Posted on 04/24/2006 7:51:04 AM PDT by FewsOrange
All the more reason to hold the pubbies' feet to the fire NOW. Do you think it will be easier two years from now?
read the article, this isn't about "making free copies of music". it criminalizes fair use. you could get a spam email that downloaded something to your system, dumped your IP address in that server log, only to find the RIAA impounding that log, finding your address there, and sending both the police and a civil lawsuit to your home.
Let's see, they're going after "large scale enterprises invovled in intellectual property theft", and your excuse to stop them is you"could get a spam email that downloaded something to your system" so you might be confused with one? Hey, I guess it could happen, but I doubt it would, at least not very much, and in those cases it did, surely you wouldn't be the only one to protest the issue on those grounds. But turning a blind eye to justice just because a few innocents might get falsely accused is weak, if we concerned ourselves with such things constantly there wouldn't be a single law in the book.
If you think the Republicans are going to give in to those who want to replace "copyright" with "copyleft" you're dreaming. These lines are just becoming clear, but you should expect them to keep more and more distinct.
Sorry, using a Palm Treo one handed at the moment.
In spite of 'copyright' being in the name of the Act, copyright has little to do with the serious and extreme problems the DMCA carries with it.
Well if there weren't huge criminal enterprises the world over making huge amounts of money off of illegal copies of American IP, you might get more sympathy. I personally would like to see them better attempt to lock it down tighter before increasing the number of laws preventing it, but since the hackers have already proven they can crack most anything put before them, stiffer penalties and a longer arm of the law is what we're gonna get.
Well if there weren't huge criminal enterprises the world over making huge amounts of money off of illegal copies of American IP, you might get more sympathy. I personally would like to see them better attempt to lock it down tighter before increasing the number of laws preventing it, but since the hackers have already proven they can crack most anything put before them, stiffer penalties and a longer arm of the law is what we're gonna get.
The media makers have chosen the formats that are so easily copied in pristine quality, and that make it impossible to protect from copying. As quickly as new protection methods are developed, they are compromised.
The media makers' reaction to those facts is to take away MY ability, and YOUR ability, to protect an investment in media by making backup copies. I mean, if my DVD of 'Mrs. Miniver' is damaged and thereby become unusable, my only solution is to buy a full price replacement. I should be allowed to make a backup copy, but that is a violation of DMCA.
That's wrong, and it has little to do with protecting the media makers from pirates. And it's already illegal to pirate media. Increase enforcement of those laws without making me into a criminal for simply protecting my investment in media.
But don't get me started on this. I could type and post all night. ;-)
No different than a 20 dollar bill. If something happens to it you're screwed, and you better not have a backup of it. Just take good care of such items, keep them in safe places, and insure them however possible. I've got a couple hundred DVD's and only ever had one bad one. I took it back to where I bought it, without a receipt, but since they could still scan the barcode they let me exchange it for another. I realize that requires a willing vendor, with identical product in stock, but the point is I've got hundreds and never had a single unresolvable problem.
I don't agree with your analogy. "Mrs. Miniver' ain't a twenty dollar bill. We own our currency while it's in our possession, but we only lease the right to use 'Mrs. Miniver'.
The media makers want to say we don't own the product, we only license the use of it from them. But if the product becomes unusable, they then want to treat it as though we own the physical product and are personably responsible for replacing damaged product.
If we have truly paid for a license to use the media, then we should qualify to have the physical product replaced easily and inexpensively.
But the media makers want to play it both ways.
If you found a retailer who agreed to replace damaged product for no cost, that's great. But it's also highly unusual.
Some music/video producers will, and almost all software vendors will. If you don't like their terms, then don't buy it, like I don't ever buy pay-per-view. Seems simple to me.
That's too bad, I really enjoy watching them myself. Especially concerts, where Shania Twain is hard to beat. You might try a small window in the corner sometime, life shouldn't be ALL work and no play.
I can't know their policy WRT this until I have a problem. You and I will have to agree to disagree.
Yeah well if you were the original developer of DVD technology, and/or owned the patents that protect it, it might matter whether you thought people should have free access to it or not. But since you don't, nor do you appear to have developed or are ready to market any equivalent technology, why should you be allowed to use intellectual property or patented processes you have not paid to legitimately access? Because you (or they) want to?
Yeah well if you were the original developer of DVD technology, and/or owned the patents that protect it, it might matter whether you thought people should have free access to it or not. But since you don't, nor do you appear to have developed or are ready to market any equivalent technology, why should you be allowed to use intellectual property or patented processes you have not paid to legitimately access? Because you (or they) want to?
Because they want you to buy seperate versions of the damned cd for each device. Sorry, that's not acceptable. It won't ever be acceptable. And using the spectre of terrorism to defend going after little Johnny for putting music on his IPOD is downright repugnant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.