Comments on: links for 2007-12-22 http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/21/links-for-2007-12-22/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:46:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jennifer http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/21/links-for-2007-12-22/comment-page-1/#comment-1208342 Jennifer Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:12:21 +0000 http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/21/links-for-2007-12-22/#comment-1208342 Question: Then did you see this article in switched.com that said that RIAA Claims Ripping CDs for Personal Use is Illegal?! Link: http://www.switched.com/2007/12/11/riaa-claims-ripping-cds-for-personal-use-is-illegal/?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Would ripping CDs into your iTunes be considered "file sharing." It is a CD that you use to play in a CD player and essentially you are sharing the music on your own personal system which is iTunes or whatever media player you are using?! Maybe this is part of the problem with this entire situation in copyright law. One main problem is the legal definition for "fair use" and the other is "file sharing." Just something to throw out there because in following Prince's situation everyone is dumbfounded as to how to define these terms. We need actual legal cases to define these terms and set legal precedent. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Question:

Then did you see this article in switched.com that said that RIAA Claims Ripping CDs for Personal Use is Illegal?!

Link: http://www.switched.com/2007/12/11/riaa-claims-ripping-cds-for-personal-use-is-illegal/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Would ripping CDs into your iTunes be considered “file sharing.” It is a CD that you use to play in a CD player and essentially you are sharing the music on your own personal system which is iTunes or whatever media player you are using?!

Maybe this is part of the problem with this entire situation in copyright law.

One main problem is the legal definition for “fair use” and the other is “file sharing.”

Just something to throw out there because in following Prince’s situation everyone is dumbfounded as to how to define these terms. We need actual legal cases to define these terms and set legal precedent.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

]]> By: TR Daggett http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/21/links-for-2007-12-22/comment-page-1/#comment-1208196 TR Daggett Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:16:56 +0000 http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/21/links-for-2007-12-22/#comment-1208196 Amy, just a comment regarding the use of the term "file-sharing". I'm sure David Pogue is aware that file sharing isn't strictly illegal music or movie sharing. By using the term and not making the distinction between the *illegal* and the many legal and useful aspects of the file-sharing technology he's doing a huge disservice to those who seek to legitimize the technology, distinguish it from the illegal, and also distance themselves from those who break the law. A little background. I've never used file-sharing software and I've never copied anything and shared it with anyone. I've never made a copy of something I've rented. All of that is clearly wrong and illegal (except for the mere use of file-sharing software for non-copyrighted files). When it comes to making copies of something I bought, that's where I draw the line. Fair Use has always covered that, and just because the technology is now a DVD instead of a VCR tape or LP there shouldn't be any difference unless I share it with people. As long as the copy is for personal use (like making an extra copy in case the original is lost or damaged) I should have that right. (Actually, I've never even done that!) I wonder why people (mostly young, but not all) think it's OK to copy and share music and videos. I have to think that they're 'morally challenged', and would have a different outlook if their livelihoods were affected negatively. As a former photographer I know that the product of your work is how you make your living. I might not agree with many of the practices of record and movie companies, but I don't expect to get products for free unless the owner wants it that way (99% of my software is freeware). How anyone can feel they have a "right" to something they didn't pay for is beyond me. I just wish the term "File-sharing" wasn't used so loosely, and I'd expect a journalist like David Pogue to be more responsible by calling it *illegal* file-sharing. I also disagree with his posit that at some point in the future *everyone* will think that illegal file-sharing is OK. Thanks Amy, just a comment regarding the use of the term “file-sharing”. I’m sure David Pogue is aware that file sharing isn’t strictly illegal music or movie sharing. By using the term and not making the distinction between the *illegal* and the many legal and useful aspects of the file-sharing technology he’s doing a huge disservice to those who seek to legitimize the technology, distinguish it from the illegal, and also distance themselves from those who break the law.

A little background. I’ve never used file-sharing software and I’ve never copied anything and shared it with anyone. I’ve never made a copy of something I’ve rented. All of that is clearly wrong and illegal (except for the mere use of file-sharing software for non-copyrighted files). When it comes to making copies of something I bought, that’s where I draw the line. Fair Use has always covered that, and just because the technology is now a DVD instead of a VCR tape or LP there shouldn’t be any difference unless I share it with people. As long as the copy is for personal use (like making an extra copy in case the original is lost or damaged) I should have that right. (Actually, I’ve never even done that!)

I wonder why people (mostly young, but not all) think it’s OK to copy and share music and videos. I have to think that they’re ‘morally challenged’, and would have a different outlook if their livelihoods were affected negatively. As a former photographer I know that the product of your work is how you make your living.
I might not agree with many of the practices of record and movie companies, but I don’t expect to get products for free unless the owner wants it that way (99% of my software is freeware).
How anyone can feel they have a “right” to something they didn’t pay for is beyond me.

I just wish the term “File-sharing” wasn’t used so loosely, and I’d expect a journalist like David Pogue to be more responsible by calling it *illegal* file-sharing.

I also disagree with his posit that at some point in the future *everyone* will think that illegal file-sharing is OK.

Thanks

]]>