Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TouchToneTommy on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Interesting installment/ongoing argument 1
- Thread starter carrr
- Start date
- Status
OK. We'll take this problem and outsource it. Anything else?
No, but seriously, this is an example of a technological issue that just might need a set of new laws, if at all.
For some reason, we are under the impression that current laws can handle anything. Instead of creating technology to fit existing laws, we probably need new laws to accommodate new technology?
Dimandja
No, but seriously, this is an example of a technological issue that just might need a set of new laws, if at all.
For some reason, we are under the impression that current laws can handle anything. Instead of creating technology to fit existing laws, we probably need new laws to accommodate new technology?
Dimandja
sleipnir214
Programmer
I've never been under the impression that current laws can handle everything. But I am under the impression that one should always be circumspect in writing new laws.
Know what you get when you don't put enough thought into the creation of a law? The DMCA and the Patriot Act.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Know what you get when you don't put enough thought into the creation of a law? The DMCA and the Patriot Act.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Ha, except the Patriot Act overrides quite a few rights and laws that are unequivocally clear! That example is more of a mandate in a time of "war" to take unrestrictive measures. I don't think any well-written legislation could have prevented it.
Of course, that's a completely different issue going way off-topic.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
![[stpatrick2]](/data/assets/smilies/stpatrick2.gif "[stpatrick2] [stpatrick2]")
[navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Of course, that's a completely different issue going way off-topic.
~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] faq219-2884I agree with sleipner on this.
I feel our legislators have much too keen an interest in scribing something new than in reviewing the old and updating it.
On the subject of copyright, I have said before that I believe our existing laws concerning theft are amply sufficient.
In this light, converting whatever you have to whatever format arranges you would not be an infringement. Is there a car dealer that brings you to justice because you decided to repaint your car ? Or add some lights to it ? No.
It should be the same for music CDs and DVDs. You have the original ? Yes. You want to listen to it in your car, on your MP3 player, in whatever format ? Go ahead. You want a stripped-down AVI copy for video tweaking on your PC ? fine. You want to give a copy to someone else ? Whoa there, just a minute : what license do you have to do that ? None ? Then it is theft, which is illegal.
If our existing laws concerning theft are not resilient enough to be applied like this, then they should be amended. It is not necessary to add a whole new chapter of laws to the book simply because a new medium and method of transmission has been discovered. Whether you sell CD copies or share MP3s on the Net is no different : you're giving what is not yours to give.
That does not mean that what is yours is limited in the way you can use it.
There is no justification in preventing me from ripping a CD to MY OWN MP3 player for MY PERSONAL enjoyment. After all, if I want to strip my car down and rebuild it my way, it is not the car maker who is going to say anything about it. It is mine, therefor I can do with it as I please.
But I cannot give it away multiple times unless the license that came with it specifically says so. To do otherwise is cheating, or theft.
And the law already condemns theft.
Pascal.
I feel our legislators have much too keen an interest in scribing something new than in reviewing the old and updating it.
On the subject of copyright, I have said before that I believe our existing laws concerning theft are amply sufficient.
In this light, converting whatever you have to whatever format arranges you would not be an infringement. Is there a car dealer that brings you to justice because you decided to repaint your car ? Or add some lights to it ? No.
It should be the same for music CDs and DVDs. You have the original ? Yes. You want to listen to it in your car, on your MP3 player, in whatever format ? Go ahead. You want a stripped-down AVI copy for video tweaking on your PC ? fine. You want to give a copy to someone else ? Whoa there, just a minute : what license do you have to do that ? None ? Then it is theft, which is illegal.
If our existing laws concerning theft are not resilient enough to be applied like this, then they should be amended. It is not necessary to add a whole new chapter of laws to the book simply because a new medium and method of transmission has been discovered. Whether you sell CD copies or share MP3s on the Net is no different : you're giving what is not yours to give.
That does not mean that what is yours is limited in the way you can use it.
There is no justification in preventing me from ripping a CD to MY OWN MP3 player for MY PERSONAL enjoyment. After all, if I want to strip my car down and rebuild it my way, it is not the car maker who is going to say anything about it. It is mine, therefor I can do with it as I please.
But I cannot give it away multiple times unless the license that came with it specifically says so. To do otherwise is cheating, or theft.
And the law already condemns theft.
Pascal.
lionelhill
Technical User
I thought it interesting that later on in the article, there was a mention of Roxio buying what's left of Napster, unless I misunderstood. Roxio, if it's the same bunch, used to have a wonderfully restrictive end user licence agreement on their CD writing software; I always find it amusing that those most anxious to protect their own rights are so closely linked to those most inclined to cheat others (e.g. Napster)
pmonnett and Grenage
Strongm makes a good point about differing copyright laws across international borders.
While US copyright law permits making reasonable copies for personal use, such as MP3's or copying CD's to tape for use in your car for example, UK copyright law has no such provision and so anybody here would have to legally purchase a CD copy, an audio cassette copy or an MP3 copy.
John
Strongm makes a good point about differing copyright laws across international borders.
While US copyright law permits making reasonable copies for personal use, such as MP3's or copying CD's to tape for use in your car for example, UK copyright law has no such provision and so anybody here would have to legally purchase a CD copy, an audio cassette copy or an MP3 copy.
John
CajunCenturion
Programmer
It is certainly true that copyright laws do vary across international borders, although there are a number of international agreements in place. That being said, to my knowledge, no US court has ruled that format-shifting is a legitimate reason for making personal copies. Time shifting has been determined to be fair use, but not format-shifting. To my knowledge, US copyright law does not permit the ripping of CD's.
One thing that we keep in mind about copyright law. The copyright belongs to the owner, and it is up to the owner to decide what is and is not legitimate copying. If Shania Twain (or her producer whoever actually owns the copyright), were to annouce that anyone can copy, rip, share, download, convert to MP3 any song from her latest Up! CD, then it's perfectly legal for everyone to do so. The owner of the copyright sets the boundaries, not copyright law. The law protects the copyright owners ability to set the rules. The confusing aspect is that copyright law has enumerated a short list of the types of copies that are considered "fair use", and therefore outside of the control of the copyright owner. Many, many people, just like in the scenarios presented by pmonett above want to decide for themselves what is and is not fair use and permitted. But that is just plain wrong. If what you want to do is not covered in the enumerated "fair use" provisions, then you're bound to the wishes and restrictions of the copyright owner. Whereas exact duplicates for backup purposes has been deemed fair use, format-shifting has not (at least within US copyright law) and until such time as it goes on that list, it's safe to assume that any type of format shifting is a copyright violation.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
One thing that we keep in mind about copyright law. The copyright belongs to the owner, and it is up to the owner to decide what is and is not legitimate copying. If Shania Twain (or her producer whoever actually owns the copyright), were to annouce that anyone can copy, rip, share, download, convert to MP3 any song from her latest Up! CD, then it's perfectly legal for everyone to do so. The owner of the copyright sets the boundaries, not copyright law. The law protects the copyright owners ability to set the rules. The confusing aspect is that copyright law has enumerated a short list of the types of copies that are considered "fair use", and therefore outside of the control of the copyright owner. Many, many people, just like in the scenarios presented by pmonett above want to decide for themselves what is and is not fair use and permitted. But that is just plain wrong. If what you want to do is not covered in the enumerated "fair use" provisions, then you're bound to the wishes and restrictions of the copyright owner. Whereas exact duplicates for backup purposes has been deemed fair use, format-shifting has not (at least within US copyright law) and until such time as it goes on that list, it's safe to assume that any type of format shifting is a copyright violation.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Why is what unreasonable?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
We appear to have posted at the same time.
I was referring to jrbarnett's post, or more specifically:
"UK copyright law has no such provision and so anybody here would have to legally purchase a CD copy, an audio cassette copy or an MP3 copy"
You could surely never expect someone to pay twice for an audio CD simply because they want to listen to it on their MP3 player instead of their CD player, that's almost a "per device" licensing scheme.
I was referring to jrbarnett's post, or more specifically:
"UK copyright law has no such provision and so anybody here would have to legally purchase a CD copy, an audio cassette copy or an MP3 copy"
You could surely never expect someone to pay twice for an audio CD simply because they want to listen to it on their MP3 player instead of their CD player, that's almost a "per device" licensing scheme.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I see.
With respect to a "per device" licensing scheme: Would that be similar to a "per user" software license, or a "per processor" software license?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
With respect to a "per device" licensing scheme: Would that be similar to a "per user" software license, or a "per processor" software license?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Really?, I was always under the impression that if you owned a music CD you were entitled to convert to MP3 for personal use.
I should read up on related law it would appear.
Grenage,
this was addressed in the original artical. Here is what it says.
"Does it mean that I'm breaking the law when I use Apple iTunes to make a copy of my audio CD for personal use? Apparently not. Why the difference?
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explained that the DMCA applies only to "protected" digital content, meaning discs that have been encrypted in an obviously unsuccessful attempt to prevent copying. "DVDs are really the first mass market media form that is protected," he said. The courts have somewhat ambiguously upheld the right of consumers to copy audio CDs, LP records, and cassettes for their own use, von Lohmann said, "but when Congress enacted the DMCA, it created an entirely different set of rules for media with protected content. Congress has effectively slammed the door on copying next-generation technologies, like DVDs, SACD audio discs, and DVD-Audio."
"
Basically, as CC pointed out earlier that the problem is not with copying it is with breaking the encryption. Most CD's do not have copy protection or encryption. If they did, then it would be illegal to make copies of them as well.
I should read up on related law it would appear.
Grenage,
this was addressed in the original artical. Here is what it says.
"Does it mean that I'm breaking the law when I use Apple iTunes to make a copy of my audio CD for personal use? Apparently not. Why the difference?
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explained that the DMCA applies only to "protected" digital content, meaning discs that have been encrypted in an obviously unsuccessful attempt to prevent copying. "DVDs are really the first mass market media form that is protected," he said. The courts have somewhat ambiguously upheld the right of consumers to copy audio CDs, LP records, and cassettes for their own use, von Lohmann said, "but when Congress enacted the DMCA, it created an entirely different set of rules for media with protected content. Congress has effectively slammed the door on copying next-generation technologies, like DVDs, SACD audio discs, and DVD-Audio."
"
Basically, as CC pointed out earlier that the problem is not with copying it is with breaking the encryption. Most CD's do not have copy protection or encryption. If they did, then it would be illegal to make copies of them as well.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Let's try and look at this issue from a PC perspective. You buy a copy of MS Office. How many PC's are you entitiled to load that software on? With an audio CD, you can take that purchased CD wherever you go and listen to it on any CD player anywhere. Can you take that purchased copy of MS Office with you anywhere you go and legally install it on any PC that you use?
Hypothetically, suppose there exists a piece of software that converted Windows code to Linux code. Would you think that you could legally run your copy of MS Office through this converter, and then install MS Office on a Linux box?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Hypothetically, suppose there exists a piece of software that converted Windows code to Linux code. Would you think that you could legally run your copy of MS Office through this converter, and then install MS Office on a Linux box?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
"Can you take that purchased copy of MS Office with you anywhere you go and legally install it on any PC that you use?"
Providing that prior to installing MS Office on the new machine I had uninstalled it from the old machine, sure.
With regards to the hypothetical MS code converter I would not have an ethical issue with installing Office, prior to this conversation I would not have thought I had a legal issue either.
Providing that prior to installing MS Office on the new machine I had uninstalled it from the old machine, sure.
With regards to the hypothetical MS code converter I would not have an ethical issue with installing Office, prior to this conversation I would not have thought I had a legal issue either.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Grenage said:
I think that statement, which I agree with, does define the crux of the issue. The effect of uninstalling it from the old machine means that only one copy can be operational at any given point in time. It doesn't matter which machine that copy is in, what matters is that only one copy is operational. Now if you take your audio CD, and make a copy, keep one at the house and one in the car, you now have two operational copies, in two distinct locations.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Could very easily have one copy in the CD player at home while your spouse is listenting to the CD in the car.
Would you consider the version of Office that has been installed as operational even if were not running?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Would you consider the version of Office that has been installed as operational even if were not running?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That's a tough question. The line has to be drawn somewhere and personally I would find it more reasonable to have it installed in only one place, rather than installed and not running.
Regarding the duplicated music CD and spouse; would you find it to be acceptable if both the copy and the original were kept together?
Regarding the duplicated music CD and spouse; would you find it to be acceptable if both the copy and the original were kept together?
- Status
Similar threads