thanks for this wrath.
so are you insinuating that this effort is illegal?
at best, as the form and substance of the discussion proves, it is questionable.
i think we are in an interesting quagmire here, and i personally am much interested in finding out on which court the ball lays on these kinds of things. international, particularly US, media nowadays is fraught with discussions of intellectual property, in light of the ever-expanding
knowledge-economy, which is in one way or another part and parcel of the philosophies of tech heavyweights like Google, IBM, and Bill Gates.
I was particularly intrigued by an article of digital piracy on the "Issues 2006" Newsweek Special Edition which had the chin-scratching, hmmm-inducing byline:
"When Louis Armstrong borrowed from his peers, the law smiled on him. So why does it look upon his successors as digital criminals?"In the end, my curiosity centers on the eternal dilemma: Where to draw the line. (between legality and good intentions)
(note also that Google and Amazon.com also face issues of a similar nature, with their respective visionary projects Google Books and Amazon Pages)
or illegal only if you use NERO?
apparently, per the disclaimer in Ahead's EULA, the protection of intellectual property takes precedence, as should be the case with all reproduction software and hardware.