OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

[Linonut]

Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

* jim fired off this tart reply:

> (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )
>
> January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
> RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
> Posted by Greg Sandoval
>
> An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
> sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
> that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
> computer.

Best not to leap to conclusions, then. Sigh.

--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.

 

[Rick]

Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

jim wrote> computers.
>
> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
> as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
> repeated Fisher's claims.
>
Take a deep breath and count to 10--then ask yourself how could this be
enforced?

Rick

 

[Rick]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>> surprise you.
>
> found 'em:
>
> Jury Instructions found here:
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>
>
> And the debate over it:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>
>
> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
> owner's exclusive copyright."
>
> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
> Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive.
> It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger
> internet or to who.
>
> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
> really has driven over a cliff.
>
>
How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
work? I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.

Rick

 

[Daave]

HeyBub wrote:

> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).

You can't equate songs with programs as the laws pertaining to them are
different.

Just because you don't own the rights to the song (which means
collecting royalties) doesn't mean you don't own that particular copy of
the song. And you are free to do whatever you want with that song as
long as if falls under Fair Use. And that certainly includes ripping an
MP3 off a CD to put on your iPod.

 

[Rick]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.
>> The RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to
>> mp3s on his computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share
>> folder.
>
> ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)
>
> Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's
> the Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court.
> What I think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a
> link to that here:
>
> http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html
>
> The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not
> really about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the
> world those songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with
> KaZaA, I think he's toast.
exactly
Rick

 

[Rick]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Anteaus wrote:
> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
> to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
> demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>
>
>

Do not let Microsoft see this

Rick

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:
> bb wrote:
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>>> surprise you.
>>
>> found 'em:
>>
>> Jury Instructions found here:
>> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>>
>>
>> And the debate over it:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>>
>>
>> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
>> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
>> owner's exclusive copyright."
>>
>> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is
>> suing Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared
>> drive. It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the
>> bigger internet or to who.
>>
>> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
>> really has driven over a cliff.
>>
>>
> How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
> work? I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
> idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
> very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.
>
> Rick


That is what they desire though. They won't go to
court on those desires at this time because they
know they won't win. But gradually erode these
points-DRM, DMCA, amongst other laws that have
passed in some states and countries- and
eventually the road will be smoothed out.
caver1

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:
> Anteaus wrote:
>> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was
>> designed to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such
>> that I could demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>>
>>
>
> Do not let Microsoft see this
>
> Rick



MS already has a patent that if they decide to
change the contract that you agreed to when you
purchased/installed the software they can
remotely, over the internet, shut your software down.
Overriding any settings you may have set.
Remember this is a patent only. Not in use as far
as they tell.
caver1

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

Rick wrote:
> jim wrote> computers.
>>
>> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
>> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of
>> people
>> as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
>> repeated Fisher's claims.
>>
> Take a deep breath and count to 10--then ask yourself how could this be
> enforced?
>
> Rick]

Remember the Sony rootkits?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[... et al.]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:

> bb wrote:
>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>>> surprise you.
>>
>> found 'em:
>>
>> Jury Instructions found here:
>> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>>
>>
>> And the debate over it:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>>
>>
>> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
>> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
>> owner's exclusive copyright."
>>
>> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is
>> suing Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared
>> drive. It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the
>> bigger internet or to who.
>>
>> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
>> really has driven over a cliff.
>>
>>
> How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
> work?

No problem.
One of the founding members of RIAA is the Sony Megacorp.
You know, the entity that had one of their black-ops divisions
create a malware that they then, free of charge, included on
select CDs that with the help of Microsofts Autorun/Autoplay
technology infects your Windows OS as soon as the CD is inserted.
( I saw it mentioned in another part of this thread, but thought
it needed to be mentioned here as well. )


> I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
> idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
> very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.


--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[HeyBub]

caver1 wrote:
>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>
>>
>
>
> There is no contract when you buy music or a
> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
> the fair use rights the law has given.
> There are contracts with software but even those
> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
> granted.

You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:

Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.

When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.

The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
"fair use" does. It doesn't.

"Fair use" copying is available for:

1. Criticism,
2. Comment,
3. News reporting,
4. Teaching, or
5. Scholarship.

That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.

There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).

 

[Daave]

HeyBub wrote:
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
> or other things we talk about here.

Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm

 

[Thufir]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:31:11 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> here is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under
> different laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).

In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main
purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report
explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers
to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their
private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added).
The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008,
which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and
analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely
makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files
that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-
shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use
under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying
is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the
purposes of the Act.[20]


rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exceptions



Seems that so long as it's non-commercial that you can do what you like.



-Thufir

 

[caver1]

HeyBub wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no contract when you buy music or a
>> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
>> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
>> the fair use rights the law has given.
>> There are contracts with software but even those
>> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
>> granted.
>
> You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
> started:
>
> Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
> duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
> majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
> acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
> constraints.
>
> When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
> condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
> transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.
>
> The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
> "fair use" does. It doesn't.
>
> "Fair use" copying is available for:
>
> 1. Criticism,
> 2. Comment,
> 3. News reporting,
> 4. Teaching, or
> 5. Scholarship.
>
> That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
> extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.
>
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
> laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
>
>


Fair use also covers time shifting and space
shifting. There are no contracts when buying
music, movies. All fair use decisions on are a
case by case basis. What on case is decided by
the court dose not mean that the next case is the
same so that decision may or may not apply.
The Beta max case fell under fair use not under
the home recording act.
fair use falls under limitations and exceptions
to copyright term in copyrite law. Which is
decided by the courts on a case by case basis.
Your list of five are guide lines that mention
some of the ways copyrited material can be used.
They are not listed in the law. There are others.
still a case by case basis.
The 4 factors in the law are
the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes
the nature of the copyrighted work
amount and substantially of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and
the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work.
caver1

 

[caver1]

HeyBub wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no contract when you buy music or a
>> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
>> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
>> the fair use rights the law has given.
>> There are contracts with software but even those
>> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
>> granted.
>
> You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
> started:
>
> Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
> duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
> majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
> acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
> constraints.
>
> When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
> condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
> transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.
>
> The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
> "fair use" does. It doesn't.
>
> "Fair use" copying is available for:
>
> 1. Criticism,
> 2. Comment,
> 3. News reporting,
> 4. Teaching, or
> 5. Scholarship.
>
> That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
> extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.
>
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
> laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
>
>


All of these fall under copyright laws as they
amend legal and non legal uses of copywrite.
Fair use falls under them all. Still decided on a
case by case basis.
RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.
caver1

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

HeyBub wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no contract when you buy music or a
>> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
>> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
>> the fair use rights the law has given.
>> There are contracts with software but even those
>> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
>> granted.
>
> You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
> started:
>
> Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce.

Speaking of software licenses, this point right here is the first
problem. If the license is unconscionable, it is unenforceable.

> Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved.

Post shrink wrap licenses rarely have this.

> Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
> duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
> majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
> acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
> constraints.
>
> When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
> condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
> transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.
>
> The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
> "fair use" does. It doesn't.
>
> "Fair use" copying is available for:
>
> 1. Criticism,
> 2. Comment,
> 3. News reporting,
> 4. Teaching, or
> 5. Scholarship.
>
> That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
> extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.
>
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
> laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
>
>

So really there is 'fair use' copying of music CDs, but it's just
covered under a different law.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Daave wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
>> or other things we talk about here.
>
> Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,

But there is for software distributions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.


> there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
> use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.
>
> Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
> MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm
>
>


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[caver1]

HeyBub wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no contract when you buy music or a
>> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
>> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
>> the fair use rights the law has given.
>> There are contracts with software but even those
>> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
>> granted.
>
> You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
> started:
>
> Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
> duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
> majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
> acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
> constraints.



The courts first have to decide if there is a
legal binding contract. Then they have to decide
if it was broken and if so by which party. Then if
the parties haven't settled out of court decide
what the remedy is.
There is no contract that the RIAA can take you to
court for breaking because there is non.
Back to the car analogies. You buy a car you
break the law by speeding. yes you can be taken to
court and fined but there was contract with the
state or anyone when you bought the car.
Under law you still must use it properly as set
out in law.
There are laws that have granted certain rights to
the user under fair use. There are others that
also set limits such as copyright infringement.
But these laws do not make for a contract between
you and the RIAA or Sony,UMI, etc.
caver1

 

[Daave]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Daave wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
>>> or other things we talk about here.
>>
>> Although there may be no fair use exemption for software
>> distributions,
>
> But there is for software distributions:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."

I guess I should have just said "is."

(Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)

 

[caver1]

Daave wrote:
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
>>>> or other things we talk about here.
>>> Although there may be no fair use exemption for software
>>> distributions,
>> But there is for software distributions:
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>
> Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."
>
> I guess I should have just said "is."
>
> (Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)
>
>

This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
United States Code

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging
infringement of copyright based on the
manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio
recording medium, an analog recording device, or
an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
or medium for making digital musical recordings or
analog musical recordings.

If you cannot have action brought against you
under this code for non commercial use for making
those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
of cds.
caver1