Now How Does This Make Sense?

[NCC10281982B]

C|net Article

 

Some of these situations are pretty dang wierd. And who wants to go to the trouble to 'legialy' make a cd (tip 2) when it looks to be so inconventent? I am not intenionally flaming anything. However I would like to point out that this is not all that user firendly IMHO.

 

Me thinks the laws are a mess.

[flareback]

um..yeah..i follow all those rules.

[cybergrunt69]

My gut reaction is that this interpretation of the rules is total BS. However, reading it closer, it kinda looks right - as much as that pisses me off.

 

No, I'm not gonna go read 5.3 million pages of legaleese just to see this reporter summarized it right in 3 pages - I'm gonna follow my gut reaction.

 

I hate those stupid RIAA/MPAA butt-nuggets. Ya, they are like any business in the fact that they're just trying to make more money, but they lose business when they punish the little people (read: the ones that make them money) instead of the big time mass-producing offenders.

[caffeinejunkie]

Thats pretty crazy right there I must admit. Seems almost as weird and messed up as the laws like you can't tie a donkey infornt the the post office( actually a law around here i've heard if i only had a donkey..............) that are still on the books.

[cybergrunt69]

I don't remember which city, but there's a law in Arizona that you aren't allowed to back up your car on a city street. There's another on in Minnesota (I think) that says you can't have men's and women's underwear on the same clothes line at the same time.

 

Those make about as much sense as this BS.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

And, not every law is still in effect.

 

 

And I recommend you actually READ the article. It's three pages long, and contains very little, if ANY, "Lawerees". THEN maybe you won't sound like a dick when you post your opinion on it.

[Silverfox]

it may all be true and factual in regards to the law, but it still seems awfully stupid imo. oh well. not a lot i can do by moaning, is there?!

 

it is suggesting ways to go about things legally. but i sincerely doubt *that* many people will find it "useful" to know.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

Then buy the CD-Rs they talked about in Tip #3. They're costly, BUT THE ROYALTIES ARE PAID!

 

 

 

REALLY people, READ the god danged article before judging it!

[Nicto10]

That means, under the strictest interpretations of U.S. copyright law, ripping a song to your computer, then uploading a song to your portable player or copying it to a CD is considered unauthorized and illegal.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I better watch out!

 

I know they say "strictest interpretations" but seriously, what is the point of that law???

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute, what about www.loadpod.com ??

[Silverfox]

Then buy the CD-Rs they talked about in Tip #3. They're costly, BUT THE ROYALTIES ARE PAID!

REALLY people, READ the god danged article before judging it!

455052[/snapback]

 

 

i DID read the post. no need to be patronising for heavens sake.

 

yes those cdr's may be a good idea, but it doesnt guarantee you get what you want, does it?

[Kamikaze_Badger]

I said article, not post.

 

 

And wtf do you mean by "it dosn't guarantee what you want"? What exactly do you want, eh? Cheap music?

 

 

In that case, use some more loopholes.

[NCC10281982B]

I guess what I am trying to says is this: From the standpoint if copying music what is the difference, other than digital vs analog, between copying a cd on a computer and using a tape deck? Both are copies, both can be redistributed. I like that 1992 law, It should be ammended to include personal computers with cd burners.