| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which CD Recorder?
Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer
a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer
a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Jay Woodson" wrote in message
om Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. The tool of choice is a properly-equipped PC. It might be a PC that you already have. People have been going this route for years and years. There are a goodly number of web sites that reveal the *secrets*. Here are two of the better-known ones. http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. As rule, dedicated CD recorders are the mid-fi approach. Higher performance and greater sophistication are possible using a properly-set-up PC Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! I find that the main outputs of a good preamp is the ideal thing to hook up to the inputs of a PC sound card. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Sugarite" wrote in message ... Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jay Woodson" wrote in message om Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. The tool of choice is a properly-equipped PC. It might be a PC that you already have. People have been going this route for years and years. There are a goodly number of web sites that reveal the *secrets*. Here are two of the better-known ones. http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. As rule, dedicated CD recorders are the mid-fi approach. Higher performance and greater sophistication are possible using a properly-set-up PC Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! I find that the main outputs of a good preamp is the ideal thing to hook up to the inputs of a PC sound card. The above is a really good post. Arny, you're at your best. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Sugarite" wrote in message ... Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. The above is an even worse post. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jay Woodson" wrote in message om Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. The tool of choice is a properly-equipped PC. It might be a PC that you already have. People have been going this route for years and years. There are a goodly number of web sites that reveal the *secrets*. Here are two of the better-known ones. http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. As rule, dedicated CD recorders are the mid-fi approach. Higher performance and greater sophistication are possible using a properly-set-up PC Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! I find that the main outputs of a good preamp is the ideal thing to hook up to the inputs of a PC sound card. The above is a really good post. Arny, you're at your best. When it comes to sound cards, he da man!!! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Sugarite" not for you wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Sugarite" wrote in message ... Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. The above is an even worse post. The post postceding this post will be the worst post of all. Who wants to make it? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
In article ,
"Bad Penny" wrote: "Sugarite" not for you wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Sugarite" wrote in message ... Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. The above is an even worse post. The post postceding this post will be the worst post of all. Who wants to make it? I resent the accuracy of your prescience. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... In article , "Bad Penny" wrote: "Sugarite" not for you wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Sugarite" wrote in message ... Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. The above is an even worse post. The post postceding this post will be the worst post of all. Who wants to make it? I resent the accuracy of your prescience. Forgery! |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... "Sugarite" not for you said: Take a wild guess how many people are doing the same thing. Then guess how many sites there are that cover the subject ad nauseam. Google is your daddy. The above is a really bad post. The above is an even worse post. I think Bobo is in some kind of funk, either natural or artificially induced. It'll be over soon, George. Once a year I get on this morality trip. When it's over, I'm standing on my head in **** with the rest of you. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said: The tool of choice is a properly-[sic]equipped PC. It might be a PC that you already have. [snip] I find that the main outputs of a good preamp is the ideal thing to hook up to the inputs of a PC sound card. The above is a really good post. Arny, you're at your best. Are you drunk? I knew you would ask. Actually, it's very polite of you to suggest that's all it is. I am merely in the grips of a temporary personality disorder called "goodness." |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
The real Robert Morein said:
I knew you would ask. Actually, it's very polite of you to suggest that's all it is. I am merely in the grips of a temporary personality disorder called "goodness." I know this. In my case, it probably is caused by some developments in the private sector. When the one you love is very ill and/or hospitalized, everything else becomes much less relevant. Another point is that it's good to talk audio only, which I'm trying to do since some time. People often ask me why I don't post to rec.audio.tech instead, but I post in RAO off and on for some years now, and some of you guys have become somewhat like friends or at least thought-provoking sparring partners. Oh, and don't forget the sometimes absurd kind of humor that's floating around here. Last but not least: my shallow knowledge would soon be painfully obvious to the smart engineers in RATech :-) RAO a sewer? I think that's rather steep. A sandbox, maybe. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
In article ,
(Jay Woodson) wrote: Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! I bought a Harman Kardon CD2 for similar purposes, but it rarely gets much use because I don't listen to an individual lp often enough to want a cd of it just to avoid wear. One advantage of this approach is the simplicity of adding just one more box to the pile of components. Another is that anyone used to a cassette deck can make this substition and carry on as usual. You will need "audio" cd blanks, which are more expensive because they include a copyright protection surcharge but are still cheaper than cassettes. A cd recorder isn't as versatile as a pc, but will be cheaper. If you're willing to spend more, there's this: http://www.alesis.com/products/ml9600/about.html Stephen |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said: Are you drunk? I knew you would ask. Actually, it's very polite of you to suggest that's all it is. I am merely in the grips of a temporary personality disorder called "goodness." I'd call it "mawkishness verging on dementia". Whoa! Let Richman give the official diagnosis. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article , (Jay Woodson) wrote: Hi! This is my first post to these groups. I would like to transfer a small percentage of my large analog collection to CD. So I'm looking for a cd recorder (or possibly other means) of accomplishing this with good sound. I do not consider myself an audiophile but I do like faithful reproductions. Ideally, the unit would have inputs for 2 analog devices and produce CDs that may be played on regular old car/stereo/boombox CD palyers. My present system consists of Conrad Johnson PV-10A tube pre-amp, CJ 80W power amp, Linn turntable, and Rotel CD player with Theil 2.2 speakers. Obviously, I prefer a warmer analog type sound. Thanks very much. I look forward to your comments! I bought a Harman Kardon CD2 for similar purposes, but it rarely gets much use because I don't listen to an individual lp often enough to want a cd of it just to avoid wear. One advantage of this approach is the simplicity of adding just one more box to the pile of components. Another is that anyone used to a cassette deck can make this substition and carry on as usual. You will need "audio" cd blanks, which are more expensive because they include a copyright protection surcharge but are still cheaper than cassettes. A cd recorder isn't as versatile as a pc, but will be cheaper. If you're willing to spend more, there's this: http://www.alesis.com/products/ml9600/about.html Stephen In addition, using a cd recorder and audio CD discs is legal under the home recording act. Using a computer and computer cd roms is explicitly mentioned as being a copyright violation. This has nothing to do with whether one owns the original LP or not, but rather has to do with royalty payments that are added to consumer recorders and consumer blank media. So if you go the computer route, you risk turning your music collection into a heap of pirated cd's. Many do not consider that important, but it is a part of the current culture that you might want to know about. Carl |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
Carl,
Thank you for that information. I hadn't given it much thought. Is that why the SCMS is defeatable on "pro" cd recorders? In addition, using a cd recorder and audio CD discs is legal under the home recording act. Using a computer and computer cd roms is explicitly mentioned as being a copyright violation. This has nothing to do with whether one owns the original LP or not, but rather has to do with royalty payments that are added to consumer recorders and consumer blank media. So if you go the computer route, you risk turning your music collection into a heap of pirated cd's. Many do not consider that important, but it is a part of the current culture that you might want to know about. Carl |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Jay Woodson" wrote in message
om Carl, Thank you for that information. I hadn't given it much thought. Is that why the SCMS is defeatable on "pro" cd recorders? In addition, using a cd recorder and audio CD discs is legal under the home recording act. Using a computer and computer cd roms is explicitly mentioned as being a copyright violation. This has nothing to do with whether one owns the original LP or not, but rather has to do with royalty payments that are added to consumer recorders and consumer blank media. So if you go the computer route, you risk turning your music collection into a heap of pirated cd's. Many do not consider that important, but it is a part of the current culture that you might want to know about. Carl doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, there isn't just one copyright law that relates to transcribing media. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jay Woodson" wrote in message om Carl, Thank you for that information. I hadn't given it much thought. Is that why the SCMS is defeatable on "pro" cd recorders? In addition, using a cd recorder and audio CD discs is legal under the home recording act. Using a computer and computer cd roms is explicitly mentioned as being a copyright violation. This has nothing to do with whether one owns the original LP or not, but rather has to do with royalty payments that are added to consumer recorders and consumer blank media. So if you go the computer route, you risk turning your music collection into a heap of pirated cd's. Many do not consider that important, but it is a part of the current culture that you might want to know about. Carl doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, there isn't just one copyright law that relates to transcribing media. I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. Carl |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Carl Valle" wrote in
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The key words are "subject to sections 107-122" (which cover fair uses and other permissible copying WITHOUT the authors prior consent or permission. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (Complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law) The statute itself is merely a difficultly worded jumping off point for discussion. You'd need to review the relevant case law as well to flesh it out. It is a far broader and deeper issue that has been addressed here, and does not lend itself easily to simplistic formulaic analyses. Section 114 relates to the scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf Offers guidelines for educators and librarians as to reproductions. I don't believe that the law is settled. I think the cases are viewed on a case-by-case basis, applying the 4 -pronged test stated in the Copyright Law (in Section 107): 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The RIAA posits that any copying, without permission, is an infringement...even if it's to make a compilation cd of songs you already own for personal use in your car. The Court's have not gone this far, yet. Then there's the issue of "for archival purposes" even if you're not a library or school. I love academic discussions of the law. BTW, does anyone know how many audio CD recorder were sold last year? -- Now Go Play! Craig Ramseur |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Craig Ramseur" wrote in message
BTW, does anyone know how many audio CD recorder were sold last year? I seriously that stand-alone CD burner sales were anything like those of PCs with CD burners that were actually used to burn audio CDs. You can get some idea of this by looking at shelf stock of the resepective kinds of blanks, tied in with the fact that relatively few consumers use CD burners to back up their personal data nearly as often as they use them to burn complation audio CDs, most based on MP3s. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. Look at the DHRA "Digital Home Recording Act." As a ploy to get consumer elect. mfrs. to build in SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) into their products and to get a royalty payment for recorders and blank media, a compromise measure was enacted that sheilds consumers from liabilities when recording with the SCMS gear using royalty taxed media. It is still not legal, and giving away said recordings, selling them, or using the machines and media to record material not obtained leagally by the recordist is not given this protection. General purpose devices such as computers are specifically mentioned as falling outside the protection. Then look at the new DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." This act criminalizes the intentional bypassing of copy protection schemes such as those used to set the copy inhibit flag on SCMS as well as other schemes. Copying audio material with a computer does violate the copy protection scheme. The fines are quite high and even prison sentences can be involved. It is a federal felony to defeat copy protection of copyrighted materials under this act. This act is the one the RIAA is using right now to gain access to ISP account information and bring suit on thousands of MP3 file sharers. And they are being freighteningly successful. Carl |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Craig Ramseur" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in : "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The key words are "subject to sections 107-122" (which cover fair uses and other permissible copying WITHOUT the authors prior consent or permission. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (Complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law) The statute itself is merely a difficultly worded jumping off point for discussion. You'd need to review the relevant case law as well to flesh it out. It is a far broader and deeper issue that has been addressed here, and does not lend itself easily to simplistic formulaic analyses. Section 114 relates to the scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf Offers guidelines for educators and librarians as to reproductions. I don't believe that the law is settled. I think the cases are viewed on a case-by-case basis, applying the 4 -pronged test stated in the Copyright Law (in Section 107): 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The RIAA posits that any copying, without permission, is an infringement...even if it's to make a compilation cd of songs you already own for personal use in your car. The Court's have not gone this far, yet. Then there's the issue of "for archival purposes" even if you're not a library or school. I love academic discussions of the law. BTW, does anyone know how many audio CD recorder were sold last year? -- Now Go Play! Craig Ramseur I did mention in my original post that many people do not consider this issue to be of great importance, and they continue to rely upon fair use doctrine (now actually codified) as a defense against CI. However, as I stated in the OP, the CD's remain pirates as far as law is concerned, it's only a matter of being sued or not. But now with DMCA in law, bypassing copyright protection has become a Federal Felony. So that while copying with a consumer recorder may well be simple CI and come under civil law, at which time fair use comes into play, copying with a computer is a felony and no fair use doctrine can be applied. Carl |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
m "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. Look at the DHRA "Digital Home Recording Act." As a ploy to get consumer elect. mfrs. to build in SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) into their products and to get a royalty payment for recorders and blank media, a compromise measure was enacted that sheilds consumers from liabilities when recording with the SCMS gear using royalty taxed media. It is still not legal, and giving away said recordings, selling them, or using the machines and media to record material not obtained leagally by the recordist is not given this protection. General purpose devices such as computers are specifically mentioned as falling outside the protection. Then look at the new DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." This act criminalizes the intentional bypassing of copy protection schemes such as those used to set the copy inhibit flag on SCMS as well as other schemes. Copying audio material with a computer does violate the copy protection scheme. The fines are quite high and even prison sentences can be involved. It is a federal felony to defeat copy protection of copyrighted materials under this act. This act is the one the RIAA is using right now to gain access to ISP account information and bring suit on thousands of MP3 file sharers. And they are being freighteningly successful. Carl, you seem to have forgotten about the requirement that prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Carl Valle" wrote in news:UIvSc.5513$NS1.3815
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. Look at the DHRA "Digital Home Recording Act." As a ploy to get consumer elect. mfrs. to build in SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) into their products and to get a royalty payment for recorders and blank media, a compromise measure was enacted that sheilds consumers from liabilities when recording with the SCMS gear using royalty taxed media. It is still not legal, and giving away said recordings, selling them, or using the machines and media to record material not obtained leagally by the recordist is not given this protection. General purpose devices such as computers are specifically mentioned as falling outside the protection. Then look at the new DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." This act criminalizes the intentional bypassing of copy protection schemes such as those used to set the copy inhibit flag on SCMS as well as other schemes. Copying audio material with a computer does violate the copy protection scheme. The fines are quite high and even prison sentences can be involved. It is a federal felony to defeat copy protection of copyrighted materials under this act. This act is the one the RIAA is using right now to gain access to ISP account information and bring suit on thousands of MP3 file sharers. And they are being freighteningly successful. Carl Hasn't that success been based on the distribution or re-distribution of copyrighted material not on the act of copying itself? The thrust of the law seemed to be more tailored against distribution of CR'd material, not just copying alone, and not for solely personal use. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for home copying for personal use? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to track the purchaser of each standalone CD burner (I know there are far more pc burners sold, but they could arguably be used for "data" archival purposes...the standalone units are really audio only), and proceed that way? Has this ever been done? I ask out of curiosity. -- Now Go Play! Craig Ramseur |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"Craig Ramseur" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in news:UIvSc.5513$NS1.3815 @newssvr23.news.prodigy.com: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. Look at the DHRA "Digital Home Recording Act." As a ploy to get consumer elect. mfrs. to build in SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) into their products and to get a royalty payment for recorders and blank media, a compromise measure was enacted that sheilds consumers from liabilities when recording with the SCMS gear using royalty taxed media. It is still not legal, and giving away said recordings, selling them, or using the machines and media to record material not obtained leagally by the recordist is not given this protection. General purpose devices such as computers are specifically mentioned as falling outside the protection. Then look at the new DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." This act criminalizes the intentional bypassing of copy protection schemes such as those used to set the copy inhibit flag on SCMS as well as other schemes. Copying audio material with a computer does violate the copy protection scheme. The fines are quite high and even prison sentences can be involved. It is a federal felony to defeat copy protection of copyrighted materials under this act. This act is the one the RIAA is using right now to gain access to ISP account information and bring suit on thousands of MP3 file sharers. And they are being freighteningly successful. Carl Hasn't that success been based on the distribution or re-distribution of copyrighted material not on the act of copying itself? The thrust of the law seemed to be more tailored against distribution of CR'd material, not just copying alone, and not for solely personal use. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for home copying for personal use? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to track the purchaser of each standalone CD burner (I know there are far more pc burners sold, but they could arguably be used for "data" archival purposes...the standalone units are really audio only), and proceed that way? Has this ever been done? I ask out of curiosity. -- Now Go Play! Craig Ramseur I really think that the RIAA wants to put fear in the hearts of mp3 traders, so they have targeted that particular 'offense' right now. If they are successful, perhaps they will turn their attention to home copiers. Two landmark cases, the Disney / Sony case and the Media Shifting case did involve private individuals, however I think that the defendants were able tp convince the court that they were within reasonable 'fair use' defense. I know of no person yet accused of CI by copying materials at home for personal use. I know that three weeks ago, here in Missouri, 3 kids were arrested for selling hip/hop CD compilations at a yard sale. They were charged with felony copyright infringement but the outcome is not clear because they are minors. Carl |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"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 Valle" wrote in message m I do know what I am talking about. Please quote the copyright law that allows making computer copies of copyright protected materials. Or cite the precedent you seem to think allows such activity. That would be a negative hypothesis, that there is no law against using a PC to make backup copies of CDs you own, for your own use. Carl, you've made the claim that is illegal. That means that there is a published law someplace that prohibits this. That's a positive hypothesis. I leave it to you to prove your own positive hypothesis with actual quotes from specific laws. Okay for starters here is the piece of the original CFR Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. That's all fine and good Carl, but it doesn't justify your claim that copying with a stand-alone CD player is legal, but doing essentially the same thing with a PC is always illegal. The logical conclusion based on these items is that all copying is illegal. Look at the DHRA "Digital Home Recording Act." As a ploy to get consumer elect. mfrs. to build in SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) into their products and to get a royalty payment for recorders and blank media, a compromise measure was enacted that sheilds consumers from liabilities when recording with the SCMS gear using royalty taxed media. It is still not legal, and giving away said recordings, selling them, or using the machines and media to record material not obtained leagally by the recordist is not given this protection. General purpose devices such as computers are specifically mentioned as falling outside the protection. Then look at the new DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." This act criminalizes the intentional bypassing of copy protection schemes such as those used to set the copy inhibit flag on SCMS as well as other schemes. Copying audio material with a computer does violate the copy protection scheme. The fines are quite high and even prison sentences can be involved. It is a federal felony to defeat copy protection of copyrighted materials under this act. This act is the one the RIAA is using right now to gain access to ISP account information and bring suit on thousands of MP3 file sharers. And they are being freighteningly successful. 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. You made up the 'requirement' for me to quote them. You have yet to respond as to what makes you think copying is legal as you say. I have quoted you the law that proves this is not true and that you are, as always, wrong. Do as you like, the RIAA is right at this moment hunting the internet for sites that help people infringe copyright, and they are targeting those people with the threat of out of court settlements, civil suits, or using their influence to pressure charges to be brought under the DMCA. Perhaps they are evaluating your web site even as I type this message. Perhaps you need to investigate the DCMA and the newer legislation being proposed. You may be at risk, since it is you that keeps telling people to record copyrighted materials with a soundcard, and provides all that free information on exactly how to circumvent copyright protections. Carl |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"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. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"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 - ``(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- ``(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; ``(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or ``(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ``(3) As used in this subsection-- ``(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and ``(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. ------- Carl |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which CD Recorder?
"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? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. 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. 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. I stand by my statement that recording copyrighted materials by any means is a violation of copyright. You get to be wrong. 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. 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. My hypothesis is proved by the law i have quoted to you. You get to be wrong. You are wrong about fair use, and you are wrong about this argument that these laws can be deconstructed. You get to be wrong. Your statements cannot be supported either by law, nor by precedent. You've never adequately supported this claim. 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. 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. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl Valle wrote:
"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 More verifiable libel from Krueger. If Krueger has any evidence of ethical violations by Dr. Richman, he should immediately report them to the Florida Board of Psychology. They, in turn, will do an investigation. As usual, Krueger is full of ****. He has once again made a libelous statement (by innuendo). Both he and McKelvy have been challenged to have their libelous claims printed in any Amercan publication. They have also been challenged to report my activities to the legal authorities since they have claimed that somebody is impersonating Dr. Bruce J. Richman. Needless to say, they have miserably failed to do either. They have miserably failed to demonstrate that anything they have had to say about Dr. Richman is true. In short, the *only* thing that they have proved - over and over again - is that they are guilty of libel. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl Valle wrote:
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. Hi Carl...my two cents, if you don't mind. I currently have about a thousand CD's. In order to preserve their condition I have made copies of almost three hundred. The copies are for the car changer and for listening at work. I never make multiple copies, and hand them out. They are for me, and me alone. I detest music leeches, and can't stand mp3's. The word 'sharing' is not part of my vocabulary. Since I have all the originals, and have therefore paid sums to compensate for copyright, where is the legitimate concern? Okay, now to answer the original question: My pick goes to the Tascam CDRW2000. It copies everything, and will use computer blanks. The scms can be turned off, and it has a virtual plethora of analog and digital in/outs. Also, it performs quite well as a player. So much so that for a short while it was my player of choice, surpassing my Denon1650AR, and the much vaunted Sony7700. Thanks for reading... |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"audiophool" wrote in message le.rogers.com... Carl Valle wrote: 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. Hi Carl...my two cents, if you don't mind. I currently have about a thousand CD's. In order to preserve their condition I have made copies of almost three hundred. The copies are for the car changer and for listening at work. I never make multiple copies, and hand them out. They are for me, and me alone. I detest music leeches, and can't stand mp3's. The word 'sharing' is not part of my vocabulary. Since I have all the originals, and have therefore paid sums to compensate for copyright, where is the legitimate concern? Okay, now to answer the original question: My pick goes to the Tascam CDRW2000. It copies everything, and will use computer blanks. The scms can be turned off, and it has a virtual plethora of analog and digital in/outs. Also, it performs quite well as a player. So much so that for a short while it was my player of choice, surpassing my Denon1650AR, and the much vaunted Sony7700. Thanks for reading... I still love my Pioneer Elite CDR. I just picked up a Sony DTC700 which has a CD 'synchro copy' feature... As does my Sony CDP505 and TCWE805S.. I do not think you are in danger here for several reasons: You already own the CD recording original. If you were to sell the original, you may be obliged to destroy the back-up copy. You are using your copies for personal use and retain control over them. I seriously doubt that anyone could successfully argue the differentiation of SCMS and Non-SCMS equipment in today's consumer technology environment anyway. It is a case of the law being years behind the technology. There are so many other areas, for example, a taxicab, or a carpool and the driver plays a CD. Is that a violation? Yes, by law it is. If you were to copy LP's however, I could argue that the record company if they had re-issued that LP on CD format, would feel as though you should have purchased a CD copy to gain advantage of that product improvement. Thus they may argue that lost revenue was a result of you not buying that CD. These are, for the private collector, minor questions in general. My original argument, which has been well obscured by now, was that if a person were to copy LP to CD on a non-SCMS system, these CD's would be pirates and not be as valuable as the original LP's. Thus my statement about turning a Music Collection into a pile of pirates. I also think it's rather funny that Sony, who own a large catalog of copyright materials, also market Sound Forge, a premiere duplicating software. This also not to mention their decades long history of producing consumer cassette duplicating decks etc. It's a strange mix.. Carl Please do not mis-understand me. I personally think the record companies and the RIAA is over the edge with their attacks in the private sector. I do not think Napster and MP3 trading is hurting their business nearly as much as mediocre products are. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Flash memory recorder without built-in memory. Is there one? | General | |||
| stereo (2 channel) recorder | Pro Audio | |||
| [?] Looking for a portable solid-state stereo tape recorder | Pro Audio | |||
| Mackie Hard Disk Recorder News | Pro Audio | |||
| Total Recorder 4.2 recording MP3 files in slowed-down sound mode | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
