Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
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.

Plus I suspect a court would simply decide that any 'loss' to the copyright
holder was trivial. So they could end up spending a lot to get back nothing
much. Easier to be 'generous'. :-)

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! :-)
 

On 29/03/2011 19:17, David Looser wrote:
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.


I'd have thought the rule has some basis in law, and law is statute etc?
Anyhow, as i say, I'm familiar with the essence and by no means
knowledgeable on matters of law.

I think this:

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/le...tag=jungl05-20

is quite an interesting development while talking about sharing and
copyright.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...

I'd have thought the rule has some basis in law, and law is statute etc?

Not exactly. The law gives property owners rights to impose "terms &
conditions" on people who wish to use their property. If you rent a car the
terms and conditions imposed by the car-hire company are not statute law,
but the company has the right to impose those conditions because the law
allows them to.

Anyhow, as i say, I'm familiar with the essence and by no means
knowledgeable on matters of law.

I think this:

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/le...tag=jungl05-20

is quite an interesting development while talking about sharing and
copyright.


It did keep mentioning mp3s purchased from the Amazon store. Whether they
would accept mp3s for storage *not* bought that way was left unsaid.

There is little doubt that the advent of modern technology has made it far
easier to disregard copyright. That doesn't make it morally right to do so.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 31/03/2011 09:12, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...

I'd have thought the rule has some basis in law, and law is statute etc?

Not exactly. The law gives property owners rights to impose "terms&
conditions" on people who wish to use their property. If you rent a car the
terms and conditions imposed by the car-hire company are not statute law,
but the company has the right to impose those conditions because the law
allows them to.


Yes, thanks. it's called contract, and there's probably some case. Law then.

Anyhow, as i say, I'm familiar with the essence and by no means
knowledgeable on matters of law.

I think this:

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/le...tag=jungl05-20

is quite an interesting development while talking about sharing and
copyright.


It did keep mentioning mp3s purchased from the Amazon store. Whether they
would accept mp3s for storage *not* bought that way was left unsaid.

There is little doubt that the advent of modern technology has made it far
easier to disregard copyright. That doesn't make it morally right to do so.


You can put any file up - I've just tried it. And I could easily share
the content by sharing the login details.

No, before you ask :-)

Doesn't make it morally wrong to share or breach copyright, I should
mention as a point of balance.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 31/03/2011 09:12, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...

I'd have thought the rule has some basis in law, and law is statute
etc?

Not exactly. The law gives property owners rights to impose "terms&
conditions" on people who wish to use their property.

Yes, thanks. it's called contract, and there's probably some case. Law
then.

That's my understanding. I think there is a basic set of laws that set the
framework for copyright, patents, and other forms of 'IPR', and then it is
open to people to decide what specific terms and conditions they want to
specify for their work.



There is little doubt that the advent of modern technology has made it
far easier to disregard copyright. That doesn't make it morally right
to do so.


You can put any file up - I've just tried it. And I could easily share
the content by sharing the login details.

No, before you ask :-)

Not raining here, either, just at the moment. Probably will soon as I want
to go out to buy another bookcase. :-)

BTW There was a discussion on Radio Scotland this morning about 'the cloud'
and letting people keep their files on 'cloud' services. One thing that was
said was that this is launched in the USA (by google, I think) but not yet
in the UK by them "because the copyright laws are different" and as yet
they are waiting to see if they get into problems with the service provider
being accused of aiding breaches of copyright. This was what was said in
the interview, but I have no idea of the details.

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