On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:12:51 GMT, "Carl Valle"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:58:05 GMT, "Carl Valle"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
material is encrypted.

At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.

This would mean that it's technically illegal
to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.

So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.

Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies
when
I buy blank media.

Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
has that charge.

However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.

The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are cracking a
anti copy device.
It's called SCMS and it is incorporated into all consumer digital decks to
protect the equipment manufacturer from lawsuits, not the individual...
The often cited Sony/Disney case was won by Sony, not the individual. Sony
argued that the VCR had legitimate uses and thus was not intended to be a
machine to steal programming. That is how they won.
Carl

First of all, if you burn a CD using your home PC, you are NOT
cracking any code. A computer is NOT considered a "recording device".
Yet. But beyond that, note the word *Serial* in the name of the code.
This theoretically prohibits *serial* copying, but doesn't prohibit
making a copy for your own private and personal use (in most cases).
Plus, it doesn't prevent you from making an *analog* copy such as a
cassette tape for your car. It's designed to prevent reproduction of
multiple "bit accurate" copies for distribution.

Second of all, the Sony decision DID alow individuals to time shift.
That much is clear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 30 years of VCRs.

Third of all, the normal license doesn't preclude making a copy for
your personal use.



Copy on a computer with a data disc avoids payment of the royalty which is
the vehicle of the protection from prosecution.

A computer is not classed as a recording device under the law and
therefore is not subject to royalties.

At any rate, since there is no royalty on computer drives paid, and since
they don't conform to SCMS by design, there is no protection, thus the old
law applies and thus any copy is an infringement.

This is incorrect. There is no law against making an additional copy
for personal use. The law protects against distribution.

There is no liscense granted by the purchase of a music software that allows
any copying of any kind.

You need to check out the section in Title 17 of the Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-
563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010)

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.

17 U.S.C. 1008.

Time shifting is different issue because you do not have to buy the original
source to enjoy it's use.
Time shifting a rented videotape for example, is illegal.
The main reason, believe it or not, that we have VCR for 30 years is the
fact that it is not only a recorder, but also the only player up until a few
years ago, that the public had to enjoy the benefits of buying and renting
movies etc.

No, we still have them because the courts allowed them. So no, I don't
believe you. It would have been simple to require them to be playback
only, and actually, it almost came to that.