Well, actually it's the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC.
Nope. It's the "Therefore you are a bigot" part that's hurtful, that ends conversation, and starts the fight, the battle.
You're bullying, Mellon. It's like this:
A. Tell me something you love.
Maybe you love the Bible. Maybe you love science. Maybe you love The Last Unicorn, by Peter Beagle.
B. Find something in it that you could make an unseemly story about.
If you love the Bible, get the story about the guy who had sex with his daughters.
If you love science, get the story about alpha silverbacks and how they dominate the society.
If you love The Last Unicorn, get the story about the red bull pushing unicorns into the sea.
C. Now accuse the fuck out of a person.
"If you love the Bible, then you define incest as life-defining, and you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
"If you think science is true, than you believe that controlling women is the Natural Order. You need to rethink the merits of science, and redefine your life, right now."
"If you get your rocks off watching the Red Bull dominate unicorns, you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
Forcing YOUR interpretations onto others is psychic/emotional violence, and it's also the behavior of a bully.
It's too bad that some teenage boy somewhere has rushed into Anita's damsel-in-distress gambit, but gamers everywhere and gamer culture are NOT the problem. Attack that kid, DON'T attack gamers as a culture -- which is what she's been doing.
Have you seen ye olde XKCD, where if a boy does poorly in math, it's "Damn, you suck at math," but if a girl does poorly in math, its "Damn, girls suck at math?" Well, the same here, but in reverse, and then further, socially embraced: When women are acidic towards men, it's "Damn, you're an aggressive individual." But when some teenage boy is acidic towards women, it's "Damn, gamer culture is to blame, and we need to re-engineer the thoughts and feelings of gamers everywhere, using social bullying."
Link to Original Source
It's not the ripping software, it's the digital recording function, i.e. the ability to write to disk.
Here's what the court said in the RIAA v Diamond Multimedia case: (internal citations removed)
Unlike digital audio tape machines, for example, whose primary purpose is to make digital audio copied recordings, the primary purpose of a computer is to run various programs and to record the data necessary to run those programs and perform various tasks. The legislative history is consistent with this interpretation of the Act's provisions, stating that "the typical personal computer would not fall within the definition of 'digital audio recording device,'" because a personal computer's "recording function is designed and marketed primarily for the recording of data and computer programs." Another portion of the Senate Report states that "[i]f the 'primary purpose' of the recording function is to make objects other than digital audio copied recordings, then the machine or device is not a 'digital audio recording device,' even if the machine or device is technically capable of making such recordings."
So it really depends on what else the car's ability to write to disk is both primarily used for, and what it is primarily marketed for. The latter is probably worse for them; even if the car happens to be writing map or diagnostic information to disk, probably ripping CDs is what is mainly being advertised.
No. Here's the relevant part of the ruling, quoting the Senate report on the bill:
"[i]f the `primary purpose' of the recording function is to make objects other than digital audio copied recordings, then the machine or device is not a `digital audio recording device,' even if the machine or device is technically capable of making such recordings."
What information does the car's system digitally record other than music? That it might display digital information, or play digital information isn't relevant, since those don't involve the recording function.
Computers record lots of stuff to their hard drives. Some of it is music, but the ability to write to disk isn't primarily designed for digital music, nor primarily marketed for that.
If you don't own the CD you're ripping, it's obviously illegal.
Well, there are ways to do it with CDs you don't own where you will be protected from legal trouble. But in practice, it never comes up.
No, the car doesn't count.
Let's look at a bit more of the relevant language in the statute:
A âoedigital audio recording deviceâ is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use
It's what the primary purpose of the digital recording function is (or is marketed as) that matters. We disregard the car and the rest of the machine altogether.
I think you really need to go back and read up on Copyright Law (17 USC). The license is implied in Copyright Law.
No, there's no license, particularly no license 'implied in the law,' whatever that means.
You have an inherent free speech right to do anything with a work that you like, except for things that copyright gives an exclusive right to the copyright holder about. A copyright holder can only possibly grant a license for something that he holds a right to; he cannot give you permission to do something you don't need his permission for. And once the copyright on the work expires (no, seriously), you're no longer limited as to the exclusive rights either.
So for example, there is an exclusive right to publicly perform music, but not an exclusive right to privately perform music. Even if you have a stolen CD that was itself made illegally, you can lawfully privately perform it without infringing on copyright. No license or anything.
All this licensing bullshit basically is a side effect of stupid (and largely unnecessary) practices in the software industry. It's mostly folk myths. If there's a license, you'll usually know it: it will almost certainly be pages and pages long, written, and you'll have to expressly agree in some way. Record companies would not sell CDs with some sort of implied license.
No, the CD is the work, it is not the derivative.
Depends. Assuming you just mean an album, and not the piece of plastic, it'll either be a work or a compilation.
You do have a right to transform it.
No, that's preparation of a derivative work, probably; an exclusive right at 17 USC 106(2), and doing it is infringing at 17 USC 501(a). You'll need an exception to copyright, or for the work not to be copyrighted, or a license, in order to just make the derivative, never mind distributing it. And if it's not a derivative work after all (see the definition at 17 USC 101), it's likely an infringement of the reproduction right at 17 USC 106(1).
By definition, Fair Use is not an infringement.
Correct. Though as a practical matter, it's treated like an affirmative defense... it just makes more sense to do it that way, even though it is indeed an exception to copyright.
As long as you don't distribute it, its totally legal. No doubt about it.
No, it's only legal under the right circumstances. Fair use is entirely a case-by-case thing. Just because it could be a fair use sometimes doesn't mean that it will be every time. And vice versa, under the right circumstances, any sort of infringement might be a fair use.
Anyway, I wouldn't recommend relying entirely on it if a better option were available.
Correction: I said non-infringing, but I meant to say non-actionable. Non-infringing would, in fact, be legal.
I apologize for the error.
The AHRA means it is _legal_ to buy a blank audio CDR, copy a CD onto it (or make a mix CD), and give it to your friend.
First, it doesn't make it legal, it makes it non-actionable; there's a difference. (I am reliably told that it was supposed to be legal, but it got changed at the last minute in a suspicious manner)
Second, it doesn't say you can give the AHRA-compliant copies away. Just that they can be noncommercially 'used.'
Even before CDs were invented it was legal to make your own copy for your own use of copyrighted material you owned
Actually, it was never quite clear. It's since been expressly made non-infringing (not technically the same thing as legal; they're very sneaky) in some situations, but not any that are relevant to most people. There's also a fair use argument, but that's not the best thing in the world to rely on; fair use depends on the specific circumstances at hand, and doesn't always produce consistent results.
This seems to be clearly format shifting for personal use which should be entirely legal.
Should be, but that's not actually what the case is about. This is about making & selling a limited purpose device with a digital music ripping function. Such devices are required to have certain limits, and the people who make, import, or distribute them, have to pay certain royalties. And it looks as though neither requirement has been complied with here.
People don't ordinarily run into this, since computers are general purpose devices which also happen to be able to rip, and are therefore exempt.