"No Win No Fee" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:



snip


Why are you so sensitive and 'defensive' of what is shortly going to
prove a
passing music media format - you got shares in them or summat? ;-)

If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the
local Heart Shop....



You never learn that it is pointless baiting the clueless clique.
If they don't know about a subject then as far as they are concerned
it never existed, until you give them a few clues, just watch.....


Maybe 'pointless' but it's good, cheap fun! ;-)



Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain
in the clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for
personal use and donated the original copyright CD to a charity
shop and they re-sold the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not
be a problem.


No idea but I don't intend to to it, so I don't need to bother about it!
Thanks for your considerations, at any rate.



The clueless clique will now erupt in a frenzy of googling.....


Oh, when do they ever *not*...??

:-)

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

Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain
in the clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for
personal use and donated the original copyright CD to a charity
shop and they re-sold the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not
be a problem.


That *is* a problem since it is a clear breach of copyright law.

Do not forget we are talking UK law here, not US law.


Sez Perry Mason....

:-)



The clueless clique

That will be you then.....


Twisting technique noted again....

David Looser wrote:
"No Win No Fee" wrote
Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain
in the clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for
personal use and donated the original copyright CD to a charity
shop and they re-sold the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not
be a problem.


That *is* a problem since it is a clear breach of copyright law.

Do not forget we are talking UK law here, not US law.


Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced. Of course one can make numerous copies
from the original disc. Those copies will have copy protection
activated. The copy protection prevents copies being made from
copies - serial copying.
Selling "pre-owned" commercial CD's/DVD's is no problem, pop along
to your local games trading store. It is long established.

But if Keef were to make a copy of a protected CD, and donate the
*copy* to his local charity store who then sold the copy, that would
be an infringement.

Where legal action has resulted for piracy is where ripping software
was used to defeat serial copying code, software such as Turd v3 etc.
And such duplicates were circulated whereby copying of the copy was
possible. Serial copying is a major problem with downloads via
file sharing sites.

In context of what Keef suggested, donating a CD to a charity shop
which then re-sold the CD marked up as "pre-owned" is 100% legal.


The clueless clique

That will be you then.....


David.

You've made yourself look silly again.

On 23/03/2011 05:15, No Win No Fee wrote:

Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced. Of course one can make numerous copies
from the original disc. Those copies will have copy protection
activated. The copy protection prevents copies being made from
copies - serial copying.

Are you sure about that? I've seen a hybrid CD that didn't allow any copying
but most CDs can be copied perfectly for many generations, in my experience.
And most DVDs can't be copied at all.

Any references to support your assertion?

--
Eiron.

In article , No Win No Fee
wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"No Win No Fee" wrote
Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain in the
clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for personal use and
donated the original copyright CD to a charity shop and they re-sold
the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not be a problem.


That *is* a problem since it is a clear breach of copyright law.

Do not forget we are talking UK law here, not US law.


Selling "pre-owned" commercial CD's/DVD's is no problem, pop along to
your local games trading store. It is long established.

Yes. But when doing so you may also pass on the publisher's kind permission
to have and use a copy *while you own the CD/DVD*. If in doubt, ask the
publishers of the CD/DVD.

But if Keef were to make a copy of a protected CD, and donate the *copy*
to his local charity store who then sold the copy, that would be an
infringement.

Yes. Just as it probably would be if he kept and used a copy when donating
the CD he'd copied to them.

In context of what Keef suggested, donating a CD to a charity shop which
then re-sold the CD marked up as "pre-owned" is 100% legal.

Yes. The actions of the charity shop would probably then be in conformance
with UK civil law and the permissions sold with the CD. But if Keith made
and kept a copy he continued to keep and use after passing on the CD, he
would probably be committing an infringement of the copyright.

As I said to Keith, if you think otherwise I urge you ask the publishers.
This will help avoid you unintentionally falling foul of the law and risk
being taken to court.

At present anyone who does as Keith has reported may simply be relying on a
combination of the publisher not knowing what they have done and deciding
not to bother with prosecution.

If Keith chooses to do this and confess it openly, that's his choice,
though. All I can do is warn. If you or he want to consul the experts, ask
the publishers of the works he (or you) have copied and passed on. Tell
them what you've done and see what they say. No need to believe me. :-)

As you can probably tell, I decided that Keith wasn't worth talking to a
long time ago. Despite that I felt it I should at least alert to him to the
risk he was taking by doing what he has said and then openly admitting it
here where it will remain on open record. Despite thinking him a
patronising and self-important dim bulb I have no wish to see him dragged
to court. But he makes his own decisions, so up to him what to now do. Not
my problem.

The key point about UK/EU copyright law is that it is largely a civil
matter and based on the idea of 'damage' to the rights owners. So any
publisher or author or artists have to make their own decisions what rights
they allow others, and when to take something to court to seek either
damages or some kind of restraint of breaches.

It seems unlikely they would bother to take to court someone who made a
copy of an old worn LP and then threw away the LP and kept the copy. No
real damage to them. Not worth the effort. But passing on a playable CD and
keeping a copy they may decide is a 'lost sale' and that they have been
damaged. If someone admits this is a *habit* or that they do it a lot, they
may decide to act. In each case, though, it will be a matter for the
publishers, etc, to decide what they are or are not content to allow.

If you or Keith don't believe this is possible having been alerted. then it
the problem isn't mine. :-)

If you doubt all this, I could contact some CD publishers myself and ask
them about it. Might make an interesting article. And might help others
from falling into a trap baited by their wishful thinking. Keith's problem,
though, is that I might be asked why I've contacted them and who thinks
that doing as Keith confesses is 'OK'... Fortunately for him I can try
pulling the 'journalist never gives aways his sources' tactic. ;- But
there is a risk they'd then do a search and find all these postings. Shall
I take it that is OK with Keith and yourself, unless you say otherwise?...

Since your usenet 'name' seems to imply you believe you are a legal eagle I
assume you will know the maxim, "Silence may be construed as consent".
;-

FWIW my personal view is that many aspects of current copyright law are a
PITA and I'd like to see various changes (although *not* one to allow what
Keith has confessed). But the current law and permissions may now allow
what he has described, like it or not. Courts generally don't care what
people think the law "should" be.

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

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 23/03/2011 05:15, No Win No Fee wrote:

Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced. Of course one can make numerous copies
from the original disc. Those copies will have copy protection activated.
The copy protection prevents copies being made from
copies - serial copying.

Are you sure about that? I've seen a hybrid CD that didn't allow any
copying
but most CDs can be copied perfectly for many generations, in my
experience.
And most DVDs can't be copied at all.


You are correct. 'Red book' CDs do not include any form of copy protection
and can thus (from a technical, not legal, POV) be copied endlessly. DVDs on
the other hand *do* include copy protection which, in theory, prevents any
copying at all. DVD ripper software now exists which can crack this copy
protection and thus allows copies to be made. Using such software to make
copies of copyright DVDs is a breach of copyright law.

SCMS was at one time part of the DAT specification, and was intended to
allow one copy to be made of copyright material, whilst preventing further
copying of *that* copy. More recently some DRM schemes have attempted a
similar idea, to allow limited copying of legal downloads. However it is
clear that such copying is only legal where the copy is for the use of the
purchaser of the download.

David.

"No Win No Fee" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"No Win No Fee" wrote
Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain
in the clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for
personal use and donated the original copyright CD to a charity
shop and they re-sold the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not
be a problem.


That *is* a problem since it is a clear breach of copyright law.

Do not forget we are talking UK law here, not US law.


Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows
for one copy to be produced. Of course one can make numerous copies
from the original disc. Those copies will have copy protection activated.
The copy protection prevents copies being made from
copies - serial copying.

See my other post on this. There is no SCMS on either CDs or DVDs. In any
case both SCMS and DRM are merely technical devices which attempt to make it
difficult for users to evade copyright restrictions. Their presence or
absence does not affect the *legal* situation.

Selling "pre-owned" commercial CD's/DVD's is no problem, pop along
to your local games trading store. It is long established.

I never said it was illegal.

But if Keef were to make a copy of a protected CD, and donate the
*copy* to his local charity store who then sold the copy, that would
be an infringement.

True, it would also be an infringement if he was to retain a copy on a
hard-drive, mp3 player or whatever after having donated the *original* to a
charity shop, or indeed having disposed of the original in any other way.

When you buy copyright material on a physical medium, such as LP or CD, as
well as buying the physical object you are also purchasing a licence to use
that material under terms dictated by the copyright owner. In the case of
retail purchase of music that licence will permit you to listen to the
material in a domestic setting, and forbid pretty much anything else. These
days the licence is also taken to include the right to copy the material to
a "media device" such as a computer or mp3 player *for your own personal
use*. If you then dispose of the physical media you are also disposing of
the licence, and with it the right to keep, or listen to, any such copies.


You've made yourself look silly again.

It's always a good idea to find out the facts for yourself before accusing
others of being "clueless" or "making themselves look silly".

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 23/03/2011 05:15, No Win No Fee wrote:

Copy protection code incorporated into commercial CD/DVD's allows for
one copy to be produced. Of course one can make numerous copies from
the original disc. Those copies will have copy protection activated.
The copy protection prevents copies being made from copies - serial
copying.

Are you sure about that? I've seen a hybrid CD that didn't allow any
copying but most CDs can be copied perfectly for many generations, in
my experience. And most DVDs can't be copied at all.


You are correct. 'Red book' CDs do not include any form of copy
protection and can thus (from a technical, not legal, POV) be copied
endlessly.

I think "No Win" may be assuming the use of something like spdif for
copying and SCMS. My understanding is that the maker can choose from a set
of options including "no copy allowed", "one uncopyable copy allowed", and
"unrestricted chain copying allowed". IIRC there are two metadata bits for
this. But I'd need to check my documentation to know.

Not checked to see if DVDs use it for the spdif output of a DVD player. But
as you say, commercial DVDs may well use css, and this was cracked which
opens the door to unpermitted copying.

I also suspect that many serial recorders (at least pro and semi-pro) may
ignore this. As you say, using a computer to 'rip' a red book disc is
technologically easy as Philips/Sony didn't - I assume - dream when
developing CDDA that this would become easy for home users. Thus their
later promotion of SACD to try and block home users and deter pirates from
making copies.

For me the real significant distinction in all this is where Keith says he
gives/sells the CD to someone else once having made a copy *for him to keep
and use when he no longer has/owns the CD*. That last part seems to me what
would be a violation of copyright that the publishers *would* wish to stop.

I doubt any publisher would care about a disc being sold or gifted. I'd
expect you to be well within the permissions given with purchase.

I also doubt they'd care much about someone having a ripped copy of a disc
they keep, and so are copying purely for convenience and still have the CD.
Although you probably *don't* have permission for this, so rely on them not
actively objecting.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

snip usual puffery


At present anyone who does as Keith has reported may simply be relying on
a
combination of the publisher not knowing what they have done and deciding
not to bother with prosecution.

If Keith chooses to do this and confess it openly, that's his choice,
though. All I can do is warn. If you or he want to consul the experts, ask
the publishers of the works he (or you) have copied and passed on. Tell
them what you've done and see what they say. No need to believe me. :-)


snip further yadda


A little birdie has pointed out that this old fool is trying to blacken my
name so, in the the interests of a little (unusual) *accuracy* here, I would
repeat my remark:

"If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the
local Heart Shop...."

And point out that two things have *yet* to happen:

1) Mr Looser hasn't given me a CD.

2) I haven't (ever) given a CD to a Charity shop.

So, as they say, 'put that in your pipe...' !!


The old biddies tongues will wag....

"When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"

;-)

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to
the local Heart Shop...."

And point out that two things have *yet* to happen:

1) Mr Looser hasn't given me a CD.

2) I haven't (ever) given a CD to a Charity shop.

Happy to accept that you have never done what you described. For the sake
of avoiding all risk to you, I will presume you have never taken a copy of
any CD or LP and kept the copy when you gave/sold the CD or LP to anyone
else or threw it away. And that you will never do so. I'll also assume your
initial statement was actually false and you would *not* do what you
described because you realise full well it would probably be a breach of
copyright. That means we don't have to think that you may get into trouble
if David *does* give you a CD. If he does, you won't do as you said. Your
statement was purely for some kind of rhetoric purposes. Given that you now
say that what you said was false it becomes irrelevant to wonder if it was
hypothetical or general. :-)

Odd though that you made so many postings without correcting this. No doubt
pausing for dramatic purposes. Also odd that you even chose a bitrate for
an activity you have never engaged in and would never do. Never mind, maybe
you have a disc whose *data capacity* is '256K' and that was also
misunderstood... Never mind, what you've now said should
disarm any legal eagles who in the future trawl up your statement. ;-

I was just concerned that you'd dropped yourself in it. Thought it was
worth warning just in case.

David, please take care never to send a CD to Keith. Not fair to try and
push him into doing what he actually said, or break his word, even
at the cost to you of a CD!

Happy I can get back to largely ignoring what you write. Mutual, no doubt.
:-)

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