[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

first of all thanks for finally answering my questions.
i merely mentioned that dzagama also wanted you to answer the questions, i'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify his position on the issue as a whole.

No, I think he was posting those as open questions because he doesn't want to solely target you.

Originally Posted by yoav

you keep saying i admit to ownership of art and showing you don't understand what i'm saying. i believe in the artist's intent, i have not said i believe in ownership of art, you quoted a text saying i believe 'theft is taking something someone else owns' that's not the same thing at all. i went on to explain how no one should own art. you should really read the rest of that post. a misquote.

You are stunningly dense.

A: THEFT REQUIRES OWNERSHIP

B: PROFITING OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE'S ART IS THEFT

So that begs the question: what is owned when I profit off of KATG episodes rebranded as my own?

If nothing is, it is not theft, according to you. But you said it is theft, so something must be owned. WHAT?!

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as us law making goes, sometimes things are passed into law without it being the outcome of a court case bob.

link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate): Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

i suggest you view the 'printer friendly display' as some of the links to subsections don't work. while the dmca itself does not explicitly talk about digital copies relating to cd to ipod copying it makes numerous mentions and states that it does not overpower sections 109 and 117 title 17 of us copyright code. which is summarized below.

This act is entirely irrelevant. It makes circumvention of DRM illegal.

It has absolutely zero bearing AT ALL on ripping a CD to an iPod.

Originally Posted by yoav

the following is from the US Copyright office U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright and Digital Files

it turns out you're right that i misunderstood the one backup rule, it only pertains to software 'essential to run or activate the computer', not music, movies, ms word, etc. you're not allowed to make any copies of any other media or software in the states. not even for backup purposes, without the explicit consent of the copyright holder.
notice they say 'such as software or any media downloaded and stored on a hard drive' this applies to things you've paid for and own a copy of. it includes cds, records and any storage medium, as well as any means of acquiring said copies.

the only way in the current system that it would be legal to rip a cd to your ipod, is if that right is written on the cd you purchased.

No, that says that the privileges granted in Section 117 do not apply to other things. It does not say that other copies are illegal, it only says that Section 117 does not protect them.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING RIPPING A CD.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY EXAMPLE OF ANYONE EVER BEING EVEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING FOR RIPPING A CD.

This is an issue that is not clearly addressed by US law. In the meantime, however, ripping a CD is definitely effectively legal.

Also, you're going to try to argue that the system NEEDS to change because of something that never happens? Are you fucking kidding me?

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as your quote goes, i believe it was taken from a case where MGM lost against kazaa, and you've misinterpreted what they're saying,

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MGM won.

Originally Posted by yoav

they're referring to using the ipod as a backup device not as another means of listening to your music without paying for a digital copy to listen to.

What? There is no reason to assume that. The iPod is a listening device, and when the matter of ripping CDs to an iPod is discussed, it is a given that the copies are being listened to.

You want record companies to be like the RIAA so that you have a case for pirating.

Originally Posted by yoav

which as i just pointed out above is not in line with current us law.

The only thing you have ever quoted that has stated that ripping a CD is illegal is the RIAA, who are not the law.

Originally Posted by yoav

furthermore the quote you made was merely the closing remarks of MGM
and would have no grounds or impact on the law whether they'd won or lost the case. nor can it be considered legal consent to make copies of cds MGM releases.

Of course it can't, you fucking idiot.

I'm pointing out that even record companies disagree with the RIAA's assertion that ripping CDs to an iPod is illegal. Why would they then sue a consumer for ripping a CD when they believe it is legal?