While tells us that you haven't been responsible for any original works. If you had published a book ... or written music ... You'd probably think differently about existing copyright law.
Yeah - Let me re-re-review my agreement with iTunes and Apple - and see where it is illegal for me to purchase music from them, download it to my computer, and save it to three or four iPods that I own.
Why have we lost common sense? When new record albums were released, I never dreamed of recording them to cassette and giving away copies to friends. But today, some people believe that everything should be free and freely disseminated.
Funny. I cannot find any citations for court cases where one gets sued for keeping a copy of their purchased works on an iPod. Cite me a couple, will you please?
But the case in the article here IS discussing a case where a person offered over 500 songs, and was sued over a couple dozen.
Sorry. Guess I'm from the old school. Where when I purchase my albums and enjoy them and make one archival copy for personal use. And where I believe it is wrong to post the music I have purchased on the Internet for any and all to download with no fees being paid to the legal creator and/or the artist's chosen distributor for their works.
One should start with the laws pertinent to the jurisdiction involved with the case we're discussing. Then study the Berne Convention. And if you do not know how to use a Web site as informative as the EFF's - then I really wonder why you're participating here.
Check out the law - and take a look at the EFF.org site - before you spout misinformation regarding existing copyright laws. Get educated - it's our responsibility as participants in forums like these.
I see your thesaurus app is working. But your reply has nothing to do with what was posted. Trying to compare stealing a book with stealing a kiss is ridiculous.
>> ... and copyright lasts way too long ...
While tells us that you haven't been responsible for any original works. If you had published a book ... or written music ... You'd probably think differently about existing copyright law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apologies ...
Yeah - Let me re-re-review my agreement with iTunes and Apple - and see where it is illegal for me to purchase music from them, download it to my computer, and save it to three or four iPods that I own.
Why have we lost common sense? When new record albums were released, I never dreamed of recording them to cassette and giving away copies to friends. But today, some people believe that everything should be free and freely disseminated.
Re: Re: Apologies ...
Funny. I cannot find any citations for court cases where one gets sued for keeping a copy of their purchased works on an iPod. Cite me a couple, will you please?
But the case in the article here IS discussing a case where a person offered over 500 songs, and was sued over a couple dozen.
Apologies ...
Sorry. Guess I'm from the old school. Where when I purchase my albums and enjoy them and make one archival copy for personal use. And where I believe it is wrong to post the music I have purchased on the Internet for any and all to download with no fees being paid to the legal creator and/or the artist's chosen distributor for their works.
Re: Re:
One should start with the laws pertinent to the jurisdiction involved with the case we're discussing. Then study the Berne Convention. And if you do not know how to use a Web site as informative as the EFF's - then I really wonder why you're participating here.
Check out the law - and take a look at the EFF.org site - before you spout misinformation regarding existing copyright laws. Get educated - it's our responsibility as participants in forums like these.
Re: Re: Re: inter-tubes
I see your thesaurus app is working. But your reply has nothing to do with what was posted. Trying to compare stealing a book with stealing a kiss is ridiculous.
Little Detais
How is it "moral" or "lawful" to distribute another person's property without the owners' permission? What details are being "hidden" by anyone?
Harper's 37 Songs
URL correction, sorry -
http://tinyurl.com/harpers-37
Re:
She was offering over 500 titles. These 37 were merely the ones whose copyrights were held by the complaining party.
Just FYI, here's the court document listing the 37 songs:
http://tinyurl.com/harpers37