Page 4 of 5

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:19 am
by Grim...
jayshields wrote:my mates got one of those w800i's with a 2mp camera, that looks nice.
I wasn't that impressed by the results :(

This 7mp phone is a different story alltogether...

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:24 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:
Roja wrote:(legally ripped!)
There's no such thing. What you're trying to say is 'Not blatently stolen'.
Not true at all.

I go to the store, and buy a CD. I own the legal rights to the music on that CD. I then use a ripping program to convert that file to an mp3. That mp3 is legally ripped, and legally mine.

As long as I do not share it with others, I have every right to own that mp3.

As an interesting legal sidenote, the current laws do not make the possession of an mp3 illegal. It only makes the distribution of them legal. Its a bit like bootlegging - you can own a bootleg tape, but if you go to sell it, or share it, then you have violated the law. But regardless of the status of those "grey" mp3's, you can absolutely have a legally ripped mp3.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:27 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:Transferring music from one medium to another is classed as copyright infringement (as is lending it to your mates, or playing it in your car with the windows open).
Not true. Read up on the law. :)

While the RIAA has done everything they can to make it more *difficult* to do so (via Digital Rights-removal Management), it is not illegal. Nor can it be, under US law. To make it illegal, they would have to make Television illegal (its a transmission of copyright material over multiple mediums - satellite transmission, decoding via cable, display on TV, recording on VCR, and more). They would also have to make ISP's illegal (all content is immediately copyrighted without a copyright notice. Since the internet comes on multiple mediums - cable, satellite, fiber, TCP/IP, and more), and so on.

Don't forget that it would also make iTunes illegal, radio illegal, and more.

The current law makes *distribution* illegal. NOT the conversion from one medium to another.

Here is a good (although dated) article discussing the legal issues: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/a ... r0023.html

Note that the CBDTPA was defeated.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:48 am
by Grim...
Ah, cutral clash - I can assure you that it is illegal in the UK.

Radio and TV have a liscence to broadcast information, and ISP's have something like that (although I'm not sure what) too.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:46 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
A few things to consider - you are allowed to backup up music for personal use. e.g. back in the 'ol days when you slapped a CD to tape for a WalkMan. It's not copyright infringement - neither is lending, or certain public performances... Unfortunately the digital age has seen a long campaign of misinformation by certain companies...cough...Sony...

It is not illegal in the UK - otherwise the entire nation is breaking the law (and we Irish with them!), and has been since the invention of the CD. As Roja rightfully states - backup is different by distribution.

The beautiful thing about IPods is partly iTunes. How much does an album download cost again? $12. yep, compare that to upwards of €24 (~STG 18) as usual from the local store... This is pennies... I may actually save money by using an iPod Mini and iTunes...;)

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:43 pm
by Roja
Grim... wrote:Ah, cutral clash - I can assure you that it is illegal in the UK.
Sorry, nope. I'm fairly well-studied in international law. :)

In the UK, its different (but similar) laws and concepts. The key concept that is not different is the difference between *possession* and *distribution*. I can *possess* an mp3 legally, I simply cannot *distribute* it.

If that were not true - that very basic, core legal principle - then you could not install Windows on your machine (*three* copies - one in memory, one on disk, one on CD), you could not use iTunes (which gives you the ability to have the file on multiple machines, burn to CD, AND store on iPod), or even use the Airport from Apple (streams music from one location to another - now in *three* places: memory, disk, network).

The core principle - that you can have any form you want for your media - was established long ago. Its called "Fair use" rights, and its applicable in hundreds of countries worldwide. (including the UK).

If you doubt it, explain iTunes, Windows, or any other software. It simply isnt compatible with that concept - which is one of many reasons it is not law.

Distribution, however, is the boogeyman. Putting mp3's on a fileshare, webserver, p2p app, or otherwise making them available to the public is like inviting a lawsuit..

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:14 am
by Grim...
Software works on lisences, I am absolutly positive that we are not allowed (for example) to copy a CD to a tape in the UK.
No-one (obviously) cares, but I'm sure it's still law.

It's also against the law to eat mince pies on Christmas Day in the UK. Whoo.

Link to the UK's fair trading wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_deali ... ed_Kingdom

The important part is:
Wiki wrote:CDPA permits individuals to make a single copy of a "reasonable proportion" of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for "research and private study" and "criticism, review and news reporting" ( s. 29, 30) under the terms of "fair dealing". The extent of "reasonable proportion" is not defined in the act.
Although 'reasonable proportion' isn't defined, it can surely be assumed that it doesn't mean 'all of it'.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:13 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
The first line in your reference says it all really. How do you define something the lawmakers chose to call "proportional"? It's open to interpretation, back two years ago and Sony were selling Mini-Discs whose software allowed a total of 5 copies (using some gimicky digital management record keeping on your PC). The CD, the PC copy, and the three allowable exports to minidisc.

In the face pf ambiguity you can only fall back on more concrete law for guidance - and that concrete law puts an emphasis on ownership and fair use versus public distribution.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:48 am
by Grim...
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:In the face pf ambiguity you can only fall back on more concrete law for guidance - and that concrete law puts an emphasis on ownership and fair use versus public distribution.
Eh?

The 'concrete' law says "Anything that's copyrighted cannot be copied" - that's what copyright is.
The fair trading law overwrites the original copyright laws, not vice versa.

Of course, it could be different again in the land of the good Guinness.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:20 am
by Chris Corbyn
Grim... wrote:Of course, it could be different again in the land of the good Guinness.
Speaking of which... the new Guiness advert is awesome (*splutter* :?)

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:23 am
by Grim...
The devolution one?

I agree, it's superb (like all the others (except for 'Out Of Darkness Comes Light' - that was a bit dull).

I also like the VW Golf Singin' In The Rain one, and the old Honda advert with all the car parts hitting each other to unfurl the Honda flag.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:09 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:The 'concrete' law says "Anything that's copyrighted cannot be copied" - that's what copyright is.
The fair trading law overwrites the original copyright laws, not vice versa.
Again, you have ignored multiple examples that disprove your theories.

Copyright is not saying "Anything that's copyrighted cannot be copied". Copyright says you cannot *distribute* it.

You should read the linked discussion on Copyright Law of the UK from the wiki page you cited:
Wiki! wrote:For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, amendment of the law explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than computer programs and databases; dramatic works; artistic works; musical works; typographical arrangements; films or sound recordings if such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, transient or incidental and only exist for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties or only exist for a lawful use of the work.
I added the emphasis. The conversion between types for personal archiving is lawful use. Its not distribution. Its archiving.

The citation you mention is for an entirely different situation - public performance, like in schools. If you read the rest of the wiki article you cited, they spell that out fairly clearly:
CDPA permits individuals to make a single copy of a "reasonable proportion" of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for "research and private study" and "criticism, review and news reporting" ( s. 29, 30) under the terms of "fair dealing"
Notice those are all situations that involve public performance - DISTRIBUTION.

The legal guidelines for the situation we are discussing (personal use, no distribution) is yet another exception to Fair Dealing:
The final major exception that the general population commonly runs into is that of recording broadcasts for time shifting. This was brought about by the rise of the video recorder in the early 1980s. The exception only applies to copies for private and domestic use.
Like I said, whether its Tivo, iTunes, or plain old mp3's, people in the UK have the right to make copies for private use.

I don't see why you continue to ignore examples that contradict your core premise!

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:21 am
by Charles256
i'm with Roja, you're allowed like one copy for personal use at least. hell,even microsoft's EULA says you can make one copy for backup purposes:-D and we all know how microsoft is. that's it.two cents chipped.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:26 am
by Grim...
wiki wrote:For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, amendment of the law explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than computer programs and databases; dramatic works; artistic works; musical works; typographical arrangements; films or sound recordings if such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, transient or incidental and only exist for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties or only exist for a lawful use of the work.
Perhaps you should have highlighted the word 'temporary'.
Roja wrote:Copyright is not saying "Anything that's copyrighted cannot be copied". Copyright says you cannot *distribute* it.
Not so. Copyright (the clue is in the name) covers:
  • copying;
  • adapting;
  • distributing;
  • communicating to the public by electronic transmission (including by broadcasting and in an on demand service);
  • renting or lending copies to the public; and,
  • performing in public
More here and here.

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:29 am
by Grim...
Charles256 wrote:hell,even microsoft's EULA says you can make one copy for backup purposes
Software is different. You don't buy software, you buy a lisence to use the software.

Microsoft says you can make one copy, then great, backup away (although does a backup stop being a backup if you use it? Hmm...). But nowhere on the inside of a CD does it say the same thing.

(Am I spelling lisence right?)