Re: what moral obligation? (Re: DRM technology and policy)
At 11:56 PM 4/28/03 +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
Peter Clay wrote:
There then comes the question of making money off devices that are capable of infringing copyright. This was first addressed 20 years ago in Sony vs. Universal, and the subsequent Congressional inquiry that led to the American Home Recording Act. ... and note that every blank cassette tape (and audio cdr) has a "tax" on it to offset the assumed piracy - even if it is not used for piracy...
AFAIK, not true in the US. You are from the UK, according to your address, and you haven't even freedom of speech, so its not surprising you're assumed to be guilty, and fined, without evidence. Were it true here, copyright "infringement" would be *more* than justified morally, since we'd have paid for it, under threat of violence, without even having done it. --- "What the fuck do you think you're doing" ---Madonna to Jack Valenti
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:17 AM, Major Variola (ret) <mv@cdc.gov> was seen to say:
AFAIK, not true in the US. You are from the UK, according to your address, Close enough - GMX is actually a german webmail service, but I *am* in the UK ;)
and you haven't even freedom of speech, so its not surprising you're assumed to be guilty, and fined, without evidence. *lol* FoS is more seen in the breach than in the observance in the US I have noticed. But you are right - the UK is even worse; as an example, one anti-war protestor was recently jailed for burning a flag outside a US base (the flag wasn't the us one, but was close enough to pass for one on casual inspection; the stars had been replaced with various oil company logos). Burning the same flag *in* the US would have been a legally-protected expression of protest.... as would have been burning a genuine flag.
Were it true here, copyright "infringement" would be *more* than justified morally, since we'd have paid for it, under threat of violence, without even having done it. Yup. and copy protected audio "non cds" such as the more recent album releases are actually an attempt to prevent you using your fair use rights, which are of course legal, without
Of course, in the US she could have been declared an enemy combatant (even if a US citizen) and held indefinitely without evidence, trial or access to lawyers. Anyhow, back to the subject :) I believe the blank media "tax" was an international invention (amongst the music industry of course - no point letting anyone else have a vote :) adopted in america the same year it was agreed (1992) but AFAIK restricted just to digital media (so CDR, DVD and minidisk) - If there is a media tax on analog recording, I am not aware of where it is established Canadian law doesn't distinguish between analog and digital; initially, the tax on a blank CDR was to be $2.50 but given the then current cost of the media was under $2 that was considered a little excessive by the public In the UK there is no such levy, as making copies, even for personal use, is a crime (as is in theory use of a vcr to timeshift. the UK sucks) performing an illegal circumvention of the protection under the terms of the DMCA. Note such prevention is not illegal in itself, despite the levy on blank media - the RIAA are permitted to block you in any manner they see fit, they just can't sue you if you record their stuff (but of course now they can claim you *must* have borken the DMCA terms in order to so record *sigh*)
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 06:23 AM, David Howe wrote:
AFAIK, not true in the US. You are from the UK, according to your address, Close enough - GMX is actually a german webmail service, but I *am* in
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:17 AM, Major Variola (ret) <mv@cdc.gov> was seen to say: the UK ;)
and you haven't even freedom of speech, so its not surprising you're assumed to be guilty, and fined, without evidence. *lol* FoS is more seen in the breach than in the observance in the US I have noticed. But you are right - the UK is even worse; as an example, one anti-war protestor was recently jailed for burning a flag outside a US base (the flag wasn't the us one, but was close enough to pass for one on casual inspection; the stars had been replaced with various oil company logos). Burning the same flag *in* the US would have been a legally-protected expression of protest.... as would have been burning a genuine flag.
Of course, in the US she could have been declared an enemy combatant (even if a US citizen) and held indefinitely without evidence, trial or access to lawyers.
Anyhow, back to the subject :)
I believe the blank media "tax" was an international invention (amongst the music industry of course - no point letting anyone else have a vote :) adopted in america the same year it was agreed (1992) but AFAIK restricted just to digital media (so CDR, DVD and minidisk) - If there is a media tax on analog recording, I am not aware of where it is established
Home (Audio) Recording Act of 1992. It created the tax and specifically immunized those who make recordings for personal use, not for profit or sale. As I have said here before, a somewhat obsessive friend of mine has a library now of at least 4000 CDs recorded onto DAT and CD-R. He goes on "library runs" where he visits 5-6 nearby library branches and checks out the maximum number of CDs at each, sometimes as many as 15 per branch. He started out by loading them into a CD changer and automatically duping them to DAT. Now he just uses a 48x reader and 24x writer (I think that's the speed) and copies each in a matter of a couple of minutes. The usual online sources give the songs, from a code on the CD, and his color printer prints a label which he affixes to the CD-R. I know other people who do the same thing with DVDs, though this is not legal under the above Act. And there are issues of quality with DIVX (not the Circuit City scheme, but another). --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:06 PM, Tim May <timcmay@got.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 06:23 AM, David Howe wrote:
adopted in america the same year it was agreed (1992) but AFAIK restricted just to digital media (so CDR, DVD and minidisk) - If there is a media tax on analog recording I am not aware of where it is established Home (Audio) Recording Act of 1992. Is the 92 law I was referring to yes - but that covers only digital media.
participants (3)
-
David Howe -
Major Variola (ret) -
Tim May