|
|
Posted by Rich Clark on 12/07/06 19:41
Quanta wrote:
> "Rich Clark" <rdclark2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1165421303.164846.303220@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Modemac wrote:
> >
> >> This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
> >> DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.
> >
> > Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
> > computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
> > it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
> > number of things.
> >
> >> Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
> >> iPod.
> >
> > This is not evidence of that.
>
>
> Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that: Consumers
> have no rights other than playing on the device the media was licensed for.
> You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.
That people charge you to paint your house is not evidence that it is
illegal for you to paint your own house. It may be illegal, or it may
not be illegal, but the existence of painters doesn't prove anything.
That Walmart is charging for an iPod-loading service is not evidence
that ripping is illegal. Ripping may be illegal, but WalMart's service
isn't evidence that it is.
It's logic, see?
RichC
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|