 | | Re: Arrggh!
|
| (...) Because in one case it's deemed fair use; in the other you're republishing the work. But I don't claim to understand the legal intricacies to really be able to explain this intelligently. However, since MP3.com was sued for this exact same (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Arrggh!
|
| (...) But there's *exactly* no difference. If I make an MP3 of a track from my own CD, it'll be exactly completely the same as one I download from the internet (assuming the same software and options used to create it). If the law doesn't recognize (...) (24 years ago, 19-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Arrggh!
|
| (...) Not because they had copies (that's fair use under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, United States Code, Title 17, section 1008), but because they *distributed* copies for which they had no license (17 USC s. 1103). Chris FUT: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| |
