Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Do you know of an actual legal ruling establishing this, or are you just assuming that's the case because it makes sense?
It does make sense; that has no bearing whatsoever on the law.
Except for protest zones around political events, perhaps. And curfews. And the TSA's restrictions on airline travel.
There are rather a lot of laws and penalties that are based on the presumption that people will become criminals if given the opportunity.
|
They are not based on an assumption that people will commit a criminal act, they are restrictions to enable enforcing a law more viable. Just like highway speed limits. A speed limit is not in place because of a presumption that all people will drive recklessly, it is in place to provide a recognisable boundary. In areas here when the highway was derestricted - i.e., no speed limits applied., only a very small proportion of highway users travelled at above the speeds recommended in areas where speed limits applied.
Restrictions on air travel had to have High Court/Government intervention to override common law and individual rights. Look at the fuss about the Patriot Act and the ability it allowed for things like wire tapping and searches without warrants etc. It was put in place to overcome the legal precept of "Innocent until proved guilty".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Copyright law has no specific exemption (in the US or UK; less sure about other places) for personal copies for noncommercial use. If you make a copy, you are potentially in breach of copyright. Keeping or removing the original doesn't change the act of making the copy.
|
It does in both the US and the UK. It is not breach of copyright if you legally hold title to anything that you duplicate - as long as you don't part with the original so as to lose your legal status. The quote below applies to the US - if it is wrong then someone had better tell the Harvard School of Law as they claim this is so. The US Government introduced laws governing the type of digital recording equipment that could legally be imported into the US in an attempt to control home recording. The equipment is required to be SCMS certified. (Serial Copy Management System). Why would they do this is all copies were illegal? This certification ensures that all copies can be traced to the equipment used to copy it. It does not apply to all computer copying software - for obvious reasons.
Quote:
|
"Under a 1992 amendment, to the Audio Home Recording Act, consumers are permitted to make unlimited private use of legally purchased music and other media content stored on CD. In essence, consumers are free to copy the material so long as they do not distribute the copies to others. Consumers may make cassette copies of CDs to play in their car or copy favorite CDs onto MP3 players. They are not free to distribute the copies to others, even by giving them away."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
If you lose it you won't, the licence is still yours, it can only pass to another if you give it or sell it. If I lose or have my car stolen, it is still mine, the person who stole it or found it does not have title.
Clothing is a whole different mess, not covered by copyright. Can potentially hit trademark rules.
|