Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Michael Haan
    Guest

    US Supreme Court







    Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material.









    >From: "Aaron Zinck" <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>



    >Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>



    >To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com



    >Subject: [slim] US Supreme Court



    >Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500



    >



    >"Patrick Cosson" wrote



    > > FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies,



    > > submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court in



    > > defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling.



    > >



    > > Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the



    > > case before the court.



    > >



    > > The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site:



    > > * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grok...rging_tech.pdf



    > >



    > > For more information about the case, visit:



    > > * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/



    > >



    > >



    > > Patrick



    > >



    >



    >



    >I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect



    >to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what



    >financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case.  I'm no lawyer



    >and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though



    >the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could



    >understand having a direct impact on Slim's business).  Could someone



    >enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this?  What's the big



    >picture here that I'm missing?



    >



    >-Aaron



    >



    >



    >



    >______________________________________________ _



    >Discuss mailing list



    >Discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com



    >http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss






  2. #2
    NOT a Slim Devices Employee kdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,493

    US Supreme Court

    Quoting Michael Haan <michael_haan (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>:

    >
    > Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can
    > legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material.


    it is also because they happen to care about fair use rights, beyond simple
    selfish reasons. Just think about it. If the kinds of restrictions desires by
    the record companies come into play, it will be illegal to copy CD's to your
    hard drive even for personal use. It will be illegal to resell your used CD's,
    possibly even to copy to your mp3 player for jogging.

    There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
    you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
    before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was
    just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a
    thing is just vile.

    -kdf

    > >From: "Aaron Zinck" <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>
    > >Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
    > >To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
    > >Subject: [slim] US Supreme Court
    > >Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500
    > >
    > >"Patrick Cosson" wrote
    > > > FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies,
    > > > submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court

    > in
    > > > defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling.
    > > >
    > > > Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the
    > > > case before the court.
    > > >
    > > > The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site:
    > > > * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grok...rging_tech.pdf
    > > >
    > > > For more information about the case, visit:
    > > > * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Patrick
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > >I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect
    > >to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what
    > >financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer
    > >and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though
    > >the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could
    > >understand having a direct impact on Slim's business). Could someone
    > >enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this? What's the big
    > >picture here that I'm missing?
    > >
    > >-Aaron
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

  3. #3
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_H=FCbner?=
    Guest

    US Supreme Court

    kdf wrote:
    >
    > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
    > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.


    being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
    assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
    delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
    referred to the European Cour of Justice. '

    There has, however, been talks in Europe regarding copying of material
    from one format to another. The strange effect of the judgement referred
    by you (that I have not read) is that it would also be unlawful to copy
    to a cassette.

    But - on topic - Way to go Slim Devices...

    /Johan


    --
    Johan Hübner --!!johan at hubner.se!!--

  4. #4
    NOT a Slim Devices Employee kdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,493

    US Supreme Court

    Quoting Johan Hübner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:

    > kdf wrote:
    > >
    > > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    > > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,

    > if
    > > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.

    >
    > being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
    > assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
    > delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
    > referred to the European Cour of Justice. '


    thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over
    mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
    socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually
    consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all
    the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class action
    if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.

    sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously
    feel some lack of value in their lives.

    canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break

    =kdf

  5. #5
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_H=FCbner?=
    Guest

    US Supreme Court

    kdf wrote:
    > Quoting Johan Hübner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:
    >
    >
    >>kdf wrote:
    >>
    >>>There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    >>>decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,

    >>
    >>if
    >>
    >>>you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.

    >>
    >>being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
    >>assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
    >>delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
    >>referred to the European Cour of Justice. '

    >
    >
    > thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over
    > mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
    > socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually
    > consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all
    > the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class action
    > if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.
    >
    > sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously
    > feel some lack of value in their lives.
    >
    > canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break
    >


    Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our
    swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank
    media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the
    price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase
    which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for
    legal copying, ie fair use (US & Ca) and statutory private copying (EU).
    It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to
    compensate for illegal copying.

    But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal
    society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court
    proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of
    copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a
    fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give
    them a economic incentive to continue creating.

    Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce
    in the US and in EU.

    /Johan

    --
    Johan Hübner --!!johan at hubner.se!!--

  6. #6
    NOT a Slim Devices Employee kdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,493

    US Supreme Court

    Quoting Johan Hübner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:

    > kdf wrote:
    > > Quoting Johan Hübner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:
    > >
    > >
    > >>kdf wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    > >>>decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,
    > >>
    > >>if
    > >>
    > >>>you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.
    > >>
    > >>being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
    > >>assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
    > >>delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
    > >>referred to the European Cour of Justice. '

    > >
    > >
    > > thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information

    > over
    > > mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
    > > socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can

    > actually
    > > consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that

    > all
    > > the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class

    > action
    > > if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.
    > >
    > > sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who

    > obviously
    > > feel some lack of value in their lives.
    > >
    > > canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break
    > >

    >
    > Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our
    > swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank
    > media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the
    > price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase
    > which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for
    > legal copying, ie fair use (US & Ca) and statutory private copying (EU).
    > It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to
    > compensate for illegal copying.

    )
    yeah, we're all too busy legalising pot and getting hockey back to worry about
    such things Still, the levy applied to CD's DVD's etc is not so bad. I can
    still purchase a spindle of 100 DVD for $59 CDN. it was worrying when they
    considered charging for media that would be used in cameras, and for HD's that
    were just being purchased for pc's. Then again, I guess our artists are
    perhaps used to being poor (unless they file for US citizenship0
    >
    > But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal
    > society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court
    > proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of
    > copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a
    > fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give
    > them a economic incentive to continue creating.
    >
    > Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce
    > in the US and in EU.


    as a person who has to perform daily in order to meet demands, I just cant ever
    support a 'royalty' sytem. as an engineer, anyting I come up with as an ida
    while I'm with my current compant is owned by that company. why should I feel
    sympathy for an artist who signs on with a label?

    my feelings on p2p, is that its the same as it always was. We always traded mix
    tapes. some of us made them just to pass on in hopes of getting laid (come on,
    admit it). Computers and the digital age have mad so many things faster and
    easier, so why not "tape trading"

    why should the "industry" be able to say that they alone have the right to
    benefit from the improvements in technology?

    -kdf

  7. #7
    Aaron Zinck
    Guest

    US Supreme Court

    I appreciate everyone's responses and am understanding the situation a bit
    better now. I do think it's time for the music industry to entirely
    overhaul their cost and distribution structure to be more fair to the
    artists and the consumers.

    Something Christian wrote got me thinking and I wanted to respond:

    "Christian Pernegger" wrote in message
    > In the first case you hopefully get a big screen, nice sound, the cinema
    > experience but only one showing - fine. But these are essentially canned
    > goods that cost next to nothing to duplicate. About the only people

    working
    > for the money are the cinema staff in the first case. The work's the same
    > for the artists regardless of the number of DVDs or tickets sold.
    >
    > A ticket at local theatres (as in live actorst) is 5-15 EUR (low end for
    > students etc...)
    >
    > Excuse me?? That money has to pay the theatre staff, the writer, a bunch

    of
    > costumes and props people and most of all the actors who have to perform
    > EVERY EVENING to earn their keep. But who cares, they're all subsidized
    > anyway... </sarcasm>
    >
    > The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with the

    work
    > involved in the first place - so much for artist compensation.


    This isn't true at all. Certainly the one-time cost and the work that goes
    into producing a high-quality movie is far greater than the amount that goes
    into a play by a local theater even during the entire run of a show. The
    price you pay for the entertainment is proportional to the work involved:
    if low quality movies were made then theaters would charge less to see them.
    Conversely, if the price of going to the movie theater were lowered to
    simply the cost of keeping the building up and paying the ushers then we
    would see a bunch of crappy movies since no one could afford to make $150
    million productions (ok, I know, spending more money on a movie doesn't
    always mean it's going to be better...but still...).

    > If they want to earn my money they're free to WORK and do an open-air in

    my
    > general vincinity. Terribly sorry, but the value of something that can be
    > reproduced for 50 cents is 50 cents.


    This makes no sense. This totally disregards the value of any kind of
    intellectual property. Just because what artists (or even consider
    scientists at pharmaceutical companies) create while doing their WORK
    doesn't take a physical form doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Would you
    say that a 10 cent blank CD is equal in value to the same cd with music on
    it? I think not. And how much in excess of 10 cents is to be determined by
    the market. And right now the market has settled on $10~$15. New
    technologies are changing things, but there still is value to the music.

  8. #8
    John L Fjellstad
    Guest

    US Supreme Court

    On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote:

    > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
    > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
    > before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was
    > just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a
    > thing is just vile.


    If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it
    wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc
    directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert
    a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled
    with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or
    whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA
    or whatever your choice would be.

    Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
    in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
    industry.

    --
    John L. Fjellstad
    web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkIqGSAACgkQkz0vhQtHHRhORACggRQBdVpfTb FnQ8AbaqqMQH6/
    kF8An001uX+HHk9ofrAuXKIRGqZuZhQL
    =pkFK
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  9. #9
    NOT a Slim Devices Employee kdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,493

    US Supreme Court

    Quoting John L Fjellstad <john-slimlist (AT) fjellstad (DOT) org>:

    > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote:
    >
    > > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
    > > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,

    > if
    > > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
    > > before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is

    > was
    > > just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of

    > such a
    > > thing is just vile.

    >
    > If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it
    > wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc
    > directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert
    > a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled
    > with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or
    > whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA
    > or whatever your choice would be.
    >
    > Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
    > in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
    > industry.


    Thanks, that's sounds right. I wasn't having much luck trying to re-find the
    article

    -kdf

  10. #10
    T
    Guest

    US Supreme Court

    >> Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
    >> in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
    >> industry.


    Of course they had no say in it, as they're not in the EU.

    But why did they implement it, and in such a manner?

    Tom

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •