Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/03/2011 20:02, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Society is stratified enough thanks very much, and property ownership is
going to shape and divide the next generation more than any other variable
thanks to inheritance.


Well that's the society we live in. Attempts have been made in the past to
come up with a system where "all men are equal", but they've always
degenerated into corrupt dictatorships, so I'm not holding out much hope of
a successful one coming along any time soon.

What I don't think you can do is to separate out creators of intellectual
property: writers, musicians, artists , film-makers, etc., and say that
different rules apply to them. Either we impose "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need" on the whole of society, or we allow
these creative types to benefit financially from their talent.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 29/03/2011 09:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
[big snip]



I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.

Afraid I don't know. My guess is that the copyright owners have decided to
simply not object to people making a 'convenience' copy of a CD they have
bought and keep. That would give them elbow room if something occurred that
did bother them. But the reason I suggest asking them is to find out what
they say if you have any doubts.

And of course the situation is hypothetical. Blimey. I'm hardly going to
do something illegal and then publicly declare. Just to be clear. I
have never ripped a CD and then given the physical copy to a charity
shop, having retained the ripped copy. I can't comment on the
extrapolated examples you give ("the copies you have made") - is this
some sort of guilt thing manifesting itself? :-)

My "you" came from examples like your


On 28 Mar in uk.rec.audio, Rob wrote:
Well, as I suggested elsewhere - do you know the origin of the CD I
copied, who I gave it to, why, and what they did with it?

where you used "I".

So I was speaking as hypothetically as you were, as defined by what you
meant. :-) Ditto for all unstated circumstances.


And you really think I'm going to ask the BPI alone about the morality
of copyright?

I was suggesting that you could ask them if they accepted that it was OK
with them for people (or "you") to copy a CD they'd bought and then given
away or sold again, keeping and using the copy. Up to you and them to
discuss any "morality" if you wished to object to the views they gave.


And where the proceeds of music production end up, morally? Do you even
know who the BPI represents? You follow the notion of vested interest?
Do you understand what morality is? You do understand that it is not a
'100% matter'? Do you know even the slightest thing about internet music
dissemination?

Low opinion of me noted :-)

Misunderstanding and sweeping rhetoric noted. You'd make a good politician.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 29/03/2011 09:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it.
They and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to
give the info might not cause the court to look kindly on your
behaviour.


The origin of the CD is crucial. it's no business of the BPI if it's not
within their remit.

The only way they can tell it is outwith their remit is to know which CD
is
was. Does it not occur to you that a UK civil court could (AIUI):


The origin of the CD. Just think about it for two tics. Where the CD came
from, and what's recorded on it. This really isn't difficult.

A) Require you to answer a question, and take into account a refusal.
Particularly as you confess the answer is "crucial".

B) Examine the *physical* evidence. i.e. look at what you have at home -
computers, etc - and see they can find any copies of music where you
don't
have the CD or some other legal source you can establish for what they
identify.

In the UK civil court decisions are 'on balance'. There would be a burden
on you to satisfy the court that any such copies they found or you
admitted
were ones you had with permission under copyright.

Note also what I said to Keith. That usenet is an open place and
archived.
What they can find from the archives could be presented as evidence as
part
of a case, or as a reason to do the above. They only have to pursuade the
judge that this gives reasonable grounds for the above.

The rest is my personal call - I know the legal
position.

OK. Since you are so certain you "know the legal position" put that to
the
test. Contact them and tell them what you have done. Then tell the rest
of
us what they say and do.


But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people
who do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.


Yes, I will given the opportunity.

Again, put that to the test if you are so confident. Ask the BPI to help
you identify the artists, etc, on each of the copies you have made if you
don't know who they are or what labels market their music.

ahem Let me predict in advance that you would probably find contacting
the BPI "inconvenient" or "unnecessary". :-)

Would you be happy for me to contact the BPI on your behalf, and perhaps
point them at this thread?... or is what you "know" less than 100 percent
absolutely certain in your mind?

Note that there are recent examples where a UK civil court has made an
ISP
give the details of the person who has an account with them. I recall a
discussion about this on BBC radio a short while ago.

As with Keith, if you know tell me what you have described is entirely
'hypothetical' and that you have *not* in reality ever copied a CD and
kept
the copy when you no longer have the CD, I'm happy to believe you. I
appreciate that you may feel your individual "morality" would think this
OK
even if you haven't done it.


More or less utterly bonkers.


You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot. I find it best
to simply disregard his posts pretty much as with that other raving loony
Allinson.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

More or less utterly bonkers.

Err.... no it wasn't. It may conflict with your POV, but that doesn't make
it "utterly bonkers"..

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.


Did you not just now state that you "know the legal position", it seems that
you don't. So just to make it clear under UK law (and in most other
jurisdictions) the "right to copy" belongs exclusively to the copyright
owner, who can decide who, if anyone, may make copies and under what
conditions. Until recently the standard position of the bodies who
administer recorded music copyright on behalf of the owners was that no
copying was allowed at all without specific, written permission (that is
still the position of the film industry with regard to DVD/Bluray). Because
of the advent of mp3 players and the like the industry now permits copying
to such a device, as long as you have a paid-for copy (either physical or
download). That is the industry's decision, using a right that copyright law
gives them.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(

Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".

I find it best to simply disregard his posts

Or is this simply revenge for the fact that he's said that he largely
disregards your posts?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(


Sorry, your opinion is of no interest to me.




Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".


Possibly not, but the way he behaves in this newsgroup does.



I find it best to simply disregard his posts

Or is this simply revenge for the fact that he's said that he largely
disregards your posts?


I can see it would suit your twisty 'invertopia' to think that....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 29/03/2011 16:16, David Looser wrote:
wrote

More or less utterly bonkers.

Err.... no it wasn't. It may conflict with your POV, but that doesn't make
it "utterly bonkers"..


No, there's rather more to it than that. Disagreeing with me is a mark
of a clear and agile mind.

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.


Did you not just now state that you "know the legal position", it seems that
you don't. So just to make it clear under UK law (and in most other
jurisdictions) the "right to copy" belongs exclusively to the copyright
owner, who can decide who, if anyone, may make copies and under what
conditions. Until recently the standard position of the bodies who
administer recorded music copyright on behalf of the owners was that no
copying was allowed at all without specific, written permission (that is
still the position of the film industry with regard to DVD/Bluray). Because
of the advent of mp3 players and the like the industry now permits copying
to such a device, as long as you have a paid-for copy (either physical or
download). That is the industry's decision, using a right that copyright law
gives them.


Yes, I know the spirit, although not admittedly as well versed as you.
As I say, I didn't know about the need to keep the paid for copy in
physical form - I came clean on that at about line three of this thread.
There's no need to keep restating it! But you can if you like, obviously.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:06:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I started all this regarding the legal position. The only thing I've
learned (from Arny) is that I'm not allowed to destroy the physical copy
and retain the electronic copy. I have to keep both or none at all.
Presumably that's written in statute, or maybe contract/case law.

Afraid I don't know. My guess is that the copyright owners have decided to
simply not object to people making a 'convenience' copy of a CD they have
bought and keep. That would give them elbow room if something occurred that
did bother them. But the reason I suggest asking them is to find out what
they say if you have any doubts.

I think it is simpler than that. Not only is copyright law
unenforceable for this, the "crime" is essentially undetectable, so it
would be pointless to pursue.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Keith G" wrote

You have to realise Rob that you are dealing with an idiot.

What an utterly contemptible comment :-(

Keith has repeatedly said he doesn't read what I write. So you can judge
the accuracy of his assertions on that basis. :-)

Just because Jim defends the right of recording artists to receive the
income that is theirs by law does *not* make him an "idiot".

Strictly speaking,what I'm defending is that it is a matter for each artist
or creator to choose the terms under which other people are permitted to
access and use their work. Their work, their choice.

Just as is the choice of others to either pay for that, or decide it isn't
worth the asked price and go without. Their choice.

However as I explained, I think it is excellent if someone who is able to
do so is happy to 'give away' what they create. I like the idea that things
may be made openly or freely available. More power to those who *choose* to
do this. Their work, their choice.

But in the real world as it exists I'm also quite happy for those who wish
to make a living from permitting copies of their work to be sold. Their
work, their choice. If someone devotes all their time and energy to
creating something that others think good enough to pay for, their choice.

In neither case do I assume the audience is being forced at gunpoint to
accept what is offerred. Free doesn't just mean "no payment".

My concern is less with law than with individuals being allowed a choice.
And not having that overuled by others who disregard the clear wishes of
the person who produced the work. But as a matter of practical reality the
law *does* impinge on this topic even if some wished it did not. Seems wise
to me for people to be aware of that even if they wish for something else.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote Presumably that's written in statute, or
maybe contract/case law.


As I say, I didn't know about the need to keep the paid for copy in
physical form - I came clean on that at about line three of this thread.
There's no need to keep restating it! But you can if you like, obviously.


Yes I restated it, because my explanation would not have made sense if I'd
missed out the very few words that actually constituted the restatement. The
point of my post, BTW, was to explain that the rule comes from the industry,
and is not written in statute or contract/case law, something you clearly
did not already know.

David.