Comments on: Loading CDs into iPods http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8057 p2pnet.net - reader powered Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:00:10 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8057/comment-page-1#comment-34963 Reader's Write Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:09:11 +0000 #comment-34963 So, were not allowed to copy our cd's onto our mp3 players..... Just watch them try and stop me!! ha ha ha ha So, were not allowed to copy our cd’s onto our mp3 players…..

Just watch them try and stop me!!

ha ha ha ha

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8057/comment-page-1#comment-34861 Reader's Write Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:00:28 +0000 #comment-34861 Copyright has never concerned itself with the quality of playback equipment or media in the past, so why should this radical expansion of the scope of copyright be allowed or suggested now? If I purchase music, I should be able to use it on whatever equipment I own. If that means taking the vinyl record and playing it on a low quality record player with only a single speaker, then that is my choice. This doesn't affect either the moral or material rights of the author. If I have a high-quality turntable and convert this to a lower quality CD to play in another room, then that is also my personal choice -- and not one that the copyright holder should have any say in. If someone takes a higher quality recording (vinyl, CD, whatever) and converts to a lower quality CD so they can listen to it with a portable audio player, this too is none of the business of the copyright holder. You also are incorrect on the origins of the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) 2 layer 3 audio (Short form: MP3) which is from the professional motion picture industry. It is extremely wrong to suggest that if a specific quality of recording is made available (MP3 or whatever) that it is authorized to be shared. There ARE NO DIFFERENT ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC USES that are based on the media format. This is as much nonsense as suggesting that if an 8-track was made available in the past (also lower quality than CD) that this constitutes a suggestion that it was "intended to be shared". This idea is utter nonsense, and must be as forcefully rejected as the equally offensive idea of perpetual copyright. The form that a recording takes has no bearing whatsoever on copyright. Copyright is on the recording, not the specific format. Copyright has never concerned itself with the quality of playback equipment or media in the past, so why should this radical expansion of the scope of copyright be allowed or suggested now?

If I purchase music, I should be able to use it on whatever equipment I own. If that means taking the vinyl record and playing it on a low quality record player with only a single speaker, then that is my choice. This doesn’t affect either the moral or material rights of the author.

If I have a high-quality turntable and convert this to a lower quality CD to play in another room, then that is also my personal choice — and not one that the copyright holder should have any say in.

If someone takes a higher quality recording (vinyl, CD, whatever) and converts to a lower quality CD so they can listen to it with a portable audio player, this too is none of the business of the copyright holder.

You also are incorrect on the origins of the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) 2 layer 3 audio (Short form: MP3) which is from the professional motion picture industry.

It is extremely wrong to suggest that if a specific quality of recording is made available (MP3 or whatever) that it is authorized to be shared.

There ARE NO DIFFERENT ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC USES that are based on the media format.

This is as much nonsense as suggesting that if an 8-track was made available in the past (also lower quality than CD) that this constitutes a suggestion that it was “intended to be shared”. This idea is utter nonsense, and must be as forcefully rejected as the equally offensive idea of perpetual copyright.

The form that a recording takes has no bearing whatsoever on copyright. Copyright is on the recording, not the specific format.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8057/comment-page-1#comment-34835 Reader's Write Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:06:02 +0000 #comment-34835 The MP3 file has roots in the digital storage ground. Its design is to provide a quality experience while using less memory space. If copyright is to cover the content then should it not first be a consideration of the initial form of the content to establish the intent of the author? Converting to MP3 could be a copyright violation as it might show an act against an author's intent to create a convenient and easily portable stored work. If an author "markets" an MP3 file he may very well demonstrate an intent to enter into a form that was designed for the specific purpose of portability, transmitting and storing economically. Now converting audio CD to MP3 may not be a mere duplication but actually considered a copy through which original intent is altered. Copying an audio CD to maintain content if the delivery device itself is damaged is one thing. Converting it into another form defining a different delivery device with different acceptable public uses could be the issue in loading up an MP3 player with content. Now if an author sells or produces to the public MP3 content there would have to be a new world order agreed to whereby the author is automatically and specifically demonstrating a continued claim to his copyright in light of the fact he is distributing his work in a form that may very well have been created, used and embedded in devices for the sole purpose of portability, transmission and economical storage found in these devices used specifically for duplication and maintenance of dynamic content. In short, one could say that if an author has sold an MP3 file anywhere he just sold a bit of work into mass duplication. Do we need a file storage format joined with delivery devices that clearly define the no duplication intent from the initial inception of the work? Many authors try to profit off existing technology and attempt to rewrite the history of the technology to fit their purposes. It may now be the time to create one's own technology to support one's purpose rather than violate the copyright of the original authors of the technology now in current public use. I suggest the "industry" come up with its own file format, say *.profit, and have that publically accepted as a file not to be converted, copied, duplicated and whatever stored and played only on their delivery device that is licensed to support *.profit files. There will therefore never exist the hybridization of intent. The MP3 file has roots in the digital storage ground. Its design is to provide a quality experience while using less memory space. If copyright is to cover the content then should it not first be a consideration of the initial form of the content to establish the intent of the author? Converting to MP3 could be a copyright violation as it might show an act against an author’s intent to create a convenient and easily portable stored work. If an author “markets” an MP3 file he may very well demonstrate an intent to enter into a form that was designed for the specific purpose of portability, transmitting and storing economically. Now converting audio CD to MP3 may not be a mere duplication but actually considered a copy through which original intent is altered. Copying an audio CD to maintain content if the delivery device itself is damaged is one thing. Converting it into another form defining a different delivery device with different acceptable public uses could be the issue in loading up an MP3 player with content. Now if an author sells or produces to the public MP3 content there would have to be a new world order agreed to whereby the author is automatically and specifically demonstrating a continued claim to his copyright in light of the fact he is distributing his work in a form that may very well have been created, used and embedded in devices for the sole purpose of portability, transmission and economical storage found in these devices used specifically for duplication and maintenance of dynamic content.

In short, one could say that if an author has sold an MP3 file anywhere he just sold a bit of work into mass duplication. Do we need a file storage format joined with delivery devices that clearly define the no duplication intent from the initial inception of the work? Many authors try to profit off existing technology and attempt to rewrite the history of the technology to fit their purposes. It may now be the time to create one’s own technology to support one’s purpose rather than violate the copyright of the original authors of the technology now in current public use.

I suggest the “industry” come up with its own file format, say *.profit, and have that publically accepted as a file not to be converted, copied, duplicated and whatever stored and played only on their delivery device that is licensed to support *.profit files. There will therefore never exist the hybridization of intent.

]]>