Quote:
Looking forward to your comments.
A-ha! A worthy opponent!
Ok,
Let's break it down.
Quote:
I beg to differ Johnny, you are simply wrong. You mention "backup for PERSONAL USE" - thats nowhere in the Act.
You are absolutely correct. I was drawing from memory what I recall about the Sony Corp. of America vs. Universal Studios AKA - The Betamax Case. That was where Sony was sued by Universal for creating a device that could help spurr copyright infringement.
It was later ruled that
"the District Court ruled for Sony, on the basis that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use, that access to free public information is a First Amendment public interest served by this use."
Quote:
You should read the Act before you say stuff like:
"Distributing ANY SONG without consent is illegal."
Look at Section 1008 of that Act which provides an exception to the infringement:
“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.”
It specifically mentions distribution. It says nothing about this being limited to backups. It says nothing about personal use. Obviously you have to purchase the tracks first, that was never the issue here.
Dude, what that says is that MEANS is that a Device Manufacturer (i.e Sony), would not get sued for creating a Digital CD WRITER, or WRITABLE CD'S, (and "distributing" it) or someone like TDK, won't get sued for creating a TAPE DECK, and CASSETTES, (and "distributing" it) which MIGHT be construed to "Contribute to copyright infringement".
It's like how they shut down Napster, saying it "contributed" to illegal sharing of files. They figured a VCR would contribute to illegal sharing of movies....fast forward to now, CD BURNERS contributing (because of no loss in quality) to copyright infringement.
Your mention of Distribution is in the wrong context
Quote:
Like I said before, the benchmark is "noncommercial", meaning dont sell your mixes (without obtaining a license from the labels first).
They aren't even allowed to GIVE them away.
Quote:
(It could be argued whether providing DJ mixes for free is also a commercial activity if it leads to you getting paid gigs because of them, but that would require proving cause and effect. There is no clear legislation on this, that I have found)
They don't NEED to argue the point, because the DJ should technically never GET to that point of providing mixes for free without consent. The only legislation that is clear is on EVERY COMMERCIAL SONG, it says to Not Redistribute Without Consent. That's the end of the story.
Quote:
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you are acting like you are stating facts and scaring people into thinking they are doing something wrong. Not cool.
Not trying to scare anybody, but EDUCATE THEM of how far we have come, and what our REAL responsibilites are as DJ's.
If you know the LAW, you can get around it!
Imagine if we REALLY weren't allowed to distribute our mixes like we do today....say the punishment is something harsh like jail or something.
Now ONLY THOSE who REALLY want to be DJ's would put in the work, get the licenses, and give the Art of DJ'ing the respect it has lost.
Think about it.
