Pericles "The fact that subsequently I take it upon myself to move a fully-paid-for song onto a different medium, at my own expense, cannot be described as theft. Every part of it has been acquired legally, and fully paid for."

Your choice.

You could buy 10 identical CDs and pay for each of them too.

As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.

I said earlier - copying for "personal use" had been seen by the courts as to not infringe copyright but where commerce is involved - which means between you and a third party, copyright is due and payable.

It would be reasonable to suggest that many people who would take advantage of downloading, never purchase the work on a leghally copyrighted media carrier and are thus, illegally avoiding paying copyright completely.

So what is it with you - can you just not accept the rule of law because it costs you money? - I guess I would hate to see you if you got a parking fine or speeding ticket - or were asked to pay a fine for late return of a library book.

Get this - I don't care about the cost of copyright to the buyer, they have a choice, to buy or to resist purchase. No one forces them to purchase a particular copyrighted product. However, for the benefit of the originator/author, if they do acquire a copy, they are liable to pay in accordance with defined and agreed rules.

Try NEGOTIATING CHANGES FIRST - instead of simply trying to justify theft.

"I said earlier - copying for "personal use" had been seen by the courts as to not infringe copyright but where commerce is involved"

Col, are you sure you aren't getting mixed up with the situations under which criminal penalties apply? If not, then I'll have to ask you to give a citation for the case or a news article saying talking about it.

Section 10AA(1) of the Act states "A copy of a sound recording is a non-infringing copy only if it is made by or with the consent of:" and then refers to the owner and maker of the music, along with related requirements. There are exceptions mind you, but I'm not aware of any appropriate one and the fair dealing exceptions are very narrow.

The author of the similar article posted on the same day: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=146 also assumed format-shifting was infringement. And my understanding is that the lack of format-shifting in Australia has been criticised in a number IP related law journals.

Col Rouge wrote : "Then get the law changed but, until you do, you are acting outside it and are thus a criminal."

Congratulations, Col. Your resort to personal abuse has reached even lower depths.

Now, where in my posts did I ever confess to having broken any of these laws?

Are you presuming that because I argue that the laws are immoral and stupid, that I therefore must have broken these laws?

'I don't care about the cost of copyright to the buyer, they have a choice, to buy or to resist purchase. No one forces them to purchase a particular copyrighted product.'

What if someone was going to buy money CD, but couldn't afford it, thus never got to hear my band, never got the chance to be impressed, and hence didn't show up at my show that night? I'd much rather they'd have downloaded the mp3s, then we could kick on with a bigger crowd!

..no?

Well, how about a compromise. What if the artist gives permission for his/her fans to download their music if they wish? Whether the record company likes it or not? If the artist says no, then fine, illegal. But if the artist doesn't care, what right does the record company have to argue? It is, after all, the artists intellectual property.

Mmmm nah that's no good - the artists who are more likely to give permission to downloaders wouldn't get signed any more.

How about this then? Eliminate any and all power that the record company has over an artist, including but not limited to content, lyrics, choice for singles, cover art, album title, band name, album length, song length, style, image, and of course, what medium the music can be listened to on. The musical artist, ie the actual creator of the music in question, would get to make all these decisions, and the record company would work for the artist, not the other way round.

Just a better world :)

Daggett “Are you presuming that because I argue that the laws are immoral and stupid, that I therefore must have broken these laws”

No, simply that it is more likely that you have.

Spendocrat “What if the artist gives permission for his/her fans to download their music if they wish” simply list it as public domain and expect nothing from anyone for it - that is an available option.

As for “Eliminate any and all power that the record company has over an artist, including but not limited to content, lyrics, choice for singles, cover art, album title, band name, album length, song length, style, image, and of course, what medium the music can be listened to on.”

Sure – if an artist declines their contracted royalty advances and negotiates copyright free product, I am sure the recording company will be happy to oblige.

However, when an artist expects royalty payment before release and when the recording company finances the cover art, recording sessions and just about everything else involved in “getting the product to market”, then the artist has “sold” the "product" to the recording company, who then determines the commercial conditions in on-selling it to the public; and has every right to protect its investment (in advances, initial and promotional costs).

Col, now you are getting silly.

>>"As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3."<<

No, Col, you cannot do this, as it is illegal. That is the whole point, the entire and complete nub of the argument.

It is illegal. Prohibited. Not allowed. Against the law. Unlawful. Illegitimate. Illicit. Actionable. A criminal act. You can be taken to court and fined. If you don't pay your fine, they'll send you to jail.

If you actually believe what you wrote, then I can see why you haven't understood a word that I have written on the subject. But please, do yourself a favour and get with the programme.

It is, as the law stands in Australia, illegal for me to re-record from my CD onto another medium, e.g. an mp3 player.

You can huff and puff all you like about what the courts may or may not do about this, but as of this moment, it is an unlawful act.

Trying just one last time: how, in all conscience, and refraining from babbling on about artists starving in garrets, do you justify this particular, specific law.