Downloading flying music?

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
news:nqESb.190397$xy6.990857@attbi_s02...

There is/was no such distinction.


As I said, if that's true, it should be easy enough for you to provide a
citation. Please feel free to do so any time you'd like to actually back up
your statement.

None needed, you can't prove a negative. To say that I can tape
something for a later viewing but there is a drop dead legal/illegal
point is stupid.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:TSFSb.150617$nt4.701280@attbi_s51...
None needed, you can't prove a negative.

You're right, you can't prove a negative. Which would be relevant if it
weren't for the fact that your side of this debate is the positive. Copying
of copyrighted works is illegal unless otherwise allowed; that's the whole
point of a copyright.

There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival of
copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
you have no support for your claim.

Pete

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news1FSb.147353$sv6.821100@attbi_s52...
Are you claiming, then, that it is legal to record what's on the radio or
TV, but it is a crime to fail to erase the recording sometime later?

That's my understanding of the situation, yes. I'm only aware of a specific
allowance for the purpose of watching or listening to something at a time
other than when it was broadcast. I'm not aware of any specific allowance
for the purpose of owning a copy of copyrighted material long term.

It should not be all that surprising to anyone that the mass media companies
have set up copyright law this way (and make no mistake, it's the mass media
companies who have control over copyright law in this country). After all,
if you're allowed to tape Terminator when it's shown on the ABC Sunday Night
Movie and keep the copy indefinitely for repeated viewings, that would cut
into the retail market of the same movie. (Or, at least, that's how the
mass media companies' reasoning goes...I don't necessarily agree with that
analysis, but it's the philosophy they take time and time again). If they'd
had their way, you wouldn't even be allowed to time-shift.

I'm not aware of any individual ever having been prosecuted under that
aspect of the law, nor any aspect of copyright law for "small-time" copying
(taping music for friends, copying movies from their cable TV signal, etc.)
but that in no way means that the law doesn't allow that sort of thing.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival
of
copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
you have no support for your claim.

It's called "space shifting."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

Summary: You can record to your heart's content anything obtained legally
and view/listen to that program any time you wish.

It does not directly address the legality of downloading music from file
sharing services.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote

It's called "space shifting."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

Very interesting ruling, Jim, particularly the comments
toward the end of the article.

Bob Moore

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
news:TSFSb.150617$nt4.701280@attbi_s51...

None needed, you can't prove a negative.

There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival of
copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
you have no support for your claim.

The citation has been provided, it's the Betamax case. I can copy
anything legally obtained, as many copies as I want by the way, and keep
them for future viewing. Not "future viewing not to exceed XX days from
the broadcast" but at any future date. Once the material is in my
possesion it's mine. I am free to do whatever I want with it for my own
personal use.

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 6...
"Jim Fisher" wrote

It's called "space shifting."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

Very interesting ruling, Jim, particularly the comments
toward the end of the article.

Ahh, you mean the part that says ""The mere fact that a copy is taken from
an unauthorized source" does not negate fair use."

Yeah, I found that interesting as well.
--
Jim Fisher

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your
own.

Well, in your eyes, perhaps, which means precisely zip in my eyes. The law
damn sure doesn't see it that way.

You asked for citations supporting the fact that making copies and even
downloading music from "illegal" sources (which aren't illegal . . . yet)
for personal use is frowned upon only by the RIAA and you.

Those citations have rather embarrassingly negated your entire premise and
illuminated your profound ignorance of the law.

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

--
Jim "Arrr Matey" Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
It's called "space shifting."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

No, it's not. The ruling you refer to simply says that if you already have
a legal license for the copy, then you may transfer the work to something
like an MP3 player. You still need the legal license in the first place,
and the ruling does not address the question of how one obtains that legal
license.

Try again.

Pete

"Newps" wrote in message
news:2tPSb.195408$xy6.1007007@attbi_s02...
The citation has been provided, it's the Betamax case.

That's not a citation. That's a "I'm under the misimpression that some
well-known legal case supports my statements".

Please feel free to actually cite the text within the judgment that you
think supports your claims.

Pete