is already "licenced" to me.
Furthermore, we (CD-purchasing public) aren't customers of the RIAA. I've never purchased anything from the RIAA. The RIAA's customers are the record labels. The RIAA is sueing their customer's customers, on their customer's behalf.
Still can't [listen to music in stores]? You used to be able to, at better stores. All that I know of have stopped allowing this, however.
The only store in which you could preview nearly ANY CD was a Tower Records in Sacramento. Lots of places have listening stations with very limited selections, but just that one place let me preview an old Exploited CD just by waving a barcode.
The only question up for discussion is whether not providing security updates for pirates will hurt people besides the pirates themselves.
I think it will. Perhaps I'm not understanding the problem, but part of the damage done by hacked machines is the extra burdon put on the intra/internet. Something has to relay the bits.
As for mp3.com who knows yet? Whatever they are doing I highly doubt they will be selling non-drm'ed mp3 files on the scale that ITMS is selling their files.
Maybe I'm a moron, but I don't think they're selling mp3s at all. Or anything else. mp3.com seems to be about catagorization. Perhaps you're thinking of download.com's music site?
I'd be skeptical. Not so long ago, the RIAA was running advertisements which featured a list of associated labels-- a few of which had nothing to do with the RIAA, and resented the implication.
IF the porn ended up on his machine strictly due to his web-browsing (and not do to a previous user, ala the eBay purchase theory), and it came from a search engine, then it's likely that the data would end up on both his work and home machine. Personally, I browse the same places at work and home... of course, they aren't search engines with porn pop-ups.
I'm not saying he did or did not do anything, just thinking out loud.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Copy music CDs for personal use: legal
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I think you're wrong on this one, although you should be right. Copyright Law states that the copyright holder has the sole right to make / allow copies (section 106(1)). It also defines Fair Use (section 107), but Fair Use does NOT explicitely include making backup copies of anything. However, the section on Computer Software (117) does. I've not yet found anything that says you can, for personal archival purposes, make backups of music or video (although libraries and public archives can-- section 108).
Well, nothing it stopping you from making a backup copy of your pager, right? But in that case, anyway, with a pager you purchased hardware-- a physical thing. In the case of a DVD, you purchased a licence to view the contents, in perpetuity. So they damned well either have a way for you, the consumer, to make a backup to protect yourself, or replace the media at a fair cost (which shoud include only the cost of the media and duplication). Otherwise, they've broken the licence, haven't they?
If I get a copy off my brother to replace them, is it really breaking the intent of the law?
;)
...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 work in copies or phonorecords.
Depends on who you ask.
If you're talking to the RIAA, damned straight you're breaking the law, son! If you're asking me, no way are you breaking the law. But, I think due to the ambiguity of Fair Use, there's a discrepancy between the letter of the law, and the intent.
The intent, I think, would be to protect copyright holders from loss of income-- though I don't see this explicely stated. The law makes certain allowments, many of which fall under Fair Use (section 107). In particular, the law says that one may copy for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", under certain situations. The problem is that making backups isn't listed. If this law comes from 1978 (I think I read that somewhere), making backups may not have been much of an issue, and therefore not included.
See, it seems that the letter of the law isn't complete enough to explicetely allow making backup. I think the MPAA / RIAA takes this side, and therefore can demand that you not have free access to copies (from your own collection, or from someone else's for recordings you already own a copy of). See Copyright Law section 106 - 106(1):
The only place that I've found which allows for making personal archival copies is (see section 117(a)(2)), which often was (at the time) distributed on filmsy media, compared to books or tapes, or the CDs and DVD of today.
There are sections on libraries and archives, but those archives, it would seem, must be open to the public, and only one copy may be made. So your privately owned collection would not count.
Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use.
Actually, Fair Use states that copying is allowed "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". I don't see "making a backup" listed, which is tragically said, and may be the MPAA's silver bullet.
What if my interest is in making bootleg copies to sell on the street corner?
Then you're not a consumer, you're a producer.
There is no law saying I can't xerox my book.
Well, I don't know about that. And here's where my understanding of copyright law breaks down.
Section 106 - 106(1) states: Subject to sections 107 through 121, 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 work in copies or phonorecords;
So this says that the copyright holder's the only person who can make exact copies (barring limitations later defined). Now, we have Fair Use, Section 107, which is the most commonly used deflection of the law. In particular, it states that copying is permitted... but not for backup purposes. As a counterpoint, Section 117 on Computer Software explicitely states that copying for archival purposes is allowed (Section 117(a)(2)). I have yet to find a similar declaration for books, music, or visual (stillframe or moving) works.
So it seems that, yes, there is a law sayig you can't Xerox your book. In practicality, Xeroxing a whole book is a time-consuming and tedious affair, so it hasn't been hilighted (well, recently, anyway). Digital media is quickly and easily copied, thus all the hooplah.
That said, do I think there should be an amendment stating that making archival copies of any such media should be allowed? Hell yes! I think that's 100% within the right of the consumer. If someone could point out explicitely where is it already a law and prove me wrong, I'd be very grateful.
Basically, you come to a level with basic education where you can get by through the day, but in order to progress economically or socially you are faced with systems that require more advanced literacy.
Fantastic answer! That clears everything up! Thanks!
A business with no profit can survive only by drawing revenue from somewhere else.
Not true. Profit is positive net income. You can have an organization which survives on zero net income-- all it's gross income covers costs and nothing more.
Furthermore, you can have an organization whose goal is not to make profit (rather, to distribute free software, plant trees, etc.), but still generates income to cover costs and continue its existance. Any actual profit is incidental.
The whole revelation about how people slip BACK INTO illiteracy is most telling.
That was something I didn't understand in the interview. How does one who finishes school "return to illiteracy"? Does this actually mean that they forget how to read, or is there another meaning that I'm not grasping? (Honest question.)
There is a disturbing trend, to label without thinking any question about other people's living conditions as offensive. This is itself prejudice of the most destructive type, as it prevents the basic communication from whence understanding follows.
;)
If I had mod points, I'd throw you a few. That said, the questions could have been somewhat better phrased.
Um, you insensitive clod.
If American teenagers can be terrorists with Linux imagine what terrorists will be?!
Americans?
They don't care who downloads or trades the live recordings, period.
Out of curiosity, since tGD are often mentioned as being so open to sharing, what do they think about sharing the studio albums, where they have to make back the record company's dime?
Students would also only be able to download songs while they are on the school network. Once they leave school their music disappears.
Just to clarify this, I think the contract states that as long as you have your student account, you can download your music from any location, on or off campus. Once you are no longer a student, your music is no longer available (unless you sign up for an alumni account).
I'm not a student there, but this is what I've inferred from the poll's statements.
The RIAA doesn't sue customers, it sues pirates who are avoiding paying for their copyrighted materials, violating copyright holder rights. If you're a customer, you've legally paid for the material in some way and aren't on Kazaa ripping artists off.
;)
You're right, the RIAA has never made the mistake of sueing someone who didn't trade files.
Although it's not been tested as far as I know, what if I purchase an RIAA CD, but it's at home and I'm at work. Am I infringing on copyright by downloading a copy? I wouldn't think so, as the music is already "licenced" to me.
Furthermore, we (CD-purchasing public) aren't customers of the RIAA. I've never purchased anything from the RIAA. The RIAA's customers are the record labels. The RIAA is sueing their customer's customers, on their customer's behalf.
Clearly, he's far too cool for the photo. Man, you earth-monkeys are slow!
Sounds like you need Firefox & the AdBlock plugin... or is it FlashBlock? Oh well, I've got both installed, and I only see Flash when I want to.
Still can't [listen to music in stores]? You used to be able to, at better stores. All that I know of have stopped allowing this, however.
The only store in which you could preview nearly ANY CD was a Tower Records in Sacramento. Lots of places have listening stations with very limited selections, but just that one place let me preview an old Exploited CD just by waving a barcode.
I don't know if its still there or not, though.
The only question up for discussion is whether not providing security updates for pirates will hurt people besides the pirates themselves.
I think it will. Perhaps I'm not understanding the problem, but part of the damage done by hacked machines is the extra burdon put on the intra/internet. Something has to relay the bits.
You don't need to see my indentification.
I don't need to see your identification.
She already does. The cost to produce a recording come out of the artist's cut.
As for mp3.com who knows yet? Whatever they are doing I highly doubt they will be selling non-drm'ed mp3 files on the scale that ITMS is selling their files.
Maybe I'm a moron, but I don't think they're selling mp3s at all. Or anything else. mp3.com seems to be about catagorization. Perhaps you're thinking of download.com's music site?
I'd be skeptical. Not so long ago, the RIAA was running advertisements which featured a list of associated labels-- a few of which had nothing to do with the RIAA, and resented the implication.
To them, Linux offers a learning curve and an expensive hardware upgrade, and that's it. It's not exactly an appealing proposition.
Well, to use the latest and greatest window managers and whatnot, sure. But that's like runing XP on your old laptop.
I see your point, but I think the question is whether there are elegant Linux GUI apps for older hardware.
I didn't say destroy, I said toast.
And toast is good! I mean, nothing like warm, slightly crunchy sourdough or rye, with a little butter and apple-mint jelly. MMMmmm! Gimme toast!
IF the porn ended up on his machine strictly due to his web-browsing (and not do to a previous user, ala the eBay purchase theory), and it came from a search engine, then it's likely that the data would end up on both his work and home machine. Personally, I browse the same places at work and home... of course, they aren't search engines with porn pop-ups.
I'm not saying he did or did not do anything, just thinking out loud.