(11-21-2011 10:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I purchased it because I liked the music. I'm entitled to not only listen to it, when I please, but to make a backup of it in case the orig. physical copy gets damaged, lost, stolen or destroyed. If I bought it, I should have the right to sell it as well. And if they want to restrict me from using it, they better tell me up front, so I can make an informed buying decision. In 1975 there were no such restrictions.

You don't have those restrictions. The attempts by the RIAA to limit that in ~2005 were quashed.

You also have the right to sell your copy of it. I never said anything to the contrary.

European Court Overturns Rule on Illegal File Sharing
By ERIC PFANNER

PARIS — The highest court in the European Union said on Thursday that Internet service providers could not be required to monitor their customers’ online activity to filter out the illegal sharing of music and other copyrighted material.

The ruling, by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, is a setback for a Belgian group representing music copyright owners, which had sought tougher measures to crack down on online file sharing.

The organization, Sabam, had sued a Belgian Internet provider, Scarlet Extended, saying its customers were illegally sharing music files.

Sabam had won a ruling in a Belgian court, which said Scarlet should have to install a system to filter out any unauthorized exchanges of songs on its own, not just in response to complaints from copyright holders.

The court in Luxembourg said such a requirement would be disproportionate, adding that it would violate “the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information.”

“E.U. law precludes an injunction made against an Internet service provider requiring it to install a system for filtering all electronic communications passing via its services, which applies indiscriminately to all its customers, as a preventive measure, exclusively at its expense, and for an unlimited period,” the court wrote.

Lobbying groups for Internet service providers and for consumers hailed the decision.

“This judgment sends a crystal-clear signal,” said Monique Goyens, director general of B.E.U.C., a Brussels group that lobbies for consumer rights. “Internet providers cannot be asked to police consumers’ use of the Web.”

Malcolm Hutty, president of EuroISPA, a service providers’ lobbying group, added, “This ruling is of fundamental importance for the future of the Internet and the development of a strong digital single market.”

The music industry shrugged off the implications of the decision. Other measures to curb illegal file sharing, including the blocking of Web sites that enable piracy and the cutoff of persistent file-sharers’ Internet connections, will not be affected, the industry’s international lobbying group said.

“In this particular case, the court rejected the content-filtering measure presented by the Belgian court as too broad,” Frances Moore, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said in a statement. “However, this does not affect the forms of I.S.P. cooperation that I.F.P.I. advocates.”

Indeed, a recent court ruling in Britain required an Internet provider, BT, to block access to a Web site called Newzbin2, which was found to have made pirated content available to customers.

First off, I'm not a lawyer nor have I studied law so if i make unfounded or wrong information please somebdoy who is in the know correct me.

As far as I understand it there is a grey area in how copyright is applied to media now. It is legal to make a backup of a cd, dvd etc... for your own personal use. However if you have to bypass or break any copy protection that is on those discs then you are breaking the law. So tell me how am I supposed to make a legit backup without breaking the law when almost all physical media have some kind of copy protection?

Most issues that have the RIAA or MPAA involved I can't get behind because they are usually trying to impede the advance of technology in order to lengthen their technology cycle. While you should be able to protect your property it should not be allowed to slow down innovation by tying up new technologies in court. Things like the newly introduced ultraviolet digital copies are a joke to the consumer. Instead of now offering a digital copy of a movie you buy, so you don't have to break copy protection, you have to sign up for a service that only allows you access to your movie for 3 years. what's more is that it's a streaming service so you must have internet available. thinking about taking that new green lantern movie you just bought on your ipad for the kids on that trip to the grandparents, well you better have a good mobile data plan. Things like these "innovations" are damaging to the consumer and are protected under these types of copyright laws. Now to get a copy on the ipad you have to download from itunes and buy a physical copy. Not good for the consumer.
Any law that involves the MPAA or RIAA I am leary because it just wreaks of being set up to be misapplied and misused in order to put a stranglehold on innovation and keep competition down.

(11-26-2011 11:40 AM)cardinalcrazie Wrote:  As far as I understand it there is a grey area in how copyright is applied to media now. It is legal to make a backup of a cd, dvd etc... for your own personal use. However if you have to bypass or break any copy protection that is on those discs then you are breaking the law. So tell me how am I supposed to make a legit backup without breaking the law when almost all physical media have some kind of copy protection?

This isn't an issue with copyright law, but other areas of law (which I'm not even going to pretend to know much about). Copyright law is fairly simple.

Quote: Most issues that have the RIAA or MPAA involved I can't get behind because they are usually trying to impede the advance of technology in order to lengthen their technology cycle. While you should be able to protect your property it should not be allowed to slow down innovation by tying up new technologies in court. Things like the newly introduced ultraviolet digital copies are a joke to the consumer. Instead of now offering a digital copy of a movie you buy, so you don't have to break copy protection, you have to sign up for a service that only allows you access to your movie for 3 years. what's more is that it's a streaming service so you must have internet available. thinking about taking that new green lantern movie you just bought on your ipad for the kids on that trip to the grandparents, well you better have a good mobile data plan. Things like these "innovations" are damaging to the consumer and are protected under these types of copyright laws. Now to get a copy on the ipad you have to download from itunes and buy a physical copy. Not good for the consumer.
Any law that involves the MPAA or RIAA I am leary because it just wreaks of being set up to be misapplied and misused in order to put a stranglehold on innovation and keep competition down.

Consumers are the ones who will need to fight back against this. It isn't anything illegal, just idiotic. If there were any competition, these practices wouldn't exist.

These laws aren't "misapplied and misused". They are designed to strangle competition and squeeze the last cents out of the consumer. (with a little kickback into the politician's coffers as well)

UPDATE:

SOPA will have a full committee meeting Thurs 12/15. It looks like it will pass with strong bipartisan support.

http://americancensorship.org/

(12-14-2011 05:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  UPDATE:

SOPA will have a full committee meeting Thurs 12/15. It looks like it will pass with strong bipartisan support.

http://americancensorship.org/

"The remaining major opponents of the legislation, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, eBay, Twitter, AOL, Linked in, and Wikipedia, who clearly oppose SOPA/PIPA despite the amelioration of many of their previous stated concerns, are becoming increasingly isolated politically."