Interesting installment/ongoing argument 1

[sleipnir214]

Actually, under strict interpretation of current Micro$oft licensing, your copy of Office is licensed to the single particular machine on which you originally installed the software. To move the software from one machine to another, you are technically required to get permission from Micro$oft. It's probably a reaction to people's moving cheapo OEM copies of software to a new machine when they upgrade hardware.


The problem comparing audio CDs to installable program CDs is the typical-use assumptions that go into creating the licenses.

When someone is creating a license for a program CD, the assumption is that the software will actually be used from a copy of the program that will be installed on the hard-drive of a computer -- an implied media format change. The license then involves granting limited rights to use.

The license for an audio CD seems to assume that you will be playing the CD in one player and moving it at need. The license is then tied more to the physical disk you bought at your record store.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[CajunCenturion]

If the copy that you've made is a backup copy, which is perfectly legal, then it should be stored in a safe place. Keeping the original and backup copies together can defeat one of the reasons that we make backups.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[cdogg]

Regarding the duplicated music CD and spouse; would you find it to be acceptable if both the copy and the original were kept together?

Where you store a backup copy is not an issue. The main restriction is that the backup copy does not come into play unless the original is damaged or destroyed. Therefore, you should never have both in use at any one time - even if they are being used at different times. Not using them simultaneously isn't an exception.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[theoxyde]

Could very easily have one copy in the CD player at home while your spouse is listenting to the CD in the car.

That would be the same as having a copy of Office on your PC and your spouse's. Both are wrong. However, the existence of a duplicate copy of the content does not in and of itself constitute copyright infringement. That depends upon its use.

For example, I have a copy of a CD in my car. The original is on a shelf at home. I also have a copy in my MP3 player that I'm listening to at this moment. The argument regarding "uninstalling" first is moot here because there is no such agreement with music CD's. That is specifically stated on software and the user must accept that agreement before using the software.

Music CDs typically have a derivative of the phrase "Unauthorized duplication illegal". My interpretation of fair use gives me implicit "authorization" to make as many copies as I like, so long as I am the only person using them. Unlike software, no other agreement was made binding me to a single device.

I simply refuse to purchase defective (i.e., copy protected) media so that I am not in violation of any laws. They have the right to protect their content, and I have the right to not spend my money on that content.

 

[strongm]

wbg34,

grenage was referring to my comment that UK copyright law differs on this matter

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

One thing everyone should look at is the very real fact that the entertainment industry is starting the move to a pay-per-use scheme. Software is trying to do the same thing in a way too. We are not that far (less then 20 years I'd say) from the point where you'll buy a CD but you'll still have to pay for listening to songs. Pay-per-Use, if they can impliment it securely, can be lucrative.

How they get there is another issue.

Someone in the entertainment industry rescently said something like "If you want to have a backup copy of a DVD then buy a 2nd DVD".

Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[pmonett]

People in the entertainment industry are not exactly the best reference I would think of as far as fair use is concerned.
I stand by what I said before, and I agree with theoxyde.
The only justifiable case of copyright infringement is if I distribute copies of media.
As long as I keep my copies to myself, for my personal use, then I fail to see what infringement takes place, with or without transformation.
If the law does not agree with me, then I will vote to change the law.

Pascal.

 

[lionelhill]

(1) copyright reminds me of taxes (specifically, the late-unlamented window tax). If you push things too far, everyone cheats, and your income actually falls. I don't think pay-to-use CDs will catch on unless the charges are really stupidly small, because too many people will try too hard to cheat - the incentive is too big. The key to high income is to charge little enough that people still bother to pay.

(2) All this discussion of back-up copies seems a bit airy-theoretical to me (as does the prosecution of people making valid back-ups). Probably the vast majority of disk copying has noting whatsoever to do with back-ups and is simply piracy; plain and simple theft. So many people think it's OK to (a) copy their friend's music CDs, and (b) load copies of their friends games onto their machines, that it's hardly surprising if the media industry fights back. And the fight is hardly about fairness, it's about winning.

 

[Grenage]

You are quite correct lionelhill, I too would say that >99% of copies are simply piracy; but should the 1%< suffer because of them?