While it occurs to me...

[alexpgp]

Here's a hypothetical for you:

You routinely rip music CDs that you have purchased to MP3 so that you can listen to the music on a portable player. Subsequently, your apartment is broken into and your CDs are stolen. Are you obligated to destroy the MP3s? Why or why not?

Variant 2: A fire destroys your CD collection. Are you obligated to destroy the MP3s? Why or why not?

Another hypothetical:

It is fairly easy to construct a device that uses infrared-emitting LEDs to cause one's face to show up as a white blob on standard suveillance system cameras, making facial identification impossible. Should wearing such a device on a public street be considered an offense? Why or why not?

Additional blue books are available at the back of the room, next to that 55-gallon drum of grog with the ladle hanging off the rim.

Cheers...

Comments

[platofish.livejournal.com]

Re: CDs....my opinion, or the opinion of the law? Obviously, like any reasonable person I assume I bought the 'rights' to listen to the music when ever I want (ie. I don't own it, but have unfettered access). So, whether this is on a CD, DVD, iPod, computer....its irrelevant. I paid someone a fee to have that right (the same is true of buying mp3s online, I don't think it is an issue to burn them onto a CD to listen to in the car). Whether this is the law or now, I'm not sure, and it wouldn't matter to me if it wasn't!

In parts of the UK - where surveillance is the norm -

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] can't>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Re: CDs....my opinion, or the opinion of the law? Obviously, like any reasonable person I assume I bought the 'rights' to listen to the music when ever I want (ie. I don't own it, but have unfettered access). So, whether this is on a CD, DVD, iPod, computer....its irrelevant. I paid someone a fee to have that right (the same is true of buying mp3s online, I don't think it is an issue to burn them onto a CD to listen to in the car). Whether this is the law or now, I'm not sure, and it wouldn't matter to me if it wasn't!

In parts of the UK - where surveillance is the norm - <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4561399.stm"you can't wear a hooded sweatshirt or baseball caps since they obscure your face</a>. So, I'm guessing it would be equally prohibited to use LEDs. As for being illegal I'm not sure....in the UK its illegal to carry tools that could be used for a burglary, so in that frame of mind it might be technically illegal to obscure your face with IR LEDs.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well my MP3 hypothetical was prompted by the reasoning that, if the law grants the right of an individual to make a copy of purchased music for either archival purposes or the purpose of making it playable on certain devices (and you're right, this applies to media in general), then there exists a "link" between the original and the copy.

If one supports the idea of fair use copying, then it seems to me that, if one one sells the original medium, one ought to destroy the copies. But what if the original medium is stolen? or destroyed?

Your link is, with effort, reachable, and frankly, it doesn't surprise me. I read an article earlier today where an octagenarian woman was stopped from photographing an empty children's wading pool in some UK town on the grounds that she might be a pedophile. Still, it's interesting that in some jurisdictions, it's apparently against the law to not remain identifiable in a public place. (I wonder what the rule is when it rains? No umbrellas?)

Cheers...

[mkay422.livejournal.com]

Based on your questions I reckon you hadn't spent enough time in Russia yet. (smile)

Long Live the Freedom of Content!

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well, I do describe these as hypothetical situations, don't I? :^)

(And come to think of it, the fact of my having come up with these questions is probably indicative of my having spent too much time over here. <wink>)

Cheers...

[mkay422.livejournal.com]

You are right :)