Hidden? Nah, maybe not. Hard to interpret? Well, thanks to the broadness of the DMCA, then hell yes.
DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with P2P trading.
I have a better idea, have the RIAA spell out what they like/don't like.
They don't want people distributing their music. Is that really hard to understand?
I shouldn't have to be a lawyer to be a consumer.
Do you have to be a lawyer to drive a car? The laws regarding automobiles are at least as complex as the exclusive right to distribute and copy belonging to the copyright holder.
No, they're going after ANYBODY downloading a single MP3 for any reason
If you're talking about the recent actions, you're wrong. The RIAA is going after people distributing, people allowing others to download from them. They are not going after downloaders. As for not liking people making backup copies, you obviously have never heard of the Audio Home Recording Act, which allows people to make copies of recordings. They agreed to that law.
The quote is idiotic. The copyright laws are not hidden by any stretch of the imagination. They are available in any decent public library and every law library. They are also available on the web. If you don't know the law, look it up, instead of complaining that you don't know the law.
What is the RIAA going after? People who are distributing recordings on a wide scale. That is so obviously a violation of copyright, I don't understand how anyone can deny it.
copyright law does give the copyrights for any derivative work back to the original copyright holder, but that doesn't prevent you from creating the derivative work, only copying it.
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:
(2)
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
I'd argue again, though, that the RIAA hasn't made much of an effort to inform people of what they can or cannot do.
The RIAA doesn't have to make an effort to inform people what they can do. It's in the copyright statutes. Self explanatory.
There is no license. The basic premise of a contract is that one party offers and the other accepts. If the terms of the contract are unknown, there can be no contract because there was no acceptance. Ergo, no license exists. You buy a CD, you can do anything you want to it, limited by the copyright statutes.
The answer is simple. You're not buying a license. You buy a cassette, you don't get the CD for free. The situation is not ridiculous. If you buy a hardback book, you don't get the paperback for free. You buy the 2003 World Almanac, you don't get the 2004 version for free.
There is no license. The reason there is a license with software is because you agree to the license by clicking or opening the package. No such situation is present when you open a CD. There is no license.
Yes. But it is not erasable, so there isn't anything you can do with it accept play it or use for decorating purposes.
Am I paying for the right to play that particular CD media?
The copyright statutes limit you ability to perform the contents of the CD to a non-public venue.
Am I paying for right to listen to that particular recording without relying on mass media outlets that already paid RIAA copyright holders through ASCAP?
Have no idea what this question means. Yes, you have a right to listen to CDs that you buy. It has nothing to to with radio.
What happens if I own the same recording in multiple digital formats?
Same thing that happens if you own two copies of a particular book--nothing. You just own two different copies of the same thing.
What happens if a particular copyrighted material is on several of my media and comes from same master source?
So what. You own the CD and the right to privately play the contents. Whether you own more than one copy is irrelevant.
What if my media is damaged, should I not be able to request replacement?
No. It's not a license. You own the disc and have a right to play it. You have no right to a free replacement.
If I already own let's say Metallica S&M DVD set, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's S&M CD set, since both media are mixed from the same source [and possibly covered by the same license]?
No license is involved. Of course you can borrow a friend's copy of the CD, there is nothing that prevents the borrowing of CDs or DVDs. You won't get caught anyway.
What are the quality tolerances and who sets them?
Don't know.
At which point is the original recording no longer subject to copy limitations?
When the copyright to the works expire (generally 95 years after first publication). You'll be dead before any appreciable quantities of CDs are in the public domain.
What happens if my used media is scratched?
The scratches may effect the ability of the laser to read the data on the CD. Error correction takes care of some of that.
I am inclined to believe that the acquiring party simply acquires a license for a particular recording. It is currently implied, at least in my understanding, that the license is perpetual and as such a license holder is entitled to the ability to use the licensed object perpetually, regardless of the media it was originally supplied on or the media player of choice at the moment. If my understanding is correct, and the content is licensed to the consumer, then where is the full license agreement?
Wrong. There is no license.
# By the [above] argument, should we not consider it to be a shrink-wrap and thus largely unenforceable EULA?
# Is it not true that shrink-wrapped software is not returnable to the retailer but it is returnable to the manufacturer upon termination of license? Should not music be under the same category?
I agree with the basic premise of the article, that modern CDs are too compressed. I just wanted to say one thing. Presto is one of the worst sounding albums I've ever heard. The music is OK for late 80s Rush, but the sound is among the worst ever. It was fine when I played it on a cheap system. But a friend of mine insisted that I become a "high-end" audiophile and took me to a Thiel dealer. Thile speakers are among the best sounding speakers you can get--when the source is good. But when I put in Presto, I literally had to turn it off before listening to it for a minute, because the sound was so bad. Terribly bright, no bass at all.
I was listening to music one day in my office. Someone who could hear my music asked what I was listening to. I said Rush. She approved. Later that day she started talking to me about Rush Limbaugh. It was only then I realized that, when I said I was listenting to Rush, she thought I said I was listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Unlike CDs which are by far overpriced, easily rendered useless (ever accidentally leave on in the sun on a hot summer day, or heaven forbid scratch one?),
Actually, scratches are rather easily fixed. And I can't tell you how many times I've left CDs in my car when it is 110 degrees +. Never had one melt on me.
I don't think a regulation needs to be made. You're possibly right: the DVD standard of today may not last much longer than 5-10 years. However, most proposals for the replacement still uses the same form factor, which should buy at least another 10 years.
Moreover, though, every future technology has a huge incentive to maintain the same format--continuing compatibility with CDs. Consumers like being able to have just one player and you can bet that the next generation of optical disk (HD-DVD) will be able to play CDs. The audio CD isn't going anywhere and even it's possible replacements, SACD and DVD-A, use the same size disc.
I tried that. I kept coming to the part that says the exclusive right to copy a copyrighted work belongs to the copyright owner. And that one of the factors of Fair Use is whether or not you are copying the entirety of a copyrighted work. Maybe you should read the copyright laws sometime.
What kind of league do you run where you need real-time stats? Most leagues I've participated in are done on a weekly basis, and you can't change your team once the game starts. Knowing that Marshall Faulk has scored 3 TDs may be interesting, but pretty much useless if you're trying to manage a team because, if he is not on your starting lineup, he doesn't count.
Betamax case had nothing to do with copying pre-recorded tapes. It had to do with "time-shifting," i.e., taping a show that is on at 8:00 so you could watch it at 9:00. There is a difference between taping Friends so you can watch it later and creating a "backup" of a pre-recorded DVD (at least in the eyes of the MPAA). And the reason copying a CD is legal is that there is a specific exception to copying CDs, the Audio Home Recording Act.
I'm not saying that copying a DVD is definitely illegal. I'm just saying it is not a slam dunk fair use case either, especially if the MPAA has anything to say about it.
Is it really that hard to just hang up on a telemarketer? I've never understood people who try to be polite to the telemarketers.
I remember once my family just bought a new phone that had a speakerphone. We received a call and my Mom answered on the speakerphone so I heard everything, even though I was in the next room. The guy went into his spiel and my mom just kept saying no thanks, but the guy kept going on and on. Finally, I just walked into the kitchen and hung up on the guy. Why is it hard? If I get a telemarketer now, I say I'm not interested and hang up immediately.
I thought that the reason the movie did badly is because of rampant Piracy? That's also the reason Pirates of the Caribbean is doing so well: of course pirates are going to see a Pirate movie.
For you to imply that archiving a DVD is legal is to ignore the fact that the Fair Use doctrine has never been officially applied to this situation. It may be Fair Use, it may not be. We really don't know.
Even if they scare off every single US sharer, all that will happen is that Americans will take but not give. The rest of the world is not effected unless the RIAA's foreign equivalents makes a similar push in every country in the world.
Similarly with the RIAA. If a majority of the population uses P2P networks then shouldn't the rights and freedom of the public overthrow the rights and freedoms of the corporations?
So if millions of people decide to walk out of restaurants without paying, it should be made legal?
Connect your TV to your computer. Just use a VGA to component adapter. If you have a fairly new TV and a fairly new video card, you can probably just use a DVI cable to connect the two.
Will this even work? Doesn't the RIAA make money by wholesaling the items to retailers? If true, than it really doesn't matter if you buy something, then return it, because the record company has already made money.
It's more amazing that an article about a patent infringement suit doesn't list the patent numbers being litigated. You linked to a search page which is fine. There are 21 patents. Which one(s)is/are at issue?
Slashdot Mirror
DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with P2P trading.
I have a better idea, have the RIAA spell out what they like/don't like.
They don't want people distributing their music. Is that really hard to understand?
I shouldn't have to be a lawyer to be a consumer.
Do you have to be a lawyer to drive a car? The laws regarding automobiles are at least as complex as the exclusive right to distribute and copy belonging to the copyright holder.
No, they're going after ANYBODY downloading a single MP3 for any reason
If you're talking about the recent actions, you're wrong. The RIAA is going after people distributing, people allowing others to download from them. They are not going after downloaders. As for not liking people making backup copies, you obviously have never heard of the Audio Home Recording Act, which allows people to make copies of recordings. They agreed to that law.
What is the RIAA going after? People who are distributing recordings on a wide scale. That is so obviously a violation of copyright, I don't understand how anyone can deny it.
Wrong. Sounds like you've never read 17 U.S.C. 106(2):
The RIAA doesn't have to make an effort to inform people what they can do. It's in the copyright statutes. Self explanatory.
There is no license. The basic premise of a contract is that one party offers and the other accepts. If the terms of the contract are unknown, there can be no contract because there was no acceptance. Ergo, no license exists. You buy a CD, you can do anything you want to it, limited by the copyright statutes.
The answer is simple. You're not buying a license. You buy a cassette, you don't get the CD for free. The situation is not ridiculous. If you buy a hardback book, you don't get the paperback for free. You buy the 2003 World Almanac, you don't get the 2004 version for free.
There is no license. The reason there is a license with software is because you agree to the license by clicking or opening the package. No such situation is present when you open a CD. There is no license.
Yes. But it is not erasable, so there isn't anything you can do with it accept play it or use for decorating purposes.
Am I paying for the right to play that particular CD media?
The copyright statutes limit you ability to perform the contents of the CD to a non-public venue.
Am I paying for right to listen to that particular recording without relying on mass media outlets that already paid RIAA copyright holders through ASCAP?
Have no idea what this question means. Yes, you have a right to listen to CDs that you buy. It has nothing to to with radio.
What happens if I own the same recording in multiple digital formats?
Same thing that happens if you own two copies of a particular book--nothing. You just own two different copies of the same thing.
What happens if a particular copyrighted material is on several of my media and comes from same master source?
So what. You own the CD and the right to privately play the contents. Whether you own more than one copy is irrelevant.
What if my media is damaged, should I not be able to request replacement?
No. It's not a license. You own the disc and have a right to play it. You have no right to a free replacement.
If I already own let's say Metallica S&M DVD set, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's S&M CD set, since both media are mixed from the same source [and possibly covered by the same license]?
No license is involved. Of course you can borrow a friend's copy of the CD, there is nothing that prevents the borrowing of CDs or DVDs. You won't get caught anyway.
What are the quality tolerances and who sets them?
Don't know.
At which point is the original recording no longer subject to copy limitations?
When the copyright to the works expire (generally 95 years after first publication). You'll be dead before any appreciable quantities of CDs are in the public domain.
What happens if my used media is scratched?
The scratches may effect the ability of the laser to read the data on the CD. Error correction takes care of some of that.
I am inclined to believe that the acquiring party simply acquires a license for a particular recording. It is currently implied, at least in my understanding, that the license is perpetual and as such a license holder is entitled to the ability to use the licensed object perpetually, regardless of the media it was originally supplied on or the media player of choice at the moment. If my understanding is correct, and the content is licensed to the consumer, then where is the full license agreement?
Wrong. There is no license.
# By the [above] argument, should we not consider it to be a shrink-wrap and thus largely unenforceable EULA? # Is it not true that shrink-wrapped software is not returnable to the retailer but it is returnable to the manufacturer upon termination of license? Should not music be under the same category?
See above. No license.
I agree with the basic premise of the article, that modern CDs are too compressed. I just wanted to say one thing. Presto is one of the worst sounding albums I've ever heard. The music is OK for late 80s Rush, but the sound is among the worst ever. It was fine when I played it on a cheap system. But a friend of mine insisted that I become a "high-end" audiophile and took me to a Thiel dealer. Thile speakers are among the best sounding speakers you can get--when the source is good. But when I put in Presto, I literally had to turn it off before listening to it for a minute, because the sound was so bad. Terribly bright, no bass at all.
I was listening to music one day in my office. Someone who could hear my music asked what I was listening to. I said Rush. She approved. Later that day she started talking to me about Rush Limbaugh. It was only then I realized that, when I said I was listenting to Rush, she thought I said I was listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Actually, scratches are rather easily fixed. And I can't tell you how many times I've left CDs in my car when it is 110 degrees +. Never had one melt on me.
Moreover, though, every future technology has a huge incentive to maintain the same format--continuing compatibility with CDs. Consumers like being able to have just one player and you can bet that the next generation of optical disk (HD-DVD) will be able to play CDs. The audio CD isn't going anywhere and even it's possible replacements, SACD and DVD-A, use the same size disc.
I tried that. I kept coming to the part that says the exclusive right to copy a copyrighted work belongs to the copyright owner. And that one of the factors of Fair Use is whether or not you are copying the entirety of a copyrighted work. Maybe you should read the copyright laws sometime.
What kind of league do you run where you need real-time stats? Most leagues I've participated in are done on a weekly basis, and you can't change your team once the game starts. Knowing that Marshall Faulk has scored 3 TDs may be interesting, but pretty much useless if you're trying to manage a team because, if he is not on your starting lineup, he doesn't count.
I'm not saying that copying a DVD is definitely illegal. I'm just saying it is not a slam dunk fair use case either, especially if the MPAA has anything to say about it.
I remember once my family just bought a new phone that had a speakerphone. We received a call and my Mom answered on the speakerphone so I heard everything, even though I was in the next room. The guy went into his spiel and my mom just kept saying no thanks, but the guy kept going on and on. Finally, I just walked into the kitchen and hung up on the guy. Why is it hard? If I get a telemarketer now, I say I'm not interested and hang up immediately.
So now 3 to 4 million people trading on Kazaa is a "majority of the country"?
I thought that the reason the movie did badly is because of rampant Piracy? That's also the reason Pirates of the Caribbean is doing so well: of course pirates are going to see a Pirate movie.
You actually thought that yahoo could be slashdotted?
For you to imply that archiving a DVD is legal is to ignore the fact that the Fair Use doctrine has never been officially applied to this situation. It may be Fair Use, it may not be. We really don't know.
Even if they scare off every single US sharer, all that will happen is that Americans will take but not give. The rest of the world is not effected unless the RIAA's foreign equivalents makes a similar push in every country in the world.
So if millions of people decide to walk out of restaurants without paying, it should be made legal?
What's to prevent Time Warner, Sony, BMG, etc. from buying all the shares?
Connect your TV to your computer. Just use a VGA to component adapter. If you have a fairly new TV and a fairly new video card, you can probably just use a DVI cable to connect the two.
Will this even work? Doesn't the RIAA make money by wholesaling the items to retailers? If true, than it really doesn't matter if you buy something, then return it, because the record company has already made money.
It's more amazing that an article about a patent infringement suit doesn't list the patent numbers being litigated. You linked to a search page which is fine. There are 21 patents. Which one(s)is/are at issue?