yes


pretty much.

I'm Canadian, so the rules are different for you. In Canada We have a agency called the AVLA. If the music is licensed by them (so pools only) its not ok to play. So beatport is a no go. But, all venues must also pay a Socan fee for music to be played at all. So there's some confusion because some people think that all that needs to be paid to play any music in the venue. Also as a DJ you can become AVLA Licensed (for a ridiculous fee, yearly) and then you can ignore anything like that you read and play any music you want anywhere.

Anyway that doesn't help you it all it just illustrates the point that playing legal music is huge grey area. And someone always wants an even bigger cut of your paycheck.

Yes haha, in the United States, we also have a licensing similar to that, but im not too sure if everyone has one. Its called ASCAP, and it licenses the public performances of its members' musical works, which is confusing because its only ASCAP's members' musical works, and no one elses. But theres like 10 billion licensing agencies out there. Like really? Im not trying to get my name out to the whole country (just yet) with big time hits, im just doing small gigs. So then, my only option is to join a record pool? Great. haha.

But hold on. What about CD's? If they are purchased, are they subject to "fair use", meaning private events? Like a wedding, or a private party?

Thanks in advance.

I was under the impression that all music was protected in that manner. Meaning you needed permission prior to broadcasting anybody's music.

Fuck all of them. Play whatever you like. I highly doubt even the artists would agree to the stringent rules that these companies enforce.

...and this is a great way to get boned in civil court.


Not quite, which is why you need to know the laws in your area, and the licensing format used by each artist and/or rights holder.


Not true, but doing so may be a violation of their Terms of Service as quoted in the original post.


Again, not true. It's all about licensing and permission to perform.



Not correct. Your source of the music has no impact on your ability to play it or not (though, in many cases, Record Pools provide music which has been marked specifically for promotional usage and in which they allow broadcast or public performance under specific circumstances. See Whitelabel.net's Terms of Service as an example of a simplified one).

The other issue is that the rules surrounding these are written just enough to be ambiguous, but not to ambiguous as to not be applicable in civil court.

Here's the deal: The Big Two licensing firms in the United States of America are ASCAP and BMI. There's also SESAC but it's largely exclusive in who joins so the likelihood that one of your songs is licensed by them is slim-to-none. As always, cover your bases.

Here's part two (and this one is backed by ASCAP themselves): A common misconception is that the DJ or other performing artist/entertainer needs to have the appropriate license to play at a venue. Not True. While an artist can obtain a license for themselves, it is ultimately the responsibility of the venue to have a valid license (See: www.ascap.com).

IANAL.

Ya you dont wanna be behind the decks when the fedz raid little suzys sweet 16 party guns drawn aimed at your head because you decieded to throw caution to the wind and play an amazon copy of what does the fox say that you thought would be a great buy for 99 cents. And dont think lil suzy got your back, she just got handed a 06 honda accord, suzys got shit to lose and the man knows this so theyll have suzy tellin em allllllll bout those wobbles and wops you were slangin at the party all loosey goosey. Suzy be snitchin...man you know what FUCK SUZY AAANNND HER SWEET 16, this game aint for you bro get out while you can dont make themistakes we did, go back into your amazon cart, put those mp3s back and find a book on cookin.


You dont want this life dewey, you dont want no part of this life....

This.^^^


To the OP: it's not that serious man. as long as you arent producing mass copies of cd's or mp3's and running a bootleg operation, making a profit... then you are good.

these laws are rarely enforced on the typical dj...

now, unless you are spinning at an a-list spot on the vegas strip. then your chances of being caught up in a legal situation are about as great as catching herpes from a virgin.

That bitch said she was a virgin!!!!

www.wkrg.com

Thats an establishment. Not a dj.

Not that anyone actually read what I posted...

Same shit in Aus, I also saw there's like 10 billion different licenses you need. Huge grey area. So much confusion. No one actually follows however except for big production companies, malls, stadiums etc

Last time I checked, it cost over $300 for an AVLA "license", where you register all the copied audio files you intend to play out. That "license" is good for one hard drive up to, oh, maybe 10,000 songs. If you use a backup drive, you agree to purchase a second license for it, too (because you're "making copies"). Then you also register each song in your collection with them, then pay fees annually, per calendar year, so if you purchased your two licenses today in November, you'd have to pay all over again on January 1st. Where does that money go? To the top Canadian acts according to Billboard, etc. Regardless of what you actually PLAY out. So, Nickelback, Celine Dion, Bryan Adams ... Justing Bieber... Like any of them need my support. When that $600 a year could be put to much better use ... I could be supporting the industry instead with that money. I'd much rather see that money go towards musicians (not payola execs) whose music I am supporting by legally acquiring (through purchase or promos).

Years ago, I showed up to a gig on a Saturday night, and found several AVLA pamphlets left in the DJ booth. Really trashy propaganda about how to report other DJs if you suspect they don't have a "license", or how you as a owner or manager can tell if someone is "licensed" or not (implying that everyone else is committing some kind of fraud). I asked staff, and an AVLA representative visited the night before. I normally had the Friday slot, so I was getting concerned that my laptop had become some sort of issue with someone. I spoke with the other DJ who was mainly just offended and annoyed by the visit, but according to her, all her music on CD-R (copied media! there's a "license" for CD-Rs, too!), sourced from Beatport, was all just too obscure and not from any of the labels under AVLA's umbrella, so they had no jurisdiction as it were, to prevent anyone from playing other labels' content. So none of the music she was playing got flagged, but otherwise the fact that it's legally purchased wouldn't be of any benefit to the DJ, artist, or label, if AVLA says it's bad and you can't play it out without risking your livelihood because you're supposedly stealing Justin Bieber's lunch money.

If I put a song together, posted it online for free download, and you played it out from your hard drive or burned CD, there would be no repercussion (except whatever audience reaction you provoke), because I hadn't (wouldn't) have licensed the track through SOCAN (like ASCAP in the US, and which AVLA is a part of). More reason to embrace Creative Commons licensing. But if the music is covered by SOCAN/AVLA in Canada, then they want a piece of it and demand you purchase a license for each hard drive the media in question resides on, plus you agree not to record your DJ sets nor ALLOW anyone to record them, plus lots more counter-productive restrictions that I honestly can not possibly see as beneficial to artists, DJs, or the general public. If they want DJs to somehow prove that they're not just getting their music for free through file-sharing, or if they want DJs to "give something back" to the artists, then they shouldn't prevent DJs from using that money on music purchases.

True but your wording stated "caught up" and if the establishment your playing in gets busted and your playing, even though your not responsible, your still caught up in it

and when i say caught up, i'm referring to being sued directly by another party.

The AVLA is a big fucking joke! It's $500 a year. We have to register our Canadian side every year. The damn thing is that they have the bigger venues convinced that if they hire a "non-licensed" DJ , hell will come down on them with all of its fury. If you want to take on a corporate gig, you better pay that extortion money!
You know damn well that some politicians loser nephew needed a job and that is the result.
AND, they can come in during your gig and check your hard drive, without being accused of anything! Guilty before proven innocent! Next, they will ask to check your "papers" and see if they are in order. It seems logical, they are alredy asking us to spy on each other and turn each other in.
Sorry, had to vent a little.

SHIT!!! They are probably monitoring this, (for our own good no doubt). I will probably be taken away in the middle of the night and sent to a labor camp. More than likely, I will have a CD that I leagally purchased and ripped to my laptop and forgot to register it.

So lets recap what your saying....

As long as an authorized website contains terms under "fair use", then its okay to play it in public? Whether it being a pool or itunes.

"USAGE RULES

(i) You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products only for personal, noncommercial use. "

[b]
non·com·mer·cial
/ˌnänkəˈmərSHl/
adjective
1. not having a commercial objective; not intended to make a profit.
"a noncommercial radio station"
[/b]

I'm playing music for the good times of the audience.

I'm not profiting off of the smiles of the people.

I'm only receiving money for my time, equipment, and knowlegde.

To sum things up.

As long as an authorized website contains terms under "fair use", then its okay to DJ with it?

Because if you really think about it.

A non-commercial radio station STILL recieves money, but from DONATIONS.

This means, your not making a so called "profit".

I'm only asking for a donation with a specific minimum price.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks in advance.

Btw, I'm only speaking from a United States view...

Sorry Canada :'(

......i dont even know where to begin with the multitude if wrong things you spouted off here. Dude your livin in fantasy land, it clearly says PERSONAL use which eliminates your lollipop guild audience right off the bat Next why arent you charging for youe services, finally even if your dumb enough nit tocharge SOMEONE is profiting.

Nothin more annoying than someone who takes a clear answer and twista it up until its the answer they want

Son of a....

I looked right past "personal"

My mistake....

However you have also made a mistake upon not reading in a thorough manner.
For I'm charging for my services.



Knowledge + Time = Services.

I was merely trying to loop around the "profit" idea.

Knowledge + Time = Services.


Hmmm. Lawyer?

pm answered correctly

nm

That would work if your entire performance consisted of you getting in stage, grabbing the mic, and saying "you know what song would work great right now...flo rida low. Yup thatd work". Outside of that your kniwledge and time are essentially worthless without the music, which is essentially part if your equipment.

lmao

Long and short - If you're a DJ in the USA, chances are, you're not paying ASCAP fees or the places you're PLAYING at aren't paying them...so yeah...for the extreme answer, yes you're breaking the law without getting "Permission" to play those songs in public.

Are you likely or your establishment likely to get caught?

No...

Do record companies care? Outside of the courtroom, no, inside - Hell yeah.

Just incorrect.^

First, I have no idea why you think so many places don't pay the PROs.

Secondly, as a DJ playing in a place not paying, YOU are not breaking any laws, the establishment is.

Third, royalties are paid to publishers and songwriters not to record labels.

Here in the Tri-State area, I have YET to run into a place that pays these fees....

On the flip they are DEADLY SCARED of doing something like broadcasting a PAY-PER VIEW EVENT, vs a DJ playing music...

The generalization of Record Labels was inclusive of Publishers and Songwriters, but ok.

Alright. I know Im resurrecting up a thread, but I have a question.

I want to know if the following senario is possible. Or any part is possible LEGALLY.

1. Purchasing a CD of the NOW That's What I Call Music series (since they feature some nice top 40 songs)

2a. Rip the songs off of the CD. (Since I purchased it I should have the right to have it as a digital copy. Because what happens if the CD gets scratched? etc.)

2b. Download a 320 kbps song of each of the song titles on the CD. (Is it legal to do that? And say since you have already purchased a copy of the song [the CD] then you have every right to a digital copy?)

3. DJ with them. Transmit the music. (NOWHERE on the NOW Music Series does it indicate it is illegal to transmit the products on the CD. Just that you cannot illegally distribute)

And dont freakin tell me that distribute and transmit are the same thing. Because they're not.

And this isn't some Its a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

Distribute and transmit are actually not the same thing.

... At any rate, if you did in fact purchase a CD, you can digitally convert it to 320 or any quality you want since the CD format is an uncompressed format. So, no reason to digitally download it from anywhere.

Can you DJ with them? Sure. Regardless, you or whoever you're DJing for may have to pay for ASCAP, etc.

nm

You can read this thread
serato.com
(Just be wear of the misinformation aka NoCred)
nm

Haha.

After that thread you posted Akiem... I would have never thought to ever see another thread with both the names AKIEM and DJJOHNNYM_vSL3.

The only reason I'm asking that question is because theres a new way of watching movies.

If you purchased a DVD of a movie, and came in and handed it over to an authorized dealer, then they would give you a digital copy of the movie.. Which means you can watch it anywhere and never worry about scratching some DVD or not being able to watch it anywhere but where a dvd player is.

So then, my question would ride around the ring of having one of those kind of deals with CD's.

Because face it or not, technology is pushing us to digitalize everything now a days.

And it would be just GREAT to have a digital copy of a song track (or album) from a cd WITHOUT going through the tedious task of ripping each and every Mo' F'n CD I own.

I will do some research and try and track the answer down.

~Chase Ra

Hmmm...

Alright. I have found sufficient evidence of the answer I have been so longing been searching for. Everything that is underlined represents the illegal aspects ( DJJOHNNYM_vSL3's point of view from the thread that was previously posted) while the bold represents the legal aspect (AKIEM's point of view).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
If you buy a song or album on a CD, can you legally copy it? What are the legal ways you can make copies?
It is generally permissible to make copies of a lawfully purchased CD for your own personal use. This means you can copy that CD onto another CD for your car, for example, or onto a tape for your Walkman. Or, you can make a copy of the CD on your hard drive to play the file via your computer. Burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player won’t usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own and the copy is just for your personal use. Giving away the copy or lending it to others for copying is not a personal use and is not legal.

You have a portable MP3 player. (includes – iPods) If you buy a CD and download it onto your MP3 player, are you breaking the law? What if you download your friend's CD?
It is generally legal to burn or download a CD you bought onto your own MP3 player. Downloading your friend's CD is a different story. It is illegal to download music onto any digital playback devices you own if you have not purchased the music. Giving away the copy or lending it to others for copying is not a personal use and is not legal.

If you buy a song or album online, how can you legally copy it?
Each site has different restrictions on the legal ways to copy the music. As a rule of thumb, once you've bought a song or album online, you often can play that file on your digital media players like an MP3 player, or your computers, or by burning the file to a CD for playback on a CD player or DVD player. However, you generally are only permitted to play this file on your own equipment; [/u]you cannot give the file to your friends or family to play on their own devices[/u].

What the Courts Have to Say
A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that it’s against the law both to upload and download copyrighted music without permission. It doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with sound recordings, pictures, software or written text. The courts have consistently ruled that many peer-to-peer (P2P) programs and other unauthorized uploading and downloading inherently amount to copyright infringement and therefore constitute a crime


Common Examples of Online Copyright Infringement:
o You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.
o Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.
o In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.
o You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.
o You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.
Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.

When It Comes to Copying Music, What’s Okay … And What’s Not:
Technology has made digital copying easier than ever. But just because advances in technology make it possible to copy music doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. Here are tips on how to enjoy the music while respecting rights of others in the digital world. Stick with these, and you’ll be doing right by the people who created the music.

Internet Copying
o It’s okay to download music from sites authorized by the owners of the copyrighted music, whether or not such sites charge a fee.
o Visit our list of Legal Music Sites or Music United for a list of a number legal and safe sites where permission is granted and content is available for downloading.
o [/u]It’s never okay to download unauthorized music from pirate sites (web or FTP) or peer-to-peer systems. Examples of peer-to-peer systems making unauthorized music available for download include: Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus[/u].
o It’s never okay to make unauthorized copies of music available to others (that is, uploading music) on peer-to-peer systems.

Copying CDs
o It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
o It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
o Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, [/b]or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns[/b] so long as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
o The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
o The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
o Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

What the Law Says and What it Means

Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings is against the law and may subject you to civil and criminal liability. A civil law suit could hold you responsible for thousands of dollars in damages. Criminal charges may leave you with a felony record, accompanied by up to five years of jail time and fines up to $250,000. You may find this surprising. After all, compact discs may be easily be copied multiple times with inexpensive CD-R burning technology. Further, when you’re on the Internet, digital information can seem to be as free as air. U.S. copyright law does in fact provide full protection of sound recordings, whether they exist in the form of physical CD’s or digital files. Regardless of the format at issue, the same basic principal applies: [/u]music sound recordings may not be copied or distributed without the permission of the owner[/u].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

What I (and recently you) have read through still contains a grey area in such of having a LEGAL digital copy of a CD (in my personal opinion). Somewhere in my research, I found that it is possible to burn the digital copies onto a CD legally. So why not make it possible to do the same, but reverse. I believe there should be an authorized website that allows for such trading. But untill then...


Hopefully this helps...

~Chase Ra

Chase Ra - you did your homework thoroughly no doubt!

Now - I have never disagreed with anything underlined. Making a copy available for download is surely illegal. The question still unanswered is; is it illegal to receive a copy of music which you have already purchased the license to?

grey area / undefined / possibly legal

If you have license to IP by purchasing an album, you rip a digital copy for your ipod. Perfectly legal. If you instead of rip from a CD and download the file (which you have license to) - sure the person making it available is breaking the law BUT are you by receiving it? There is no difference in the end result, the copy is on the ipod. You have rights to that copy. Without a law or a ruling explicitly stating it is illegal to receive when you have the right to have it - grey area


Notice in that thread I kept asking for the LAW - and it was never shown to exist.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for downloading an album they own?

nope

Smoke, doubletalk and mirrors.

Good work Chase Ra!

Grey area my azz.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to the RIAA, this is wrong and ineligible for a fair usage argument (arstechnica.com); and they have been actually suing people for this to boot (www.washingtonpost.com).

Clarification: RIAA et. al. (www.copyright.gov | PDF)

Heres all you neef to know about copywrite laws:

If you have to ask, its illegal

What if my homie copped the tape from Kmart and I dub it on my dual cassette boombox?

RIAAs position has been even making a copy for personal use is infringement. I thought the courts disagreed with RIAA and considered it to be "fair usage".

Has RIAA been successful?

And you keep a copy for yourself?

Illegal.

As far as I am aware (and I may be incorrect), it has not really been tested in court. Pretty much anyone the RIAA has ever gone after has chosen to settle rather than fight it out. The only exceptions were Joel Tenenbaum and Jamie Thomas-Rasset (and I believe we all know how well that went for them).

So the legality is 'undecided'?

Thank You, I appreciate the recognition of my helpful efforts.

However I'am unfortunate to say that I'm quite dissapointed with the comprehension of the procudure that follows obtaining legal music.

Even if you have bought a CD, Vinyl, or digital copy, it is still however illegal to "transmit" commercially (to the audience) UNLESS you purchase a license that allows you to do so?

Or is it possible to NOT have a license and just play out the promotional music? i.e. music from Promo Only.

Because I know that...

Which means that we as DJ's are not responsible for obtaining a license?

But this doesn't cover the DJ that does private events at the homes of the customers?

On top of this, If someone wishes to have a legal backup of all their legal music, they must purchase ANOTHER license (annually). Although the cost is relatively small ($800/Year) I would rather have that money to spend on more important items (equipment, business cards, website hosting, etc)

Thanks in advance

~Chase Ra

Technically, under the DMCA, the legality is pretty set at a firm illegal under the DRM Circumvention portion; and there is no defined exemption to that by the library of congress (i.e.: cell phone unlocking).

In other words, its sort of a "grey area"?


Perhaps if it ever went to court a person downloading a single song for personal use from an album they already own would be found to have the legel right to do so?

Possible right?

And just to be clear.

Why do people say to buy music from Itunes, Amazon, etc when the music that you purchase from them are only for personal use?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

How about if you're really concerned you just contact ASCAP, or at least attempt to, and ask dirctly. Document whatever the result is. If they give you conditions follow them. If you don't successfully contact them and they show up at a gig to violate you, show them the documentation of your attempt and say- "Hey look, I tried to contact you phuckers about licensing and conditions, and you ignored me. How about instead of violating me you tell me what the hell you want me to be doing, phuckface. Are you really going to try to fine me for breaking rules you refuse to share with me?"

Because they JUST DON'T KNOW....

You can buy all the music you WANT from Amazon, etc, but you "technically" can't play it for "Performance" purposes, unless of course, your establishment is paying ASCAP or whoever....

You buying a song, say "Good Times" by Chic on CD does NOT give you an automatic license which entitles you to be able to download it from the Internet "for free" (music sharing) for any reason.

What screws all this up is that people are able to make perfect copies of songs.

You have to think of this law in terms of a physical album.

If you bought an album, it's yours. You have a single copy.

Technically, the only way you can "share" that album is if you give away the physical vinyl to say a friend.

Now that is OK, because you no longer have the physical copy in your possession. There is still only ONE copy.

If people were able to make "perfect" vinyl copies, and distribute them, (say you have a record press), then you'd be breaking the law by distributing them.

Cassette copies of said song and being distributed is ALSO illegal. However you WERE allowed to make a cassette copy of anything you owned, as long as you kept ALL your copies and didn't distribute.

Yet, tho you have tried, you fail to post any law or court ruling to back this statement up.



No you don't.




The physical medium is yours.




And by default you have given away your right to use the IP carried in the medium.




Yes, because it is illegal to distribute or transmit IP without license.



correct.

And with the advent of digital copy, the IP is free of the medium. It continues to be illegal to transmit or distribute IP you do not have license to.

BUT, in the case where you do have license to have the IP because you purchased a physical copy. Fair usage states, you are free to have copies for personal use and back up.

Where does any law say the backup MUST come from the exact physical copy you purchased?





This dude is going to keep stating the same shit again and again forever and never back it up with a law or a ruling.

Considering the stigma surrounding file sharing as it is, that's not a possibility I'd personally like to test in court; though I do agree that the logic of it should be that it is legal - this is the civil court system: where downloading fourteen songs was apparently equal to $675,000 in damages (and upheld upon appeal - granted, his attorney was terrible).

The problem comes from license agreements. Read the End User License Agreement of everything you purchase very carefully: You're not being given ownership of the product, you're being given a license to possess and use the product. In example, if you go out and buy a PlayStation 4, you've bought a license to use it. It's not yours (I'm very serious. Read the license agreement).

Same thing for an iPod (images.apple.com | PDF).

Or practically every game sold since the '90s...

Movies, Music... you get the idea.

Copyright is so broken that it is absolutely ridiculous.

It figures that you're always trying to do something outside the law.

Your "scenario" is akin to laws against weed.

The law says it's ILLEGAL to POSSESS weed, but says nothing about smoking it.

So, your argument is "I'm able to SMOKE it, because there is NO LAW saying otherwise."

Nevermind the fact of "How" you got it in the first place...

I suppose that's your "Grey Area".

Meanwhile, the point is that you have to break SOME law.

Smoke and Mirrors.

God dammit Johnny!!

:-D

Ok lets say I want to one of those sandwhichs i like from the restraunt that just happens to be in the casino, can i at least do that

My argument would not be "I'm able to smoke it". The ABILITY to smoke it necessitates possessing it.

To draw a better parallel here. Someone would have to invent a transporter/duplicator. If you sit at home they transport THC directly into your blood stream. In this way you have not possessed the weed. If it is legal to have THC in your system what law was broken?

You might be circumventing the purpose of the law, but....


In reality, since it has been found legal to have copies for personal use I don't even think a law is being circumvented. Obviously the person making the copy available is probably braking the law. But even then, if the person known you have a copy and is sending you another? Or what if a person takes your copy, rips it, sends it to you and trashes any resulting copies?

Again the law isn't clear.

And just as I predicted this dude will just keep saying some shit WITHOUT posting the law or ruling on the matter.

Again?

Agreed

Then STOP right there. If the copy isn't available for you to illegally download for free, then the point is moot.

You're saying, "Hey, I CAN'T help that it's sitting out there on the interwebs are willy nilly like.

The transaction is supposed to occur without breaking ANY laws.



That's STILL illegal.



That's like you making a "Backup" for yourself. As long as he doesn't keep any copies, then it's like he just made the backup "for" you, which you could have done yourself.



Because you keep trying to make up scenarios to "get around" the law...as usual.



It doesn't need a SPECIFIC law to cover the scenarios you're conjuring, up, but whatever.


You can't have backups of copyrighted music that you didn't legally purchase.

All backups have to be made from the actual file that you "bought".

Smoke and Mirrors.

What is Smoke and Mirrors?

Yup.

Notice he did not post a law.

Him pretending that he knows what he's talking about by posting a lot of words.

So that's your defense?

Invent a TIME machine to fast forward to a supposed timeframe that will allow the absorption of weed into a person's system?

Again to get around "the law"?

NEWSFLASH - A lot of laws ARE amended to take into consideration new "loopholes" that may crop up because of technological advancements....

But as of RIGHT NOW, you don't need a "Law" saying it's ILLEGAL to smoke pot, only possess it...

Because you can't have one without the other...

So yeah.

I'm not making any defence. I don't smoke pot. You are correct, you don't need a law fixing that loophole because said technology does not exist.

BUT TODAY we have technology to create digital copies and transmit them across the globe.

Now, obviously the laws as written are meant to stop people from "sharing" IP without license. But in this case, you can't be given what you already have.

RIAA might not agree, but I don't think this is even against the 'spirit' of the law compared to the "pot" scinerio. It is clear we are meant to be able to POSESS copies of the same IP. The end result of downloading a copy instead of ripping a copy is EXACTLY the same. The final condition is precisely the same, download or rip.


AND AGAIN - what law or judgement are you even referencing?

Like I said, this dude is just going to keep talking without presenting the law he thinks he is talking about. Nm

So is robbing a bank, vs. going to work for a check..

The end result is that you've obtained money...right?

Again, looking for loopholes.

The one that says that you can't LEGALLY share your music with others by making a copy.

Oh, really, so duplicates don't exist?

smh...

LMAO + robbing a bank is a "loophole" to legally get money? + LMAO

You need to slow down, hit your joint, and consider your argument a little better.



Again you fail to post the law.

Also, sharing means making it available to download. Downloading what you already own, is not "sharing".




Of course they do - EXACTLY the same ones as if you just ripped it.




And again like I said, this dude is going to just keep yapping, and yapping, without posting the law in question so we can take a look at it. nm

The fact that a sonically equal duplicate of whatever song you may have exists does not entitle you to THAT particular copy of it.

If that was the case, record companies would eternally owe us unlimited copies of songs that we have already purchased.

Yeah, right.

You don't need a LAW to spell that out for you...

Or maybe you do.....

Oh NOW you want to talk about the "LEGAL" aspect of things?

I get it, now you want to turn this into a courtroom, but fail to realize that obtaining a "copy" of whatever song you may already have, "for free", if you yourself haven't made the copy, IS illegal.

Yeah.

Yeah YOU don't need laws when all you're doing is making shit up.

It's not even that its 'sonically' a duplicate - its DIGITALLY IDENTICAL. Not that that maters because it has been ruled that a cassette backup is perfectly legal as well.

If you have license to the music, the IP, how does the medium mater? You can dub that shit through a clock radio speaker if you want. Just because you CAN make a copy does not mean record labels MUST provide you with copies - dumb.




If it is you could just post the law and end the debate - simple as that.

You TRIED to do that in the other thread and FAILED.

Why - cuz the law does not exist.


Watch this dude post more yapping without backing it up by just posting the law making it illegal. We can go around in circles forever but until he posts a law he ain't proving shit.

Now the real kicker is - there is no law in existence which proves my point. Every time the dude comments again is more proof. Nm

Eh, you just like to hear yourself babble on and on.

Keep circumventing the law, enjoy your time.

And he still posts no law.
Like I said. Nm

Man, you keep talking in circles....

Nothing to see here folks....

...and no law.

I created a monster!
~Eminem Ft. Rhianna

Haha

As long as you don't produce music, from legal copies that you purchased in full, and as long as you don't 'turn the tables as a DJ, to be paid in full' - you don't have to pay anything, anywhere.
Why, simply - because you don't get paid, you don't produce in public, and so you are not paying.

Wrong again.

Just because you don't get paid, doesn't give you the right to play music (except that that YOU DID PRODUCE), in a public forum.

Not true.

Man, cats just be makin' *ish up....

So you guys are paying, for something you didn't earn back as a salary?
Well that is really dumb.
When I get paid in cash, nothing is written down, so nothing is checked anyway,
When I get paid over my Bank Account, it is written down, and I do have to pay my share in Taxes and Copyrights.

Ask these guys what they think about that one of these days: www.irs.gov

So your whole plan is to do it illegally?

Sounds legit.

No, that is not what I'm saying - not all DJ's are full employed within the music business.
I for instance:
I don't work in the US, so I don't have to be careful for any ".GOV institutes".
Second of all, I do DJing as a hobby, and when I get paid - full in cash, and nobody has written down my name (think about posters / flyers) - I keep the cash completely.
Third; When companies / clubs / bars, or whatever ..., do write down my personal info somehow somewhere, it is expected to do it legally, so taxes and copyrights are paid, by bank transfers - NEVER CASH!
And then Fourth: As I said, I live in the Netherlands, we've got different laws then they have in the USA too obey to... ;-)

(sorry for my bad English...)

Everything I'm talking about is in reference to the US.

Says the dude who references "Time Machines" for getting people drunk...."Legally"...

Yeah....

It took a while but I see that Bezzle has finally got you so hemmed up, you can't even debate within a scope of reality anymore....

It's probably not a good idea to upset you....

I see you've got that "2 step" down to a science....

I said a long time ago that all Bezzle had to do was get that spelling and grammar down, and you'd be toast....

Apparently, he doesn't even need THAT anymore.....

smh.

...and no law.

BS

btw: this dude is himself the only one so far to reference "Time Machines" en.wikipedia.org

You should really take the time that you're dedicating to me and this thread, and put it to better use by brushing up on your defense against Bezzle.

Oh, so you or someone has plans to put this in effect sometime soon?

Today isn't that day, and tomorrow doesn't look too good neeva.

I understand you want to live vicariously through other forum members being deceased and all.

I guess anyone arguing against me gets an instant handicap - in two ways
1) you trying to help them out.





exactly - you are trying to make an analogy between an illegal physical substance and digital intelectual property - doesnt fucking work

you ever see a lawyer with helmet on? make a wish

and still no law

Wouldn't matter if there was a law or not...

You wouldn't follow it...

So yeah.

so you were justing making shit up.

No, but I'm not in the habit of doing my kids homework...

Forum posters included....

If you were worth my time, I'd look, but since you can't even hold your own against our renowned Bezzle...

There's nothing in it for me...

Nothing.

yet you tried to post a l "law" here serato.com

This was your "proof" last time.

LMAO

guess ur too bussy holding beezles sack


The reason you cant post a law or a decision or a case is it does not exist.

We can argue about made up shit forever - if there was a law you could have just posted it a long time ago.


Or how about this question - you say its "illegal" where are you getting you information from?
(if not just making shit up)

Dude, let it go.

LMAO, cmon b - you know thats not done around here.

tell you what, just like in the other thread I left open and still unanswered, I can do that here.

what you should do is just admit you aint know what you were talking about. how about "you arnt sure" would that be acceptable?

smh....

Judgment: making shit up
next

Actually, the minute you started talking about TIME TRAVEL to try and prove a point, is when I realized your true level of debate tactics and came to the realization that you are a species like no other...

So, there it is...

yet it was you who brought up "time travel"


anyway, there is no law specifically covering this matter.
done?

Time Machine

Oh, ok so how did you expect your quote here -> to even be relevant to this conversation TODAY?

Unless, like all things AKIEM based, it has no relevancy.

So yeah.

Yeah, YOU tried to compare weed to digital music. Digital music can be copied and transmitted over the Internet, weed can't. Therefor in order for your comparison to work that technology would have to be invented.

And even then, weed is illegal, a copy of a record you purchased is not.

So yeah, son

A)you can buy weed on the internet and have it shipped via silk road

B) weed is not necessarily illegal

C) according to alot of copywrite laws not only is a digital copy illegal but in think most music in generallegallt is

Not true. It is illegal in all 50 states of the United States and territories in which Federal law is applicable. No matter what the states do, Federal law takes precedent. Though states which pass laws legalising Marijuana will not prosecute for possession or usage, nothing stops the federal government from doing so.

I suggest you check Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970) - also known as the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana (and all derivatives) is defined as a Schedule I controlled substance - meaning it has no possible medical benefits (in the eyes of federal law), has a high potential for abuse, cannot be prescribed; and it is explicitly illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess...










....and none of this has a darned thing to do with the original topic so can you guys stop having your tit for tat and stay on topic or move on?

C) according to alot of copywrite laws not only is a digital copy illegal but in think most music in generallegallt is

I don't understand what was typed.

To be correct and exact, I compared the fact that you were obtaining said copy of that digital medium illegally (file sharing from the internet), which is breaking the law, but you didn't care how the person GOT the file, to how it's illegal to POSSESS weed, (not necessarily smoke it), which is illegal and you came up with some cockamamie story about building a machine to transport the drug from the dealer directly into the user's blood stream....

all hinging on the fact that there isn't a CURRENT law to address that technology at the moment...

Like they won't create a law IN THE FUTURE AGAINST THAT, IF that technology comes up and weed is still illegal.

So yeah...

Most of our IP law was written before the advent of digital or Internet. so...

File sharing (making files available without license) is clearly illegal. What is in question is, having purchased a CD, is it illegal to make a copy by receiving it through the Internet instead of making a copy - end result being exactly the same.

(The weed analogy does not work)

The general statement that most works aren't meant for Public Performance and / or distribution basically covers that...but if you choose to ignore it, and try to pigeon hole a supposed "technical loophole" and in some cases "loopholes" CAN work, but in this case, it does not.

The steps you would have to go through to receive said file eventually will have -

Download file for FREE from the internet...

And that point, the law is broken....

Anything that happens after that, (including the end result), is based off of breaking the law.

No one said anything public performance.

And in this case "you" are not distributing anything.



A law that you can not show exists.

Notice how Papa Midnight is able to name the exact federal law?

Yeah.

But receiving stolen "property", as you haven't paid for it...

So yeah.

theres a bill making its way up the latter as we speak that would rectify this.

Also i think what you point out here makes the analogy more valid as there are a toooon of things concerning IP laws that are illegal but noones going to prosacute you

If you buy a basketball then lose it and steal your neighbors, the outcomes the same but its still illegal

Incorrect.
The cd was purchased.

Is that what the charge would be "receiving stolen property"?

Circles and circles and circles.... How about just show the law?





Incorrect. Your neighbor will be missing a ball.

Nm

And the song you were downloading for "FREE"?

Distributed illegally.

Again you are not distributing anything. Yes the person making it available to everyone is braking the law, unless they are emailing it to you.

"Free" was it being advertised?

And yes, we have been through all that a dozen times.


Why don't you just post the law?

And you RECEIVING IT is breaking the law.

End of story.



Does that even matter?

Thieves advertise nowadayz?

***Blank stare****

So illegal distribution via EMAIL makes it LEGAL?

Yeah, you should really concentrate on that other thread where Bezzle is handling you....

There's nothing to see here folks....

This thread gives me a headache... but I do have a question... is there actually anyone on this forum who has never in their life copied a song...shared a song... or played a song which was in violation of the copyright laws? Let's assume the strictest interpretation of the laws apply.

Either way - its not FREE if you purchased it at a store. duh






only thing beezle is handling is jim, same as you


Are you going to post the law?
Of course not, last time you posted a law it was way off, having shit to do with shit.

heres the actual law
www.copyright.gov
It makes clear private (non-comercial) copying is permissible.

§ 1001. Definitions
(1) A “digital audio copied recording” is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.




Now, unless you have a law which states otherwise, a court case which states otherwise, a ruling, a lawsuit - any fucking thing - its clear YOU are just
MAKE
ING
SHIT
UP

make this your new avatar b
2.bp.blogspot.com
they dont call him NoCred for nothin'

I'm sure we ALL have, given the strictest of laws...

We're DJ's.

The funny *ish is that you and Sixxx have each dubbed EACH OTHER "The NEW NoCred" and "Less Cred" accordingly, so basically you've both proven that NEITHER of you has any cred, so you obviously aren't in ANY position to question ANYBODY's credibility...

LMAO...

Lames....

and BTW Bezzle IS sonnin' you....

You can't be serious....

And you left out this entire part "B"...

§ 1002. Incorporation of copying controls
(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution. - No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to —

(1) the Serial Copy Management System;

(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system’s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or

(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

(b) Development of Verification Procedure. — The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a procedure to verify, upon the petition of an interested party, that a system meets the standards set forth in subsection (a)(2).

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System. — No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

(d) Encoding of Information on Digital Musical Recordings.—

(1) Prohibition on encoding inaccurate information. — No person shall encode a digital musical recording of a sound recording with inaccurate information relating to the category code, copyright status, or generation status of the source material for the recording.

(2) Encoding of copyright status not required. — Nothing in this chapter requires any person engaged in the importation or manufacture of digital musical recordings to encode any such digital musical recording with respect to its copyright status.

(e) Information Accompanying Transmission in Digital Format. — Any person who transmits or otherwise communicates to the public any sound recording in digital format is not required under this chapter to transmit or otherwise communicate the information relating to the copyright status of the sound recording. Any such person who does transmit or otherwise communicate such copyright status information shall transmit or communicate such information accurately.

Subchapter C — Royalty Payments

LMAO - now this dude is just randomly picking anything out and putting it in boldface - LMAO

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System. — No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

By downloading a copy of a CD you already purchased are you:

- importing, manufacturing, or distributing a device?
- offering or performing any service?

NO


again heres the actual law
www.copyright.gov
It makes clear private (non-comercial) copying is permissible.

§ 1001. Definitions
(1) A “digital audio copied recording” is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.



You are legally allowed to make copies for noncommercial personal reasons. It does not matter if the copy is made DIRECTLY from the recording or not - says so right there.



done
unless you got another random part of the law to pull out the ass

farm8.staticflickr.com

lmao - trying to live vicariously through somebody else - lmao

only thing that proves is The Deceased.

I knew I'd have to spoon feed you...

****sigh*****



For "FREE" from the "Internet",

you're taking part in contributing to crime of



NO

Is that a CRIME?

YES

There was nothing random about that...

Again, you trying to circumvent the law as usual.

Them offering the song on the internet is a "Service" in case you didn't figure that out yet....

Them is not You.

We already agreed THEY can be sued for distributing the IP.

The question is can YOU?



go ahead and mention receiving stolen property so I can mention that you already PURCHASED it and the circle goes on, and on.

I showed the law - take the avatar off - sonned
/end

You are involved in the commitment of a crime.

That is all.

/Closes cell door.....

Hey, at least you get 3 hots and a cot...right?

The answer is YES you can, in america you can be sued for anything at any time

LMAO @ the law drawing a line that "You didn't actually STEAL the goods from the house...

You just bought them from Ray-Ray an 'em off the corner at the Homeboy Shopping Network...

I understand why it's "normal" for you to think that way...

Seriously.

ok.

Has anyone been sued? and lost?

For downloading music "For Free" that they may ALREADY have owned?

Are you serious?

yes

who?

wheres the case?

And in your case the end result is not the same because you now have two copys of the song

Here's where this guys gets this mess from -

answers.yahoo.com

Is downloading music illegal if you have a hard copy of the martierial?
The Killer Instinct asked 3 years ago

I own many discographies from various bands and I wanted to know if I were to mess up my stuff to the point where it would not play. Would it be illegal to download a torrented copy of the music? I heard in several places that it would not since I already own it but I'm not sure.

TommyMc answered 3 years ago
Although the music industry might fight this, I believe it's legal. When you purchased the original, you purchased the rights to the content for personal use. Here's the catch: there are many mixes and versions of songs. If you were to download a copy the *exact* mix from the same source/album/CD, it would be hard to argue that you don't still own the right to use it.

Look at it this way: you're allowed to make back-up copies of the music you've purchased. If you have a CD, you can rip it to the computer or make a tape recording in case the CD is ever damaged....because you own the rights to the content as well as the physical CD. How does it matter if your "backup" is stored on the internet? As a practical matter however, can you prove that the copy you downloaded came from the same original source as your purchased copy? That gets into a gray area, doesn't it? If you were caught, you might successfully argue the point in court.....but you better be pretty darned sure that you can produce the original (damaged) copies.

You're much safer to avoid the issue and make some good backup disks and store them in a safe place, don't you think?


OR

Very ILLEGAL

You CAN make a legal copy of the music that you own, but the copy HAS to be from YOUR copy.
Just because I bought a record 10 years ago does NOT give me the right to steal a torrent or mg3 of it now.

If i lose or break or damage my copy, I have to buy a new copy, just like anyone else.

there are a lot of people out there throwing out bad info, to do with the copyright laws.
People print what they "want" to hear, not the truth.

OR

Downloading copyrighted material is illegal, no matter what the circumstances are. The authorities don't check to see whether you have legitimate copies or not. They check to see if you've been using filesharing websites or P2P servers to download or share copyrighted work....which you would be guilty of.

It's true that you're not likely to be caught, but there is always a chance.

This dude be on Yahoo Answers and whatnot....

Even says "Grey Area"....smh....

which is legal
private (non-comercial) copying is permissible.
www.copyright.gov

§ 1001. Definitions
(1) A “digital audio copied recording” is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

I love this -

'

uh - no / you were there looking for answers just now

and you are the main character who cant find the law then tries to sight parts of the law we arnt even discussing

All you're trying to loosly tie together is that a "Transmission" is an "Email'...or download from the Internet....is "Creating" the Digital copy.

WRONG.

Newsflash...

They're talking about how the recording was CREATED, not how it's distributed.....

You are not CREATING a Digital Recording "out of nowhere", and poof it's created because you "Downloaded" it from the internet or got it via email...

You received a COPY of the (illegally hosted) file....

I really can't believe I'm breaking this down like this....

Dude, the guys name is

"Killer Instinct"....

Who else is that but you?

Really?

C'mon now....

I'm sure you have that manifest out there somewhere...

You can't make this stuff up...

Seriously....

I was citing a part of the law that was exactly relevant to the conversation, and one that you keep trying to circumvent...

i.e. not caring HOW the stolen goods got out there, but the fact that they're there....

For free....

Yeah, ok...

I may be missing some context here. I'm replying here under the presumption that the inquiry is who has been successfully sued and lost for trading music (in a full civil court trial, not a mere settlement):

Jammie Thomas (later, Jammie Thomas Rasset) for 24 songs under the idea of "making available." The case was Capitol (Formerly Virgin) v. Thomas (en.wikipedia.org).

Also, there's Joel Tenenbaum - who had everything going for him with the exception of an absolutely horrendous defense. The case was Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum. The "et. al" consisted of Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings (en.wikipedia.org).

I wouldn't even waste time posting cases for something that we KNOW is illegal...

But hey, be my guest, if he wants to be burned at the stake, the gas is on me...

LMAO -



The question: is it legal to download a copy of a CD you purchased from the store instead of 'ripping' it?

What are the parameters of how you're acquiring this "Copy" of said CD?

Free?

On the Internet?

do you know what download means?

In those cases they were sued for making recordings available without license.

Not the same thing as going to the store and purchasing a CD/LP (granting personal use) and backing up that copy by downloading instead of 'ripping'.

To me the law is unclear.

Ah, okay.

As far as I am aware, the answer is no. The license for which you have purchased only extends to the medium from which you have obtained it. Also, the funny thing about copyright law as it is presently worded is you do not own that CD. You own a license to listen to it for personal listening.

While, as far as I am aware, this has not been tested in court, granted that the RIAA has already stated that it would prosecute persons who rip CDs to their own computers (though, as far as I am aware, they never followed through on that), I can imagine that they would not take kindly to a person downloading a copy of a CD.

Additionally, depending on the methodology of download, one could be prosecuted for "making available." In example, if you download a copy of a CD using a traditional file sharing program or the BitTorrent protocol, by default, you are already sharing that same file out from the moment you have enough of the file to successfully pass a CRC of a block of the file and begin redistributing it (long before your actual download even finishes).

There was even a person (though I honestly cannot recall the specific case) who was successfully sued because he was caught by a honeypot while using a modified eMule client to download (the client was modified in a way that it would never upload files to anyone else).

While the law is unclear (and, to be honest, broken), I wouldn't take the chance. It seems to lean heavily in the favour of content producers.

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System. — No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

clown, that part of the law you cite, is to prevent people making or importing machines designed to break copy protections.

Most of this law was created to allow manufacturers to make cd burners and ipods.

Wouldn't personal use include making a copy (not for distribution)

www.copyright.gov
§ 1001. Definitions
(1) A “digital audio copied recording” is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.



So at best it has not been tested in court?



agreed



agreed.

but "unclear" none the less

Killer,

Someone UPLOADS copywritten song to the INTERNET.

That is in effect circumventing the copy protection schema.

That is providing an ILLEGAL service.

LMAO - it aint 1992 anymore, DAT tapes and shit, mini discs, 1x speed burners....

Copying a commercial CD to a hard drive is not circumventing SCMS. If it was the damn optical drive on everyones (sept ur ancient brick) computer would be illegal in the first place for allowing it.

Again, making the IP available is illegal and people get sued for it. Where is the case of someone sued for downloading an album they already have license to because they purchased the CD?



And if that was your argument all this time - why is it just now you stumbled upon it?


cat just makes up any shit that might pass as legit





its not










really whats happening is this dude "feels" it should be illegal so just keeps saying so

Whatever you say Killa...

nocred, worst fake lawyer ever.

The truth is that they DID implement the technology WITHIN CD BURNERS on computers that didn't allow you to "RIP" anything from a "Copy Protected" CD...

Of course it wasn't received very well by the public, so they leaned on computer manufacturer's to "fix" it...and they did.

They also built the "Copy Protection" into actual CD's, where it would install a "Rootkit" onto Windows machines, and would basically disable the ability to RIP the audio from the CD in a digitized manner.

So yeah Mr. New Improved No Cred, take a bow...

DID, as in that was then - this is now fella
(go ahead, mention the time machine again)

Anything you say Killa....

OHHH MMYYYY GGGOOOOSSHH! How could this be such a long thread. I cant believe this battle is still going on.

False in the same way owning a gun is legal until you shoot someone with it

2 Words: Akiem

lmao

wrong. SCMS was used in consumer grade DAT, MiniDisc, and CD-R burners which will only write to "audio CDs" and stopped you from making a THIRD digital copy. A copy cant be copied, but you can make as many copies of the original as you want, unless you had a pro deck and could just turn it off.

When it comes to ripping a commercial CD to a computer hard drive there is no SCMS in place to be circumventing. you cant circumvent whats not there in the first place.

you might be partially right about something finally