[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

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?!

ah perhaps i used the wrong wording and/or poor grammer, it's not theft that i was trying to convey, but the right to profit off someone else's work without their consent. theft is the wrong word here.

that profiting off someone else's work without their consent is wrong and should be illegal in my model as it violates the artist's intent, however it should be noted my model creates a world were nobody profits off other's work because it's only the application or implementation of the work that has value.

in simpler terms, in my model, live performance, original art pieces, etc. have value(and to clarify it's not value in the object it's value in the artist applying their knowledge and talent). digital copies of work do not. you get paid to make art by someone who wants you to create that art. it has nothing to do with owning art. it's a world apart from copyright, owning art, etc. it's a completely different system.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

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.

i disagree with your interpretation

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

the laws are not explicit, but they are implicit. you likely won't be caught for ripping a cd because how could authorities ever know you did it? that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. and that doing so is considered the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content. and that if the laws are left unaltered and one day the privacy laws or policing technology changes (like when bush took away the right to privacy) it will be easier to find these cases of copyright violation. and whoever stands to benefit will be able to freely convict people based on it.

on the other hand you claim that i'm a thief, a non-us citizen guilty of a us law. how does that work?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

that's not true, us copyright law very clearly states you're not allowed to make a copy of copyrighted content to a hard drive, even if you choose not to understand the implications, an ipod is a hard drive, and your itunes folder is stored on another hard drive.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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?

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts. it's like you want to misunderstand me. furthermore it's not about changing to some arbitrary scheme, i want shit changed back to the way it was when mozart was around. because that system worked, and produced great art. it's this recent copyright fiasco thought up over fear of the printing press, it's the change that copyright brought that i want annulled and art returned to it's natural organic place in the world.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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

MGM won.

ah sorry the articles i researched must have been referring to when they won outside the usa, which you're right doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

regardless of what you assume from their vague statement, it was a closing argument, a comment, not a law.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You want record companies to be like the RIAA so that you have a case for pirating.
The only thing you have ever quoted that has stated that ripping a CD is illegal is the RIAA, who are not the law.

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?

a closing argument is designed to sway a jury, no record company in the usa outside that closing argument have openly advocated the copying or ripping of cds, many have spoken against it, and were even sued at one point for putting drm software that installed onto users' computers when they put a cd in without their consent. you seem to have a problem resolving context.
Labels to dampen CD burning? - CNET News
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
the fact that drm even exists is due to record labels wanting to prevent unauthorized copying of content.