|
I see my wisdom is required. First off one must realize that copyright law is not as simplistic as you make it seem. With that in mind one must also see that interpretation of copyright law is different in different parts of the world. To fully understand copyright law in the US (per the RIAA) you have to look at the landmark case which took place in the early 80's (or was it the late 70's, somebody correct me if i'm wrong). This case involved copying movies with a VHS. The ruling ended up being a compromise between outright "stealing" and the ability to make back up copies. This term is loosely used as "fair use". Fair use states that an individual is allowed to make copies of works that have been paid for. It also states that one can lend that to a friend within limits of course(not your 500 friend at school), it is also permissible to tape radio broadcasts as long as you do not intend on rebroadcasting. It is in the term fair use that copyright laws get very convoluted.
As far as neo is concerned...no comment LOL. If he deems that it not legal then...on this board its not,this is not a democracy...its a er...kindalike a fiefdom . Anyway, the bottom line is I don't think anyone here has the wherewithalll to comment on copyright law or its interpretations without first getting some history behind it..
MizzzzUNO
|