The CDs which my friend copied for me and gave me(didn’t charge for) are illegal?
Now there are two different types of CDs to record on. One pays royalties and costs more one does not. Does this make a difference?
Finally I finaly got a reply from Ebay and they said they don’t have time to police auctions but if you see something illegal send them notice.
But aren’t they at all responsible? Seems to me you can’t just say I didn’t know? BTW in college I made money for ASCAP going into restuarnts and hotels and catching the ones without licences. So they are watching.
I’m not sure how closely this applies to Ebay, but it sounds like the same idea…
Many internet sites choose not to monitor their own content for a rather ironic reason: If they do their own policing, they are legally responsible for the content of their site. If they simply respond to complaints but otherwise leave their content unmonitored, they are not legally responsible for content on their site for which they have received no complaints.
I know this sounds very odd, but at my previous job, this philosophy greatly influenced decisions. Resources were often available for moderation, but moderation was specifically avoided to reduce liability.
So our allustrious moderators make things nicer for us here, but it actually increases the responsibility of the Chicago Reader.
Why is that necessarily a blatant abuse? If you pay $50 for a game on a CD is it so wrong to want to be able to back it up and preserve the original as the master? CD’s get scratched and then all you’ve got is an expensive plastic coaster. Should a person who bought a new game for $50 and subsequently scratched it be expected to fork over another $50 for another expensive piece of plastic? When you purchase an item such a a music CD or game, you are not purchasing the plastic CD, you are purchasing the right to the information on that CD for your own personal enjoyment. Now if you in anyway sell, distribute, or broadcast that information, you have violated the license agreement and are liable for damages.
The blatant abuse is not anyone’s desire to backup a Playstation disk. The abuse is that this company was selling a product that was designed to allow pirated Playstation disks to work under the guise of supporting “backup” copies.
If this product was used only to support the use of backups, they wouldn’t make a dime. Virtually all of the people who buy that product want it so that they can copy their friend’s disks and download playstation images from the internet.
Well, its not. It also allows someone with an American version of Playstation to play games that would previously only work on Japanese/European consoles. (Although this use is probably in violation of licensing agreements)
But as long as there is a legitimate use, (backups) the product can’t be considered a “blatant abuse”. The abuse would only take place when someone copied a CD for a use other then backup.
Voltaire, I think you are totally missing my point.
What do you mean “considered”? Do you mean legally considered an abuse? I didn’t mean to suggest that this product is in any way illegal or on shaky legal ground. I do consider a product to be an abuse of a law when it makes a loophole for itself in order to make most of its legal profit from illegal activities.
No, it’s not illegal, but it is blatant. Its the same deal as products that clean up copyguard problems for video dubbing. If you ask a lawyer what that product is really designed for, they’ll probably say that it is designed to aid people in making pirate copies. If you ask that same lawyer what can be done about it, he’ll say “nothing” because there is a perfectly legal use for it.
This is true. What percentage of its use would you guess this is for this purpose? I’d guess about 5% at most. www.psxtune.com is an example of a vendor who sells this kind of product. Their website is pretty telling. They have a tutorial on making CDR copies of Playstation CDs and they don’t really mince words on what is going on with their disclaimer: