BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protections, AND, the forum TOS #9 clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated"./crusade
I've now tried to simply play the CD in 3 different computers. None would play it.
if one has bought a CD (technically a copy-protected disc is not a red book CD), IMHO he/she is entitled to listen/rip it as he/she likes with computers too. BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protection
I was under the impression that it is OK to make a copy for personal use.
the CD I have has a copyright date of 1976, and that is probably about when I bought it.
Boiled Beans- how do I rip in Burst Mode?
your interpretation of what is considered protection or not, is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world.. and that's what counts.. not who's morally right or wrong. Bottom line: the HA TOS #9 clearly forbids any discussion of bypassing protections.. you don't respect the rules here?
Re the legal position....................In the UK (and most other countries I think) it is a breach of copyright to make a copy without the permission of the copyright holder - Check the wording on a CD or two. I'm not sure where that leaves us with regard to TOS or anything else, though. Presumably everybody just carries on ripping as it seems to be morally justifiable.
1) Forum TOS (#9 which clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated", it doesn't say anything about validity of protections).
Is my suggestion of recording via analog also considered "bypassing protection methodologies"?
Jeez you people are hostile and defensive around here, don't you think that it's good for all of us to talk about this topic?
and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it?
FWIW, I'd interpret the rule by the letter, so, yes, "Discussion ... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material ... will not be tolerated".. and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it? Stupid but that's how I see it.
Who would care if it was Illegal in Kazakhstan?, only those who live there - HA is run form the USA so it is the law which is referenced to and in this instance the DMCA.
We're not talking about food, water, shelter, or sexual identity here. It is not as if there is a lack of music which doesn't come from such draconian labels available. The analogy about creationists in charge is sooooo far off base I hope you were kidding. This isn't about "truth" vs "fiction" - this isn't about controlling what you say and how you say it. This is about specific consumer goods being sold with strings attached you don't like. This is about specific consumer goods which there are more than adequate substitutes for.Describing the situation as some sort of freedom fight we all must join in - some sort of revolution against the man - it's a little much.
>> Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.>> Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?I wouldn't state this so freely. There's people who really think that having sex with children is a-ok. Is it ok to f&#k kiddies if one only follows one's conscience? (here we go, (bad) analogues ) The society need rules.
The ones who admin HA must consider their actions and make rules so that the existence of this board would not be in danger.. and think what you think, this topic is a threat (minor, major, doesn't matter, there's a possibility). And IMHO this is where the debate should be directed. HA TOS are the "laws" of our little society which keeps it all together without all going down the drain.I think that the TOS #9 is currently ok. If the admins want to do extra work, they could investigate the Dutch law if the protection breaking part of the rule could be lifted. Since the server is in Netherlands, the Dutch law is the only one that affects HA?
9. All members must refrain from posting links to -- or information regarding how to obtain -- copyrighted or illegal material. Discussion containing information of how to obtain such material, how to bypass protection methodologies of such material, or how to otherwise violate laws pertaining to such matters will not be tolerated, and participating members may be subject to administrative action.
Well, if you take it literally, it is not bypassing these protection schemes.
They are designed to prevent you from digital copying, aren't they?
The way I see it is that any copy protection is protecting the digital data. The user does of course have permission to play the CD and so to convert it from digital to analog. Now once the signal is analog I don't see how recording it is any different to making a needle drop or tape transfer or whatever. Now that itself may also be illegal, but in that case we've got to TOS9 every single thread that mentions either ripping CD's or making needle drops (vinyl transfers).I think getting this thread TOS9'ed is setting a real precedent for outlawing any reference to CD ripping or vinyl transfer here and I'm not too sure many people would be very happy with that situation. I certainly wouldn't be around here anymore if that happens.
The other thing that bothers me about the way that this thread was TOS9'ed is that this guy's CD wasn't even copy protected to begin with, but that apparently makes no difference according to some members here.
Well kind of because the "analog hole" can't be protected.
Can you link or quote where or who has said that "they are designed to prevent you from digital copying"?
"Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses."(Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques)To me this sounds very logical and right. And thus the "analog hole" bypassing method would most definitely break the #9 rule.
I read the post which spawned this one, and I have to say I'm a little confused. The OP seemed to have purchased his/her CD before copy protections began to be implimented. So why was it closed?
The idea that the guy bought the CD before copy protection began or that there is clear evidence that the CD doesn't have copy protection based on what was said by the OP is ludicrous.
Uart- the CD I have has a copyright date of 1976, and that is probably about when I bought it. I looked for pinholes and didn't see any. Good info, though.
Being serious, we can take as read its much too old for copy protection so its likely its 'faulty' in some way.
I'll gladly re-open the thread, but don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.