No, it doesn't make sense. Seems to me they are referring to commercial recounts, not bar room talks. I have never watched an NFL game though, or talked about one, so I am probably not the correct person to ask.

However, how much does an NFL broadcast disclaimer have to do with violating the terms of license on a CD that a consumer purchased, thereby accepting those license terms? Wouldn't the broadcast disclaimer be impossible to enforce?

then the features of WMP are illegal?
I just ripped volume 1 and 2 greatest hits of Queen this morning.

Exactly!!!

Again.....:iagree:

So uploading the songs from the CD to the CD player's memory so that its DAC can work or sending it to the digital output is making an illegal copy? ;)

Here is a more comprehensive article on the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The target of the lawsuit is alleged to have made the songs available on a file sharing network.

The RIAA also claims that making copies to his computer for his own use is illegal but it is not established in law as the article above points out. It's possible that it will turn out to be legal.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping...ems_and_status

That's why i posted this first. Most people don't have a clue what copyright law entails or what the spirit of it means. All they think is you go out and buy something, that's it, it's mine, done. But it's not that simple. What people don't understand is that what you buy is a performance not a piece of plastic. What that means is that you get to use that performance for your personal use but duplication and distribution in any form of that performance is bound by copyright law. So one has to know and understand what the law says regarding the distribution of said performance. Each individual is not allowed to make up their own rules regarding duplication and distribution.

In the past if one were to duplicate a performance it was almost sure to be huge effort to copy and distribute performances of any quality or quanity. One had to go out and spend a great deal of money buying duplicating equiptment to do the job and few people had the resources to do so and If they were caught doing it they were prosecuted for doing so.

These days digital duplication means that flawless copies can be made of the original right at home then sold in ever greater quantities than before. Because of this ability to produce flawless copies and the internet as an effective distribution vehicle there is a real threat the economic position of the recording industry.

So the real deal is that it isn't right for people to take the performance property of song writers, producers and so on and pass it around without regard for the law. Obeying the law in this matter is showing respect for the creators of the performance and all the other people who signed contracts to get paid for their part of the performance. :thumbup:

My key point was not about the file sharing side. I was addressing the fact that there is no clear case law establishing the RIAA's claim that copying a CD to one's computer for personal use is illegal. The current case they have brought may or may not establish its claim.

File sharing of copyrighted material without consent of the copyright holder is clearly illegal in the U.S., as established in case law, and is illegal in other countries too.

haigha

I understood your point very clearly and i agree. I just went off on a tangent :rofl: as i reflected on the other post in this thread. ;)

it happens as you get older ;) :nanana:

Exactly, much like enforcing whether a person burns a cd they bought to their iPod.