Copyright Law, the interpretation of Options

[sadolakced acid]

Alright, let's keep this a debate, not just stating opinions. that's important.
don't just state your opinion, support it

alright. here's some background

Copyright law prohibits the copying of Digital audio for commercial use. Copying of audio for personal use is allowed, but only first generation copies may be made (copies of the original) second generation copies are illegal (copies of copies). however, computers allow this, and thus the RIAA has said that using your computer to copy digital audio, no matter first or second gen. copies, is illegal. this was ruled as incorrect and not what the law says by a court.

First off, the obvious, is whether or not ripping your CDs to MP3s is illegal

also, is downloading music from online illegal? (copyright law only mentions distributing, not taking)

and, do new CDs that prevent ripping to MP3s, and DRM (digital rights management) WMAs violate the user right to copy?

[sadolakced acid]

ehh. more reasons why copy protection is stupid:

creed's CD human clay was the top downloaded CD from p2p networks when it was released. i've borrowed a copy, and am trying to listen to it.

it's copy protected.

guess what. i can't burn it to my mp3 player. so i'm not going to listen to it. and because of that, i'm not going to buy the CD.

you'll say i wouldn't have bought the CD anyways if i could have burned it- well; here's a some CDs i've burned that i'm intending to buy:

breaking benjamin- saturate
evanescence- fallen
sum 41- chuck

bleh. i'd be even more pissed off it i bought the CD and couldn't rip it.