|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 131 of 219:
| 
Mar 14 17:29 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 132 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:31 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 133 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:37 UTC 2002 |
#130> By all means, post the relevant portion of intellectual property law
that indicates that copying must be for profit, or for strangers, for it to
be illegal.
#132> Then make illegal copies, and say it doesn't matter to you that it's
illegal. Don't pretend it's legal, though. That's all I'm saying. (Truth is,
it doesn't matter that much to RIAA when people are doing it just for their
friends and acquiantances... they know it goes on, it annoys them, but it
would be worth more trouble and be more of a PR nightmare to try seriously
to stop it than it's worth.)
|
krj
|
|
response 134 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:50 UTC 2002 |
From the RIAA's interpretation of the Audio Home Recording Act:
( http://www.riaa.org/Copyright-Laws-4.cfm )
"This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright
violations when they record music for private, non-commercial use."
As the RIAA is about as anti-copying a group as you can find, I hope
that will be sufficient.
Hopefully I won't have to go buy a Washington Post reprint to come
up with the rather heated exchange between Orrin Hatch and Hilary Rosen
on what sorts of music copying are fair use. Hatch, as a principal
author of the DMCA, can be considered an expert on congressional
intent.
|
brighn
|
|
response 135 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:51 UTC 2002 |
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: to
distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by
sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under
clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound
recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly
recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/114.html)
So, Ken, do point me to where in the law it says, "... except for friends and
family." Maybe Twila would argue that it falls under "comment" as "fair use,"
but remember that fair use does not allow reproduction of an *entire* work,
only a portion:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include the amount and substantiality
of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
[Code edited for ease of reading, but not altered. Original code available
at the links provided.]
|
brighn
|
|
response 136 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:56 UTC 2002 |
Ah, ok:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
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
... I stand corrected, then. Carry on, Twila.
|
krj
|
|
response 137 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:56 UTC 2002 |
Sorry, but if you have decided to ignore the existance of the
Audio Home Recording Act there is no point in continuing a discussion.
|
krj
|
|
response 138 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:57 UTC 2002 |
(136 slipped in)
|
brighn
|
|
response 139 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:57 UTC 2002 |
Your post slipped in, Ken. I just conceded. Give me a break.
|
bru
|
|
response 140 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:57 UTC 2002 |
so If I copy a song onto a tape and take to a party, and then one of the
attendees says to me, "can I borrow the tape", to let them do so is illegal?
|
brighn
|
|
response 141 of 219:
|
Mar 14 17:57 UTC 2002 |
Yes, it slip in, Ken. I see your apology didn't.
|
flem
|
|
response 142 of 219:
|
Mar 14 18:05 UTC 2002 |
If the music industry were just trying to protect themselves by identifying
and bringing lawsuits against people who pirate music, I'd be a lot more
sympathetic. Instead, they're trying to buy laws (which I find objectionable
in the first place) to regulate in severe and short-sighted ways industries
that are only tangentially related. I honestly think this is a case of
outlawing short skirts because they lead to rape.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 143 of 219:
|
Mar 14 18:06 UTC 2002 |
I am a legitimate user. I have never downloaded or listened to any
music on the Internet that wasn't licensed to do so, and I own no CDs
not commercially purchased.
Yet I still feel I'm being lectured at by Michael Greene. Why?
Because of his assumption that all users are "shoplifters".
Because of the proposed draconian solutions to this problem, which
would make it impossible for me to listen to my own legitimately
purchased music the way I want for my own purposes - not passing it on
to anyone else or doing anything even remotely unethical, let alone
illegal.
Some software anti-piracy fixes - I know this is planned for e-book
downloads - would tie the software to the machine it's downloaded to.
This means that if my hardware breaks or I buy a new one or anything of
the sort, I can no longer use my legitimately purchased software. Nor
can I buy it and then sell it or give it as a gift to someone else,
activities that have always been both legal and moral with hard-copy
books and records.
|
brighn
|
|
response 144 of 219:
|
Mar 14 18:09 UTC 2002 |
#140> I had thought so, but in 1992, Congress made it legal, as Ken has
demosntrated.
#142> I agree, actually. I find the RIAA acting very collusionarily and
egregiously. Then again, I can understand some of their panic in the face of
Napster, a situation nobody was really prepared to process. But they have
nice, calm, nonpanicking lawyers who should know better. Supposedly.
|
brighn
|
|
response 145 of 219:
|
Mar 14 18:10 UTC 2002 |
#143> I don't feel like I'm being lectured by Michael Greene. Maybe you're
feeling so because you're paranoid...? *shrug*
|
krj
|
|
response 146 of 219:
|
Mar 14 19:01 UTC 2002 |
Flem in resp:142 brings up an interesting argument, one which Napster
attempted to raise in its defense. The court swatted it down without
much comment, which I think is unfortunate and wrong.
Napster is being sued for CONTRIBUTORY copyright infringement.
They are not accused of making infringing copies themselves; they are
accused of contributing to the infringing activities of others.
But who are the others? No Napster user has ever been successfully
sued or criminally convicted of copyright infringement. Without a
legal decision establishing the primary infringement, how can there
be a legal judgement of CONTRIBUTORY infringement? Napster argued
that the file sharing its users did fell into the category of
"private and non-commercial" copying.
("Contributory infringement" is what was alleged by the copyright
industry in the Sony Betamax case. More commonly it's seen in
cases like flea markets where the owners of the market know that
infringing goods are being sold.)
(Speaking of the Betamax case: it's worth reiterating how
close the USA came to banning the VCR. The Supreme Court decision
in the Betamax case was only 5-4 in favor of allowing the machines to be
sold, and to come up with that decision the Court engaged in some
pretty outrageous law-making, arbitrarily ruling that time-shifting
did not count as copyright infringement even though it involved
the physical production of an unauthorized copy. Those of you
who, like brighn, have a moral objection to the unauthorized duplication
of copyrighted material really need to disable the recording function
on your VCR.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 147 of 219:
|
Mar 14 19:21 UTC 2002 |
Does somebody else have to be found guilty of a crime for me to be found
guilty of abetting the crime? I honestly don't know. Napster clearly had
commercial gain in mind... why would it go through all this nightmare for
pure altruism? I think the code that Ken pointed to, while applicable to the
case, is poorly written, because it goes beyond "fair use" in letter, but I
don't think it was intended to. Putting a copyrighted piece of music on my
website is no more (or less) appropriate than putting a copyrighted piece of
text, but the latter is illegal, but the former doesn't appear to be, so long
as my website isn't a commercial venture.
Reading the code, I think we'd be a lot better off if we just tore up sizable
portions off the intellectual property code and started over, WITHOUT the
interference from either the RIAA or the Napsterites. That's not going to
happen, though.
|
krj
|
|
response 148 of 219:
|
Mar 14 20:07 UTC 2002 |
A web site may be non-commercial but it is not considered private.
People have gotten in legal trouble for putting copyrighted music
on their web site.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 149 of 219:
|
Mar 14 23:34 UTC 2002 |
I've said it before, but it's worth saying again:
Fair use is *really* complicated, the outcome of a fair use case can be hard
to predict, and you only get to find out whether your specific case was fair
use at trial.
|
brighn
|
|
response 150 of 219:
|
Mar 15 03:05 UTC 2002 |
#148> The code quoted in #136 doesn't use the word "private," so if websites
are no good, neither is distributing copies to friends. Reading it again, the
code in #136 doesn't say anything about distribution. It says that I'm
permitted to make copies for non-commercial purposes, it doesn't say I'm
allowed to distribute them to anyone.
#149> Fair use is really compicated, but there are clear cases.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 151 of 219:
|
Mar 15 05:42 UTC 2002 |
True -- but making a mix CD and giving it to a friend isn't one of them.
|
krj
|
|
response 152 of 219:
|
Mar 15 05:55 UTC 2002 |
I have one last word for Paul: "Publishing."
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 153 of 219:
|
Mar 15 06:01 UTC 2002 |
Well, that's an interesting word. Have you found a good definition of it in
the copyright context?
|
krj
|
|
response 154 of 219:
|
Mar 15 06:35 UTC 2002 |
Not explicitly, no, but it would seem to be bound up with the phrasing
in Paul's resp:135, where the law talks about the exclusive right to
"distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work TO THE PUBLIC"
(emphasis mine).
|
krj
|
|
response 155 of 219:
|
Mar 15 07:25 UTC 2002 |
Salon ran an overview of the SSSCA arguments yesterday, and today there
is one in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/14PROT.html
"Piracy, or Innovation? It's Hollywood vs. High Tech"
One quote from down deep in the article:
> Several technology producers already offer copy-protection
> systems that media companies can use when they
> sell their content in a digital form. What the companies
> are looking for, in essence, is a second line of defense for
> material posted on the Internet by someone who breaks the
> original security system, or records a movie in a
> theater with a camcorder, or steals a copy from the studio.
>
> One proposal calls for a digital "watermark" -- a kind
> of label undetectable to the human eye or ear -- to be
> embedded in every piece of digital media, carrying
> instructions about whether it can be played or copied. Every
> computer and electronic media player would be designed
> to obey those instructions, and TO REFUSE TO PLAY
> ANYTHING THAT DID NOT CONTAIN A WATERMARK. That would
> mean that even camcorders would have to be redesigned
> to imprint watermarks on home videos. ((emphasis krj))
The 20 years' worth of "installed base" of CDs do not have watermarks,
nor do the 3-4 years' worth of DVDs. Wonderful, there is a proposal in
play to make most music sold in the last 20 years unplayable.
|
