Saving your music

[Tifany]

(2010-07-23 10:46)ianbak Wrote:  

(2010-07-23 10:41)jfp Wrote:  no I have in the french law system a saving copy right for my own

Yes, but surely that right disappears once you no longer own the original CD?

Yes of course, a "saving copy" implies that you own the original...

[jfp]

give me a break
I bought 2000 cd's, hundreds of LP's at 150 francs at the time and sells them 1 euro !!

[Gibson]

(2010-07-23 10:46)ianbak Wrote:  

(2010-07-23 10:41)jfp Wrote:  no I have in the french law system a saving copy right for my own

Yes, but surely that right disappears once you no longer own the original CD?

Same in most common law countries that you are entitled to backup your CD only if you really own one, once you part with ownership, you are no longer entitled to keep copy. However, if you do not keep copy for commercial purpose, there might not be a cause of action against you. Anyway, beware.

[Wammer]

(2010-07-25 15:22)Gibson Wrote:  

(2010-07-23 10:46)ianbak Wrote:  

(2010-07-23 10:41)jfp Wrote:  no I have in the french law system a saving copy right for my own

Yes, but surely that right disappears once you no longer own the original CD?

Same in most common law countries that you are entitled to backup your CD only if you really own one, once you part with ownership, you are no longer entitled to keep copy. However, if you do not keep copy for commercial purpose, there might not be a cause of action against you. Anyway, beware.

My understanding of the law is that technically even making a copy for your own use is illegal, but that the record companies themselves regard this as absurd and would never prosecute. However sharing copyrighted music is a very different matter which they take a dim view of, and selling your CDs whilst retaining a copy surely counts as sharing?

I am sure Linn Records (and their lawyers) must have a view on this?

Wammer

[linnrd]

I ought to apologise for being redundant in this post, but since we are talking RAID, I won't.

Repeat again: REDUNDANT =/= BACKUP

When (and not IF) a RAID array gets corrupted your data is, to put it it technical terms, FUBAR. Gone. Bye-bye.

(2010-07-21 18:37)Briain Wrote:  Disks are electromechanical so it's not a matter of 'if' but instead a matter of 'when' will the NAS disk fail; it could be 6 years or it could be in the next 6, minutes but one thing is for sure, computer drives will fail at some point and you will most likely have absolutely no warning before it happens! This certainty applies to all single disk systems (desktop PC, laptop, single disk NAS etc).

Now the frightening thing. Higher level RAID arrays (5+spare, 6, 6+spare) allow more than one drive to fail. Good, eh? Well...these arise only with 4 or more disks. In which case, with 2TB drives one is looking at a minimum of 3.8TB of data at capacity. So...with the AMOUNT of data we store these days, the TIME taken to rebuild a RAID array can be anywhere from 8-10 hours up, during which your drives are CONSTANTLY spinning. And, of course, guess what that does to the potential for failure. It is not that uncommon for the second drive to fail during a rebuild. It is also a good idea to buy the drives for a RAID array from different batches (in case one encounters a duff batch). Paranoia good, data loss bad.

(2010-07-22 11:22)Jim C Wrote:  Seriously though, sage advice from Briain as per usual. A RAID isn't a backup really, and there is no substitute for regular off-siting. If you can automate this process even better.

I tend to agree that the 'holy trinity' of backups is:

• If it’s not automated, it’s not a real backup.
• If it’s not redundant, it’s not a real backup.
• If it’s not regularly rotated off-site, it’s not a real backup.
  

Jim - Linn Records

+1.

(2010-07-23 04:14)KNVB_Guy Wrote:  Just to reiterate (in my opinion) the most important difference between RAID 1 and backup. In the case of a non-physical disaster, meaning a malware or user error that deletes or otherwise corrupts files from your drive, the RAID 1 will instantly mirror these deletions to the other drive(s). Now you have got two or more drives with mirrored yet useless data, even though the hardware has worked exactly as intended. With a backup, you still have all that good data in a safe place. RAID 1 is good in situations where a single drive fails and you need/want an instantaneous failover. Backup can help out when physical failure *and* non-physical data loss occur.

(I wish that this was merely theoretical knowledge in my case.)

The same principle works for backups, which is why it is best to have two backups.

I use a NAS for backing up ALL the valuable data all the computers in my house. Then I back up the NAS via eSata (USB is too slow for the volume). Once a week, I take this external backup to work where I leave it and take the OTHER backup home.

This can get expensive, but if one ONLY considers the time spent tagging audio files and getting artwork organized for a 30,000+ track collection it is worthwhile. Personal data (photographs over the years) is pretty much priceless which is why copies of the digitized family photos dating back to the 1940s are sitting on a drive in a safety deposit box (and on another drive in a fire-proof safe...well...just because.)

---

(2010-07-23 10:25)Tifany Wrote:  

(2010-07-22 11:22)Jim C Wrote:  

(2010-07-21 17:51)jfp Wrote:  I rip I rip and sell my cd's and now I have only 230 GO on the NAS (QNAP turbo 119).

If you are ripping and then selling your CDs and you have a NAS failure without a backup... some might call that karma.

I may be wrong, but if you are ripping and then selling your CDs, some might call that... illegal ?

SOME might call it illegal, but ALL may call it UNETHICAL. It would be a better place if we worked within ethics, because the law CAN be an ass.

[thedevilsbuilder]

Ethics and record companies in the same thread. What is the world coming to. There may be bigger issues out there.

Paul

[Gibson]

Someone is taking advantage of the technology to make copy of the CDs by ripping them and then sell the original source (CD) whilst retaining the copy (files) for enjoyment. Some named it illegal, some said it being unethical only. Anyway, the problem exists for long for copying by whatsoever means into whatsoever format without permission of the IP owner - that is what in law called copyright - infringement of copyright. It is ripping the copyright owner off his rights and benefit he should have.

[mystic fred]

CD's are only worth pennies secondhand so you might as well keep them, a waste of time ripping them as copies will not last and backup files will have to be switched from time to time to avoid mechanical breakdown of portable drives - i binned about 500 copied cd's recently as they started to deteriorate after 10 or 12 years, the originals will last longer maybe 25 years.

.