Qtfairuse 6 2.5
![qtfairuse 6 2.5 qtfairuse 6 2.5](https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-17345-5_3/MediaObjects/215319_1_En_3_Fig6_HTML.gif)
As the Electric Company pointed out, the most important person in the world is YOU, and not some random artist.
![qtfairuse 6 2.5 qtfairuse 6 2.5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/igorskochinskyenpub-140312041852-phpapp02/95/secret-of-intel-management-engine-by-igor-skochinsky-16-638.jpg)
Just give me all the DRM-free music I can handle, baby!". Make no mistake - it's perfectly acceptable to say something like "I don't give fuck all if an artist makes $15 or $150 or $1500 a month. If you would miss that $150 a month - or, better put, if you would be angry if somebody cheated you out of $150 on the rationale that they thought you didn't need it - then it's a safe assumption that your favorite artist would, too. But the reality is that the typical recording artist has a standard of living that's much closer to your own (and quite likely worse) than the image you might have from watching MTV. Now, you might think that $150 means nothing to your average recording artist, and that they can easily eat this loss. Sell a thousand tracks a month and that's $150 per month, vs. They refuse to tell.īy comparison, an iTunes sale will net the artist around $0.15. However, the Russian sites refuse to divulge which tracks are being downloaded. Divide that by the tens of thousands of tracks they sell per month, and it's hundredths of a cent. The licensing fees that the Russian sites pay are estimated to be on the order of a few hundred bucks a month. I can trust that as much as I trust the riaa sending its 'cut' to its artists." "finally, the russians do claim that they are sending a percent of the fees to the artists.
![qtfairuse 6 2.5 qtfairuse 6 2.5](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5889e820-dba4-45d3-9359-3af500fe9781/spe2479-fig-0016-m.jpg)
Every time you play a song in iTunes, the program is making an unprotected copy in memory, and this program is simply a means to KEEP that copy. The point is, the transformation from a protected copy to an unprotected copy is done explicitly how the copyright holder has given permission for it to be done. I'm not saying it's an iron-clad argument or anything, but it certainly could be argued on very technical grounds, and that's a large part of what lawyers do- argue about the wording and meaning of laws in a very technical way. There's no circumvention of the controlled access to the work, because it's an issue of what the user who has controlled access does with that access. The user is then copying that copy in accordance with fair use. It's being decoded into memory in the correct and legal means, and you then have a legally decoded copy in memory. The technicality here, of course, is that you are gaining access to the copyrighted work with permission of the copyright owner and through the approved method. Oh yeah, as if lawyers never exploit technicalities. Ha-ha! Got you!" works about as well as I've made it sound. When you play the law game, the argument of the form "Look, there's a definition of X in the dictionary, under which X didn't happen. Understanding the DMCA better is a necessary step in fighting it.) You need to understand there is a distinction between what the laws says and what you wish it said. But I also think you can't fight against something you don't understand you just make yourself sound like an idiot. I strongly disagree with outlawing technologies and actions I think the law in this area should merely concern itself with results. (Do not confuse this post with DMCA advocacy. Especially if you go in there claiming that it's somehow impossible for a "mere memory dump" to constitute circumvention, when it is clearly one of many types of transform wherein you put a protected work in one end, and get an unprotected work out the other. But saying it'd be an uphill battle is putting it lightly. `(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.If you think you can convince a judge that this isn't textbook circumvention, hey, go for it. `(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner and