Ripping CDs To Computer Is Illegal - Page 3

JCL · #21 01-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Man I'm glad some of these opinions aren't the majority.

If you are not selling it, thus making a profit, anything you choose to do should be fine. If you want to take things 'literally' then all the posts on this board in regards to football have been illegal. In case people don't pay attention to the disclaimer during a NFL game, goes a little like this:

"Any recounts of the game or use of images of the game without consent of the National Football League are [illegal]"

So if you've ever, in your life, remarked about any NFL game...you broke the law....does that make sense?

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?

Sponsored Links

sp33dd3m0n90 · #22 01-02-2008, 05:27 PM

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

Quicksilver · #23 01-02-2008, 05:32 PM

Exactly!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tainui

You never really bought the CD. You purchased the right to enjoy it but it still belongs to them.

Quicksilver · #24 01-02-2008, 05:33 PM

Again.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

if you don't like the price of something, it's not legal to steal it in protest. If you were the artist instead of the thief you'ld have a different perspective.

"I don't like the price of that new BMW, i'll just steal it, BMW makes enough money..."

I don't have the energy to describe once again how the process works, but a CD costs significantly more than the materials used to manufacture it. Also, CD's wouldn't cost so much if people weren't stealing music.

You all realize this, it's nothing new to you. But because you *can* steal it without much fear of consequence, you cry about the price as the justification. It's very simple psychiatry.

Flame suit on.

haigha · #25 01-02-2008, 05:45 PM

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

Quicksilver · #26 01-02-2008, 07:01 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

The issue in NOT about how much money an artist makes. It about "Howell being also guilty of making "unauthorized copies" of CD tracks by ripping them to his computer, even though he may never have shared them with anyone else. "So then what are Authorized copies?" What does copyright law say???

Of course the suit is dumb and won't go anywhere but what does the law say? anybody know???

Quote:

Originally Posted by haigha

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

haigha · #27 01-02-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

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.

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.

Quicksilver · #28 01-02-2008, 07:55 PM

haigha

I understood your point very clearly and i agree. I just went off on a tangent

as i reflected on the other post in this thread.

Thunder22 · #29 01-02-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

haigha

I understood your point very clearly and i agree. I just went off on a tangent

as i reflected on the other post in this thread.

it happens as you get older

Wagner · #30 01-02-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

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?

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

Sponsored Links