S
Stephan Rose
Oh man I gotta get me one of those! I've been rewinding my CD's by
hand...what a pain! That would make my life soooo much easier!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
Oh man I gotta get me one of those! I've been rewinding my CD's by
hand...what a pain! That would make my life soooo much easier!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
E
... et al.
Rick said:
No problem.
One of the founding members of RIAA is the Sony Megacorp.
You know, the entity that had one of their black-ops divisions
create a malware that they then, free of charge, included on
select CDs that with the help of Microsofts Autorun/Autoplay
technology infects your Windows OS as soon as the CD is inserted.
( I saw it mentioned in another part of this thread, but thought
it needed to be mentioned here as well. )
H
HeyBub
caver1 said:
You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:
Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.
When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.
The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
"fair use" does. It doesn't.
"Fair use" copying is available for:
1. Criticism,
2. Comment,
3. News reporting,
4. Teaching, or
5. Scholarship.
That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.
There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
M
Mark R. Cusumano
caver1 said:
Point taken, you are of course right.
D
Daave
HeyBub said:
Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.
Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm
T
Thufir
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main
purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report
explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers
to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their
private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added).
The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008,
which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and
analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely
makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files
that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-
shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use
under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying
is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the
purposes of the Act.[20]
rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exceptions
Seems that so long as it's non-commercial that you can do what you like.
-Thufir
D
dennis@home
Stephan Rose said:
So you are just a kid then.. anyone who had been around would know you can
just put the CDs in upside down to rewind them. ;-)
C
caver1
HeyBub said:
Fair use also covers time shifting and space
shifting. There are no contracts when buying
music, movies. All fair use decisions on are a
case by case basis. What on case is decided by
the court dose not mean that the next case is the
same so that decision may or may not apply.
The Beta max case fell under fair use not under
the home recording act.
fair use falls under limitations and exceptions
to copyright term in copyrite law. Which is
decided by the courts on a case by case basis.
Your list of five are guide lines that mention
some of the ways copyrited material can be used.
They are not listed in the law. There are others.
still a case by case basis.
The 4 factors in the law are;
the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantially of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work.
caver1
C
caver1
HeyBub said:
All of these fall under copyright laws as they
amend legal and non legal uses of copywrite.
Fair use falls under them all. Still decided on a
case by case basis.
RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.
caver1
C
caver1
It has to do with the Home Recording Act of 1992
in the US. All media that is mark for music has
the royalties paid by the manufacturer. So for
home (personal) use you can make as many first
generation copies as you want. Under this law if
you follow it properly you cannot be sued for
copyright infringement.
caver1
in the US. All media that is mark for music has
the royalties paid by the manufacturer. So for
home (personal) use you can make as many first
generation copies as you want. Under this law if
you follow it properly you cannot be sued for
copyright infringement.
caver1
S
Stephan Rose
Hahahaha, Good one =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
X
XS11E
dennis@home said:
Putting a CD in upside down used to be a joke, then along came
LightScribe and now putting a CD in upside down is a normal
operation... weird how things change.
D
dennis@home
XS11E said:
Yes.. it used to take 2 mins to print a label and 20 mins to burn a disk now
it takes 2 mins to burn a disk and 20 mins to burn the label.
S
Stephan Rose
Actually if I want it to play in my car, I need to burn at 4x, much
longer than 2 mins
Lightscribe is cool but man, it could seriously be faster!!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
A
Ashton Crusher
A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of
the contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the
EULA and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music
and computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make
it completely one sided because very few people would actually agree
to the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,
understand, and sign them before purchasing.
F
forty-nine
Ashton said:
Yeah right !
People rarely understand all the terms of contracts.
Ever read a credit card contract ?
Think the billions of people with credit cards understand all that ?
Of couse not.
Doesn't invalidate the contract.
Ignorance of the law has never been a good excuse either.
S
Stephan Rose
Out of curiosity, am I the only one here that thinks that one shouldn't
be an attorney (and not need to consult one) before going out and buying
a damn MUSIC CD?!?
Credit card contracts are one thing involving potentially thousands of
dollars in loaned money.
But man, it's a frigging music CD for 15.95 or whatever they charge these
days!!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
F
forty-nine
Stephan said:
No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.
But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate it.
When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and conditions.
When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an EULA.
Being that people do neither with CD's...???
This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be impossible to
enforce.
X
XS11E
forty-nine said:
Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many
times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still
ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's
enforcement of a kind... read on:
==========================================================
Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally
Ofelia Madrid
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM
A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit
accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.
The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from
part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.
"They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.
The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its
agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an
Internet file-swapping Web site.
His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.
Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his
computer.
He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard
drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.
"As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music
that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.
The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music
since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.
The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the
Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks
who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.
That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record
industry.
"This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of
the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.
The record industry continues to have no objection to that."
It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then
share it with others.
Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a
dozen times and doesn't know what happened.
For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying
music on his computer.
"I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved
putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.
"Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry
around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs
on three?"
Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area
lawyers wouldn't take his case.
Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.
"Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through
these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.
The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell
said it asked him to pay $40,000.
"Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have
to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal
computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.
We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.
F
forty-nine
XS11E said:
That's a poor example.
The guy had a Kazaa account , yet had no idea he was sharing songs?
Bullshoot.
That kind of person should get sued.
I don't have a Kazaa account...know why ?
Because I buy CD's and rip them to my PC.
When they take me to court...then start the pity party.
But that dude was doing exactly what they said he was doing...why else would
you even have Kazaa?