Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by ScoutScout writes
Post by ScoutPost by LarryPost by richardThere are clauses in the copyright laws which give the end
user certain "rights" to enjoy that music as they see fit.
I find it humorous that you make this claim, since
you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't - or
won't - read statutes. Can you cite me a "right"
given to music listeners in federal copyright law?
17USC107
Fair use and all that it means.
Fair use doesn't give end user music listeners any rights at all.
Right, which is why I can make a copy of the CD for use in my car........
As long as "........" means "but not legally."
Wrong, as always.
Sorry, but you cannot legally make a copy of a CD you bought, period.
Wrong, as always.
Post by DeadratThe right of copy(ing) belongs to the owner of the copyright.
There is more than just that particular right in law.
Post by DeadratIf you play the original on your computer and the copy in your
car, you have deprived the owner of the copyright of one sale.
But its legal to do that.
Probably not.
Wrong, as always.
... he explained.
Just like you didnt.
Oh, sorry. Quoting the USC not good enough for you?
You didnt do that.
Its been both quoted and cited in this thread.
But he didnt do that in this subthread.
So it was done,
Not by him. And what was quoted wasnt relevant to that stupid claim he made above.
Post by Larryand you're upset he wasn't repetitive?
Nope.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryAre you reading the same posts as the rest of us?
How many of you are there between those ears ?
Do you think I am the only person reading these posts?
Nope.
Pathetic.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardIf the CD is copy-protected, then by the DMCA, definitely not.
Wrong, as always.
... he explained.
Just like you didnt.
Oh, sorry. Explaining what the DMCA covers not good enough for you?
You didnt do that either.
The rest of us read the explanation.
Not in this subthread you didnt.
Post by LarryAre you reading the same posts as the rest of us?
How many of you are there between those ears ?
Do you think I am the only person reading these posts?
Nope.
Pathetic.
Post by LarryYou know, you have a habit of just mimicking the post you're responding to.
Corse you never ever ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?
Post by LarryDeadrat points out something you didn't do, so you claim he didn't do it either.
I point out that he didnt do it himself, actually.
Post by LarryI ask you a question, and you ask me a question in response.
Corse you never ever ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?
Post by LarryIt doesn't reflect well on your cognitive thinking skills.
You've never ever had anything like that.
Cant even manage to bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag either.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardIf the CD is not copy-protected and you're making
a copy only as backup protection (say, in case
your CD player eats your CD), then it's legal.
So you lied.
That's right. Anyone who says anything you disagree with must be a liar.
Nope, anyone who initially made that bald statement you made at the top,
and then later provided a small part of the real story, clearly lied initially.
See the end of this post.
Completely useless, as always.
What exactly have you added to the thread
What exactly have you added to the thread ?
More than you, and it ain't even close.
Easy to claim, parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by Larry(or subthread, as you call it)
Because that is what it is.
Post by Larrywith your last 2-3 posts?
You in spades, hypocrite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratHe couldn't just be wrong.
You didnt say that your initial statement was wrong.
If you don't understand the context of richard's whining, then just say so.
I didnt even comment on anything he said.
I JUST commented on that stupid lie of yours.
You know there is a difference between a lie and a mistake, right?
Yep, and since he keeps repeating that lie, it cant be a mistake.
So you define a lie as a mistake that is repeated over and over again?
Nope.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryNot that its clear either one happened here, but wouldn't you agree that
"mistake" is more applicable to a wrong statement made by a layperson
in this discussion of what is legal and what isn't in the area of IP?
His bald statement clearly wasnt a mistake. Its a lie.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratAmong other things, richard wants to be able to copy his
CDs however and whenever he wants. He can't do so legally.
Irrelevant to that stupid lie of yours which wasnt even to richard.
You know who he was directing his comments to?
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to check the attributions if someone
was actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
If I was blind, how would a cane or seeing-eye dog help me check attributions?
No one ever said it would.
Fuckwit parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryAre you inside his mind, or did he tell you?
Pathetic.
Your posts seem to be just that. Profound self-analysis.
Pathetic.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratHe can probably do so with impunity.
He certainly can as long has he isnt actually stupid enough to do it in volume for money.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedI cant be wrong about that particular lie of yours.
Post by DeadratThe question here is whether you can copy a CD and
have both copies available for listening at the same time.
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that that happens all the time when the contents of CDs are
loaded onto an ipod using itunes which has that capability.
Again, the discussion with richard has nothing to do with ipods.
This subthread has nothing to do with richard at all.
Post by DeadratFor every CD Richard plays on his computer, he
wants to have a copy that he can play in his car.
And making a separate copy for the car isnt legally any different
to loading it from the CD into an ipod so you can play that music
when it isnt convenient to play it from the original CD.
So he says, again without cite.
Just like you eh ?
You want me to cite the fact that you haven't provided cites?
Nope.
Post by LarryYou just like hearing yourself argue, don't you?
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedAnd its legal to do that, whatever you claim.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratThe AHRA gives you a safe harbor for personal noncommercial
copying using a digital audio recording device.
Pity that an ipod isnt a digital audio recording device according to the AHRA.
Post by DeadratSo I "lied" about that too.
Never ever said you lied about that.
Nope. It isnt relevant to what is being discussed.
Post by DeadratBy the way, the reason you have this safe harbor is that
you're considered to have paid royalties to buy the right
to copy when you bought the particular device or medium.
Pity about your original bald statement which
is clearly just plain wrong for that reason.
Post by DeadratCopies from your PC? Not so much.
Easy to claim.
I have. Your PC isn't a digital recording device.
Neither is an ipod.
No one claimed otherwise, have they?
Never said they did.
So why contribute that irrelevant, meaningless,
and uncontested nugget to this discussion?
Because its relevant to his lies that
which just happen to be what is being discussed in this particular subthread, parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryThanks for clearing up this nonissue.
No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bullshit.
You're the one who introduced the irrelevant, meaningless, and uncontested issue into this discussion.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasyland.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedHave fun actually substantiating that claim.
Just like the fun Jammie Thomas has had.
Now she was found liable for downloading,
And no one has been found liable when they
loaded their ipod from a CD they have purchased.
Post by Deadratbut here's a jury instruction from her trial
<quote>
Each plaintiff claims in this case that the defendant
violated its exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute
its copyrighted works. One who either reproduces or
distributes a copyrighted work during the term of the
copyright infringes the copyright, unless licensed by the
copyright owner.
</quote>
See the words "reproduces" and "unless licensed"? Somehow missing
is any mention of personal use or non-commercial use or even ipods.
How odd that no one has been shafted for loading their ipod from a CD they own.
It's not odd at all. It's a cost-benefit analysis.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim given how popular ipods have become.
If you continued reading - and actually understood what
I wrote - you'd see the popularity of iPods is irrelevant.
Not to a cost benefit analysis they aint.
Post by LarryIn fact, it could backfire if they brought such a suit and lost,
Pigs might fly, too.
Post by Larryand as I said below, there are huge problems proving the case.
Just because you said it, doesnt make it gospel, parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryThe RIAA would have to show actual damages to prevail on a claim.
Nope, not to bluff hordes of people into paying for downloads to
their ipods instead of just using iTunes to load the ipod from the
CD that they already own.
Sorry, bringing a lawsuit as a "bluff" makes for good TV, but is unethical.
Doesnt mean that it doesnt ever happen, parasite.
Post by LarryNot to mention expensive if your bluff is called, as you'd not only lose, but you
could be liable for the other sides expenses if the case is deemed frivolous.
The RIAA clearly doesnt care about that risk.
Post by LarryOh, and there's also the fact that you could be estopped
from bringing the claim against others in the future.
Nope, not if the only problem is the evidence available and the
act of loading a CD that you own into your ipod is in fact illegal.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryWhat would be the damages in a given case? The price of a CD?
Irrelevant to bluffing hordes of people into paying for downloads to their ipods
instead of just using iTunes to load the ipod from the CD that they already own.
You think hordes of people would be bluffed if the RIAA
sued Joe Schmo in Des Moines for $12.99, the price of
a CD had he bought two instead of copying his?
Nope.
Post by LarryIf you'd cave in on that bluff, you're spineless.
Irrelevant to what plenty would do if the RIAA has won the case.
Hordes who do that currently do that because they believe that
its legal to copy a CD that you own into your own ipod, and if
the RIAA had won the case thats all that would matter to most
of them, not the quantum of the damages that that suit produced.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryEven if you add punitive damages at, say, 10x the actual compensatory
damages, you're looking at a judgment of under $200. One hour of an
RIAA's attorney's time is worth more than that.
Irrelevant to bluffing hordes of people into paying for downloads to their ipods
instead of just using iTunes to load the ipod from the CD that they already own.
Okay, okay, I get it.
Nope, you never ever do.
Post by LarryYou think the legal and tactical obstacles are irrelevant to bluffing,
Nope.
Post by Larryeven though they're relevant to actually winning the case.
Nope.
Post by LarryBut think for a minute (you can think, can't you?)
No need to ask you if you could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, the answer is obvious.
Post by Larrywhat someone who was sued under this "bluff" would do.
They'd consult a lawyer.
Not necessarily, particularly if the RIAA was just demanding the cost of the CD.
Hardly anyone would pay some legal parasite vastly more than that.
Post by LarryThe lawyer would say "they got nothing, don't settle, fight this."
But you clowns have been claiming that they have a lot more than nothing.
Post by LarryHe might add "Let's countersue for wasting your time and harassing you without merit."
That bluff would be over before it began.
Not if that parasite believed that it is illegal to copy a CD that you own into your own ipod.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedIts nothing like as black and white as you claim.
Black and white?
Yep, check the bald claim he made at the top with the ...... in it.
THATS what is actually being discussed in this particular subthread.
Post by LarryHe's the one who said it was uncertain since there isn't any case law on point, isn't he?
Nothing like that stupid claim he made that
Why is it you think that you are allowed to make such a copy?
HE made that claim.
HE gets to spell that out.
THATS how it works.
Post by LarryIf it is such a stupid claim, you should be able to prove
it to be stupid in a matter of sentences, if not less.
HE made that claim.
HE gets to spell that out.
THATS how it works.
Post by Larry(Note: I expect at least one cite to appear in those sentences).
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Your expectations in spades.
Go and fuck yourself. No please, thats an order.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardIf the CD is not copy-protected, then you could claim fair use in
making a personal, non-commercial copy to listen to in the car.
And that claim is backed up by the fair use provisions of 17USC107
Post by richardThe recording industry would disagree;
Who cares ?
Presumably anyone who ends up as a defendant in an infringement suit.
Which you have previously said that that industry
has never been stupid enough to attempt.
You ask who would care. I told you.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Actually, most people here in misc.legal (where are you from, misc.consumers,
I take it?) would tell you that whether you agree with him or not, Deadrat's
posts are almost always informative, well-reasoned, and on-point.
If you're gunna suck his dick, at least have the decency to do it in private.
He and I disagree about as much as we disagree.
Your problem.
Post by LarryBut it doesn't mean there isn't respect there.
If you're gunna suck his dick, at least have the decency to do it in private.
Post by LarryIf you mistake that for homosexual activity, you may
want to self-reflect on why you jump to that conclusion.
Let go of your own dick before you end up completely blind.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratThe "industry" has been "stupid" enough to go after file sharers.
Irrelevant to whether they have ever been stupid enough to try
that with those who copy a CD they own so they can use it in
their car, or have loaded an ipod with a CD that they own.
Post by DeadratAsk Jammie Thomas if she cares.
She didnt just copy a CD that she owns so that she can use it in her car.
She's completely irrelevant to what is actually being discussed.
Only because her case undermines your point,
so you change the target and call it irrelevant.
Lying, as always.
Remember above how I said you always respond in kind?
I remember you lying, time after time after time.
Post by LarryTo a claim of no cites with a claim of no cites, to a question with a question? Well,
I forgot to add that calling your opponent a liar is also a popular response of yours.
I call a spade a spade and a lie a lie. You get to like that or lump it or stop lying.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedHer case has no relevance what so ever to what is being
discussed in this subthread this particular stupid claim he made.
The jury instruction is highly relevant. Directly on point, even.
Not when she wasnt even charged with doing what was being discussed in this subthread it aint.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratWhat the RIAA lacks in smarts it makes up in ruthlessness.
How odd that they have never been stupid enough to try
that with those who copy a CD they own so they can use it
in their car, or have loaded an ipod with a CD that they own.
It's not odd at all.
1) The issue of damages, as I discussed above.
2) The issue of proof. Internet activity can be traced and
documented and proven via ISP records and server log files and the
like. But if you walk into a music store, buy a CD, and copy it to
an iPod or to another CD for your car, how would the RIAA ever find
out that this happened? And how could they prove it in court?
Or that it isnt illegal and they know it.
That's possible
It is indeed.
Post by Larry- but certainly cannot be concluded from the fact that they haven't
sued anyone, especially in light of the two factors I outline above
No one ever said it could be.
Post by Larry(and for which you have no response, I note)
You're lying, as always.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryAs an attorney, those strike me as two very good reasons not to bring a lawsuit.
Pity about the real reason, that it isnt illegal.
How do you reconcile that assertion with the jury instruction in the Thomas case?
It has no relevance what so ever to what is actually being discussed in this particular subthread.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by ScoutRight, which is why I can make a copy of the CD for use in my car........
As long as "........" means "but not legally."
Wrong, as always.
Sorry, but you cannot legally make a copy of a CD you bought, period.
"Each plaintiff claims in this case that the defendant violated its
exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute its copyrighted works.
One who either reproduces or distributes a copyrighted work during
the term of the copyright infringes the copyright, unless licensed by
the copyright owner."
See that part in the middle?
Pity about what happens every time that someone
loads a CD that they own into their ipod.
Post by LarryOne who reproduces a copyrighted work infringes on the copyright, unless licensed.
Pity about what happens every time that someone
loads a CD that they own into their ipod.
Post by Larry1) The work isn't copyrighted in the first place, or
2) The license allows you to make a copy for your car.
Funny about that last.
Post by LarryOtherwise, it is infringement.
You aint established any otherwise.
Post by LarryThat, or the court was wrong and you're right.
Or you couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Post by LarryI'll go with the former.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedSo again, who cares whether the recording industry disagrees or not ?
How about anyone who wants to obey the law as a matter of principle.
And any of those with a clue will have noticed that since the
recording industry has never actually been stupid enough to
go after anyone who has made a copy of a CD that they own
for use in their car, or have loaded an ipod from a CD that they
own, that given how aggressive the RIAA is, that its a tad
unlikely that either of those activitys are actually illegal.
Actually, those with a clue will know that just because they never sued
someone doesn't indicate one way or the other whether such activity is illegal.
It is very likely tho when ipods become so common.
What is likely?
That is aint illegal, stupid.
In spades when they dont even bother with treatening
letters and demands to pay for whats in an ipod.
Post by LarryAnd iPods already are common, you know.
Pathetic.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedThe industry hasnt even attempted to monster Apple into removing that
capability from iTunes, because they know very well that they would just
get a flea in their ear if they were ever actually stupid enough to try it.
Post by LarryAs Deadrat said, this is a tactical decision
With ipods becoming so common eh ? Yeah, right.
As common as they are, how can you prove it happened?
You dont need any proof if you're just sending them a letter of demand.
Post by LarryI raised this point above, and you failed to respond.
You're lying, as always.
Post by LarryIt's fatal to your argument.
Nope.
Post by LarryThe RIAA can law enforcement can send subpoenas to Napster and
companies like that, or individual ISPs and trace who is copying music.
How could they ever prove that after you brought home a CD
from the store you copied it to your computer?
You dont need any proof if you're just sending them a letter of demand.
Post by LarryIf you are going to continue to claim the only reason
they don't sue people is because it is legal,
Never ever said anything like that.
Post by Larryyou have to answer these questions.
Nope.
Post by LarryOtherwise, the difficulty (or even impossibility) of proving
this must necessarily be an alternative possibility.
Nope, not when you dont need any proof if you're just sending them a letter of demand.
Even you should have noticed that the RIAA hasnt even been stupid enough to try that.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by Larry(for which I outlined reasons above why they might practically
choose not to sue, or are unable to prove the activity),
Pity about other stuff like what iTunes can do.
Post by Larryand has no bearing on whether the activity is legal.
It is however MUCH more likely that the reason they dont do anything about it is
because they cant, because it isnt illegal to load an ipod from a CD that you own.
What makes you say it is MUCH more likely?
Because they havent even bothered to send out any letters of demand.
Post by LarryHow can you quantify the liklihood?
Dont need to.
Post by LarryI presented an alternative theory - two actually - that are at least as viable.
Wrong, as always. In spades with letters of demand.
Post by LarryFor even if your theory is wrong and it is illegal, they still wouldn't sue
since it is 1) hard to prove, and 2) not much they can recover in damages.
But neither of those apply to letters of demand and the RIAA hasnt even
bothered to go that route, so its MUCH more likely that they realise it aint illegal.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedIn spades when they clearly dont bother to do anything
about what is done in huge numbers with ipods.
The industry hasnt even attempted to monster
Apple into not providing that capability in iTunes.
And the industry would get a flea in its ear if it was ever
stupid enough to try that anyway.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardhowever, they've never sued a consumer for this.
And there might just be a reason why they havent.
Hard to prove and little chance of recovery?
Or it isnt actually illegal.
So you say.
You in spades with the reverse.
Does this make sense to anyone? Anyone?
Hardly anyone bothers to read your shit.
How many of there are you between those ears? Hypocrite.
Cant even manage its own lines. No surprise that the best it can manage is legal parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedJust your bum chum deadrat.
What's with the repeated homosexual references?
Just rubbing your nose in your problem, parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardWould you win a copyright infringement suit? Hard to say.
Nope, completely trivial to say.
Oops! I "lied" again. You're right. Saying things is always easy.
And even someone as stupid as you has noticed that the recording
industry hasnt actually been stupid enough to try doing that.
What is strategically wise and tactically remunerative is
different from what the law says.
Easy to claim what the law purportedly says.
It sure is. Great insight. He claimed what the law says,
and there have been cites and quotes in this thread as well.
Not one of which actually supported that claim of his.
If you say so.
I do indeed.
Post by LarryYou strike me as one of those people who if someone reads your
posts, and does the exact opposite, they'd live their life quite well.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
No surprise that the best it can manage is legal parasite.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryCan you outline what exactly you think he "lied" about
Already did.
Post by Larryand what statutes show he is wrong?
HE made the claim.
HE gets to do that.
He gets to show he is wrong?
He gets to cite the statutes that support his claim, fuckwit.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedTHATS how it works.
Really, that's how it works?
Pathetic.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedHere it is again in case you have got lost again
He said you can't legally copy a CD you buy.
And he cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryHe cited a jury instruction that says you can't copy copyrighted material
without license to do so, and there's no "for my car" exception.
And he cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarrySince jury instructions are based on statutes, and have been
approved by courts, he backed up his claim, albeit belatedly.
And he cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryThe ball's in your court.
Nope, its still in his.
Post by LarryRefute the claim, if you can.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
Post by LarryDon't just say its wrong with your hands covering your ears.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasys.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardI suppose it would depend on how many copiers ended up on the jury.
Nope.
... he explained.
Just like you didnt.
You disagreed with him.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist legal parasites ?
I don't know what those things are.
Your problem.
Post by LarryI do know I've forgotten more law than you've ever known,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Post by Larryand what I forgot is a small fraction of what I still know.
You problem.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryWhat's the basis for your disagreement? Case law? Statute? Other?
What's the basis for your disagreement? Case law? Statute? Other?
Again, responding to a question with a question, rather than answering it.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite
Post by LarryHow childish.
Yep, thats your problem.
Post by LarryDeadrat made a claim.
And he cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryHe cited a jury instruction that supports the claim.
And he cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryIt also comports with what I learned in law school,
but of course I can't cite the class lecture for you.
And you cant explain why the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryYou're the one disagreeing with his claim,
So does the industry when it hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by Larryso I will ask again what the foundation of that disagreement is. Case law? Statute? Other?
Other. The tiny matter that the industry hasnt bothered to do anything
about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryOf course, you're perfectly free to think the current state
of the law is stupid and wrong and should be changed.
And I'm perfectly free to notice that the industry hasnt bothered to do
anything about those who copy a CD that they own into their own ipod.
The industry hasnt even proclaimed that its illegal to do that.
Post by LarryBut don't sit there and say the current state of the law is something it isn't.
Go tell the industry.
Dont be too surprised when they laugh in your face.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardThe fact that the purpose in personal and non-commerical counts in your favor;
And there is the tiny matter of what the law allows.
Post by richardthe fact that you've copied the whole thing counts against you.
Nope.
... he explained.
Just like you didnt.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardWhether you're affecting the commercial viability is a toss up.
Its completely irrelevant given what 17USC107 allows.
17USC107 defines fair use, which doesn't contemplate your convenience.
Let go of your dick before you end up completely blind.
... he explained.
Just like you didnt.
Post by DeadratGo read 17USC107
That isnt relevant to what is being discussed.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardGiving that copy to a friend is definitely illegal.
Duh.
Tell it to richard.
No need.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedPost by richardPost by Rod SpeedAnd its legal to have a copy in your ipod and to not use the CD too.
You cant ignore this very common copying.
This "very common copying" is in murky legal waters,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
By virtue that there is no case law on the point,
and the statutes are ambiguous at best,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Substantiate what, exactly?
It should be obvious even to someone as stupid as you what was being claimed there.
Post by LarryThat there's no case law on point? You agree with that precedent?
Substantiate that the statutes are ambiguous? I don't think they are
Then why did you say that they were ?
Post by Larry- and Deadrat's cited jury instruction seems clear to me
Pity it aint relevant to what is being discussed in this subthread.
Post by Larry- but based on the discussion and debate in this
thread, I threw you a bone and agreed it was murky.
So you're just another pathetic excuse for a troll eh ?
Post by LarryIf you want to know my honest opinion, the law is crystal clear
Then you are clearly a pathological liar.
Post by Larryand you're blatantly wrong,
The entire industry too eh ?
Post by Larrywithout a rational reason in the world to make the assertions you're making.
HE made that claims.
HE gets to do that.
THATS how it works.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by Larryit appears that "murky" is an accurate description.
Nope.
Post by LarryIf you think it is crystal clear,
Never ever said that.
Post by Larryplease explain why.
Just did.
So its not murky and its not clear. What is it, then?
The real world aint binary.
Post by Larry(Since you said you just explained, but there's no explanation.)
You're lying, as always.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by Deadratnot least because the RIAA has at times claimed that its clients
have given permission for this type of "format shifting" copying.
And, of course, I lied in my discusion by omitting the fact that
you may make copies when you're granted permission to do so.
So sorry.
See above on ending up completely blind.
Post by DeadratPost by Rod SpeedCant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all, either.
Post by DeadratThis has nothing to do with cant.
Pathetic. When all else fails, try a spelling flame.
Damn! I just hate it when I have to explain things to
the literal minded. It just takes all the fun out of it.
Then do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.
Another sentence that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Substantiate that your sentence doesn't make any sense?
You really do like hearing yourself argue, doncha?
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratRemember those analogies on that test you took in the 8th grade?
Didnt happen.
Did you attend eighth grade?
Yep.
Have fun substantiating that claim.
Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all either.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratYour complaining that I lied about what I discussed is on the
same level as my complaining that you posted the noun "cant"
when it's clear that you meant the contraction "can't."
Nope.
Nope? That's your response?
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist legal parasites ?
Post by LarryDo you see how this actually supports the point Deadrat was making?
No it doesnt, and he wasnt even making a case either.
Post by LarryDo you see how this actually supports the point Deadrat was making?
Record's stuck.
No - your thought process is, though.
Pathetic.
Post by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by LarryPost by Rod SpeedPost by DeadratOr do I need to type slower?
Just let go of your dick before you end up completely blind.
And retake Bullshitting 101.
Do you see how this actually supports the point Deadrat was making?
Record's stuck.