|
|
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote How can I be 'prejudiced' about something that doesn't interest me? If it didn't "interest" you, would you have posted the remark that started this argument? - I think not. You frequently post negative comments about CD, hardly the behaviour of someone who is "not interested". Unlike you and one or two others here who go into a frenzy Frenzy? oh please! Just a little tit for tat for the 'rant' (or was it 'rave'?) I got hit with a few days ago. (It's true what they say - they can dish it out but they can't take it! ;-) True, a "wager" is rather stronger than a mere "claim". After all you are implying that this is something that you believe in strongly enough to risk your money on. Streuth.... Ah, but my use of the word "prejudice" to apply to your attitude to CD is not mere guesswork, nor is it "bull****ting" or "making things up". Rather it is a logical deduction based on the many, many prejudiced comments about CD that you have posted here over the years. Hoo? Mee? :-) Given your posting history it simply is not credible for you to deny being prejudiced against CD. 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.... |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Keith G" wrote in message
If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. Not sure what he was threatening me with - never saw it through to my knowledge at any rate. Rob |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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.... That's exactly what I'd do if given an LP - assuming it had worthwhile content. They take up far too much room... -- *Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com... On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. Not sure what he was threatening me with - never saw it through to my knowledge at any rate. Strictly speaking ripping a CD (or an LP for that matter) to a computer, iPod etc. is a breach of copyright law. However the rights owners recognise that with the advent of such media libraries people expect to be able to rip music to them and have let it been known that they regard this as permissible. *However* they do expect people to have paid for the material they rip, either by having bought the CD or LP or paying for a download. If you pass the source media on to someone else they would expect you to delete the rip. Not doing so is a clear breach of copyright law. Personally I think that to be perfectly reasonable, ripping a CD and then passing it on is no better than downloading without payment. David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! No threats, just an observation. The point is that the license to listen to the music on the CD is sold with the CD and inseperable from it. If you give away or sell the CD, you also give up your licence to listen to the music. If you keep the CD then you keep your license to listen to the music, which you may exercise by listening to a backup of the media, such as the Mp3 file. He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. That doesn't work, either. Obviously, there is no copyright police that are going to go around and check on this. However, copyright owners have been pretty sucessful at making public examples of people they select randomly. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Rob" wrote in message eb.com... On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. Not sure what he was threatening me with - never saw it through to my knowledge at any rate. Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message eb.com... On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. Not sure what he was threatening me with - never saw it through to my knowledge at any rate. Strictly speaking ripping a CD (or an LP for that matter) to a computer, iPod etc. is a breach of copyright law. However the rights owners recognise that with the advent of such media libraries people expect to be able to rip music to them and have let it been known that they regard this as permissible. *However* they do expect people to have paid for the material they rip, either by having bought the CD or LP or paying for a download. If you pass the source media on to someone else they would expect you to delete the rip. Not doing so is a clear breach of copyright law. Personally I think that to be perfectly reasonable, ripping a CD and then passing it on is no better than downloading without payment. OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Keith G" wrote in message
OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? If it is a private listening for friends and/or family, then it is a licensed use. Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? I already paid! |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
In article , Keith G
wrote: Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! If the sign says "Please make a copy of your CD/DVD and keep that to use yourself when you give the discs to us" then I hope no-one from the BPI or a publisher (CD company) walks by and notices the sign. Could be costly for the "Heart Shop". If the sign says nothing like that, they you might find a court would take you to be entirely responsible for your own actions - regardless of if you like that outcome or not. AIUI The UK courts don't normally accept ignorance of the law as an excuse. Above comments made purely for "the avoidance of all doubt" as 'M'learned Friends might say. Aim being to help you avoid putting yourself at legal risk due to wilful ignorance on your part. But if in doubt, perhaps you should contact the publisher. Tell *them* what you did and ask them if they think they could (or will) sue either you or the 'Heart Shop'. That will resolve the matter for you without having to waste time arguing the point here. :-) Personally, I think your confession was rather unwise. If you didn't put an 'x no archive' in your header [1] then your statement will be openly available on the usenet archives for anyone to trawl up at any future point. Slainte, Jim [1] Given the trouble you have with the simple task of writing items in thread I suspect you may have no idea about how to do that. The header of the relevant postings you made doesn't seem to have a req to not archive. -- 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! :-)
"Keith G" wrote
Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! I'm sure they are well aware of the implications of copyright law, charity shops like that need to be. It's you who appear to be woefully ignorant of it. Asking for, or selling, second-hand CDs or DVDs is not illegal. What would be illegal would be for you to continue to listen to rips from CDs or LPs if you had parted with the licensed media. David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? If it is a private listening for friends and/or family, then it is a licensed use. Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? I already paid! But do you live on an oil rig? |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
In article ,
Keith G wrote: OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? Do you know the difference between private and public? The licence details will tell you. -- *I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! I'm sure they are well aware of the implications of copyright law, charity shops like that need to be. It's you who appear to be woefully ignorant of it. Another ill-mannered remark. Do you really want to be added to the few ******* here who I 'mark as read' *without* reading the reams of crap they post? S'up to you.... |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Keith G" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! I'm sure they are well aware of the implications of copyright law, charity shops like that need to be. It's you who appear to be woefully ignorant of it. Another ill-mannered remark. Coming from you, Keith, that is a remark of staggering arrogance. There is no-one on this group more inclined to posting ill-mannered remarks than you. Since you've just posted a post that showed ignorance of copyright law my remark was entirely justified. David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Another 'all mouth and no trousers' Net Nazi' but someone had better inform the St Neots Heart shop - they've got a sign in the window asking for CDs and DVDs! I'm sure they are well aware of the implications of copyright law, charity shops like that need to be. It's you who appear to be woefully ignorant of it. Another ill-mannered remark. Coming from you, Keith, that is a remark of staggering arrogance. There is no-one on this group more inclined to posting ill-mannered remarks than you. You really do have *selective vision* don't you? You seem to be completely unable to see the endless slurs and insults coming my way - frequently 'over the water' Remember what I have said: I pay in the coin I am paid in and I already have a stack of ****ty remarks, like the one above, from you that want settling.... Since you've just posted a post that showed ignorance of copyright law my remark was entirely justified. I'm sorry, unless you are qualified in Law, your comments about copyright are pure guessology, especially in the case of the Heart shop as I suspect you almost certainly haven't asked them what, if any arrangements may have been made regarding copyright on the disks they are selling. See the 'What to donate' section he http://www.bhf.org.uk/shop/donating-...Goods%20011210 Note 'CDs and DVDs in the list. If there was anything illegal about that I'm sure some opinionated tosser would have been on to the BPI or IFPI by now? I think you need to know that I disregard 'Looser's Law' when I see it spouted and don't actually take your twisted view on *anything as *gospel*! OK? |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 22/03/2011 15:04, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Personally, I think your confession was rather unwise. If you didn't put an 'x no archive' in your header [1] then your statement will be openly available on the usenet archives for anyone to trawl up at any future point. Does anyone in Scotland actually have a life? |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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..... In google or Bing, type the following search terms: Serial copy management system (SCMS) Digital Rights Management (DRM) There are several *RIAA legal cases, try a couple of searches on: Whitney Harper or Jammie Thomas-Rasset *RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America, though they are not the only instigator of legal action. 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. The clueless clique will now erupt in a frenzy of googling..... |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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. The clueless clique That will be you then..... David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"seigneur" wrote in message eb.com... On 22/03/2011 15:04, Jim Lesurf wrote: Personally, I think your confession was rather unwise. If you didn't put an 'x no archive' in your header [1] then your statement will be openly available on the usenet archives for anyone to trawl up at any future point. Does anyone in Scotland actually have a life? Judging by the amount of crap* this particular 'ex-pat' appends to my posts, I'd say most definitely** not! It may be a 'daylight' thing and not winding the clocks or somesuch..?? * Pity I don't read it!! :-) ** Check the spelling Arny and let's see you get it right next time. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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*...?? :-) |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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.... |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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 |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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 |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"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?" ;-) |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
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 |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 22/03/2011 16:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , Keith wrote: OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? Do I know the difference betweenmy arse and a hole in the ground? Probably not Fixed your post for you. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 23/03/2011 11:23, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I thinkwhack Who gives a **** |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Jim Lesurf" wrote
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! Don't worry Jim, there's very little chance that I'd ever send Keith a CD :-) David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 22/03/2011 12:59, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message eb.com On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! No threats, just an observation. Ah OK, you 'note violations' in the course of observation! The point is that the license to listen to the music on the CD is sold with the CD and inseperable from it. If you give away or sell the CD, you also give up your licence to listen to the music. If you keep the CD then you keep your license to listen to the music, which you may exercise by listening to a backup of the media, such as the Mp3 file. Yes, I don't want the CD though. He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. That doesn't work, either. Ah, OK, didn't know that. Obviously, there is no copyright police that are going to go around and check on this. However, copyright owners have been pretty sucessful at making public examples of people they select randomly. Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. Rob |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 22/03/2011 12:35, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message eb.com... On 22/03/2011 11:56, Arny Krueger wrote: "Keith wrote in message If you gave me a CD, I would rip it to disk (256K) and give the CD to the local Heart Shop.... Copyright law violation noted. Yes, there's a fella on another NG who does this, except he threatens a little more than make a personal note! He insisted I destroy all the CDs I'd ripped, rather than give to charity. Not sure what he was threatening me with - never saw it through to my knowledge at any rate. Strictly speaking ripping a CD (or an LP for that matter) to a computer, iPod etc. is a breach of copyright law. However the rights owners recognise that with the advent of such media libraries people expect to be able to rip music to them and have let it been known that they regard this as permissible. *However* they do expect people to have paid for the material they rip, either by having bought the CD or LP or paying for a download. If you pass the source media on to someone else they would expect you to delete the rip. Not doing so is a clear breach of copyright law. Personally I think that to be perfectly reasonable, ripping a CD and then passing it on is no better than downloading without payment. Yes, thanks, I knew all of that, with the exception of your moral position. Rob |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"resender" wrote in message b.com... On 22/03/2011 16:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In , Keith wrote: OK, how do you feel about having someone else in the room when you are playing a CD *you* paid for? Do you think they should send a 'listening fee' to the record company who released the CD? Do I know the difference betweenmy arse and a hole in the ground? Probably not Fixed your post for you. :-) |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"resender" wrote in message b.com... On 23/03/2011 11:23, Jim Lesurf wrote: I thinkwhack Who gives a **** :-)) Love it, but I suspect I'm getting the blame for these 'anonymouse' posts! ;-) |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"Rob" 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? David. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
On 23/03/2011 18:05, David Looser wrote:
"Jim wrote 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! Don't worry Jim, Arse licking noted. |
Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Jim Lesurf" wrote 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! Don't worry Jim, there's very little chance that I'd ever send Keith a CD :-) Er, no - there's *no* chance you would get to send me a CD, but you can send one to your whiny *old biddy* chum, if you like - I've still got his address from when I sent him a *pristine* set of Quad FM3/33/303 manuals and literature (including console cut-out templates, IIRC) a few years back. (Probably worth between 35 and 50 quid on eBay at the time - unsmartest move I ever made, it turns out..!! ;-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk