Stating wildly inaccurate facts on Slashdot is usually fine. However, most of the mods are able to catch obvious spelling errors and mistakes in third-grade arithmetic.
You can claim it, but probably lose. Ripping a CD is probably not fair use, no matter who owns the CD, who rips the CD (with the exception of a library), or what happens to the CD after it's ripped.
your computer isn't a "Digital Audio Recording Device" and
Hmm... this is an interesting argument. If this is true, then any ripping CDs is a violation of copyright. Period. Because there's no way any sane person can claim that creating a digital music collection is fair use.
you sell the CD, that's commercial.
That has nothing to do with the ripping itself. You're allowed to rip, and you're allowed to sell the CD. It may be commercial if you rip the CD for the purpose of selling it after, but that doesn't give you any obligation to destroy legally ripped copies after you sell a CD.
If that's true, then MusicShifter is infringing copyright
They're infringing copyright, period. It makes absolutely no difference what method they're using to copy the CDs. It doesn't matter if they're using a really fast burner, or a CDDB rip, or are using an advanced tachyon positronic laser to duplicate all music you've ever listened to from a strand of your hair.
The AHRA made duplication of music for personal use on home recording equipment legal. They're not doing anything of the sort.
At the point you sell the CDs, you no longer have the right to keep the songs on the IPOD or to keep the DVD "back-up".
Why not? Ripping a CD, selling the CD, and keeping the rip is 100% legal. Copyright isn't a license.
However, any company that "professionally" rips CDs for a fee is violating copyright. Consumers have the right to copy music for personal use. There is no way in hell that any company can copy CDs for a fee.
I agree that personal copying may be fair use, and probably should be fair use.
I don't agree with the original poster who claimed that it unquestionably is fair use, or that any copying for personal use was undeniably legal until the evil DMCA came and took away our rights.
Copying for personal use has never been a criminal act. The AHRA did not remove criminal penalties or the risk of criminal prosecution, because there have never been criminal penalties or the risk of criminal prosecution.
The AHRA removed the risk of civil action. Copyright holders can't sue you for personal copying of copyright music.
And, for all intents and purposes, this means "legal". The act is not analogous to decriminalization.
If I own a DVD, and make a copy so that I can watch it on my PSP, I'm not breaking the law.
Of course you are. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA, despite the best efforts at disinformation spreading by the slashdot chorus. You don't have the right to copy movies. You can't copy VHS tapes. You can't copy DVDs. You can't do it for personal use, you can't do it for "backup", you can't do it to change formats. It's not fair use, and it never has been.
The AHRA gave specific exception for personal copying of musical recordings, and only musical recordings. But that doesn't even extend to books on tape, much less copying movies.
Let me reiterate -- copying movies and music CDs is not fair use, and it has never been fair use. You are allowed to copy music only because of the AHRA. There is no similar law allowing the copying of movies. It has nothing to do with the DMCA.
...and also why I hate html email and use pine as my mail client...
I know exactly what you mean. Your situation is perfectly analogous to my eating habits -- I really don't like fish, therefore I only eat italian food.
Taco, you should be embarrassed for posting the article.
We've both clicked the links and read the ads, smart boy. And over the years, we've both probably given taco a couple of dollars worth of eyeballs. You can't tell someone "don't be a whore" when you're dropping $5 on the dresser on your way out.
Wow... an 8" long "robot" car with no intelligence that turns into an 8" tall "robot" humanoid with eight joints, and which can barely balance on its huge feet through a half dozen pre-programmed one second dance moves.
That's... really impressive.
Wake me up when I'm five years old, and then I'll care.
You get contacts, shared contacts, calendars, shared calendars, delegation, appointment tracking, free/busy notification, shared/public message stores, to do lists, and - oh yeah - email tacked on to all that.
All of that, except for delegation, is just basic calendar, email, and directory services.
How absolutely, mind numbingly brain dead are most clients, if they can't even do insanely simple stuff like that?
God, those keyboards sucked. Sometimes, they'd get a macro "stuck" so that nothing would seem to get rid of it. It was easier to throw the damned keyboards away than figure out why you couldn't deprogram them.
Slashdot Mirror
Stating wildly inaccurate facts on Slashdot is usually fine. However, most of the mods are able to catch obvious spelling errors and mistakes in third-grade arithmetic.
the same people that would gamble their future away are the same types of people that won't accept responsibility for their own actions.
Can you cite the scientific literature that substantiates this claim, please?
Would generally seem to allow a personal backup, as this will not have an effect on the "potential market" for a work.
You're joking, right?
People buying additional copies of a work after their first copy wears out is a "potential market."
You can claim fair use in space-shifting,
You can claim it, but probably lose. Ripping a CD is probably not fair use, no matter who owns the CD, who rips the CD (with the exception of a library), or what happens to the CD after it's ripped.
your computer isn't a "Digital Audio Recording Device" and
Hmm... this is an interesting argument. If this is true, then any ripping CDs is a violation of copyright. Period. Because there's no way any sane person can claim that creating a digital music collection is fair use.
you sell the CD, that's commercial.
That has nothing to do with the ripping itself. You're allowed to rip, and you're allowed to sell the CD. It may be commercial if you rip the CD for the purpose of selling it after, but that doesn't give you any obligation to destroy legally ripped copies after you sell a CD.
If that's true, then MusicShifter is infringing copyright
They're infringing copyright, period. It makes absolutely no difference what method they're using to copy the CDs. It doesn't matter if they're using a really fast burner, or a CDDB rip, or are using an advanced tachyon positronic laser to duplicate all music you've ever listened to from a strand of your hair.
The AHRA made duplication of music for personal use on home recording equipment legal. They're not doing anything of the sort.
At the point you sell the CDs, you no longer have the right to keep the songs on the IPOD or to keep the DVD "back-up".
Why not? Ripping a CD, selling the CD, and keeping the rip is 100% legal. Copyright isn't a license.
However, any company that "professionally" rips CDs for a fee is violating copyright. Consumers have the right to copy music for personal use. There is no way in hell that any company can copy CDs for a fee.
shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?
You are stupid.
As a Democrat, I thought we were supposed to be the ones wanting accountability and paper voting records
Yes. Republicans rig elections and eat babies.
I agree that personal copying may be fair use, and probably should be fair use.
I don't agree with the original poster who claimed that it unquestionably is fair use, or that any copying for personal use was undeniably legal until the evil DMCA came and took away our rights.
You've misunderstood.
Copying for personal use has never been a criminal act. The AHRA did not remove criminal penalties or the risk of criminal prosecution, because there have never been criminal penalties or the risk of criminal prosecution.
The AHRA removed the risk of civil action. Copyright holders can't sue you for personal copying of copyright music.
And, for all intents and purposes, this means "legal". The act is not analogous to decriminalization.
Personal Use != Fair Use
If I own a DVD, and make a copy so that I can watch it on my PSP, I'm not breaking the law.
Of course you are. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA, despite the best efforts at disinformation spreading by the slashdot chorus. You don't have the right to copy movies. You can't copy VHS tapes. You can't copy DVDs. You can't do it for personal use, you can't do it for "backup", you can't do it to change formats. It's not fair use, and it never has been.
The AHRA gave specific exception for personal copying of musical recordings, and only musical recordings. But that doesn't even extend to books on tape, much less copying movies.
Let me reiterate -- copying movies and music CDs is not fair use, and it has never been fair use. You are allowed to copy music only because of the AHRA. There is no similar law allowing the copying of movies. It has nothing to do with the DMCA.
Maven has come quite a ways in the past year as well.
Uwe Boll says "BloodRayne" is ten times bettern than "Alone in the Dark."
That doesn't mean I'm going to run out and buy a copy of BloodRayne anytime soon.
I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should consider asking for a refund.
...and also why I hate html email and use pine as my mail client...
I know exactly what you mean. Your situation is perfectly analogous to my eating habits -- I really don't like fish, therefore I only eat italian food.
When you license something, how is it yours?
Copyright isn't a license.
Taco, you should be embarrassed for posting the article.
We've both clicked the links and read the ads, smart boy. And over the years, we've both probably given taco a couple of dollars worth of eyeballs. You can't tell someone "don't be a whore" when you're dropping $5 on the dresser on your way out.
Wow... an 8" long "robot" car with no intelligence that turns into an 8" tall "robot" humanoid with eight joints, and which can barely balance on its huge feet through a half dozen pre-programmed one second dance moves.
That's... really impressive.
Wake me up when I'm five years old, and then I'll care.
The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm.
I was going to refrain from insulting your lame ass, but I click submit at nearly 300 clicks a minute.
Are you saying Angry Flower doesn't have the final say on punctuation?
You should mind your P's and Q's. The GP poster was wrong, but your explanation is wrong too.
The plural of CPU is CPUs. The plural of C.P.U. is C.P.U.'s.
As in the second one was trying to "handle" me (I was irked about the drive) and stick to the script instead of just getting the problem fixed.
Do you mean, "professional" and "handle" in the sexual prostitution sense? Because otherwise, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
You get contacts, shared contacts, calendars, shared calendars, delegation, appointment tracking, free/busy notification, shared/public message stores, to do lists, and - oh yeah - email tacked on to all that.
All of that, except for delegation, is just basic calendar, email, and directory services.
How absolutely, mind numbingly brain dead are most clients, if they can't even do insanely simple stuff like that?
God, those keyboards sucked. Sometimes, they'd get a macro "stuck" so that nothing would seem to get rid of it. It was easier to throw the damned keyboards away than figure out why you couldn't deprogram them.