But Guin! The vast majority of pictures on computers and on the internet are porn! And copyright-protected! You’re going to get this thread closed by discussing burning pictures to CDs!!!
good for you.
The folks who wanted the comparison between cars and burning cd’s merit this comment far more than I do.
Certainly there are legal uses for burning CD’s. As there are legal uses for picking a lock or hotwiring a car. And there are, of course illegal uses for all of these. and this site has determined that discussions of processes that can be used for illegal purposes are not ok. and they’re especially vigilent on the topics of drug use (not every thing smoked in a bong = illegal use, however, I guarentee that a discussion about how to make a bong, use a bong etc. will get shut down); and copyright issues.
deal.
I don’t know why anyone would have to ask a question about lock picking on the SDMB. A simple Google search yields some fascinating material.
Oh christ. Fucking bullshit. It’s only because it contains the dreaded word “mp3”. You’re talking about preventing people from discussing a basic means of transfering data from Point A to Point B, not making a fucking illegal silencer. Goddamn, I hope I never have to ask about why my floppy drive doesn’t work; by your logic, I’m a fucking criminal in training.
If I asked how to burn…say…some paint pictures I made, or a couple word documents to a CD, do you really think the mods would lock it? Word documents can be plagerized; bitmaps stolen from the creator. But those threads are ok because they don’t invoke the magic word, despite being the same fucking process–with neither more nor less legality.
Look, I’ll play by the rules; it’s their board. But it’s a fucking dumbass rule.
So are people. I suggest that we ban people, too.
:rolleyes:
Methinks you fail to understand a word as inherently complex and difficult to grasp as “most”, Cnote.
Oh christ, fucking bullshit back atachya hun.
By my logic, you wouldn’t necessarily be a criminal in training, simply that it was a question you’d not be able to ask on this board. I’m quite certain the question could be asked on lotsa other boards. Surely you do understand the concept that some of the people using this technology are doing so to avoid copyright laws illegally, right??
But, hell, if it makes you feel better think that you’re being accused, or maligned, by all means, continue.
While I support the board’s wish to be cautious, I, too think this particular rule is overdoing it.
I own a LOT of CDs. I like owning CDs. Nothing can compare to the warm fuzzy feeling as owning the CD. I go to great lengths (and sometimes, great expense) to buy CDs, legally. And I have eclectic tastes, so sometimes it’s hard to find what I want on CD. But I keep trying.
So if, say, I want to use iTunes to rip MP3s of my very legitimately-obtained CDs of Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtracks to Star Trek Nemesis and L.A. Confidential, that’s not illegal, right? And if I then want to press the little “burn” button on iTunes to burn a CD of that collection of fine Jerry Goldsmith MP3s, so I can bring the now MP3-laden CD on my next Yosemite road trip, that’s not illegal either, right?
So what is the problem? Have I described an illegal activity here? Not even remotely. I don’t get it.
yosi don’t believe that you’ve described an illegal activity nor done one. But if you’d gotten into a discussion of how to do it, the process could certainly be used in illegal ways.
again - think about the locksmith. They can describe how they picked a lock (for a legal purpose), but should the post step by step instructions and answered questions about how to do so, certainly you could see how that infor can then be used for illegal purposes.
It’s the same reason I’ve never posted descriptions of how inmates used to ‘get by’ on drug tests. I don’t have control of how some one is going to use the information after I’ve posted it.
and, again, I’ll cede that this place is very protective of copyright infringement and drug use issues. but, like I said a few posts ago, ‘deal’.
Spare us.
Your analogies are not even vaguely appropriate.
You use broad generalizations, and your belief that everyone should just ‘deal’ is idiotic.
Dissent, and as it goes on this board, this has been polite dissent, should always be here.
The process of ripping music is not illegal, nor does it have taint.
The legal problem comes after ripping via distribution.
Try again - I’ve not suggested that ‘ripping music’ is illegal.
I’ve **repeatedly ** said that a step by step description of the process can be used to facilitate clearly illegal behavior.
'Now, do you agree with that statement or not?
If you agree, then why on earth do you fail to understand why a place which makes it’s living off of copyrighted information, would be pretty damn careful to insure that other people’s copyrights were protected as well?
No, I do not agree.
The actions of the few should not limit or destroy the actions of the many.
wring, I just did describe how to do it!!! Didn’t you realize that?
iTunes makes it very easy to rip CDs into MP3s and also to burn said MP3s. Whenever I buy a new CD I immediately pop it into my Mac and iTunes burn it for me right off. It is so easy and convenient. Then I don’t have to scramble to find the CD every time I’m in the mood to hear the music. And in OS X (and OS 9, too, I believe) the built-in burning software makes it so easy to burn CDs of any data—MP3s, documents, whatever. That’s the way it is.
This is far from “secret” information. This information is included in every recent Mac OS instructional book I’ve seen (and I’ve seen quite a few. I love books!). I haven’t burned that many CDs in Windows XP (I just got a new Windows box) but I believe it’s pretty easy as well, since XP comes with built-in burning software as well. I’m sure I could refer to my several XP books to guide me through burning CDs (and ripping MP3s before that). Do the publishers of these instructional books risk being sued because they describe a very common feature in the Mac or Windows OS? I don’t think so.
If this question ever comes up again, maybe I should refer to the many computer OS instructional books on Amazon.com which will describe the whole process.
This is insane! Burning cd’s is not illegal in any way! In fact the majority of people burning cd’s are using it in a legitimate way.
Now, if we were talking about file-sharing that would be different. A majority of file sharers break copyright laws.
But burning cd’s is an entirely different subject. I own almost 500 legally purchased cd’s. I like to make compilations of my favorite songs on cdr. I am not the only one; there are popular web sites devoted to this activity.
Can anyone explain why burning cds is even close to a legal issue? Burning cd’s is used for making backups, saving data like you would have on a zip drive, making personal compilations, etc. I have taken classes in which cd burning was required for the class. And we aren’t allowed to talk about it here? That is just sad.
I hope Manhattan thought that file sharing and cd burning were the same, and will soon realize his mistake.
Uh, that should be: “Whenever I buy a new CD I immediately pop it into my Mac and iTunes rips it for me right off.”
welcome to the real world, that happens all the time.
(yose I believe that a detailed description, answering questions etc. a thread dedicated to hows etc. was the presumption. )
Although it’s true the vast majority of MP3 are being used illegally, certainly the vast amount of MP3 ripping is not. Remember, a song only has to be ripped once for it to be used illegally around the world. That means a vast amount of piracy is supported by a small amount of ripping.
My gut feel that if somehow we magically knew the result all MP3 ripping, the majority of it would be for personal use. It doesn’t take much ripping to make a lot of piracy.
The idea of banning the discussion of a practice because it is most used for illegal means probably doesn’t even apply to ripping. It would apply, though, when when someone asks how to download or share mp3s.
raises hand
FWIW, count me as another poster who thinks this rule is stupid and unnecessary.
I can understand the rationale behind “CYA rules” that are meant to protect the board admins from lawsuits. But I am extremely doubtful as to whether a lawsuit could ever result from the types of threads that are being closed under this rule.
But, on the other hand, it certainly isn’t enough to make me angry at the SDMB as a whole. I belong to another message board that will delete any post that contains a link to another message board, or to any site that hosts a message board. The mods there enforce that stupid rule with the same level of diligence that the mp3-related-stuff rule is enforced here. It seems that every decent message board has to have at least one moronic rule in the user agreement :rolleyes:
-Andrew L
Here and here are two “controversial” books which will tell you all about the dreaded procedure of ripping MP3s and then burning them to CD!!! OH NOOOOO!!! People might use this information illegally!
To quote the description from the first book:
Seriously now. Really. Come on. Please. This is not secret or covert information. By linking to the book, which OPENLY describes itself as giving information about ripping MP3s and burning CDs, am I making the SDMB vulerable to lawsuits? Seriously?
again, I’m not claiming that. Obviously, theres’ also books about lock picking etc.
they don’t want this information discussed/displayed publically here.
they’re being proactively cautious on the subject about protecting copyrights.
They may in fact be overly cautious. so what?
While you may not have suggested the ripping music is illegal, i was under the impression that threads like the one concerned are closed because they might open the Chicago Reader up to accusations of facilitating illegal activity. If not one single activity being described in the offending post is illegal, i’m not sure what the point is.
And yes, you do state that “a step by step description of the process can be used to facilitate clearly illegal behavior.” But so can a step-by-step description of many other perfectly legal activities.
Say i post a question about the step-by-step process required to purchase a gun in my state of residence. In helping me buy this gun, you have no way of knowing whether i’m going to do anything illegal with it. I could be simply joining a shooting club, or i could be buying it to sell on the street, or to commit an armed robbery. Let’s take that last one as a hypothetical, and continue with it.
My next question might involve the issue of how best to control a car at high speeds in tight driving conditions. This question could clearly be asked by someone considering joining an amateur racing club. Or, in the case of my hypothetical, it could be motivated by a need to get away from the scene of the robbery as quickly as possible.
Then, i might ask about which route from the center of town to the suburbs will confront the driver with the lowest number of traffic lights, stop signs, and one-way streets. This could simply be motivated by frustration with peak-hour traffic, or it could be another question designed to facilitate my hypothetical getaway.
Now i want to know about countries that have extradition treaties with the United States. I might simply be interested in this issue, or i might be looking for a possible place to take my ill-gotten loot.
Now, returning from my (somewhat silly but still appropriate) analogy to the issue at hand: i now ask how to burn some mp3s to a CD. The reason for this is that i want to make backup copies of my music, as well as making some compilations of legally-acquired songs for my own personal use. In the absence of an outright admission by me that i am doing something illegal, why is it that, on this issue, the presumption becomes that i am indeed breaking the law? Why is it not permissible for me to ask how to use my legally-acquired hardware (purchased at a local computer store) and legally-acquired software (purchased at Staples) to transfer legally-acquired songs (purchased from various locations) to legally-acquired discs (another Stpales purchase) in a manner fully within the scope of national and international copyright protection legislation?
I don’t debate the right of this Board’s administrators to close threads on this subject, but i continue to contend that doing so is asinine and serves no conceivable purpose. If we were to shut down every thread in which the information provided might, in wring’s hyperbolic characterization, be used to “facilitate clearly illegal behavior,” then no-one would need to quit the Board out of frustration, because it would barely even exist anyway.