David Looser wrote:


Breath deep.....and relax

Why don't you try finding out what the law *actually* says before posting?
As I said before it's a good idea to get your facts right before calling
other people names.

I do, I know my subject, it's you who leaps in without the facts.
The thread was evolving in context of Keef donating a CD to a charity
shop which would re-sell the "pre-owned" CD, all perfectly legal.

Not only are you gratuitously offensive, you are also *wrong* about
copyright. Contrary to what you appear to believe you don't become "right"
just by being able to insult others.

But I am right, you are corrupting the debate issues in an attempt to
shore up your weak and inaccurate argument.


Oh, and by the way nether macrovision nor HDCP makes one iota of difference
to copyright law. Both, like DRM and SCMS, are simply mechanisms intended to
make it difficult to breach copyright. It's just as illegal to copy a
copyright recording whether any of these "copyright protection" mechanisms
are in use or not.


I didn't say otherwise, you need to calm down and re-read the thread.
I obviously threw in a few clues to bait and you fell in head first.
You all did as instructed and googled SCMS and DRM, but as usual you
took your info from the first search result, the imbecilic Wikipedia.
It wasn't me who said copy protection was not included in CD, It is-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3256945.stm
And that is from 2003, and it has evolved further since then.
A few lobbed in the Red Book standard, they didn't do their homework,
now there will be further frenzied googling by the clueless clique
and still none of you will get it right.

David.




You need to get some sleep.
Jesus loves you.