What to do with old CDs?

[TerryO]

6 hours ago, Dave O))) said:

Sorry Terry, but you are mistaking my mocking tone for a defensive one. Not so, I thought I made it clear I was relaxed about the issue and really couldn't give a hoot about the legal technicalities. I have nothing to fear and nothing to be ashamed of. I'm just having a chuckle at you guys and the predictable circular conversation between hand-wringers and know it alls about a relative non issue. Just my take on things, don't read too much into it. Oh and I think you have me confused with someone else, I never commented on second hand sellers.

NB most of you guys ignored the cue from Sir Zingers to dive into a more interesting topic of morals and personal ethics. Still going round that same roundabout......

Enjoy

All good DaveO, have to admit you are correct this discussion is stuck going round and round the same roundabout with no end in sight. 

 

cheers Terry

Edited January 4, 2019 by TerryO

[davewantsmoore]

3 hours ago, eltech said:

Plenty of laws get changed.

Of course they do....   but I think it's quite certain that our Government won't create a law which allows me to "buy one, get one free".

3 hours ago, eltech said:

In many years time it's quite possible that people have entirely different attitudes than people today.

No doubt .... but I think our Government would favour business/commerce, as opposed to "halving the market for content".

 

Do you think they would pass a law which says every bluray sold in Australia needs to include two copies of the disc (for the price of one), and I can give the second disc to my friend?     If so, that's fantastic, and we can get double the value.

 

[Silent Screamer]

1 minute ago, davewantsmoore said:

Of course they do....   but I think it's quite certain that our Government won't create a law which allows me to "buy one, get one free".

That law already exists, except you have to pay 120% GST on the first item to get the second one free.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

7 hours ago, MarcAL said:

Legally once you have done this you would need proof of purchase so if you don't have receipts you need to keep the originals to be safe from the Feds.

You can have as many receipts as you like... the receipt only says you had the disc once, not that you have it now, which is the requirement for keeping a copy.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

1 hour ago, Silent Screamer said:

Doesn't even need to be supplied with the disk per se, it could be a simple as a direction to a website that has further information. Should you not go to the website for whatever reason, that doesn't stop whatever is written there from being binding. Comes back to that rule doesn't apply to me because I am too lazy to look it up.

I believe that because of the international conventions in this area, for music, it does have to be supplied with the recording. For software, it can be in a file on the disc, but it should be there with the medium as it was at the time of purchase.

 

That's necessary because various national laws affect changing terms and conditions as supplied with physical media (a court case may depend on the terms and conditions at the time and place of purchase, as opposed to those the company has notified it has changed later). Not being a lawyer, I won't go further than that - my sister is a qualified solicitor in the UK and copyright law on software is one of those things you don't want to come up in an exam...

 

Downloads become more complicated, not least because as a consumer you can't even be certain under which jurisdiction you purchased the software without reading the small print, very carefully.

 

Have you read the contract documents for everything you've signed up to online? I've ploughed through a few in the past. They can be well-nigh incomprehensible, and usually lead back to the State of Delaware, where software purchasers have relatively few rights.

[Silent Screamer]

24 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Downloads become more complicated, not least because as a consumer you can't even be certain under which jurisdiction you purchased the software without reading the small print, very carefully.

 

That's why you buy a Mac, they lock your machine down that much that you can't even think about playing the music without first sacrificing your first born to the music gods.

Note: This comment is made in jest, I would never seriously contemplate suggesting that any sane and rational person buy a Mac. May the music gods make my ears fall off if ever I do.

[crisis]

4 hours ago, eltech said:

Because of the economic influence of China and Russia, it's possible that in order for the Western world to maintain relevance, the Western world may have to adopt more socialist economic attitudes and standards.

 

It is deliciously ironic that one of the two cornerstones of Communistic evil is one of the most successful commercial economies.

32 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Downloads become more complicated, not least because as a consumer you can't even be certain under which jurisdiction you purchased the software without reading the small print, very carefully.

The internet has left many traditional monopolies stranded due to their inability to change or even understand what they need to change to. The power has been taken form the hands of the old gate keepers and handed over to kids in their bedrooms.

[eltech]

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Do you think

I already advised my thoughts. Anything is possible.

The reason we study history has no other purpose than to learn how to avoid mistakes. I'm not that interested in reliving the past, and the old ways of doing things. The only way to create the the world we want is to conceptualise and imagine a better future, and then work towards creating it. The future world is an open-source world. I look forward to it.

Edited January 4, 2019 by eltech

[eltech]

1 hour ago, crisis said:

most successful commercial economies

They certainly are.

[eltech]

2 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Have you read the contract documents for everything you've signed up to online? I've ploughed through a few in the past. They can be well-nigh incomprehensible

What's incomprehensible is how lawyers need to go to school for ? 4 to 7? Years and that only qualifies them in one particular field of law, and ordinary non-lawyer types are expected to comply with incomprehensible laws and contracts....

Which apparently take years of study to understand.

 

Tell me how thats meant to work?

Edited January 4, 2019 by eltech

[eltech]

1 hour ago, crisis said:

The power has been taken form the hands of the old gate keepers and handed over to kids in their bedrooms.

Yep. Time for the old gatekeepers to be forced into retirement.

Edited January 4, 2019 by eltech

[Silent Screamer]

47 minutes ago, eltech said:

 

The future world is an open-source world. I look forward to it.

 

You know, I don't actually think this is true...

 

While the appearance of it looks like that, you only have to look at Linux to know that is what they want you to believe, but may not be the real truth. For instance when Linux first kicked off it was the ultimate stuff you MS/Mac with your money grabbing ways, we have our own software now... Years later MS and other similar large organizations have bought there way on the governing bodies that control the direction of Linux.

 

More and more commercial interests are buying their way into control. So to the layman it may seem like open source is the way to go, but in reality we are falling deeper and deeper into the man's pocket.

[davewantsmoore]

8 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Breach of copyright is a criminal offence if a person makes, sells, trades or imports an article that infringes copyright in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of that infringement (s 132(1) Copyright Act 1968)

 

8 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Actually, I suspect I'm not. Go back and read what you've posted.

(my emphasis)

 

The item being sold is the original CD, the article does not infringe copyright. The person selling the disc is breaching copyright by keeping the copy, but that is a different matter.

 

There is no breach of the criminal law.

Yes, but in this situation:

 

"makes , sells, trades or imports an article that infringes copyright in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of that infringement"

 

We created the copy... and then we chose to sell the original.  We are aware it is an infringing copy.

Edited January 4, 2019 by davewantsmoore

[davewantsmoore]

6 hours ago, Silent Screamer said:

that doesn't stop whatever is written there from being binding

Nah.... they can write things all over the disc or elsewhere which are not binding.

 

Such as "copying prohibited" (etc. like they write on the disc) .....   Mmmm... Yes?!   Prohibited, is it?  Prohibited by who? and by what authority?    In fact the stuff they write on the disc has no effect.

 

Basically they are talking out their arse.   They can sue me for damages (if I damage their business, but because I don't do what they say on the CD) .... or I can be held accountable under Australian law  (not accountable to what it says on the CD).

 

7 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Your rights to do these things under Australian copyright law (or the country in which you reside) are taken to modify thee terms of the statement.

What I'm not allowed to do with the disc is not affected by what is written on the disc.    The whole "unauthorised blah blah is prohibited" is essentially meaningless (except for "waving around a big stick") and has no effect.

[eltech]

2 hours ago, Silent Screamer said:

You know, I don't actually think this is true...

You create the future world as much as I do. Put your energy in the direction you want things to go and things will go that way.

If you think it's a good day... It is!

If you think it's a bad day... It is!

I think it's a great day and things go my way

 

[LHC]

13 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

Yes, but in this situation:

 

"makes , sells, trades or imports an article that infringes copyright in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of that infringement"

 

We created the copy... and then we chose to sell the original.  We are aware it is an infringing copy.

 

I hate to harp back to my previous question, but I need a clarification here. If there is no selling involved, and we have receipts to back up the original purchase, then is the letter of the law infringed? A copy was made, and presumably it was made legally at the time. 

[eltech]

4 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

I hate to harp back to my previous question, but I need a clarification here. If there is no selling involved, and we have receipts to back up the original purchase, then is the letter of the law infringed? A copy was made, and presumably it was made legally at the time. 

And if you lose your receipt will a statutory declaration do the job too?

 

[eltech]

And what if you purchased the download pre-metadata retention laws, and you use a VPN and the hard drive police come inspecting your HDD and your computer broke, and you swapped HDD into your new PC, and then you did a backup and the original drive broke, and then you made a backup of the backup, then you upgraded your PC, then you moved house, then the internet account was under your wife's name, then how would you prove your files are legit? Far out!

[LHC]

Just now, eltech said:

And if you lose your receipt will a statutory declaration do the job too?

 

I think there are two separate issues that got mixed up together.

1. There is the burden of proof - and I understand the concept that a physical copy of CD is needed to prove the rights to use ripped files. Receipts and statutory declaration may not suffice.
2. The second is infringing the law with intent - and the law as quoted is not clear on some edge and corner cases. Receipt may show the rip was legally carried out. If the purchased was made long ago, it would be hard to prove there was intent involved. i.e. it is hard to imagine one would buy a CD and keep it for ten years, with the intention of selling it for profit after ten years. 

[Silent Screamer]

10 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

Such as "copying prohibited" (etc. like they write on the disc) .....   Mmmm... Yes?!   Prohibited, is it?  Prohibited by who? and by what authority?    In fact the stuff they write on the disc has no effect.

 

Basically they are talking out their arse.   They can sue me for damages (if I damage their business, but because I don't do what they say on the CD) .... or I can be held accountable under Australian law  (not accountable to what it says on the CD).

 

What I'm not allowed to do with the disc is not affected by what is written on the disc.    The whole "unauthorised blah blah is prohibited" is essentially meaningless (except for "waving around a big stick") and has no effect.

Yep but 99% of honest people will see that, and some not so honest ones, and be put off doing wrong because it is written there. Bit like the beware of the dog sign. They may or may not even own a dog... Sometimes the threat is enough to get the job done, even if there is no substance to it.

[LHC]

5 minutes ago, eltech said:

And what if you purchased the download pre-metadata retention laws, and you use a VPN and the hard drive police come inspecting your HDD and your computer broke, and you swapped HDD into your new PC, and then you did a backup and the original drive broke, and then you made a backup of the backup, then you upgraded your PC, then you moved house, then the internet account was under your wife's name, then how would you prove your files are legit? Far out!

I think someone said earlier you are only legally allowed one electronic copy. So a backup of the HDD would be prohibited I guess ?

[Silent Screamer]

6 minutes ago, eltech said:

And what if you purchased the download pre-metadata retention laws, and you use a VPN and the hard drive police come inspecting your HDD and your computer broke, and you swapped HDD into your new PC, and then you did a backup and the original drive broke, and then you made a backup of the backup, then you upgraded your PC, then you moved house, then the internet account was under your wife's name, then how would you prove your files are legit? Far out!

Yes digitally it can get very messy. What you just described sounds like some of the people that got audited while I was at Microsoft. Showing some kind of upgrade path from this to that, to that, to the current software.

[eltech]

1 minute ago, LHC said:

I think someone said earlier you are only legally allowed one electronic copy. So a backup of the HDD would be prohibited I guess ?

Perhaps. It's strange considering that every intelligent person would do multiple backups and this procedure is espoused on every website that deals with computer audio.

[eltech]

3 minutes ago, Silent Screamer said:

Yes digitally it can get very messy. What you just described sounds like some of the people that got audited while I was at Microsoft. Showing some kind of upgrade path from this to that, to that, to the current software.

Probably easy for a business, because everything goes through accounts, but not so easy for a private individual. 

[eltech]

All this is now putting me off computer audio. CD is seeming much less bother.