Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians, film
makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from their
work?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


Property is theft, eh Rob? :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 19:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
You bunch of big girls blouses must stop your bickering and learn
to love each other.

Now look here old chap, you musn't go round bursting the cliques little
bubble, it's the only thing that protects their fragile little lives.

You appear to be replying to yourself, old chap.

Shows how much you know Mr RichardTop.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

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.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"No Win No Fee" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:



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.

It is, of course, perfectly legal to sell a CD second-hand, or to donate it
to a charity shop which then resells it. All that is, as you say, perfectly
legal. However had that CD been ripped to a computer, mp3 player or whatever
by the original owner, then that ripped copy becomes unlicensed as a result
of the disposal of the original disc as the licence has now been transferred
to the new owner of the original disc, and thus retaining or listening to
the copy is a breach of copyright law. Keith's original statement was that,
if he was given a CD, he would rip it to an mp3 and then donate the CD. This
rip would be an unlicensed and thus illegal copy as soon as he donated the
original CD.


But I am right,

Sorry, but you aren't right. Check your facts.


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,

Sorry to disappoint you but I did no googling, I didn't need to.

It wasn't me who said copy protection was not included in CD, It is-

No, you said that it was:-

quote
"Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced.
unquote

There is no "copy-protection code" on a CD, whilst that on a DVD does not
allow *any* copying.


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,

The "Red Book" specification, which defines what an "audio CD" is, has not
changed. There have been a few attempts to market CDs with DRMs, but these
attempts have now been abandoned due to problems caused to legitimate users
of these CDs. These DRM CDs are not "Red Book" CDs, nor can they use the
"Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo.

now there will be further frenzied googling by the clueless clique
and still none of you will get it right.

Again I have to point out that the one who still hasn't got it right is
yourself.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians, film
makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from their
work?


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book. And I think people could,
as part of the package, have use of and access to things that enable
them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life. Like vinyl and valve
phono amps, that type of thing :-)

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion, and I have twigged
that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has given me a
persuasive alternative - yet. It's those who say, as a matter of
verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I might take issue with.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 24/03/2011 20:00, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should
own anything at all.


Property is theft, eh Rob? :-)


You have me pegged Mr Keith! :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 25/03/2011 07:31, David Looser wrote:
"No Win No wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:



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.

It is, of course, perfectly legal to sell a CD second-hand, or to donate it
to a charity shop which then resells it. All that is, as you say, perfectly
legal. However had that CD been ripped to a computer, mp3 player or whatever
by the original owner, then that ripped copy becomes unlicensed as a result
of the disposal of the original disc as the licence has now been transferred
to the new owner of the original disc, and thus retaining or listening to
the copy is a breach of copyright law. Keith's original statement was that,
if he was given a CD, he would rip it to an mp3 and then donate the CD. This
rip would be an unlicensed and thus illegal copy as soon as he donated the
original CD.


Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or
perhaps something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think
at least, necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't
see anything wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to
persuade me that is, I'll listen.

And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which
Arny summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc are
worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without copyright it
would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making a film, let alone
make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd rather live in a world
with films, recorded music, books etc. even if I have to pay for them, than
one where those things didn't exist because nobody could afford to produce
them.

And I think people could, as part of the package, have use of and access
to things that enable them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life. Like
vinyl and valve phono amps, that type of thing :-)

Not quite sure what that has to do with the subject, apart from the point
that without copyright recordings your valve amps would have rather less to
do ;-)

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion,

Of course, all statements made in this group, unless claimed as "facts" (and
often even when they are!), are opinions; that's the nature of forums like
this.

and I have twigged that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has
given me a persuasive alternative - yet.

Persuasive alternative to what?

It's those who say, as a matter of verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I
might take issue with.

Wrong about what? You stated your opinion and it's not for me to say that
it's not your opinion is it?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

Yes, I think everyone knows that. Why do you have to keep repeating it?

I keep repeating it because "No Win" keeps saying otherwise.

The distinction is between legality, and doing right and wrong (or perhaps
something in between). Being 'true to yourself' is not, I think at least,
necessarily the same as obeying all applicable laws. I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy. If you'd like to persuade me that
is, I'll listen.

Commercial recordings are made to produce an income for those involved in
the production. If anyone could legally make a copy of a commercial disc and
then pass that disc on to someone else who takes a copy and passes it on in
turn, in theory an entire town could each hold a copy of a recording
obtained from just one paid-for disc. This would dramatically reduce the
income of the recording industry. Whilst you might consider the industry at
present too money focused and too greedy (and I wouldn't disagree)
eliminating all controls on copying would almost certainly result in the
collapse of the commercial recording industry. Then the only records then
made would be amateur "back-bedroom" productions, advertising funded and
vanity projects.

In my opinion copyright needs to balance the interests of the producers and
consumers of intellectual property. I've said before and I'm happy to say
again that I think currently the law is weighted in favour of the producers
and I'd like to see it re-balanced. But I do think that if copyright law
were to be simply abolished, or unlimited copying of commercial recordings
permitted, that the results would be to effectively end the supply of
recorded music to the public.

And while I appreciate you do feel the need to restate the law, which Arny
summarised very early on, it could grate after a while.

If you don't want to read re-statements then don't read them! They are
addressed to "no win", not you.

David.