I want to apologize in advance for continuing to drag this out over IDM.
Next time I bitch about off-topic postings, please rub the remains of this
thread in my face.
quoted 6 lines Let me rewrite this in english as I interpret it (don't you just love what> Let me rewrite this in english as I interpret it (don't you just love what
> the lawyers do in this country? :)
>
> "No lawsuits may be brought because anyone made, imported or distributed a
> recording device or blank media (analog or digital) used for noncommerical
> use by a consumer."
My paraphrase would be:
"You cannot use copyright law to justify suing someone for a) making or
selling digital or analog recording eqipment or media, or b) using said
equipment or media to record music on a noncommercial basis."
The legislative history that accompanies this section of the USC makes it
very clear that it's intended to legalize home taping in exchange for the
enactment of the DAT tax. I don't believe it's an unreasonable
interpretation to read it as also legalizing no-fee digital music archives
like the ones at techno.stanford.edu.
quoted 3 lines Now distributing someone else's recording digitally I would still take to> Now distributing someone else's recording digitally I would still take to
> be illegal without explicit permission from the owner of the music. This
> is standard copyright stuff...
Except that the Audio Home Recording Act is an explicit amendment of US
copyright law to *permit* that form of duplication, the logic presumably
being that you can't very well spend tax money to compensate private industry
for something that's supposed to be illegal.
--
Lazlo (lazlo@unm.edu)