Downloading flying music?

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.

Robert Moore wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote


Making a copy and redistributing the copy is not.


Pete, you have combined two separate and distinct actions into
one statement. I would readily agree that redistributing a copy
is illegal, however, I think that all of those copy machines in
our public libraries clouds the "making a copy" issue.

The law allows a fair use of copyrighted material. Anyone who has ever
gone to college and had to pick up class materials at Kinko's knows
this. I think the college profs pushed the envelope on this but their
is a limited amount of a book or magazine that you can make a copy of
and sell to the public.

It is interesting to note that despite the entertainment industry's
attempts to convince the general public that "music downloading",
their words, will result in a lawsuit, to date all of the filed
lawsuits have been filed against "file sharing", those who make
music files on their computers available for others.

One reason for that is they cannot afford to be seen walking in to court
against a 12 year old. They will lose that one before the first word is
spoken.

"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

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 7...
Pete, you have combined two separate and distinct actions into
one statement.

You are not allowed to make a copy when the purpose is to redistribute it.
Whether you redistribute the copy or not, copies beyond those needed for
personal and fair use are illegal. In any case, my wording was simply
intended to fit better with Jim's original statements. The point was to
differentiate between "making a copy" and "making a copy and then
redistributing it".

Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that there are situations in which
making copies is legal. It was never my intent to say otherwise.

Pete

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
Everyone's a hypocrite. The only difference is in degree.

Then why bother using the word at all? By your definition, you might as
well have called me "a human being". Your intent was clearly pejorative,
and in that respect, I'm not nearly the hypocrite you are accusing me of.
Certainly, I have done none of the hypocritical acts you accuse me of.

Am I a thief because I've downloaded a few dozen songs from the internet
from people who are making them available to me? In your eyes, perhaps.
I
sleep comfortably, though, and can look in the mirror without flinching.

Rationalization is certainly a useful thing, I admit. You are still a
thief.

Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a "thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
the
sidewalk

You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
some sort of newsflash.

(which is against the law in my city). There is a difference in
degree that cannot be dismissed by hypocrites like you.

As opposed to hypocrites like you? You keep using that word, as if it means
something, and yet you claim it means nothing. Why do you keep using it?

Someone who downloads gig's of songs and never buys a CD? He's a thief.
Someone who wants a sampling of a few "flying" songs and chooses not to
buy
every single CD and downloads them for free? He's an aviation enthusiast
and nothing more.

So if I take a single piece of gum from the display at the local 7-11
without paying for it, I'm not a thief, because I did not exceed your
arbitrary "minimum damage" criteria? All I was doing was seeing whether I'd
like that kind of gum, after all.

Very convenient for you, at least with respect to your sleeping at night.
You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your own.
Certainly in the law's eyes (which is all that really matters) you are a
thief.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a
"thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
the
sidewalk

You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
some sort of newsflash.

Actually, I take that back. I doubt that spitting on the sidewalk is a
felony offense in your city, in spite of your implication that it is. It's
much more likely it's a misdemeanor offense, making you a thief and a
small-time criminal.

Pete

"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.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:WlASb.185888$I06.2043887@attbi_s01...
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?

Well, from a practical point of view, there are no TV police. You can tape
to your heart's content, and no one really cares.

Frankly, I feel that this means the law is screwed up and that it ought to
be rewritten to allow that sort of copying. But that doesn't change the
fact that it is technically illegal.

Pete