One of the very cool things about being an attorney (which I am not) is that a perfectly legitimate case can be created for either side of an argument.GordMackenzie wrote:... be very careful with that, Chip. I don't believe that is, in fact, correct. Fair use (Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107) states:
This is the whole principle of DRM. You are expressly NOT allowed to make unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work, except in the cases stated of the above. You'll note that "personal use" or "convenience" are NOT stated. There is no such protection under the law. Therefore Vee cannot legally make a copy of an NPR broadcast for his personal use."the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"
For instance, this situation is substantively identical to the use of TiVO machines to record television programs. The programs themselves are digital, and you're creating a digital copy for personal use. These new digital video recorders are doing a land-office business and are being used to create copies of material which generally IS being sold in a prerecorded package - as a DVD.
But far from being considered "robbing" the original content producer of income, this practice is encouraged because it demonstrably drives the sales of the DVDs with their Value-Added content. And when you get right down to it, if vee decides he really enjoys these programs, he might well decide to purchase them and save himself the trouble of converting them from the stream.
To use an example from my own life, I love the NPR program Sunday Baroque. I can listen to it via RealStreaming, but I refuse to install that on my machine. Instead I record it directly off the air and put that into my iPod. BUT my local affiliate airs only 2 of the 4 hour-long segments each Sunday. If it were available, and not outrageously overpriced, I'd happily purchase this thing every week.
I believe that he does. In the world of practical reality, the issue hinges of course on where the money lies. The recent example of the RIAA shooting themselves in the foot with their too-aggressive defense of their rights actually driving revenues DOWN stands as a warning to others who refuse to embrace new business models. The even more recent example of Sony's installation of rootkits on their CDs and the public reaction to it is another. Considering the fact that the vast bulk of NPR's revenue stream depends on the goodwill of the listening public, I think they'd be reticent to try to interpret the law in a way which would adversely impact those listeners. NPR is obviously making money already on the Audible sales. They aren't going to be too aggressive in this instance.GordMackenzie wrote:I do not believe he has the "right" to make a recording of the stream and then save it in a different format for his convenience, especially when others are paying for that same convenience.
Considering the malleability of the Law in this area, there's really no "right" or "wrong" here. Both perspectives are valid.