Subject:
|
Re: Arrggh!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:38:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm*ihatespam*.org
|
Viewed:
|
1795 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Lindsey <lindsey@nospam.mallorn.com> wrote:
> 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
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 this fact, it's gonna need to be updated.
> be able to explain this intelligently. However, since MP3.com was sued for
> this exact same behavior and lost, it makes me think that it's illegal.
Nah, MP3.com lost because *they* had copies to which they had no license.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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: (...) (26 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
