But telling somebody how to burn a freaking CD is not the same as telling them how to pick a lock, because one has very limited legitimate uses, while the other is completely fucking normal and legal in the “information age”.
Sheeit, what’s so hard to understand about that?
Burning a CD: legitimate better than 9 times out of 10, and a basic fucking part of computer usage.
Anybody other than a locksmith picking a lock: probably not legal more often than not.
Give me 10 everyday objects or processes, and I bet I can come up with ways in which they’re used to facilitate illegal activities for 5 of them, of not more. But the point is, what’s the main use of them? The main use of burning a CD is to put fucking data on a CD. The main use of making a 10% bleach solution is mopping floors, even though it could damn well be used for poisoning your neighbor. Email is routinely used to scam people, but–last I checked–I was still allowed to ask how to change the preferences in my account.
The problem is that it is a display of ignorance on a board who’s sole reason for existance is to fight ignorance.
Thinking that the board might be in some kind if legal jeopardy over a person asking how to do a perfectly legal task is simply incorrect, and hence will be corrected until this particular mistake stops being repeated.
Ya know, I don’t give a shit about this topic in the first place. I attempted to assist folks in understand that:
They weren’t being accused of criminal behavior.
that the hosts of this board had their reasons for the actions that were being taken.
why the hosts of this board may choose to be more proactive in their defense of copyrights.
and over and over again folks damn near intentionally misread what I say (since I kept on having to say “I didn’t claim you personally were a criminal” etc. ), and now, I"m being hyperbolic.
now, if you don’t agree with the rational, fine, again, I dont’ give a shit. If you don’t think that it’s adequate or that other topics can/should get the same treatment, fine, I don’t give a shit.
The SDMB Staff are smart to refuse to allow music ripping discussions on the boards. Why? Because the RIAA and their ilk act like a bunch of rabid dogs, and it would sure suck if the boards got shut down because of some Hollywood prick in a suit.
I in no way speak for the Chicago Reader or this site’s administration, but I remember several discussions where it was clearly explained that the Reader as a publishing company, was interested in taking a strong view protective of copyright law. Despite the relative unlikelyhood of it being sued, the Reader decided to ban these threads that could facilitate illegal copying at the economic expense of other publishing entities.
Whatever your view of music copying, this is a hot button issue for the Reader, our hosts, and they have decided that such discussions should not take place on their message board.
In any event, despite what some have said in this thread, it is not clear as a matter of U.S. copyright law that if you own a recording in one medium you have the right to copy it into another medium. Although case law has supported archival copies of software and time shifting of TV broadcasts, I am not aware of any legal authority that expressly holds that if you own a CD, you have the right to rip it onto your computer or burn a copy of it.
Chris - thank you for the heartfelt answer. I think I can see where you are coming from. It’s not the way I feel, but I can see why you would feel that way.
I’ve just never been a person to stay where I wasn’t wanted. There’s just too many other places to be and things to do with my time.
I’ve even left another message board I used to like, very close to the SDMB, because one of its Moderators attacked me openly in some criminal’s LiveJournal, and then the next night told everyone in IRC that if I “showed my ugly face on their board”, she would “make that dumbfuck bitch pay”. It didn’t even have to be anything that actually happened on the board itself; I can read the writing on the wall.
There are some people here (not you) who I see starting a Pit thread about once a quarter on how they don’t like some Moderator or another, or how the SDMB is a steaming piece of shit, and I continue to wonder why they stay.
It would be different, I guess, if people felt they could affect change via their complaints, which is a legitimate reason for making a complaint. But generally, making a Pit rant publicly does not seem to have a high level of success for making any sort of change here. (In fact, I can’t think of any positive change which came about mainly because of a Pit OP) Making a polite, well-written, researched, private proposal submitted to the Staff seems to be a better way, in my experience.
Anyhow. Thank you for answering and not responding with a flame.
And before we get off into a tangent on Billdo’s explanation: “fair use” doctrine, which a lot of folks might think would protect them, may well not apply. It’s designed to let people quote a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.”[url=“http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html”]17 U.S.C.
And before we get off into a tangent on Billdo’s explanation: “fair use” doctrine, which a lot of folks might think would protect them, probably doesn’t apply. It’s designed to let people quote a work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."17 U.S.C. 107
Making a copy for yourself in another form doesn’t fit into one of those categories very easily. Especially since one of the factors judges must consider in determining fair use is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Think about it: in the perfect RIAA world, they’d make you pay for each copy (and I think Sony tried this for about a minute, inserting copyproofing onto their CDs - but I read today in the Times that they abandoned it in the face of consumer resistance). How many times a consumer gets to copy something for his or her own convenience will probably not get resolved for some years, if ever. In the meantime, the Reader and this board are will within their rights to prohibit our discussing methods that could lead to copyright violation.
What if I were to post a thread in CS asking for help in a murder mystery I’m writing? I lay out the scenerio of the murder, posting details of how the killer plans his crime, carries it out, the police investigation, and then ask Dopers to critique my idea. Would said thread be locked down immediately? Or would it be allowed to continue on? Clearly there’s discussion of illegal activity (and one that’s far more harmful than piracy) and said information could be used by someone in the commission of a crime.
Never even suggested otherwise. Only tried to demonstrate that, if the aim is really avoiding litigation, then the strategy isn’t really all that logical.
I hasten to add, I don’t intend to push this issue (and describe how to press the little “Burn” button in iTunes ) if it will give the CR fits of worry about lawsuits.
But I will say, it is a nonsensical policy. If all that is happening is that someone is describing the same exact ripping/burning process that the little iTunes book and XP book I linked to describe, then what is the big deal? Look—it’s a feature in the OS, and I can’t imagine why it should be “risky” to discuss a perfectly mainstream function of a computer. As long as the discussion emphasizes that they are using their own purchased CD and are copying the music to play in their iPod or portable CD player or whatever, I can’t imagine that it could be a problem, or mistaken for anything other than it is. A perfectly mainstream use of a computer.
If such things were so “risky” to discuss, I doubt that all the major computer book publishers would be reluctant to describe how to do them in their books. But they do. With great relish, most of the time.
Perhaps, but they also take the stance that, since their money comes from creating copyrighted material, they should do all they can to protect copyrights in general. It’s a philosophical thing as well as a legal thing, from what I understand.
Same here. I’m well aware of how my Musicmatch Jukebox works, thanks very much, and have no particular need to dwell on the issue. But, like you, i think it’s a nonsensical policy.
I’m sure you’re correct, but even as a philosophical position it makes no sense if the person seeking the information has no intention of breaching anyone’s copyright. Knowing how to use a CD burner is not a breach of copyright if you don’t use it to illegally copy material; the same way that knowing how to use a gun is not a violation of the law if you don’t put the firearm to unlawful uses.
