Downloading flying music?

Peter Duniho wrote:



You're right. That too is illegal. Royalties are paid for the song to be
played on the radio, but not for you to record it for your own record
collection.

There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
from the radio. Same goes for TV.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
from the radio. Same goes for TV.

If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...

There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
from the radio. Same goes for TV.


If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).


Yes I do. Anything that comes over the air is mine, for my personal
use. This was an actual court case not too long after VCR's started
getting popular in the early 80's. The case was really brought because
of course everybody skips right over the commercials when they watch
what they taped. The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
stuff grabbed off the air.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:bKwSb.188426$xy6.966314@attbi_s02...
[...] The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
stuff grabbed off the air.

If there was an actual court case in which that conclusion was reached, you
should have no trouble providing a specific citation, should you?

I'm aware of an "actual court case" that provided for time-shifting. None
that allow archiving.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Newps" wrote in message
news:bKwSb.188426$xy6.966314@attbi_s02...
[...] The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
stuff grabbed off the air.

If there was an actual court case in which that conclusion was reached,
you
should have no trouble providing a specific citation, should you?

Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?
The attention give to it was of the same magnitude as the RIAA nonsense
today!

Newps could probably give you a cite if he took enough time . . . Aww hell,
let me take a look for you . . . . google, google, tap tap Ah, here it
is. In no more than 10 seconds, too (ain't the 'net just great?).:

From: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/10105

Summary:
"The MP3 generation may not remember it, but 20 years ago, Hollywood
fell just one vote short of winning a ban on the VCR. This month
marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in
Universal City Studios v. Sony, the case in which two movie
studios asked the federal courts to impound all Betamax VCRs as
tools of "piracy."

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?

I was here, and recall that the decision allowed time-shifting, but not
archiving. As I've already stated.

The attention give to it was of the same magnitude as the RIAA nonsense
today!

Newps could probably give you a cite if he took enough time . . . Aww
hell,
let me take a look for you . . . . google, google, tap tap Ah, here it
is. In no more than 10 seconds, too (ain't the 'net just great?).:

Unfortunately, the citation you've provided only relates how the VCR was
deemed legal. File sharing software is legal as well, but that doesn't mean
that all uses of the software are legal, nor are all uses of the VCR legal.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?


I was here, and recall that the decision allowed time-shifting, but not
archiving. As I've already stated.

There is/was no such distinction.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Newps" wrote in message
news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
from the radio. Same goes for TV.

If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).

You are applying the decision of the USSC in the the Betamax case
(TV) to sound recording from the radio. I've read the Betamax
decision and while it often mentions time-shifting as a "fair use"
activity, I don't recall a specific reference to archival use being
illegal (though the plaintiff attempted to make that point).

More on point (to the radio question) is the Sound Recording
Amendment of 1971 (P.L 92-140, 85 Stat. 391) which directly addressed
and permited home recording of broadcast audio for personal use. This
was carried over into the the 1976 overhaul of the Copyright Act. The
1976 version restricts recording to free public broadcast (no pay
service recording) and prohibits re-broadcast.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
[...] The
1976 version restricts recording to free public broadcast (no pay
service recording) and prohibits re-broadcast.

I'm not sure how that applies to the "same goes for TV" comment. As for the
radio question, I'll look at the 1976 changes you mention, but being
permitted to record a broadcast isn't the same as being permitted to save
that recording in lieu of purchasing a proper license for the copyrighted
material. Nothing in your description contradicts my understanding of the
copyright law.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


I'm not sure how that applies to the "same goes for TV" comment.

OK, then look at it from the other end. When the TV police show up and
look thru my tapes and DVD's where do they draw the line? How old is
too old? Do I have 24 hours to watch that program? 48? What if I'm on
vacation and don't get back for two weeks? You will not find a
specified time because it is not illegal.