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

I do not understand what you mean by by 'de-constructed.'

It's a standard term - get Atkinson to explain it to you.

I also do not understand or agree that DCMA has already been discounted.

Has it? The faulty object we're talking about here is your interpretation
of
copyright law in general, in particular your weird claim that consumer CD
recorders are the only legal thing to use, and that transcribing one's
own
LPs with a computer is always illegal.

I did not claim that CD recorders were the only 'legal' thing to use, you
made that up yourself.
I said that DHRA gave protection from damage claims when the methods of
recording, and the uses prescibed in the act were followed.

All recordings made by any means of copyrighted materials are indeed
illegal.



Do you
mean that you have personally discounted that law? How can a direct
quote of the law be considered inconclusive evidence?

Your quote did not support your claim.

Yes it does.


You have just
made up all that because you know you are wrong.

Nope.

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

Been there, done that.

Means nothing. Prove it.


I stand by my statement that recording copyrighted materials by any
means is a violation of copyright.

You get to be wrong.
Prove it.

The use of 'SCMS' equipment and
media provides a safe harbor for some limited uses of second
generation copies. These copies are pirates however.

You get to be wrong.
Prove it.

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.

You get to be wrong.
Prove it.


My hypothesis is proved by the law i have quoted to you.

You get to be wrong.
Prove it

You are
wrong about fair use, and you are wrong about this argument that
these laws can be deconstructed.

You get to be wrong.
Prove it


Your statements cannot be supported either by law, nor by precedent.

You've never adequately supported this claim.
Prove it

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.

So, now you're a lawyer? Yeah sure, and Richman is an ethical doctor.

I never claimed to be a lawyer. But I do have experience with copyright
because I am an author, a photographer, and a recordist. I have also written
on the subject and done research on the subject.

Mr. Richman has nothing to do with this and neither does ethics per se.


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.

You've never adequately supported this claim.
I quoted you the law. There is no further support that can be given. You
refuse to admit that you are wrong about this. Perhaps it has not been
adequately supported to you. That is not the fault of my statement but
rather the fact that you cannot grasp (or more possibly admit to) the fact
that while most people do indeed ignore the law, and continue to steal IP
from those who should be compensated, (whether they deserve it or not) it is
still illegal.

Your problem in understanding the law is one of being so tied up in
providing others with advice about how to steal IP that you cannot admit
that your work on soundcards and computers and such has been made illegal by
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I can understand why this upsets you,
however it's just too bad. You are on the wrong side of this argument and
the only reason you have not been accused and arrested is because you are
not important enough for RIAA or anybody else to come knocking on your door
and confiscating all those illegal things you have on your computer and
discs. It is not however totally impossible for this to happen. The three
cases that almost everybody quotes nowadays DID involve a single person
making a single illegal recording.

Carl