J. David Boyd wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John Pedersen wrote:
>
> | Eric Jahn wrote:
> |
> |> The RIAA would have no easy way of catching a stream ripper, but
> |> possession of ripped streaming media still sounds as illegal as a song
> |> ripped from a CD.
> |
> |
> | I think the real target of the RIAA is people who TRANSMIT the songs;
> | whenever you run your Napster or Kazaa, you are, at the same time,
> | putting your songs out there to "share" with others.
> |
> | Perhaps the RIAA is so greedy and powerdrunk that it really is illegal
> | to save copies of shoutcast material. However, as I see it, here we
> | have a radio station or shoutcast station that is legally transmitting
> | music that I can listen to all day long, day after day. I then make a
> | copy of some of those songs for my own personal use.
> |
> | I see that as quite different than when I become a SOURCE, as with Kazaa
> | et al. Whatever the law may be, I can personally feel very comfortable
> | with this--hence the subject header: music without guilt.
> |
> | John
> |
> |
>
> Hmm, then why do theatres and concerts outlaw the use of cameras?
That is their right. When you attend, and the rules are known to you,
you implicitly agree to them.
I think Dylan's example of making a VHS of a tv show for personal use
is right on point.
The people who source this music (the radio stations) have paid
whatever it is they pay, and they broadcast with complete legality.
As I said earlier, the important thing to me is that I feel
comfortable with it--you can decide for yourself. If it bothers you,
don't do it.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:02:24 EDT