Music on the go

[Joss]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:25:43 +0000, Simonb wrote:

> joss wrote:
>
>> Works under linux (if that's a consideration)
>
> Do you have a link?

There are a few things you need. Firstly you need iee1394 support in your kernel (obviously).
Secondly, there is a suite of programs which I believe are called gnupod. It's a bit late, and I'm a
bit lazy, but:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnupod/

should at least give you a starting point. beyond that, google worked for
me.

good luck.

joss

 

[Tony Raven]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> My reading of the (contents page of) the currently applicable copyright act* (1988) gives section
> 17 as the relevant version: (paraphrased)
>

You also need to read Section 29 which provides for a person to copy for themselves for the purposes
of non-commercial study or research and the Fair Dealing provisions which, although not defined have
generally been interpreted by the Courts according to the economic impact on the copyright owner.
Thus if you own the CD and copy it to your iPod it could be argued to be fair dealing, if you borrow
someone elses CD and copy it to your iPod it would not.

Tony

 

[Simonb]

joss wrote:

> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnupod/

Good start.

Thanks!

 

[Chris Harrison]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>>My reading of the (contents page of) the currently applicable copyright act* (1988) gives section
>>17 as the relevant version: (paraphrased)
>>
>
>
> You also need to read Section 29 which provides for a person to copy for themselves for the
> purposes of non-commercial study or research and the Fair Dealing provisions which, although not
> defined have generally been interpreted by the Courts according to the economic impact on the
> copyright owner. Thus if you own the CD and copy it to your iPod it could be argued to be fair
> dealing, if you borrow someone elses CD and copy it to your iPod it would not.

Exactly the same interpretation that allowed for "home-taping" of vinyl onto cassette for alternate
uses, e.g. in the car. I think that the key is that you can't be "using" both copies simultaneously.
So even listening in the car, on your iPod or on your computer while the original is also being
played is the route to illegal places.

But so long as you're not sharing it all via some P2P application on your big shiny broadband
connection, merely ripping it for your personal use is not going to interest any
copyright-infringement-searching people.

 

[Joss]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:37:20 +0000, chris harrison wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>>>My reading of the (contents page of) the currently applicable copyright act* (1988) gives section
>>>17 as the relevant version: (paraphrased)
>>>
>>
>>
>> You also need to read Section 29 which provides for a person to copy for themselves for the
>> purposes of non-commercial study or research and the Fair Dealing provisions which, although not
>> defined have generally been interpreted by the Courts according to the economic impact on the
>> copyright owner. Thus if you own the CD and copy it to your iPod it could be argued to be fair
>> dealing, if you borrow someone elses CD and copy it to your iPod it would not.
>
> Exactly the same interpretation that allowed for "home-taping" of vinyl onto cassette for
> alternate uses, e.g. in the car. I think that the key is that you can't be "using" both copies
> simultaneously. So even listening in the car, on your iPod or on your computer while the original
> is also being played is the route to illegal places.
>
> But so long as you're not sharing it all via some P2P application on your big shiny broadband
> connection, merely ripping it for your personal use is not going to interest any
> copyright-infringement-searching people.

Sorry. I wasn't following this group while at work. The trouble is that the 1988 Copyright Designs
and Patents Act has been superseded by the 2003 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations to come
into line with the EUCD.

Check this story:

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1146800

Regardless of the "you'll never get caught" aspect, and the fact that it's still theoretical and
hasn't been tried in court, it _is_ potentially illegal.

Joss

 

[Tony Raven]

joss wrote:
>
> Sorry. I wasn't following this group while at work. The trouble is that the 1988 Copyright Designs
> and Patents Act has been superseded by the 2003 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations to come
> into line with the EUCD.
>

The 1998 Act has been *amended*, not superseded, by the 2003 Regulations - BIG difference. Section 9
of the 2003 Regulations is the one that amends the Section 29 provisions and the main one of
relevance to this discussion is the addition of the words "non-commercial" to the study exemption
which I had, if you note, taken account of in my earlier post. If you want to read the 2003
Regulations the relevant Section 9 is online at
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#9. There are five other Acts that also
amend the 1988 Act as well as six Regulations.

Tony

 

[Joss]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:40:25 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> joss wrote:
>>
>> Sorry. I wasn't following this group while at work. The trouble is that the 1988 Copyright
>> Designs and Patents Act has been superseded by the 2003 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations
>> to come into line with the EUCD.
>>
>>
> The 1998 Act has been *amended*, not superseded, by the 2003 Regulations
> - BIG difference. Section 9 of the 2003 Regulations is the one that amends the Section 29
> provisions and the main one of relevance to this discussion is the addition of the words
> "non-commercial" to the study exemption which I had, if you note, taken account of in my earlier
> post. If you want to read the 2003 Regulations the relevant Section 9 is online at
> http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#9. There are five other Acts that also
> amend the 1988 Act as well as six Regulations.
>
> Tony

Thanks. I'm happy to be corrected on this issue, and I admit that the word "superseded" was
inaccurate. I haven't had time to go through the link you gave here, but I did fail to notice your
specific alteration in relation to the new regulations. Sorry about that.

Although (and I think this is getting rather OT), I believe that the current state of affairs
contains a level of worry that the copyright owners may choose to contest the legality of
copying songs in this fashion due to the somewhat fuzzy wording of the regulation. Perhaps it
would be better to say "It is unlikely that you will be sued for this, although the possibility
still exists."

Anyway. Sleep now.

Joss.

 

[Tony Raven]

joss wrote:
>
> Although (and I think this is getting rather OT), I believe that the current state of affairs
> contains a level of worry that the copyright owners may choose to contest the legality of copying
> songs in this fashion due to the somewhat fuzzy wording of the regulation. Perhaps it would be
> better to say "It is unlikely that you will be sued for this, although the possibility still
> exists."
>
> Anyway. Sleep now.
>

Time to wake up ;-)

I think you can sleep fairly easy though as there has been enough precedent over interpretation of
"fair dealing" that you can be pretty sure the arguement "I had bought the CD, I made a copy only so
I could listen to it without having to take my CD player everywhere " would prevail as the Courts
would rule that the copyright owner has not been economically disadvantaged as you could have taken
a portable CD player with you and played the CD instead. Of course as we all know that arguement
would not work if it was someone elses CD you had copied.

Tony

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Tony Raven <[email protected]> typed:
> joss wrote:
>>
>> Although (and I think this is getting rather OT), I believe that the current state of affairs
>> contains a level of worry that the copyright owners may choose to contest the legality of copying
>> songs in this fashion due to the somewhat fuzzy wording of the regulation. Perhaps it would be
>> better to say "It is unlikely that you will be sued for this, although the possibility still
>> exists."
>>
>> Anyway. Sleep now.
>>
>
> Time to wake up ;-)
>
> I think you can sleep fairly easy though as there has been enough precedent over interpretation of
> "fair dealing" that you can be pretty sure the arguement "I had bought the CD, I made a copy only
> so I could listen to it without having to take my CD player everywhere " would prevail as the
> Courts would rule that the copyright owner has not been economically disadvantaged as you could
> have taken a portable CD player with you and played the CD instead. Of course as we all know that
> arguement would not work if it was someone elses CD you had copied.
>
Thanks for clearing it all up, as I was the one who muddied the waters.

A

 

[Chris Harrison]

pineapple wrote:

> 2LAP wrote:
> > I have used a few different players, as a simple guide... CD player when riding the road it
> > doesn't jump too much. Heavy on power. Radios are great as they are small, don't use too much
> > power and don't jump. MP3 players are good too, but the Ipod is a bit expensive but has loads
> > of storage (>8mb). Mp3 players don't jump/skip. Light on power. Currently using a minidisk
> > player. Doesn't jump when riding on the road, quality of playbak is good and has remote
> > controls. Build in rechargable battery.
>
>
>
> Do you find the music distracting (eg cant hear traffic around you, or lose concentration when a
> good song comes on...)??
>
> I've refrained from listening to music on my bike until now, cos I always thought it would
> distract me.

It's a tough one. It's not disimilar to listening to the radio/CD in a car but, as we all know,
cyclists do need to be a little more aware of the world around them, so having ear plugs in (let
alone if they're pumping sound out) will impede your ability to hear.

I'll use my iPod on longer rides, but almost never in town on my commute. There's just too much
important stuff I'd miss that I wouldn't feel safe. Out on country lanes, I might be kidding myself,
but it just doesn't seem so dangerous.

The other option is to listen in only one ear - so you get music and the environment

 

[Mark Van Gorkom]

> > Currently using a minidisk player. Doesn't jump when riding on the road, quality of playbak is
> > good and has remote controls. Build in rechargable battery.

If it's a Sony, better give it a generous helping of Loctite; mine lost several (very small) screws.
Mind, that was on a Brompton, on Irish roads...

>Do you find the music distracting (eg cant hear traffic around you, or lose concentration when a
>good song comes on...)??

One more reason to have (and use!) a mirror.

Mark van Gorkom.

 

[dailuggs]

think i will go for that ipod, sounds superb!
as for illegal mp3 making honestly who cares, none of my music has been bought- all downloaded or copied form m8's, i will not be a slave to the music industry's ridiculous prices, and all the **** about the industry collapsing what tripe- music is bigger than ever in this country and developed to what it is from the lp and tape sales before cd's came about- when they were making less profit. dont get me wrong the artists deserve the money, but im sure bob marley (if he were alive) wouldnt object to my illegal mp3's of his- any money he got he gave away to the needy, and all the other atrists i listen to do it for the love of music and not the money!
sorry for the rant but these record companies really **** me off- take sony, one of the largest record companies and one of the biggest producers of blank cd's. hmm... if it cared so much about the *collapse* of the music industry surely it should stop producing the cd media and the hardware that is apparently leading to its downfall. the downfall is because people are fed up of paying ridiculous prices. if i can get 160 hours of music on my ipod thats about 160 albums, which will cost me less than 40 pounds but will cost those who legally buy there music over 2k!
so is it worth paying 2k to stick your nose up high and say you dont rip off artists hard earned work, think about it!

i really had better stop ranting now because im sure your bored and have probably heard it all before anyway!

P&L

Jim

 

[pineapple]

Originally posted by pineapple
Do you find the music distracting (eg cant hear traffic around you, or lose concentration when a good song comes on...)??

I've refrained from listening to music on my bike until now, cos I always thought it would distract me.

I think I've pretty much answered my own question. Had my first crash last Sunday - got nailed by a van on a roundabout. Luckily the only damage was to my knee and his bumper, but I think that's pretty much discouraged me from doing anything other than concentrating on the road.

 

[Dirtylitterboxo]

>I think I've pretty much answered my own question. Had my first crash last Sunday - got nailed by a
>van on a roundabout. Luckily the only damage was to my knee and his bumper, but I think that's
>pretty much discouraged me from doing anything other than concentrating on the road.

I'm glad you weren't seriously hurt - just sorry you had to find out the hard way that ears are for
listening out for traffic, when on the bike!

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$