Re: Re: Yes you are
Originally posted by Kid Red
Music is free, it's having a hard copy from the music company that's carries a fee.
False. All music is copyrighted (by default, any "artistic" or "academic" work is automatically copyrighted upon creation). After a "short" period of time ("short" having been redefined by Disney et al to be 99 years after the death of the artist ...)
then the music is "free", or more precisely, public domain. Copying a copyrighted work without permission is copyright violation (which has been redefined by RIAA et al as "stealing" and "piracy", when it is only related to the first and the second is nothing more than fear-mongering word-play).
Taking a hard copy of an artistic work is not copyright violation; it is theft. There is no "public domain" time for the physical copy; 200 years after the author's death, stealing it is still stealing.
Coyright violation, however, has never required physical removal of an object. Making a copy of Stephen King's latest novel, even on your own paper and with your own hands, is copyright violation (even if you never sell said copy!).
How can you compare stealing tips to downloading mp3s? I can record on the radio a damn good copy of any song I want. I can record on Tivo/VHS and damn video I want, hey all for FREE and LEGAL.
Correct. Its called time-shifting and is covered under "fair-use" rulings (although, to be pedantic, the rulings only strictly apply to the case where you tape a broadcast, watch/listen to it exactly once, then destroy the tape ... archival of content is not tested in the courts and so is not strictly speaking covered under "fair use"). "Fair Use" applies when you are taking content that you have legal access to, and "time-shifting" that content so that you can enjoy it at a more convenient time. The Diamond/Rio ruling expands "time-shifting" to "media-shifting", but the "legal access" requirement remains.
So how is downlaoding a dumbed down copy of a music file illegal?
It is illegal (a copyright violation) because you do not have legal access to the original. Yes, you do have legal access to the radio broadcast, and you can copy it from that if you so desire, but someone else's CD is not something you have legal access to (and, I might add, the "owner" of a CD can not "permit" you access to the CD's contents without physically transferring the CD to you, just as I can't buy SK's latest book and "let" all of my nearest friends make a copy of it, although I can hand my copy to someone else to read to my heart's content.)
How is using a legally store bought GO GO VIDEO amchine to MAKE EXACT COPIES of VHS movies legal
It is not, assuming you are talking about videos ou did not make. All commercial videos are also technically protected by MacroVision, which prevents the "Go Video" machine from dubbing them onto a new VHS tape, which is why the Go Video machines are so widely available. Note that even without MacroVision, the Go Video machines would be fully legal (see Rio judgement), but the marketplace interests would not promote them as widely.
but downloading an avi and joining the file segments then converting it to mpg and either leaving it on my computer or burning a copy to a CD illegal?
If you have free and legal access to the originals, then media shifting is not illegal. In the vast majority of cases, if you are downloading AVI's off the net, then you don't have free and legal access to the original media, and this is wholly illegal.
How many of you OWNED A STEREO WITH 2 CASSETTE DECKS!?!?
I have, and I have to admit I gave out maybe a handful of "mix tapes" to my friends. However, the bulk of usage that dual-cassette deck got was in playing two-tape "albums", and in dubbing over band performances and rehearsal bits to which I had full and legal access and permission.
See the "Go Video" arguments above. Dual-cassette tape machines are fully legal, as they have legitimate legal uses. This does not mean that all uses of the devices are legal.
Immoral? That's what's silly. That you some how feel like dudley do right and all us downloaders are eveil villians who are only doing WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE EARLY 80s!!!
You have, since the early 80's, been dubbing songs from CDs owned by people you don't know much less have physical access to, and/or distributing copies you made off songs you "owned"? Then yes. You are an evil villain.
I'm no "Dudley Do Right". As I said, I've dubbed tapes before as well. However, doing so was a copyright violation, no matter how many people do it, and now that the act has real financial consequences and damages, it has to be stopped. You have a real and fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Correcting that misunderstanding does not make me better than you in any way, it hopefully just makes your understanding better than it was before.
It's only illegal when the big corporations think it's denting their pockets.
No, it has always been illegal. The law is only enforced when there is a financial reason to enforce it. Until recently, distributing second-generation copies of copyrighted material has been prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, and hence has not been a financial threat worthy of the money it would take to stop it. That has all changed.
So I guess I've stole tips of tables since I bought my first LEGAL stereo with 2 cassette decks. I'm so evil and immoral 
If you've been distributing copies of albums you bought, then yes. You don't need a dual cassette deck machine to do that (any cassette recorder with an audio in jack, couple with any music player with an audio out jack will do quite nicely), but whatever. If that's what you've been doing with your dual cassette deck, then you have been violating copyright.
Physical availability of a machine or technology does not justify all uses of that machine or technology. Just about anyone can go to their nearest WalMart and buy a gun or a nice big hunting knife. Shooting and skinning your neighbor, however, continues to be frowned upon in most parts of the world.
