"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
m
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Carl Valle" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Carl, you seem to have forgotten about the requirement that prove
your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific
laws.

Arny, you can obviously read those two acts yourself.

Thanks for not being able to respond to a reasonable request that you
provide reliable independent evidence to support your hypothesis,
Valle.

It fully justifies ignoring your claim.



I already provided the quote that makes recording illegal.
but as regards to the acts here is the main point from the DMCA -

We already deconstructed that. Please guit wasting time and bandwidth with
inconclusive evidence that has already been discounted.

Do I have to remind you of what your hypothesis was, Valle?



I do not understand what you mean by by 'de-constructed.' I also do not
understand or agree that DCMA has already been discounted. Do you mean that
you have personally discounted that law? How can a direct quote of the law
be considered inconclusive evidence? You have just made up all that because
you know you are wrong.

Read the EULA on any computer sound recording software. Read the disclaimers
inside any digital recorder manual.

I stand by my statement that recording copyrighted materials by any means is
a violation of copyright. The use of 'SCMS' equipment and media provides a
safe harbor for some limited uses of second generation copies. These copies
are pirates however. The use of computers and other non-SCMS recording
devices and media is not provided with the same safe harbor. Computer
recording of copyright protected materials is illegal by every measure.

My hypothesis is proved by the law i have quoted to you. You are wrong about
fair use, and you are wrong about this argument that these laws can be
deconstructed.

Your statements cannot be supported either by law, nor by precedent. If they
could, you should have already given some evidence other than your constant
arguments about my knowledge of copyright law. I don't really know if you
have any experience or knowledge of copyright at all, but I do have quite a
lot of legal experience with this area. I am quite sure of my statements,
especially now that these issues have been taken out of the hands of
arbitrary civil law, and have been re-defined as criminal law.

As I stated in my original post, most 'home tapers' will probably continue
to violate these laws. It is a minor point I suppose. But the fact remains
that recording on a computer, a valuable library, turns that library into a
pile of pirates that cannot be sold, given away or traded. I stand by that
statement.

Carl