On 9-6-2009 23:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:33:15 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> My guesses:
>> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>>>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
>> I think that used to be legal at least for books. Nowadays it is
>> probably illegal. Morally it is no problem. Even cleaner: try to contact
>> the artist (not the IP holder if that is a different one) and ask him
>> how to pay him directly.
> 
> Depends on whether the book is legally out of copyright or not.  There is 
> a very large collection of free books at the Gutenberg project, and all 
> of them are legally available to be distributed for free.

I think that here it use to be that case that if a book was definitely 
out of print you could copy it copyright or not. IANAL
>>>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.
>> illegal, but that might change. The rules as they are now are
>> increasingly illogical. It may also depend on whether the party is
>> inside your house for friends only or accessible to anybody.
> 
> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also 
> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you legally 
> own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.

I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is 
broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to 
pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would 
distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of 
having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the 
apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay 
copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st century)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
> yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
>> torrent and download it.
> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the other 
> guys POV.

This is why C probably best illustrates my point: there may very well be 
a legal, moral remedy to my having missed the program. The program may 
*eventually* be released on DVD, but waiting for it is, in most people's 
minds, too much to ask to satisfy my moral obligations. If someone set 
up a pay download service for television programs, then most would 
believe me immoral for downloading the program for free. The only 
distinction between that possibility and now is that the download 
service would make NOT stealing more convenient.


My only point is that there IS a line at which stealing becomes 
acceptable. Does it extend to brick and mortar retail? Sure does. Just 
today, I picked up a "for sale" pen to write down an item number of some 
washers I was purchasing. I didn't purchase the pen and now the guy who 
does will have 6 fewer numbers worth of ink to worth with. Wrong? 
Whatever you think, I can guarantee that quite a few people will feel 
the other way.

Why does any of this matter? Because the tax-funded government shouldn't 
go any farther to protect a giant company's property than mine. 
Logistics demand reasonableness.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:20 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also
>> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you
>> legally own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.
> 
> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is
> broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to
> pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would
> distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of
> having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the
> apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay
> copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st
> century)

I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement, though 
- the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in a local 
radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer to listen 
to during the party.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2009 0:21, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
>> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
>> yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
>>> torrent and download it.
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the 
>> other guys POV.
> 
> This is why C probably best illustrates my point: there may very well be 
> a legal, moral remedy to my having missed the program. The program may 
> *eventually* be released on DVD, but waiting for it is, in most people's 
> minds, too much to ask to satisfy my moral obligations. If someone set 
> up a pay download service for television programs, then most would 
> believe me immoral for downloading the program for free. The only 
> distinction between that possibility and now is that the download 
> service would make NOT stealing more convenient.

And there is the point that you did pay to see the program. The reasons 
this becomes muddy is that law has not yet adopted to current 
technology. (Or alternatively that people have been paid to write laws 
in such a way that it became muddy)

> My only point is that there IS a line at which stealing becomes 
> acceptable. Does it extend to brick and mortar retail? Sure does. Just 
> today, I picked up a "for sale" pen to write down an item number of some 
> washers I was purchasing. I didn't purchase the pen and now the guy who 
> does will have 6 fewer numbers worth of ink to worth with. Wrong? 
> Whatever you think, I can guarantee that quite a few people will feel 
> the other way.
> 
> Why does any of this matter? Because the tax-funded government shouldn't 
> go any farther to protect a giant company's property than mine. 

Yes, but you are an anonymous tax-payer and that big firm comes knocking 
on the door with a lot of 'additional' cash. And their own lawyers to 
explain to you why their point of view is better than that of those 
anonymous tax-payers.

> Logistics demand reasonableness.

Who will define reasonable?

Post a reply to this message

On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>   A. Download an out of print album from Usenet.
>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
> torrent and download it.
>   D. Download an album you know you'd never buy out of morbid curiosity 
> (Chris Cornell with Timbaland)
>   F. Play a Shoutcast stream at a party.

Forgot to add my pet IP dilemma

G. Download an album that I already own in another format.

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2009 0:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> No, I believe this is legal, as long as the shoutcast stream is also
>>> legal.  For example, if you run the server in your house, and you
>>> legally own all the tracks, then how you listen to them is up to you.
>> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group. That is
>> broadcasting and even if the shoutcast/radio has paid you are obliged to
>> pay *again*. We had on apartment buildings large antennae that would
>> distribute the radio and television to the apartments, in stead of
>> having an antenna for every apartment. That turned the owner(s) of the
>> apartment building into a broadcasting organisation that had to pay
>> copyright. The law may be different in the US (or here in the 21st
>> century)
> 
> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement, though 
> - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in a local 
> radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer to listen 
> to during the party.

If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not 
close the doors.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think the idea was playing a shoutcast for a group.

In the USA, it's a public performance, but only if you're playing it for the 
public. If each person needs a personal invitation, then it's not "the 
public" and hence not a public performance. FWIW.  I don't know where 
tennants in an apartment fall.

You can, for example, play the radio in a restaurant as long as you have six 
or fewer speakers.  All kinds of weird laws.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:37:09 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> I think that is a little different than the proposed arrangement,
>> though - the proposed arrangement would be no different than tuning in
>> a local radio station or putting a bunch of CDs in a multi-disc changer
>> to listen to during the party.
> 
> If it is a party at home, not if it is in a party center and you did not
> close the doors.

"Party" to me implies at home as that's my most common experience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:35:15 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Forgot to add my pet IP dilemma
> 
> G. Download an album that I already own in another format.

You and I both see that one the same way, I think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> 
>> Logistics demand reasonableness.
> 
> Who will define reasonable?

As always, the person who has the power to do so. For the moment at 
least, *I* am that person.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message