Originally Posted by JerryW
No. They did not "decide" that people are allowed to copy to their PC or Ipod, they had to accept it.
Tell you what - you go and find us the place where they officially "give" people the right to make copies and I'll take back everything I've said, I'll admit that fair use is only for libraries and nobody else. Surely if they've given legal permission, there is going to be an official statement to that effect. I'm not talking about a lawyer discussing it in court, not a grudging acceptance of the fact and not instructions on how to use itunes to rip a CD -- I'm talking about an official public statement giving everybody permission with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Statements from two of the bigger publishers should do it, although by your logic every single music publisher in the country must have such official statements of permission. But two is good enough. Should be easy, right?
You are claiming you have the right to copy what you like without the holder of the right to copy having any say in it. That not only does not pass the logic test but also defeats the purpose of copyright. The law clearly states that the holder of the right to copy has the EXCLUSIVE right to control the creation of copies. You claim YOU have this right and not them. They basically decided it was an impossible battle to fight and therefor gave their permission.
I can easily show you one of the times, you posted it yourself. Go back and look at your own post where you quote the representative of the music industry giving permission. I am surprised you did not notice it, since you posted it yourself. You claimed the copyright holder saying people can copy their works onto the user's own PC or iPod for personal use does not mean they gave permission to copy their works onto the user's own PC or iPod. Yes, that position is as silly as it sounds. Obviously they DID give permission when they said people could do it. It is like when you ask your mom if you can use the TV. She says "yes, you can use the TV". Did she give you permission? Yes. You want multiple times of the industry saying you an do it? That is a strange request. They only have to give this permission once, saying they have to continuously repeat themselves for it to be true only works when seeking snarks
. Your mom does not have to tell you that you can watch the TV multiple times in order for you to be allowed to watch it, right? Mom is a good example, too, since Mom represents the parents in the family and she is speaking for both herself and Dad. You do not need permission from BOTH Mom and Dad, one representative for both is enough. You posted it, thanks for doing so since it clearly shows them giving permission.
Lets do a test, will you be prosecuted if you put copy of a CD onto a publically accessible file sharing site? Will you be prosecuted if you put a copy of a CD onto a table in a public place and walk away? Yes to the first and no to the second. In both cases you stored a copy of the CD in a public place and, most likely, the copy was stolen. You only made ONE copy each time and only stored ONE copy in a publically accessible location each time. Who would do the prosecuting? Why, it would be the holder of the right to copy, that is who. How can they prosecute if they do not have the ability to say when something can be copied and when it cannot? Your claim they do not control the exclusive (with specific exemptions) right to copy is silly - especially when the law clearly says they have the exclusive right to copy. You might remember this part:
§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
It really is clearly written and easy to understand. I know you dislike it but that is not an excuse to pretend it does not exist. Show me the court cases where it says the copyright holder does not actually have the exclusive rights to copy the work (which would invalidate the law which says they do).Edited by cybrsage - 5/1/13 at 4:18pm