Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sues Company For Selling Pre-Loaded iPods
ColinPL writes, "The MPAA has launched yet another 'defensive attack,' this time on a small business that is pre-loading movie DVDs onto iPods and reselling them. The original DVDs of the movies that are loaded are also given to the customer. The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation."
While i Feel sympathetic for the Company under fire, this is only good news for consumers, when my mother read this she thought it was shocking and is appauled at the DMCA, having not known what it meant before
Stories in the press like this only hurt the Big bad Companys, by raising awareness
The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation.
This is essentially the same way they sued mp3.com into the ground, and yet another example of why the DMCA is such a fucking horrible law. There's no damage being done here except to the iron grip the MPAA exerts over movie distribution.
They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
no i think this is exactly what we need to get this stupid law overturned. this is clearly an infringement on the user's fair use right. no one is "stealing" any content, merely shifting the content from one format to another. the mpaa gets its money, the user gets the content, a third party is making money for the service of shifting it.
The MP3.com case (remember that one) seemed to hinge on the fact that even though the service was trying to verify that consumers already owned the CDs, they were doing the actual ripping from a copy that the service had purchased.
Now we've heard that space-shifting falls under fair use, as long as you don't distribute the copy. This is the principle under which it's legal to rip tracks from your own CDs and load them on your iPod.
Now, we've got someone who is oofering (1) a legit copy of the music and (2) a service that will take your DVD and transfer it to your iPod. All copies made under fair use are transferred at the same time.
Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?
It's disabled because the MPAA is sueing Slashdot for copyright infringement.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Much as this sounds like a convenient service, I think the MPAA is completely legally right here: making copies is an exclusive right under copyright, so this is a regular copyright violation; copies for noncommercial format shifting purposes by the end-user might be "fair use"—IIRC, format-shifting hasn't been conclusively litigated—but that's not what is happening here. And DVD copy protection is pretty clearly covered under the DMCA, and bypassing it is a DMCA violation.
Should the law be changed to allow this? Perhaps, certainly I wouldn't object to deep sixing the DMCA, or to writing some kind of reasonable express format-shifting protection into the law, though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)
This shouldn't be a surprise after what happened to CleanFlicks
Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They didn't ask, "Mother, may I?" or Simon didn't say, "Preload movie for consumer." Fair Use be damned.
In future plans, the MPAA will be suing people who have unauthorised memories of watching movies as that constitutes illegal copying to memory. From then on, brain surgeons will wait outside theaters to scoop out people's brains.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.
If you are not licensed to use the legitimate key to decrypt the video stream, and you use it, it is likely that what you are doing is illegal.
The DMCA was signed into law by Clinton. If you know nothing about American politics, shut the fuck up.
This case may end up depending on: (answer what you want)
(1) Does the market allow for the selling of an iPod and a separate DVD disc?
(2) Does the market allow for someone to buy a movie onto their iPod?
(3) What is the difference between a movie on a DVD and a movie on an iPod? Are a distributor's rights changed?
(4) Can a business do for users what they can do for themselves? For example, rip a DVD copy onto a viewing device?
(5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?
I bet there are some non-intuitive answers that the RIAA would put up there.
It doesn't need to be. The Legislature has already spoken. See Title 17 Section 1008 of the U.S. Code:
(Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected. Note that the definition of "digital audio recorder" seem to include MP3 players or iPods. The grey area in this case is that it's not the consumer who's doing the transfer, it's the company selling the equipment.
My blog
It does something (completely unintuitive and impossible to grok) if you hit the checkbox to enable testing the horrible new discussion system. In regular mode it indeed sticks to just generating javascript errors.
Yep, I've no doubt that with these new laws, someone pirating music or movies will get done for both copyright infringement and breaking copy protection. Likewise, I'm sure there are laws that cover the way retailers can distribute media - this is no different to a movie rental company renting out retail DVDs that have "Not for rental" stamped on the back cover.
All this is about is a demonstration by the MPAA to "scare" people into not format shifting the stuff they've bought - after all, the MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc would much rather you rebought all your movies and music everytime a new format is released, or, even better, have you the consumer treat them (the movie and record companies) like a utility company in as much as you rent what you want for a period that lasts as long as you pay rental.
I rip my DVDs to DivX and my CDs to MP3 for portability purposes and this case is not going to change that behaviour one iota. In just the same way that nobody has ever been incriminated for lending a friend a CD or a DVD, I defy any court in any country to prove that any of the format shifting I do has caused any big fat corporation to lose any money - which ultimately is what all these laws are about.
This iPod retailer will be subject to certain rules and regulations meaning that they cannot legally offer format shifted media, even if they hand out the original DVD and that is what the MPAA will get them on.
But they don't stand a hope in hell of making anything like this stick on a private citizen who has done this with media they've legally purchased.
There really is *NOTHING* to see here...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Since I haven't found an explanation elsewhere...
:)
One and four either shows the parent and its replies or the collapsed parent and a message stating "4 hidden comments" or whatever.
Two toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click and any of its children that don't meet your threshold or something.
Three basically just toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click, but doesn't modify its children, except from when you're going from four to three, in which case it collapses ones that don't meet the threshold.
The difference between one and four is that in One, upon expanding a comment, if one of the children was collapsed before, it will stay collapsed, while number Four expands all the children too.
I vote for One or Two...
It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.
No, copyright is about making money distributing copies. The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.
Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law. If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?
There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law. Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.
The enemies of Democracy are
No, the key doesn't matter per se. It's what's done with it and how it became available that is relevant. Otherwise your argument would be akin to saying that if someone loses their house key by accident, it's not illegal for you to use it to go into their house; obviously, that's a loser of an argument.
The copyright holders authorized DVDCCA to sub-authorize decryption. DVDCCA has sub-authorized certain manufacturers to make decryption devices, if they conform to certain criteria DVDCCA has set forth (e.g. respect UOP instructions on the disc), and users who use those devices in their stock configurations, with all the DRM turned on, etc.
Use anything else, or use those things in the wrong ways, and you're circumventing. It doesn't matter whether you use the same key the authorized player uses; you aren't authorized to use it that way.
I would suggest reading the excellent essay What Colour Are Your Bits? for some illumination into kinds of distinctions the law typically makes.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Orrin Hatch got this piece of crap introduced and passed and has also taken almost $400K From the entertainment lobby.
America, best government money can buy®
The key is not 'legitimate' because you aren't licensed to use it. It doesn't matter that it's an actual decryption key. If you found the key by brute-force hacking it would be the same key, and still illegal to use.
The DMCA is such a fucking stupid law. I break it every time I watch a DVD on my computer, a DVD that in each and every case I paid in full for. Good thing I don't mistake legality for morality, or might feel bad!
The enemies of Democracy are
What a disappointingly naive response. There's no value this post brings to the discussion. And barring your typo in DMCA, it wasn't the Bush administration that signed DMCA into law.
/. will continue...
If anything, some administration - I don't care who - should reconcile the divide between Fair Use and DMCA once and for all so we all know whether we can rip our own music from copies that we own (even if it takes circumventing copy protection to do so).
Until that fundamental question is resolved, these John Q. Public vs. RIAA/DMCA/ issues and discussions on
I agree.
The MPAA (and the RIAA) have systematically and emphatically drawn a line that delineates between "no rights for the consumer" - approved, and "everything else" - criminal.
Because of their hard stance that consumers have NO rights and their disregard of fair use rights, they have forced me, because I want my fair use rights, to become their opposition.
Now, if any of their reps are reading this, they should understand exactly what I mean and why they should notice. I am one of those people who believe that ripping a movie with the intention of watching it and keeping it, but never paying for it, is stealing. (And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)
Consequently, for me to side against the RI/MPAA means that I find their actions more objectionable than those whose philosophy I do not respect or agree with. They have driven this and I will oppose them at every measure.
And, no, I don't use my disgust at the MP/RI AA to justify ripping movies or music that I do not already own or legally download. I still don't do that.
But I will side with those who do engage in this type of activity against those who would steal MY rights every time. MP/RIAA change your ways or find yourself fighting those who might otherwise have supported your argument.
The purpose of copyright is not about "making money distributing copies".
If that was all it was, it would be no more legit than a pyramid scheme.
The meaningful purpose of copyright and patent law is to encourage useful innovation in science and art.
Yes, the DMCA and other copyright extensions are contrary to that purpose.
You're right, the DMCA was introduced during the Clinton administration. That's why I proposed you changed your political system, because frankly I don't see many differences between the Dems and the Reps, both are reigned by their sponsors. So in fact, it's the big companies that run the country, not the people.
PS: I live in Belgium and although I like living here, the political situation isn't optimal either. So you probably right to state that I should shut the fuck up, until I fix the situation overhere.
But, actually I don't exist: http://zapatopi.net/belgium/
The cost of the license to decrypt the DVD is included in the price you pay for the DVD player.
If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use' but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore and is a clear copyright violation?
No, I think that is complete BS. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe they can force seperating the buying of the product and the shifting of the format but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.
So, if I make a backup copy of my customer's disk before working on his computer -- a service provided for a fee -- have I violated copyright law? What if I use Norton Ghost to make the copy, because some files are encrypted? Have I then violated DCMA as well?
IANAL, but this makes my head hurt!
But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.
The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.
This reminds me of mp3.com
As an "honest" consumer -- I thought it was the best win/win situation ever.
I whip out my credit card and pay $15 for a CD, and I get to download and
listen to the songs I just bought right away until the CD itself showed up
in the mail in a week or so. Everyone gets paid the full amount and everyone
is happy.
Yet -- they chose to take mp3.com down to the ground because of it.
In this case they are marketing the ipod to people who are also paying the full
price for the physical media......
This is said....I don't shed tear 1 when they "take down" the criminals that stealing movies
or music where the content makers don't profit....But to take down the people who are selling
your product at full price seems pretty stupid to me. The people that suffer the most
are the honest consumers.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Its about both, and even doing either without making money, which is why all of those are exclusive rights protected under copyright.
Right. They are selling the service of making the copy along with the goods (the source and target media.) It therefore is not noncommercial copying by the end-user for personal use, and insofar as there may be exceptions for noncommercial format-shifting for personal use (a disputed point!) that would cover DVD ripping, this is not covered by them.
Really, where? At least in the US, this is a popular myth, not a fact: "a library or archives" has a right to make backup copies with certain limits (see 17 USC 108), and the making of an archival copy of a computer program is expressly allowed (17 USC 117), but this is not generally the case for copyrighted works.
Since the exception for archival copies states "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...", probably not, where it is legal to make a backup in the first place.
Not that the copy being made here is for archival purposes, nor would a court probably find that it is of a computer program, though that's less clear. (A DVD contains principally, of course, one or more audiovisual works, it also includes some instructions that might make it a computer program. I don't know if whether the 17 USC 117 exception applies to DVDs has been litigated.)
No, because the MPAA is charging infringement as well as DMCA violation and seeking remedies for both; the DMCA expressly does not change the scope of any of the provisions or exceptions to infringement, so adding the DMCA claim does nothing to help their other claims.
This is video, not audio
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Seems like you can choose to "break the law" by trying to get legitimate copies... or you can break the law by getting copies that are not so legit.
If both are "illegal"... why should someone choose the more expensive method?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Sorry, it doesn't matter whether you're "guilty" or "indicted" when you have to cough up thousands of dollars just to get started with a lawyer - and the MPAA and RIAA takes you to civil, not criminal court. No one needs to prosecute you for ripping a DVD when the MPAA can spend its lawyers' idle time writing up civil complaints against parties who have little ability to defend themselves and often have not even have the foggiest idea how the legal system works. A defendant may not even be the correct party, but if he doesn't have means to make an appropriate motion to have the suit amended or dismissed, the result is a default judgement.
I don't see the EFF or ACLU or other legal organizations hopping aggressively into these lawsuits or doing anything beyond filing amicus briefs. Anyway, it's difficult (as in impossible) to get part or all of a piece of legislation overturned, or a law reinterpreted, when every case is either settled or dropped.
I can't characterize this behavior as SLAPP, because strictly speaking it isn't (SLAPP refers to legal maneuvering to dissuade public discussion), but it's one of those cases where it would be nice if there were a government organization, or powerful private interest, whose business it was to intercede in favor of individuals in these cases of imbalanced litigation on controversial rights issues.
ER, the problem is that this isn't within that exception, since its not about the device, but the use to make a recording (which itself doesn't stop it from being protected), but:
(1) its not an audio or digital music recording, but movies,
(2) the use to make the recording is not "by a consumer of such a device or medium",
(3) the use is not "noncommercial".
Anyone of those three would be enough to make the provision you quote inapplicable.
Not at all. Copyright prohibits me from giving away free copies of a piece of software that I just bought. In only a small set of cases does legality hinge on whether I make money on the distribution.
"Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law."
No, making a backup copy of software is explicitly allowed.
Whether or not you have logic on your side, decisions in these grey areas have to be made by the courts. Until they are, we have no idea what the law is.
The only problem with that legal theory is that it's false. The user has purchased a DVD player, not leased or licensed it, and he has not agreed to a license of any kind whatsoever, not even a shrink-wrapped one.
So? The DVD player manufacturer is who has purchased the license. If you did not buy a DVD player that was licensed, then you do not have permission to break the encryption on the DVD. If you get around that encryption, you are breaking the copy protection on that DVD.
The DMCA doesn't say anything about how you circumvent the protection scheme, whether that's by discovering the keys by reverse engineering a licensed player, brute-forcing the algorithm, or finding a weakness in the protocol. The fact is that your player was not authorized to break the encryption, and thus your using it is circumventing the protection.
In fact in DMCA terms a single bit that is supposed to mean "don't copy me unless you have permission" can qualify as a protection mechanism, and not honoring that bit is circumvention. There was an actual case involving this, where someone was sued for copying True Type Fonts, which have a "don't copy me" bit. It's don't recall the result, and it may have failed -- it's the digital equivalent of putting a sign on your front yard that says "My yard is protected by an invisible force shield!" and when someone walks on your yard, charging them with both Trespassing and Breaking and Entering (for busting down your force field). If so that would be a good precedent, but the law itself doesn't distinguish.
The enemies of Democracy are
Umm...what's the difference between this vendor distributing an iPod preloaded with movies (DVD included) and, for example, Dell selling me a PC preloaded with Windows (install CD included)? In either case, someone (the iPod retailer in the first case, Dell in the second) is "making money" by providing me with a device I want preloaded with copyrighted material (that they assume) I want.
Good grief...if the vendor *purchased* the frigging DVDs and supplies them to customer, then how exactly has the MPAA or any of the artists responsible for said movies been harmed by this activity?!?!?!?!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I can see it now, the MPAA taking a blind user to court because her retina implants put out unintended radiation that allowed the neighbor's kids to watch movies that she was seeing on their tv's. Of course they'll win, since the blind user didn't know the retina implants didn't have an HDMI plug on the end, and Macrovision wasn't applied as a second measure either.
Copyright laws, we all agree I'm sure, should prevent people from illegally copying and reselling content. Originally, this applied pretty much only to printed books, so that's what the initial system was designed for. Once you start having different mediums, an important concept needs to be well defined which I think both sides of the argument have really addressed: When you buy something, are you paying for the copy, or the content?
Essentially, if I go buy a CD, is it the CD that I would own, or the songs themselves? In music and movies, the lines blur more than on other issues. As the system is currently set up, it seems to be leaning pretty strongly to the "Copy" side of the argument, but, at least from my point of view, doesn't seem to be completely well defined. Now, with anti-circumvention laws and the many forms of copy protection out there, it naturally leans to the "Copy" side anyway... and if you ask me, that's not the way it should be. A content-based system of regulations simply makes more sense to me--and until anti-circumvention laws started getting the green light left and right, that's (at least, from what I can remember) the way things worked for the most part. Let's face it, where's the sense in a law which does nothing but require you re-purchase something you already own simply to use it a little differently. That's like requiring you to own a separate car for interstate driving and city driving.
In my eyes at least, the copyright should apply to the content. The price of purchasing something should consist of buying the legal rights to use it, along with the cost of labor and materials for that copy. But you should be free to copy it as you wish, for your own use.
Selling copies of something such as a movie should of course be illegal, but not when a transfer of the license takes place. In this case, following my argument of how the law should be, preloading content from a legally purchased DVD onto an iPod should be perfectly legal.
Of course, lots of things SHOULD be one way, doesn't mean they are. But, at least from my point of view, I think my argument makes a lot of sense. Too bad those who make and enforce the laws so rarely seem to listen to reason, though hopefully after the last election things should start becoming more reasonable.
I only included the statement about money for parallel structure with the parent.
The enemies of Democracy are
Some people have noticed that dvd have limited life, and are very easily destructible. So to be fair, if one wishes to excersize copyright there should be a provision, whereby owner of a copy can request secondary copies at nominal cost (fraction like 1/10th of the price of the original) of the copy he has purchased, given he/she returns damaged/detiriorated copy. If a business does not provide ways to exchange detiriorated or defective media ( read: not the stores but recording company itself ), then any backing up and/or unlimited replication, can be grated owning entity. Granted, distributors own the media at the time, so they can do as they wish with copies of the dvds, in fair ways. Like backing up customer's media onto their device, prior to purchase. Copyright, is right to copy, not to backup the works. Copy and distribute works as individual. Say if someone purchases a copy and make 10 and sells them. So far that I view situation, is very unfair and retarted.
It is only robbing movie industry of cash will rob it of the interest wealthy people pay to it, and open industry to creative ways they can do business, rather then hiring big shot lawyers to subjugate the lowly gentiles that we are. See, money hurts creativity, because accountants get in the business of telling people what do, in matters of art it is bad. Money hurts creativity and health of the industry, just like it did in the internet bubble. Burger flippers were coming to jobs which they have despised and only wielded computers to minimal extend, for means of cash. Miserable those days were.
So I attend movie viewings of small run movies only , and theaters that are unaffiliated with large recording studios. Rather tired of being treated like an idiot.
Right. They are selling the service of making the copy along with the goods (the source and target media.) It therefore is not noncommercial copying by the end-user for personal use, and insofar as there may be exceptions for noncommercial format-shifting for personal use (a disputed point!) that would cover DVD ripping, this is not covered by them.
It is non-commercial use by the end-user.
It is the merchant who performs the copying -- note that he is neither in possession of the original copy nor of the one generated, the end user is -- who is making money.
If performing the service of creating a copy for someone who has both a legal right to the original copy and a legal right to the copy that is created, then Kinko's performs billion of copyright violations a day.
And don't argue that they do, on the basis of people who don't have a legal right to either their original or to the copy they make, because that's not the same thing.
If what you say is true, Kinko's and all other copiers would be shut down.
No, because the MPAA is charging infringement as well as DMCA violation and seeking remedies for both; the DMCA expressly does not change the scope of any of the provisions or exceptions to infringement, so adding the DMCA claim does nothing to help their other claims.
The MPAA always charges copyright infringement, even if no actual copying took place at all, much less illegal copying. First, because more charges are scarier to their victims, even if they would necessarily be dropped in court. Second, because if they didn't they'd have to explain the difference between a DMCA violation and copyright infringement and how they are unrelated, and how the person they are charging didn't actuall steal anything at all from them.
The DMCA charge is the only one that has a chance of standing up.
The enemies of Democracy are
Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.
I don't agree with that interpretation of copyright. Copyright exists to encourage creative development by guaranteeing the creator a reasonable period of time where they can have the exclusive ability to produce (and sell) a specific kind of content. (it grants the creator a "limited monopoly" on their creation) The company that is doing the format shifting is not benefiting from having a copy of the work, and the consumer has already paid the creator for his work. The only possible lost revenue is if the riaa was offering the same service or if it was impacting the sales of their product. They are not offering the service, and it is arguably increasing the benefits from their limited monopoly.
What stumps me here is "why?" Why are they doing this? It costs them money and ill-will (which at this point I think they have so much negative karma that a little more really doesn't matter anymore) and I don't see what's in it for them. The iPod is designed to make it difficult to copy content off from it, so the odds of someone swapping tracks on their ipod with a friend is fairly remote. There must be either a paranoid dellusional in authority there or there is a classified pie chart somewhere that say that this will nick off 2% of their proffits due to some complex market dependency.
The RIAA is not doing this because it's illegal. They could care less what's legal and what's not from morality's sake. They have a reason they don't want customers to do it, and they are using the DMCA as a tool to try to make the world behave the way they want them to. Having a law that could cover it just makes this job easier. This is what makes general laws like DMCA so dangerous. The people sponsoring them say it's necessary to make a very broad law so that it covers the largest percentage of offenders they are after, and try to make us believe that the law will be "properly interpreted" such that no innocents (people that "were not meant to be included") will not be harmed. But history shows that in 100% of those cases, there are abuses and they generally go unchecked because after all, they've made it legal. Copyright, seizure laws, and a really fun one, "enemy combatant". They all force us to surrender our rights and fredoms in the name of protecting our rights and our fredoms. What a scam.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Since when do you need to decrypt the contents of a DVD in order to duplicate it? You don't. You just rip and burn the encrypted data.
-ditto- for any reason
Many people are willing to settle to avoid court fees.
Those who aren't willing, will fight and cost the offended party court fees.
If you have enough money, and a product that people aren't willing to stop using (you can chose what movies/songs you watch/listen to), you can continue to spend money in a vain attempt to scare the rest of them into accepting that the example has been made: Don't copy our stuff.
I know you don't want to hear this, but it's not a lawyerly distinction, it's a reality distinction. When you commit copyright infringment, you're not taking anything; you're making a copy. By your logic, someone that takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty is stealing it.
Er zijn niets voor u om hier te zien, Belgische Burger!
:)
This should be:
Er is hier niets te zien voor u, Belgische Burger!
Sounds awkward but would be better than the stuff you wrote.
Or I missed the jest of the joke.
Francophone?
People using html in email should be shot.
the current business model for the Recording and Movie Industries is to sell you as many copies of the same content as possible. Sell you one copy on CD. One copy for your portable music player. One copy for your DVD. One copy for your PSP. One copy for your iPod. One copy for your BlueRay player. One copy etc this, one copy etc that.
This is the only way they can make money. If you only pay for one copy anymore, then you have effectively cut deeply into their expected revenue. People aren't going to the theater's because it is a one time experience. Why not just pick the DVD up and watch at your own convenience than sitting in a sweaty, smelly seat with over priced popcorn? Why pay for an iPod offering if you can just rip it from the DVD?
Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content. That's why they are lobbying so hard for DRM. That's why none of it is compatible with everything else. Otherwise, you're still only paying for that one copy.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Even Clinton made some mistakes. No point in stressing it every time. The Bush administration is just inexcusable.
DMCrAp is something temporary, give us another couple of years and all things will be shareable.
Ah humanity.
People using html in email should be shot.
Your interest, or lack thereof does not effect the truth of this matter. This matter is not merely a lawyerly distinction, but rather a fundamental distinction between depravation, and non-depravation. Theft requires depravation of the lawful owner of a thing he owns. Copying in no way creates a depravation. I give you the following example:
My Father was a master aircraft mechanic. He could build some really amazing things with just a few tools. After retirement my Dad end up building several items of furniture for my Mom.
Mom would see something that she liked in one of the local furniture stores and take several pictures of it with her camera. She would have the photos developed, and then show the photos to my Dad.
He would then go to the furniture store and take between a half-dozen, and a dozen measurements of the item of furniture, and make 3 or 4 freehand sketches of said item. He would then *repair* to his shop in the backyard and construct an exact copy (at least in terms of appearance and functionality) of the afore mention item of furniture.
Did my Dad 'steal' anything in the above process?
No of course not. He ****COPYED**** the item of furniture, he did NOT steal it.
Furniture stores would have gotten absolutely nowhere if that had tried to prosecute him for theft. The fact is that while I'm sure that would have not liked having an item of furniture that they had for sale copied they would have never accused my Dad of theft, and risked having a slander suit slapped on them.
My Dad did nothing wrong, nothing illegal.
Under law *copying* copyrighted material may, depending on the circumstances, be illegal, but it is NOT theft.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
STB
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Untrue. They can argue that in court that they are making an archival copy of each DVD they have in inventory, and then as Copyright requires they are transferring all backups along with the original in order to comply with Copyright. When the MPAA WAH!!!! about the DMCA, they can point to the interoperability exclusion contained in the DMCA.
If they actually read the DMCA they will see that they are in the clear - PROVIDING they get a judge who isn't on the take.
The best course, though, is for this to go to a jury trial and have the jury judge the law, and then the law can be nullified.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Dell has an agreement with Microsoft in order to distribute Windows, and this vendor doesn't have an agreement with $copyright_owner to distribute the movies?
Analogy is not quite right. What if I buy a bunch of DVD's and hire someone for x dollars an hour to sit and copy my DVD's under fair use. Would that be illegal because I personally didn't do the copying? As long as I am purchasing the original DVD title how is this not the same?
[ot]
Chris: did you ever work for Wygant in PDX?
-Joe Hamelin
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Your argument holds no water. I can distribute my copy of a book. I own it. It's completely legal in spite of the fact that I have no consent from copyright owner. What I don't have permission to do is copy it.
I'm not a lawyer and there's a a good 2 centuries of legal precendent on this matter I don't know about, but fair use has to do with the kinds of copying you can do yourself without violating someone else's copyright. The example you usually hear trumpteted is backups.
So, theoretically, if I charge you $20 to come over and install for you the Windows CD which you've already bought, I'm breaking the law? Because that's exactly what you're saying. I'm making money by copying content from one media to another.
Uh. How exactly do you plan on ripping it without decrypting it?
That's rather like saying "I don't need to decrypt your password in order to copy files from this protected archives, I'll just copy the files!".
>The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected.
:)
You're Goddamned right it's pretected! I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'm sure I speak for everyone else here when I say that!
Hell, even if it weren't pretected, then it SHOULD be, dammit.
There ought to be a CLEAR law, ensuring pretection, for EVERYONE! We need to eliminate pretection greyosity, for certitudinousness, from now, into infinitis!
That's what I think, anyway.
'course, it's past time for my meds, so, I could be wrong.
The last sentence is a joke - I took my meds on time - otherwise I couldn't spell "certidudinousness" correctly
But its not copying by the end user for noncommercial use. Its copying for commercial purposes by a vendor, which is rather clearly a violation of copyright.
Yes, and it is the merchant who is making the copy, for commercial purposes, and then transferring possession of both the original and the copy to the end user. Which is precisely why any case law that protects noncommercial copying performed by the end user doesn't protect this action (not that the case law is really clear on this particular type of format shifting even if it was done by the end user for noncommercial purposes.)
No, if what I say is true, Kinko's and all other commercial copying services would not be protected in making copies of copyright-protected materials without permission of the copyright holder by exceptions to copyright protection which allow end-users to make copies for noncommercial purposes. Of course, you'll notice that (1) there are few such exceptions applicable to printed material in the first place, and (2) Kinko's and other commercial copying services generally have policies that require anyone seeking to use their services to make copies of copyright-protected material to also provide documentation of consent of the copyright holder for the copying, where they aren't the copyright holder.
Really, Kinko's is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
It is not the consumer doing it... but it is the consumer's "agent" acting under instructions from the consumer. If they were preloading and bundling BEFORE sale, that would be illegal. But they are doing it AFTER the sale, but before delivery and only upon the instruction of the consumer to do so.
Basic agency law -- if you instruct someone to do something, they are your agent and it is as if you were doing it yourself. There are only a limited and specific few things that you can't do by using an agent like this.
A (movie) DVD is probably not a computer program under copyright law, and (aside from the special rules applicable to libraries or archives, which don't apply to this kind of company), the only exception for archival copying in copyright law is for computer programs (17 USC 117).
They're not making unlimited copies and selling them, which would be illegal; they are providing the convienence, to the consumer, of not having to move all of those movies over at home.
The company doing the copying owns the DVD while they're doing the copy. It's their fair use right to put it on the iPod. Then they resell the DVD (also their fair use right) and include the copy they made, as they have to do.
Well... I don't need to know all the passwords of my users in order to copy the /etc/passwd file. The same principle applies to DVDs.
Multiple times I've heard that DVD's are not considered software and hence the argument of making "archival" copies is invalid.
Here's my question: Why aren't DVD's considered software? What's the exact definition of software that it fails to fall under?
From Wiki, the definition of software is:
"Software is a program that enables a computer to perform a specific task, as opposed to the physical components of the system (hardware). This includes application software such as a word processor, which enables a user to perform a task, and system software such as an operating system, which enables other software to run properly, by interfacing with hardware and with other software."
Further down it defines libraries as well:
"A program may not be sufficiently complete for execution by a computer. In particular, it may require additional software from a software library in order to be complete. Such a library may include software components used by stand-alone programs, but which cannot be executed on their own. Thus, programs may include standard routines that are common to many programs, extracted from these libraries. Libraries may also include 'stand-alone' programs which are activated by some computer event and/or perform some function (e.g., of computer 'housekeeping') but do not return data to their activating program...."
Is it really that hard of a reach that the contents of a DVD aren't part of the "library" for a "program" such as a dvd player or Windows Media Player? Otherwise there really isn't much of a task that a program performs without it. Ultimately its still just a bunch of digitally inscribed data that requires a computer to play it. Isn't the task that is being performed the "viewing" of a movie?
I guess maybe I'm just wondering exactly what is the definition of a DVD that sets it apart from software since for all technical reasons is no different then the programs that are on the DVD media itself? What sets it apart? After all, a bunch of actors may have had to get together to create the content of the DVD but a bunch of programmers had to get together to create the content of the software on the DVD? Where's the dividing line?
Also, when referring to Americans, it is probably not best to call us yanks (at least directly). A lot of people consider that a pejorative term. Unless you mean it that way, I would suggest staying away from it.
DVD burners don't allow you to burn proper encrypted DVDs. You cannot write to the special area containing the region information and keys. So if you put CSS encypted data on a burned DVD, normal DVD players would be unable to play it.
Why don't people just learn to use relatively simple tools to copy over their movies??? I mean, I taught my own mother how to do it, and she's very "computer illiterate."
By your logic, someone that takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty is stealing it.
:)
No, they're a terrorist. Try to keep up here.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think this is an excellent time to point out that you can do your part and join the Digital Freedom Campaign. You can send a letter to congress or just sign the petition.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
FTA: Customers pay for the original DVDs, for the iPods and for the service of having them loaded. They even receive the original DVDs they've paid for.
Not as black-and-white anymore, is it?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
(5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?
Boy, I hope so, otherwise my clients are going to have to install their own damn operating systems (OSS excluded, of course).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.
... they simply, uncompromisingly, do not want anyone else distributing their products in a format not of their choosing. The question is whether or not they should have that right. The DMCA would seem to give it to them, which is too bad.
On the other hand, given that the MPAA was largely responsible for the DMCA (even to have furnished draft copies of the legislation to involved Congresscritters) it's hardly surprising that they would invoke it here. This is exactly the kind of case for which they so badly wanted the DMCA
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
But you're not presented those terms before sale, thus they don't bind you.
FC Closer
This company made unauthorized copies, which they proceeded to give to a customer. That's a copyright violation right there, because nowhere in the copyright act does it list an exemption of copying on behalf of somebody else...
But does there need to be a specific exemption for that? I think its perfectly reasonable to make the arguement that the exception that allows an end user to make copies for himself already covers an end user paying someone else to perform the labor required to make the copy.
Awe.. and who says they are breaking CSS when they do it
couldn't they just as easily said they bought a dvd player, and captured the input and encoded it?
Would that not be a legal way to make a digital copy?
This is really a childish game put on by the MPAA..
They get their dam'ed money in the end, their problem is that they don't get enough..
Saddly Expect to see more of these.
with the speed of internet/cpu's today there is absolutely no reason why we do not have
fully functioning remote libraries of movies purchased with public funds.
I live in Texas, just a few hours from the Mexican border. I've often wondered what legal recourse the MPAA would have if I opened up a mail-order DVD ripping shop, but circumvented the encryption in Mexico. I figure I could do all the administrative work here, including loading the customer's encrypted DVD to a hard drive. Then drive down to a Mexican border town once a week and, while I sit in a bar sipping Tequila, or passed out in a cheap motel, my laptop furiously (and legally (?)) decrypts DVDs.
When I return home, hungover, the next day, I send out my customers' backups along with their original DVDs.
Have I broken any American laws?
Under the DMCA, ripping a DVD is illegal.
Making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal.
Format shifting a DVD is illegal.
Possessing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.
Distributing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.
If the DMCA had been around in 1980, the VCR would have been shut down by the MPAA long before it ever hit store shelves.
The DMCA is a bad piece of legislation. Congress passed it because the movie industry asked them too.
Congress needs to start thinking for themselves and not passing every single BS piece of legislation that special interest groups ask them to pass.
We just got rid of a whole lot of congressmen, and brought in quite a few new ones, but unfortunately, I see no indications that the new lot will be any better than the old.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
If a middle-man were permitted to make unauthorized copies (note, making unauthorized copies does not _necesssarily_ constitute copyright infringement) on behalf of an end user without infringement, the number of unauthorized copies could very easily be the same order of magnitude as the number of authorized copies, which largely defeats the purpose of someone having a copyright at all (ie, they may as well put it in public domain). If the end user alone bears responsibility for keeping any unauthorized copies non-infringing, the number of unauthorized copies is limited by the subset of users that are willing to invest the time and effort into making said copies (which in this day and age is not much, but it's still there). This subset may be numerically large, but it is still a lot smaller than the number of people out there.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
All those *AA groups (even those who don't have *AA in there name) is the new legal mafia. They demand protection money, like Microsoft. They act like thugs and theives, lie, cheat and steal from the artist them self to pocket there own bank accounts.
They should all be banned by law.
Kinkos is not irrelevant. They require evidence you have the right to make a copy of something before they will copy it for you. They do not require you to produce evidence that the copyright holder consents to Kinkos making a copy for you ; only that they consent to the customer making a copy. The person who winds up with the copy needs to have legal right to it. Weather I press the button on the copy machine (or DVD ripper) or pay someone to press it for me is legally irrelevant, as it obviously should be. The straight-up infringement claims in this case are, luckily for Kinkos, horseshit.
The DMCA claims may hold up, but notably apply equally well to the customer ripping their own copies for their own use. The RIAA really thinks it is (and should be) illegal to put your own DVD movied on your own iPod.
Unless I'm mistaken, at the time the copying is done the company is the owner of the DVDs. So, effectively, the company is the "end user" -- just one who coincidentally happens to resell the iPod and DVD at some later time.
Do you think you have the right to format-shift your own media? Do you think you have the right to resell your media and devices? If so, then why shouldn't this company have exactly the same right?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Dell has an OEM agreement which gets them discounted software. They could just as easily use normal copies, but it would cost them more. Your argument is flawed.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
So what? What sane argument could you possibly have to make a distinction between the two?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's irrelevant. Dell has a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft approves. That is why the preloading issue never comes up. It's been rectified before the copy is even made.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
"In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing"
Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"When you commit copyright infringment, you're not taking anything; you're making a copy"
And then leaving that copy with the original? Or taking it?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Seriously, we should all donate to a defense fund (perhaps the EFF) to fight this battle bitterly. The MPAA needs to be given a clear, unambiguous message concerning fair use.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Wait a second... so you're saying that all these little shops selling white-box PCs and individuals building computers for other people are all committing copyright infringment? I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but I'm sure glad I don't live there too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You seem to have missed a significant portion of the text you quoted:
Seeing as this use is both (1) commercial, and (2) not by the consumer, I don't see how this is applicable.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Since when did sanity matter, when it comes to the law? We are talking legal arguments here, not rational ones.
... and then they built the supercollider.
not to be pedantic, but the RIAA has no position on what you do with your movies other than they have a friend in the fight that is the MPAA and would thus be very likely to support any actions that restrict what I am allowed to do with any works that I have legally licensed from them. even when all i want to do is take the movie with me on a 2.5" screen that i can barely watch myself, much less let someone else see at the same time.
jerks
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Well, you give a good, competent argument, and although I don't disagree that there is a difference, I think a larger issue is not *if* there is a difference between copyright/theft, but *why* that difference is so often brought up. As I see it, it's a semantic goading and diversion tactic for both sides.
Those who chime in to insist on "copyright infringement", I feel, push no less of an agenda than those who overzealously use the term "theft". Just as "theft" is too strong of a term-- it is nearly axiomatic that "theft=wrong"-- the term "copyright infringement" tends to be far too weak. Although it is the true technical term, it is an obtuse and complicated term that tends to dismiss itself by its own complexity (especially when compared to the tried-and-true term of "theft"). With the simple "wrongness" of theft as the comparison, it is all too easy to make a false dichotomy and easily pardon infringement when given the comparison-- "It's not theft (wrong), it's copyright infringement (???)."
Throwing up the "theft or infringement" flag diverts the attention to "is it theft or is it just piracy", when the question really should be "is it right or is it wrong".
--
Now, although I do agree that it does not fit into the simple definition of "theft", I still believe that piracy* does create a manner of deprivation, albeit not as simple and direct as simple taking. I have always seen piracy as analogous to "theft of services" or fraudulent hiring. Admittedly, the situation does differ a bit, but that's why it's an analogy. By using someone else's product, you're in-effect hiring that person to do a job for you-- keep you entertained, or perhaps perform a useful algorithmic service. Now, there may not have been a formal contract, but (analogize with me, folks) the sticker price or market value can be seen as the producer's "offer", which you are free to take or leave. Yes, it also differs in that their effort and work may be subdivided and format-shifted amongst thousands or millions of "copies", but unless we want thousands-of-dollars initial-run DVDs, that's the way the modern deal works. Just as a worker expects to be paid x-amount by their employer at the end of the week, a content-creator expects to be paid x-amount for their work when the content is used. So, like an applicant, they are presenting their terms of hire to the consumer, and the pirate, instead of accepting or denying the offer, gleans the benefit and walks away without paying the check.
Just as a stiffed worker is technically "deprived" of nothing except time and effort, the content creator is also not technically "deprived" of anything except that slice of their time and effort. However, I imagine few here would cast a similar argument against a short-changed wage-worker. Granted, yes, the situation is simpler in the worker's case-- they had one agreement with one employer for a sum of money, but I argue that a creator's offer of sale is just a more complex, but nonetheless similar, offer with "the public at large".
So, uh, you know... tip your waitresses. And legally acquire those things you haven't the skill to make.
* and don't even try to get on me for that term-- we all know what "piracy" means in context
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
But Kinko's won't duplicate copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holder. They are performing an entirely different function than this business, which will duplicate the material without permission.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You know what? This entire topic of discussion is fucking absurd! Do you, or do you not, realize that the movie publishers' act of selling the DVDs ought to mean the buyer is entitled to, you know, actually use the thing he bought? Do you, or do you not, realize that it's insane for an outside party to be able to lock an owner away from using his own property? What gives the MPAA a legitimate right to do this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Try using some common sense for a minute, and you'll see how ridiculous you just sounded.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
We are talking about copying to an iPod in this case. Firstly, an iPod cannot do CSS decryption, so a DVD image file would be useless on it. Secondly, most people don't want a 4GB+ file on their iPod, so transcoding is necessary to get it down to a reasonable size. If they are transferring these DVDs to an iPod without decrypting, would you care to explain how they do it?
... and then they built the supercollider.
But the law specifies you have to delete any copies of the content when you sell it. You can't sell copies, that should be pretty obvious.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If they're so worried about having the encryption on the DVD broken, why don't they use stronger encryption? Every time they release a new encryption protocol it gets cracked fairly quickly. If I can encrypt my filesystems such that is would take 100 years of computing to crack, why can't the MPAA encrypt DVD filesystems such that they take more that a week to crack?
You actually buy censored copies of films? Wow, that's pretty crazy.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Must be one of my clones. Or possibly a robot replica. Not me though, sorry.
The enemies of Democracy are
Are you sure? 'Cause I was under the impression that the copies could continue to exist, but would have to be transferred along with the original. And guess what -- that's exactly what's happening here!
This company isn't selling copies! It's selling the original, and coincidentally also transferring the backups that it made, exactly as the law requires.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No shit, Sherlock -- that's exactly what I'm complaining about!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Are you sure about that, from a legal perspective? It certainly sounds like they are selling copies. The argument was that they were exercising their fair-use rights, because they were the temporary owner. So, if the owner sells the items, including the copy, with a generous mark-up - what is the mark-up for? Could it be they are selling the copy?
If anything, the "copy made while temporary owner" loophole seems to make this more legally problematic, not less. After all, if the business was the owner when the copy was made, they can't have been performing a service on behalf of the end-consumer, but are instead distributing copies for profit.
... and then they built the supercollider.
It certainly didn't sound like it. I mean, there was no real sarcasm evident in your post. No reference to legality versus rationality. It sounded like you were seriously arguing that a sane argument would be legally sound.
I agree that the situation is pretty ridiculous. What I don't agree with is the approach that most slashdotters appear to take - trying to argue that all this copying is perfectly OK under existing laws, because they want it to be. What people should be doing is trying to change the stupid laws. If people think what they are doing is legal, but it is not, it will come back to bite them on the ass. Even worse, it just perpetuates the bad laws.
Law is what it is, it's not what you want it to be. The media companies can make the laws what they want them to be, because they spend a lot of effort and money making it that way. Meanwhile, people sit back believing they are fine because of mythical interpretations of the law.
It really is quite strange. People on the one hand complain about draconian copyright laws, but then turn around and claim that they have all these rights - which implies that the laws aren't draconian. So, which is it? Are we being screwed by copyright law, or does it guarantee us all these rights?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Except they're not authorize to distribute the copies.
Thus they're in violation of copyright.
There should be nothing wrong with this-there is no redistribution of the copyrighted material-rather, it's just made more convenient for the owner/licensee (whichever term is preferred currently) to use. This is kind of like (yes, not exactly) mailing said DVD from one's home to one's place of vacation in order to watch it there-someone made money in moving it (making it more convenient for the consumer), but there is no redistribution of the copyrighted material.
So, the MPAA's got a DA against an SMB for ripping DVDs against the DMCA, eh? WTF mate?
Frog blast the vent core.
That's true, strictly speaking, and the DMCA has held up to all the challenges that I'm aware of. The "remedy" for it is legislation.
Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it.
This is actually easy. The trick is that you don't get the keys copied when you try that with a regular DVD burner or regular DVD writables. Therefore standard players are unable to decrypt the copied DVD, so you can't actually watch it. Certain players CAN play it though, the ones that break the encryption instead of asking for the keys. In most cases removing the encryption is done when copying, since it's just easier that way -- but it isn't the only way.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If it was "rather clearly" a case of copyright infringement, then every single computer shop and manufacturer on the planet is going to jail for installing Windows XP onto their clients computers.
It's been a long time.
So I could create an HTML document, declare that the existence of an tag in the document means "Don't copy this document", then sue people under the DMCA if they copy it?
Its the consumer that will be using the copy, but its the commercial entity that is doing the copy. IANAL, but thats just how i read it.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
because paying money and getting the dvd isn't the same as paying money and getting bits on an ipod. duh. deal with it.
Seems to me that (apart from the possible DMCA implications), this is the crux of the matter.
Either:
A) It is legal for a third party to commercially make a copy of copyrighted material where the customer can demonstrate that such copying would be legal if they did it (thus the third party is acting solely as the customers agent). I guess as long as the third party isn't keeping a copy of the copyright material.
or
B) The copying of copyrighted materials by a party where that specific party does not have a legal right to make such a copy, is always illegal, whether they are acting as an agent or not. (Thus Kinkos can make a copy of original work, because the customer is assumed to be the copyright holder, or they ask for demonstration of the copyright holders permission, and failing that they really shouldn't, but maybe will do on a discretionary basis but officially won't - I'm neither from nor in the USA and have no idea what actual Kinko policy is on this).
Seems to be further complicated by the fact that in B) the third party (the commercial side), may have a right the same as their customer does, if they can argue that they are just 'format shifting' in accordance with your fair use provisions.
How is this really different to those companies that you can send a stack of CD's to, they rip them to MP3 (or equivalent), and send the CD's and a harddrive full of ripped audio back? Do any of those still exist, and have they ever been legally challenged?
And, for extra points, has anyone ever used one, if so can you give recommendations for one of the CD ripping services, especially for someone in the UK - I want to rerip 1500 CD's, and am would like to get an idea of the cost of someone else doing it against the cost of me doing it. Of course in the UK it is illegal for us to rip CD's anyway... So I could be missing a lot here. IANAL (juvenile chuckle), nor particularly up interested in the finer points of law, so the above could all be just so much horseshit.
The best is the enemy of the good
Okay, replying to myself, I went to Kinkos website and had a quick look at their T&C's.
:)
To Quote:
You also warrant and confirm that You own the copyright or have permission to copy any documents or Materials You submit online for printing or processing, and agree to defend, indemnify and hold FedEx Kinko's, its parent and its parent's subsidiary companies and their respective officers, directors, agents and employees, harmless from any suit, demand, or claim arising out of any breach of this warranty and agree to pay any judgment or reasonable settlement offer resulting from any such suit, demand or claim, and to pay any attorney's fees incurred by FedEx Kinko's in defending against such suit, demand or claim.
KInko's T&C's
(This is for electronic submission - I assume in store the same rules apply, but they may not, and I am bored of checking there legal docs)
So it looks like Kinkos demand that you either are the copyright owner or have the copyright owners permission (but don't seem to ask for proof of that). And that in either case you take on any legal burden.
Not sure if this is really relevant though
The best is the enemy of the good
Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.
Why? As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it? If you make the original, but no copies, and someone else makes a copy, why would you then own the original and a copy, since you only made the original? What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of copyrights. I think that comparing copyright infringement too closely to theft of physical property (or thinking of it that way) can be grossly misleading though. If someone copies your material, they are not stealing a copy from you, they are usurping your right to control copying.
To think of a comparison between copyright and physical property, I consider my computer. I own it, I have the right to control it's use. If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer? Obviously not, even thought they've still done wrong and probably broken numerous laws in the process. I would have the right to stop them, but if I say they stole my computer, I would be hard pressed to get a court to agree with me. They would have usurped my rights to my computer, but not stolen it. I don't know if that would be covered by a particular law, but in the case of copyright it is. It's still not theft though. Just as arson, murder, drunk driving and any number of wrong things are not theft.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Wow.
I had no idea services like that existed. On the one hand it seems really cool that someone will take a film and edit out the bits you don't want to see. But... on the other hand why on earth would you watch a film where you already know there are segements you don't like?
This is going off-topic I know, sorry, but I find this interesting. If a film has violence, sex, drug use or bad language as one of the core artistic drivers to it's message (Irreversible or Audition, for example), would those things be removed? I guess it is a moot point, as you'd choose not to watch those films, but they are just extreme examples. Let's use The Little mermaid as an example - this contains a scene where a chef wants to cook one of the main characters, which to me seems to fall under the disturbing violence category, do these services remove such a scene, even where it is relevant to the story? (I know, 'The Little Mermaid', but hell, it's about the only Disney film I have seen more than once, and would choose to watch again, I can live with the social stigma of that).
I guess it may be equated to buying an album, and not listening to tracks you don't like? Maybe.
Even cooler though, would be a hacked version of clearplay's filters which let you choose to see only violence, disturbing scenes, sex, bad language and drug use. (Ha, only joking there - I'd probably be happy to dump any unnecessary violence).
The best is the enemy of the good
For violating fair use conditionals in expense of the consumer in this and many other incidents and continuing harrasment, intimidation and oppression of consumers through use of law agencies ?
Why dont we 1000-2000 (heck maybe hundreds of thousands) people file a lawsuit and let them get a few billion $ payment in punitive damages ? like in paypal case ?
Read radical news here
It all seems to boil down to exactly what you are buying: a licence to use a copy of the copyrighted thing (and possibly the physical packaging of the thing, eg DVD disk), and not the copy itself.
If the copyright holders (or their agent(s), etc) decide that you can only use that copy in one specific way, then tough, that's what you get: eg a DVD that may only be used within a [certain] DVD player; if you wish to play your DVD using say a general computer as opposed to a DVD [only] player then you'll have to buy a separate licence for that, the fact that your computer can play the DVD is irrelevant - it would be illegal for you to do it.
The problem is that end-users are unaware of this and the copyright holders, etc are more than happy to avoid educating the masses - would you feel inclined to go out and buy a "copy" of a film if it was advertised as
"out now for you to purchase a licence to watch on a certified DVD player only"
instead of
"out now for you to own"
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
Most people do not sign any kind of a license agreement when they buy a DVD, so that means that the standard copyright laws apply by default. There is no single user / single device provision in copyright law, but there are many restrictions on things like public showings, etc.
While the right to make "backup copies" is explicitly granted to computer software, this does not apply to DVDs. Even if it does, the "backup copy" is supposed to be used only for archive purposes - not for "format shifting".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There are several special rules in place for computer software. Copyright laws are different depending on the medium.
And copyright is probably not relevant anyway, since an OEM is going to have a contract with Microsoft that grants separate rights and imposes additional restrictions.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But the rights of distribution are covered in copyright law, too.
For instance, I bought a painting. It's an original piece, commissioned by me. Since I didn't sign any agreement with the artist, default copyright law applies... I have no right to make duplicates of the painting, even though I own the original. Thus, she was able to distribute the original painting yet retain the right to the work.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You would be correct, except that the EULA seems to permit this.
Like it or not, owning the copyright on something means that only you and congress can decide who can and cannot make copies.
I personally believe that copyright should be opened up such that non-commercial use is not regulated at all. Also, the terms should be shortened. I'm not so sure about this, though. If you make money by copying someone else's IP, you should probably pay some kind of fee to the owner. Perhaps it should be a fixed amount, set by law, but you shouldn't be able to make money from someone else's IP.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Heh, what they are doing is unquestionably not legal. Sorry to break that to you, but this case will bear that out.
:) I mean, how many times can you be expected to buy the same content? On the other hand, it isn't right that this company is making money off of the IP - if the content owner wants to sell such a service they have now lost the ability to do so.
What I am arguing is that it's not in our best interest to allow commercial copying of other's IP. Then again, I don't believe in this strongly and can be swayed the other way
But it IS illegal under current law.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I think there a very strong argument to call the entire content of the DVD a computer program. It contains instruction for the DVD player to assemble a menu and possibly some options, and instructions on how to reproduce images and sound.
The actual 'work of art' isn't on the DVD. On the DVD is a bitstream which describes how to reproduce the work of art. The interpretation of the bitstream is done by a chipset or a piece of software inside the DVD player. This once again makes the bitstream a computer program.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Legally? No. Morally? Yeah, I think I'm in the clear :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Except that "format-shifting" only sort-of protected for audio, not at all for video. What is being made here is not a backup or archive, but a derivative work. While you are not likely to be sued for doing this at home, it is most certainly NOT legal to do so commercially.
I'm not even sure that this SHOULD be legal to do commercially, and I'm pretty darn liberal on copyright reform.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Your point 1 has not been tested in any court that I am aware. Seems like a weak case.
On point 2, I believe that - from my reading, and IANAL - the Microsoft end user agreement is liberal enough that it allows for this. It even allows copying the software to a common install directory on the network. They make it very clear that you bought a license and not a copy.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Because they're selling the customer the original DVDs as well, the only thing in question is whether it's legal to transform the content for playback on your own device. The fact that someone else was hired to perform the service of transformation does not change the ownership of the media.
The DMCA defense is a farce. Yet another Bush-approved kickback law in the post-9/11 panic that needs to be very intently reviewed by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Senate now that people aren't all in panic mode. Scared people make mistakes; smart people try to correct them.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
No, don't do that! Don't buy movies!
I agree with giving copyrighted works to libraries. But I disagree that this is a particularly effective way to stick it to them. How many people in your town have a library card?
I fear that the actual buying of a movie to give it to the library might make the MPAA more money than if you hadn't done anything.
Wanna know my solution? I download and share movies with eMule. Sure, it's illegal. But I view it as my duty.
If you want to stick it to the MPAA, but not do anything illegal, you'll have to find another solution. Please don't let it include giving money to the MPAA.
I was going to reply, but the answer became too off-topic, and rambled a little, so I posted an entry to my slashdot journal (first time i have used that feature). That journal has some more of my thoughts on this (I don't think they are necessarily against your views), and I would love to continue this conversation there.
:)
Is it impolite to ask what films you have watched with bits cut out?
Thanks for making me think
The best is the enemy of the good
"As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it?"
The medium they copied it onto might be theirs, but they didn't write the program, I did, and I still did, no matter how many times it's been copied, it's still my work, my creation.
"What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?"
It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*, which is something that somebody else spent time to create. He didn't design the furniture himself, he took a shortcut there and used the time somebody else had put into designing furniture for his own. So, the taking photos was the act of making a copy of the design, and then leaving the shop (as we know the photos weren't left there) is the act 'taking'.
"If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer?"
No, because they haven't *taken* it, they've left it where it is.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
By this same logic, companies that transfer old LP's to CD are breaking the law. The end-user has no choice but to re-purchase their music, if it's available, and to throw out the media in it's old format.
ron lussier / lenscraft / fine art giclee prints/ sausalito / ca
The MPAA wrote the law and paid for it, so they should know.
I can accept that this perfectly legitimate business is a violation of the law. It's that kind of a law. Personally I'm in favor of extreme prejudice against every legislator who voted in favor of it, every lobbyist who campaigned in favor of it, and every executive who hired them to do so. This isn't going to happen.
Since the DMCA was passed I have begun to consider pirates more moral than either legislators or businessmen. (I know. I know. Faint praise and all that. They don't rate more than faint praise.)
P.S.: Every time you buy a movie tie-in you are supporting the MPAA. Every time you pay money to see a movie you are supporting the MPAA. This is a bad idea.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
According to section 1201(a)(3)(b) of the DMCA "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."
There seem to be some misconceptions that need to be cleared up:
1) This is a violation of fair use rights.
No it isn't. Fair use rights are a creation of Congress. Since Congress passed the DMCA the rules of statutory construction dictate that the DMCA supersedes fair use legislation enacted prior to the DMCA. The legal assumption is that any abdication of fair use rights resulting from the DMCA were intentional.
2) The court should make a ruling doing "the right thing"
Courts are not free to ignore the law. Their job is not to decide what is fair, unfortunately. They are bound by the law. As long as the law isn't unconstitutional they must uphold it. That means they can only decide whether the actions of the defendants actually violated the law as it is written - fair or not.
Contrary to what crazed Republicans tell you, judges cannot legislate from the bench. That means they can't even make a ruling on a question that was not presented to them by one of the parties to the suit. If the defendants don't challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA, the judge cannot consider that.
Great thesis statement, now support your position.
The point is, the MPAA is *still* getting their royalty from the sale of the DVD--which *may* be a sale they would not have otherwise received (i.e., they are potentially receiving more money than they would have if the iPod vendor were not in business). The iPod vendor is making money on the time and labor taken to move the bits from the DVD to the iPod, not on distributing a copyrighted work without providing royalties to the artists (including the MPAA) who created the work. I fail to see how this activity is copyright infringement, and I fail to see how this activity is harming anyone involved in producing the DVD.
If the iPod vendor had bought a single DVD of all of the works being transferred and was using them as masters from which to produce multiple copies on iPods, I could see the point. But in this case, the MPAA is cutting off its nose to spite its face. They are getting paid, so what's the problem?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Ummm....
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA) Check your facts next time, please.
To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Point taken. My argument is flawed, so allow me to modify it slightly.
Suppose rather than Dell with an OEM agreement, I run a small computer shop selling custom PCs. I buy components to match a customer's needs and budget, build them a smoking machine, buy Windows in volume from a (legit) mail-order warehouse, and install the OS on these custom computers. I've never struck an OEM arrangement with Microsoft because I am a small operator, and because I build high-end PCs, the OS is a small portion of the total price of the computer. Am I in violation of copyright law? Have I violated Microsoft's EULA? If so, I don't see how. And I don't see how this is fundamentally different to the MPAA vs. the iPod business.
Just as installing the OS is incidental to the primary business of selling high-end custom computers in the example above, ripping a DVD to an iPod is incidental to the sale of the iPod in the business in this article. The business is selling an iPod bundled with a DVD. Having the DVD ripped to the iPod already is a gimmick to give him/her an edge over competing iPod vendors in that area--it is not the primary business model, nor is it depriving the MPAA or any of the artists involved in the production of the DVD of any revenue, since the DVD is included in each sale.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
A company doesn't have to watch a video to duplicate it and sell copies. But I'm pretty sure that the law considers duplicating and selling copies without permission to be an illegal use of the material.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think that you don't realize that the DMCA was a Clinton law, but that is actually off topic.
Copyright law does not currently "allow" for you to rip a DVD to your own device, so it CERTAINLY doesn't allow others to do it.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That's true, and those companies are probably on shaky ground. However, at least for audio there is a specific allowance for making archival copies. They probably argue that they are simply acting as agents of the LP owners. Someone else in this thread posted the relevant section of the law. AFAIK, there is no such allowance for video.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
it's still my work, my creation.
Well, you were the one that said they made the copy. *shrugs*
It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*
A copy of a program is made up of new bits, arranged in the same order (design) as the original program. Really, the only significant difference is that furniture is not covered by copyright laws and software is. If copyright infringement was theft, there would have been no need for copyright law, as there have been laws against theft for millenia. Copying is different to stealing, therefore new laws were required.
As far as I can tell, every technologically advanced country has become so in an environment of strong IP protection. I am convinced that copyright protection is a huge net gain for society, not just for the copyright owner, and am not arguing against it at all. But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"If the copyright holders (or their agent(s), etc) decide that you can only use that copy in one specific way .... it would be illegal for you to do it."
They can "decide" that the moon is made of green cheese if they like, but it doesn't make it so.
"Not sure if this is really relevant though "
Sure it is. Kinkos will happily copy or print things for you if you have the legal right to copy or print them. Your taking on the legal burden in case you don't have permission is just so they can avoid having to ask for or judge the validity of proof of that. If it were illegal for them to make the copies in any case, you wouldn't be able to take on the liability (and they would be out of business.)
(Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected.
...
Ah, no... Re-Read what you yourself typed:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright
There are three key words you left out: "under this title"
The title just says end-users can't be arrested for buying blank CDs/recorders/etc if they using them for non-commercial use.
I should think that using such devices to copy video/musical recordings and then SELLING them would consistute COMMERCIAL USE. (Regardless of what non-commercial uses the end consumer does).
The group in the article will be toast.
I stand corrected on the Clinton signing of the DMCA. It makes the law no more reasonable.
Copyright law allows you to make copies of media for backups and personal use with print and magnetic media. That precedent has not been overturned in Canada, and has not been tested in the US. Every case taken to court has been over piracy, not over personal use that was repeatedly defined for cassettes used to tape radio, VCRs used to tape TV, personal duplication of cassettes, and recording of vinyl records to cassette.
Instead the DMCA straw dog is painted as a vicious defender of XOR bit masking and insecure encryption algorithms, and both *AAs try to claim victory over a battle that precedent says they cannot win.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
True, but due to technical issues they did not add higher-resolution video support to the older 320x240 capable 5th gen iPod Video.
Apple hasn't released or even hinted at an iPod Video custom development SDK. I hope they do, but doubt they will.
In the meantime, you're welcome to try developing such a system for iPod Linux. I doubt you'll get very far.
Well, obviously we can only speculate about what the court will find, but my bet is that the MPAA wins on more than just the DMCA point. This is not an individual making some copies for himself, but rather a commercial agent of that individual. This erodes the "fair use" claim considerably - at least in the US.
:)
For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the DMCA or copyright in general. I am not defending the current law, just letting you know what it is
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They are not *just* shifting it - they are selling a LEGAL copy of the DVD as well.
The user buys the DVD as well as the shifted content so that they have a LEGAL copy.
The company is doing the shifting of the media to a format that the users want the media in. Just because the MPAA is too stupid to do it themselves, doesn't preclude a company from doing it for them.
If someone has me shift media content because they don't have the knowledge to do so, does that make me an infringer?
The whole reason that a company has come up with this idea is due to the fact that the MPAA has tried to make it impossible for end-users to have *fair use* rights to the media / content they've purchased.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
"But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it"
Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was? That if I was to head out to internation waters, board somebody's boat, and take a load of their stuff while they were sleeping, that would not be stealing, because there is no law to say that it is?
Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx". If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I disagree completely.
If I hire someone to build an addition to my house, it is my addition, I pay the extra taxes, I own the property. There is no question that the subcontractor is doing the work as a service to me.
The same applies to transcoding or archiving of material that I own. This is the key point -- the purchasers are receiving original copies of the media transcoded and downloaded to their player, not pirated copies.
This has never been tested before. All prior cases involved media that was transcoded and downloaded to multiple "customers" without authorization; this case involves nothing more than a transcoding service that comes with the purchase of hardware.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was?
No, I'm saying that there were already laws against theft. If copyright violation was theft, there would have been no need for a new law, the laws against theft would have been sufficient protection of your property. Since copyright violation is sufficiently different to theft to require a different set of laws, it is sufficiently different that is it appropriate to use a different term to describe it.
Understand what I'm saying: I'm not saying it's less serious or less wrong than theft, just that it's different. Comparable to the difference between fraud and theft. The definition of fraud does not contain the word theft. They are different, even though they have similarities.
That said though, it is only wrong because the law says it is. For thousands of years it was not considered theft to use someone elses ideas, songs, copy inventions etc. Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas? On what basis do you claim ownership of these works that for most of human history have not been subject to individual property rights? Only the law gives you this right. Now, I believe in the rule of law, so I say go ahead, claim and enforce your rights under law, but if the law changed so you didn't have those rights, to what authority would you appeal? On what basis would you claim your goods had been stolen?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what you say it means.
"Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas?"
No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it. Digitally copying music or a computer program for example requires very little effort. Go back before music recordings were easy, and having a copy of the score meant very little if you needed 50 musicians with hours of practice time to play it. That was enough of a disinsentive by itself.
Anyway, instead of just repeating yourself saying "infringment != theft", can you point out exactly where in the last paragraph of my last post you're saying the difference is, which bit is wrong, where you believe it breaks down. I'll repeat it:
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
Are you saying that saving my program, that I created, onto another disc makes it no longer my program, that it was no longer me that wrote it? Or are you saying that moving it from the location of the original isn't taking it?
Have you considered that maybe different laws exist because the law (rather than the word "theft") states that it only covers theft of physical belongings?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
What you say is probably allowed for audio, but for video it is not expressly permitted for you to make a copy, much less hire someone else to do it for you!
Some court might decide that making backups of your own DVDs falls under "fair use", but these aren't even backup copies - they are format shifts. It's not at all clear that a court will find this permissable.
But you are right, I'm speculating on what the court will find. I just happen to be quite confident in myself in this case. If they were doing this with CDs instead of DVDs my opinion would be different.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Actually it has. Remember the Betamax case?
from the article:
"Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry."
I'm no legal expert but technically speaking, a broadcast constitutes a format. By taping that broadcast, the consumer (or device) is performing a format shift. Fair use, it seems to me, has already been decided. Congress also addressed fair use of audio recordings in 1971. From the EFF Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:
House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:
Home Recording
"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."
It's all about the money, folks.
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
Okay, so try this:
Set up a business where you record TV shows for people and then sell them.
See how long you stay in business.
The passage you quoted is for AUDIO, not video. Even if the courts ruled that it applied to DVDs as well, this company would not be protected. From your quoted passage: "Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it.".
This company is NOT making a "home recording" and they ARE "capitalizing commercially". It's also worth noting that I think this law has been updated with text that includes digital devices as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That's at least the third time that argument's been made in this thread. And it is still wrong: both because OEM licenses specifically allow such loading (so manufacturer's have express permission to do that, and aren't forced to attempt to rely on "fair use" or any other exception to copyright), and, on top of that, there is an express exception to copyright separate from "fair use" allowing making a copy of a computer program (and only a computer program) that is essential to the use of that program with a particular machine (see 17 USC 117), even without express permission from the copyright holder.
You assume too much about my point. Of course any business that records and then sells copies of TV shows would (and should) be shut down. But this should not be allowed affect already established precedents, nor should we allow new laws to strip our consumer choices. I included the 1971 congressional quote (and I DID mention that it was a ruling on audio recordings) to illustrate the point that we started down this road long before video, let alone current digital technology. I apologize that my point was missed.
Load 'N Go Video naturally should not be allowed to copy movies for profit without paying a fee. But, having said that, what is wrong with a company providing the service of ripping and loading for the less technically inclined as long as the original source is provided and paid for by the consumer? This should not be considered as selling a copy of a movie any more than installing a copy of a legitimately purchased copy of Windows XP on my customer's computer. If companies want to provide a service to their customers by ripping a legitimately purchased movie or CD any placing it on their playback device, they should be allowed to do so. The industry has already received payment from the initial sale of the DVD/CD. No harm is done to the industry by legitimate fair use. If anything, consumers would be more apt to buy subsequent titles knowing that they can play them on any device that they choose.
Back in my vinyl days, I had a HUGE collection of vinyl. The record industry made money off of me. I also recorded my favorites on cassette for use in my car. My entire reason for buying a cassette recorder was for this purpose. The record industry wouldn't have made any more money off of me if I hadn't been allowed to do this. I simply would not have purchased cassette equipment. Pre-recorded cassettes suck. I would have done without. If anything, the record industry made more money from me because this option was available. There are some albums that I most likely wouldn't have purchased for home listening. But record, I did (with the blessing of the courts) and because of it, the RIAA made money, the electronic industry made money and Maxell made money for the blanks.
IMO, rather than concentrating on competing, incompatible DRM measures to prevent the legitimate fair use that had already been given us by congress and the courts, the industry should set on a standard that is usable by all devices and keep it that way. DRM should not prevent the copying or playback of any content, but rather, should simply be an electronic watermark that allows the file to be traced to the original purchaser. And this license should be transferrable should I decide to sell my copy (try reselling an iTunes selection sometime). If I want to play content on my damned refrigerator, if it is so equipped, I should be allowed this. But instead, both industries want consumers to pay over and over for the priviledge of playing their purchase on each device they choose.
The MPAA is still sore over the Betamax case as is the RIAA over the 1971 ruling. The industry's claims that they are being hurt financially by file sharing and the resulting DMCA are a smoke screen. Anyone familiar with the technology knows that the only thing current DRMs do are prevent consumer choice. Pirates being pirates will always find a way to circumvent, especially where profit is involved. It's all about the money.
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
Ahhh, sorry - I thought that you were arguing that this business was legal.
:)
I agree with you that copyright is way out of line... I'm not as sure that you should be able to hire an "agent" to lawfully make copies for you. I'm torn, because on the one hand, you are right about not having to pay for things more than once. On the other hand, there is a company with absolutely zero creative output making money using other people's IP. I think some special cases should probably be legislated in - treat video the same way that audio is treated. Recording your LPs onto CD should always be legal, and so should burning your laserdisks to DVD. It's not currently, and it should be.
The question is, should it be legal to HIRE someone to put your LPs/DVDs into digital format. On that, I'm not as sure, but it seems like I'm being swayed into the direction of making that permissible. The only thing that still nags at me is that when the record companies originally sold you the LPs, they were disposable. They were only good for so many plays, and then they had to be replaced. With the advent of hard drives and cheap CD burners, this business model fell apart. The rules of the game sort of changed on them, and for that I feel a little bad.
On the other hand, we're more than 20 years past the point where they introduced a "forever" type of medium, the CD. If they can't get their act together in 20+ years, then they deserve to die! Especially considering that I advocate a 15 year copyright period
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So you're telling me I can't just do a "dd if=/dev/rcd0c of=dvd.rip bs=1024000" and then burn that to another disc? Are the keys stored somewhere else on the disc, like the innermost plastic area before the data area begins?
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
You made the original program. Your words were that the other person made the copy. The fact that it was easy for them to do this does not change the fact that you did not make the copy. What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to copy, subject to certain limitations, it does not give you ownership of the copies other people make. One very pointed example of this is the right to copy for the purpose of parody. Not very likely to pertain to software, I'll grant you, but if copyright gave you ownership of resulting copies there would be no exclusion for parody etc.
If someone copies your program, what they have taken from you is not the copy, it is the exclusiveness of the right to copy. This could probably be phrased better, but copyright protects your exclusive right to perform an action (copying said program/material). It does not protect your ownership of an object. If it did, it would be of no value to you, because the moment you sold me a copy (now my program) I could now copy it to my hearts content, and your detriment. So if someone copies your program, they have infringed your rights, not taken your property. Theft is simply an inaccurate description for what has happened. That's why if I came to your place and took the disk/tape you saved the software on, the law agrees I would have stolen it, but if I make a copy of it the law states I have infringed your copyright.
No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it.
So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong? It is as a practical measure for the benefit of society only that we grant copyrights unless you accept that easy=wrong.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
So you're telling me I can't just do a "dd if=/dev/rcd0c of=dvd.rip bs=1024000" and then burn that to another disc?
Correct. Well you can do that, but the disc you get out of it won't play in a standard DVD player.
Are the keys stored somewhere else on the disc, like the innermost plastic area before the data area begins?
They are stored in an area on the normal writing surface, but standard writers won't let you write that area, and standard burnable disks have that area pre-recorded.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Okay, I'll try and get this point thru one more time: I'm not talking about what the law says! I'm not talking about what rights laws grant you. I'm talking about the word "theft", and I have shown exactly why I'm not talking about the law (read: if you take something from someone without permission in international waters, it is still theft, even though there are no laws saying it is).
So, let's try this again, but forgetting about what rights the law gives you, we're just talking about basic english. I've reworded to emphasise that they have saved my program to a media themself (as per your "Your words were that the other person made the copy"), and that it's not a copy that I've made, that they are taking.
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they save it on themselves, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft"
So which bit of this isn't true? Add underline tags to the section that is not true. I'm not asking you to repeat what the law says, what the law grants, exclusivity or anything like that. I want you to tell me exactly which part of the above paragraph you are saying is wrong. If they save my program, onto their own disc, it is my program, on their disc. If they walk out with it, they are taking their own disc, and my own program on it. You can claim that it's their copy, but you can't claim that it's not my program.
"So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong?"
Don't be stupid. There are no laws against, and there is nothing in the religions that specifically teach against, sending the whole planet earth hurtling out of orbit. We don't need to take time out specifically teaching people that it's wrong to do it, because it's hardly something that can easily be done.
Something isn't "right" just because it's not easily done, but we don't need to teach that it's "wrong" if it's not possible to be done anyway.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
and
So which bit of this isn't true?
Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong. Without copyright law, nothing gives you any claim to copies you didn't make. I am pretty sure there is international law about stealing, certainly about piracy (argh, me hearties! type piracy, just to be clear). Really, in the absence of law, there are morals and force of arms. Show me the moral code you follow that gives you a monopoly on your easily copyable program. I'll probably disagree with it, but I'll see your point. In western societies however, it is commonly accepted that your moral code is not binding on me.
As Thomas Jefferson apparently said:
People have always copied ideas. Mass production has become easier, but mass production was difficult for everyone, even originator's of ideas. How about we modify your example. You sell someone a copy. They install it on two computers without permission. Stealing? Nonsense. Copyright violation? Absolutely.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong"
Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?
Something that I create, is by definition, "my" creation, whether law, army, or personal moral code says or not. It is my creation, my program, my song, my whatever, by definition, of what the words mean. Even if you own (with permission, without, whatever) a copy, the program that you own a copy of is still my creation.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Yeah, all these threads were what I was trying to avoid with my caveat: "my opinion". There is a preponderance of belief that if I can get away with it under the law, it is ok. No sense of honor or personal integrity. I shouldn't have to explain that people who provide a service or thing for money expect a remuneration from any individuals that benefit from that service or thing. Similarly, if one uses the law to trample people's rights (DMCA), then they are also acting immorally.
If you only focus only on what is legal, not what is right, then (mis)use of the DMCA is to be expected and we are back to might (good lawyers) makes right. On the other hand, I am not blind to what the MP/RIAA are doing. They are attempting to make me pay for something twice (or more) because of medium changes, which is not a cost outlay of the artists and musicians. Consequently, they are stealing from me.
Which brings me back to my ultimate point: Since the MP/RIAA are abusing our collective rights and have allowed for no middle ground , I have no choice but to side with those who ethics I find questionable. After all, they are only playing the legal game that the MP/RIAA have devised, and THEY are not taking away my rights of fair use.
Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents?
You don't own your parents. If you disagree, just try to sell them, see how far you get.
You have said nothing that demonstrates your ownership of copies of your work. Even though copies were difficult to make in earlier times, it was still possible and was not considered theft. The fact that you claim ownership of copies other people make of your work has no basis in reality. You produce the work, the other person produces the copy. Obviously it is much easier to make a copy than it is to produce an original work. There are sound reasons for society to grant you a monopoly on that work for a limited time, but it remains: you produce the original work, you own the original work, someone else produces a copy, they own the copy. Would you claim that the time limitation on copyrights and patents is unjust? That society is stealing from the IP holders when their rights expire? After all, my car, furniture, house, none of my physical possessions have a time limitation to my ownership, even though there may be various taxes such as land tax payable.
If you don't make the copy, you don't own the copy, that's all there is to it. Any additional rights you get are solely given to you by law, temporary and changeable. Any assertion by you that they are somehow immutable property rights is meaningless.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents?
And if I clone your parents, will my copies actually be your parents? Will you call them "Mom" and "Dad"?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Your copies won't be copies of my parents, they will be people made from copies of my parents DNA. In this example, the DNA is what's being copied, and the people are the medium carrying it. Just like I wouldn't claim ownership of the disc someone saved my work onto, but would still claim ownership of the work, I also wouldn't claim the people are my parents, but would claim they carry my parents DNA.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents, that I should be able to sell them, or anything of the sort. But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.
Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion. You may legally own something (such as a car), but at the same time, if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.
If somebody creates a piece of work, then to me, and many many other people, including the person who I first replied to in this thread, legislated or not, through a moral understanding, recognition, and appreciation, agree that that person ownes their work, and that someone else merely saving that work onto another disc, does not grant the that person ownership, or any other right of claim over it.
You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation once somebody else has saved it to another medium, but only the original which they saved (or drew, or whatever) themself, just means that you lack that moral.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me". The 'trade' may be grossly unfair, they may be totally ripping you off, but they're not taking your money without permission.
Other than that, I think your "No sense of honor or personal integrity" sentence pretty much sums up people on both ends of this argument - the MP/RIAA side who believe in absolute 100% control with no rights for the consumer, and those at the other end who believe that artists don't own their works just because only a "time limited monopoly" is all that is covered under legislature.
Are we not men?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents
Perhaps I can remind you what you said: "Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?"
...the context being that you were saying ownership exists regardless of the law. So I'm not making stuff up, you just used an example that did not it any way strengthen your case.
But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.
Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book. I think books, being a written work, are a much closer analogy for software than parents. Even in your example though you say "they may then own the photo". Would they be stealing your parents if they made another copy of the photo? They can quite legitimately say "This is my photo".
Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion.
So my opinion that you don't own copies of your software is ok then. Relatively.
if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.
Your opinion does not meet this condition.
You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation
No, I argued that if they didn't create the copy they don't own it. I also stated that they are (and should be) given exclusive rights to copying for a limited time. Since this is the law pretty much all over the world, it would seem that far more people agree with my relative opinion than agree with your relative opinion.
Here's an example I hope will illustrate my point: Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission? Morally, according to you? I would think that if you own the actual copy, then for me to delete it would be vandalism or some similar wrong. I should not destroy your property without your express consent, even if you can easily replace it. However, if I own the copy, but you have the exclusive right to control copying, I can delete it without destroying anything of yours.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book"
Yes, the BOOK, just like you would own a DISC that a program is saved on. However, lets say you've bought a book, a story that somebody has written. You buying the book, thus now owning that book, does not mean that the story is yours. Just the book that it is written in.
"Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission?"
Of cause. Just like if somebody made a cup, and you bought it from them, you are free to go and smash it right up. I believe that when you purchase something, you should get certain rights with it. Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to, because you have bought the right to use it, and publishers saying "you can only use it directly off this one disc on this one particular device, which you cannot convert [etc]" is grossly unfair to the point where I would say it is wrong to attach those kinds of limitations (especially at the prices they charge).
But we're not talking about the rights you should have if you purchase something. We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to
Why? If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?
We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.
Not really. If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours. In the case of a copyrighted work, what I need is permission to copy. As I said before, this is the way the law works in any country I'm aware of. It seems to me, therefore, that the vast majority of people who have put serious thought into this issue see it my way. Which is really to say, I've seen the way the law works and I'm in basic agreement with it regarding copyrights. It wasn't, of course, originally my idea.
And the law treats theft and copyright breach very differently, not just different words, but very different processes and penalties. The fact that the MPAA in particular has successfully indoctrinated some people into thinking of copying as equivalent to stealing a handbag or car is more of a tribute to the effectiveness of advertising than a contribution to rational discourse.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me".
Well. Fair enough. They don't have a knife to my throat and I don't have to watch a movie burned to my computer if I am unwilling to purchase it in that format. But again, there is that aspect of, I shouldn't have to when I am merely wanting to watch or listen to a movie/song, that I already purchased. Or, even just burn a 5 second sequence of the movie for a start-up splash on my own (and just my own) computer, which is what started me down this road of hate and discontent.
And though perhaps a bit exaggerated, remember, the MP/RIAA have taken upon themselves to defined what is "criminal" in this interaction. I am just turning it around on them. If they are going to ignore fair use and assert that backing up/watching my previously purchased DVD or CD on any hardware other than the original is stealing (be it burning to my computer's HD or another disk - like I used to with cassette tapes so that when a tape player ate a cassette I wasn't SOL), then by that same measure, I am asserting that they are prepared to steal from me by requiring a second purchase to fully utilize, as best fits my lifestyle, something that I have already legitimately purchased.
"If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?"
Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.
"If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours"
As I keep repeating, I'm not the one who hit the buttons to save my work onto your disc, no, but it is still my work, legislation or not, you saving my program onto your disc does not make it your program, I'm still the one who wrote it, you may have saved it onto your own disc, but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.
If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism. So if it's not your research, it must still be the researchers research. Your paper. Your ink. Your handwriting. That's it.
It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Ah, I see. I'm just ripping my DVDs to a large RAID system in order to play them on my home network, I really have no need to burn discs.
I'll have to see what happens when I try playing such a disc on my RCA DVD player.
Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.
It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.
It's not that you require more simplicity. It's consistency that's lacking in your views. First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want. What you seem to want is not consistent with the terms you use, specifically, theft. This post from yesterday may explain it to you. I don't know. Perhaps you'll never get it, you'd don't seem to want to.
but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.
Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation that have made it possible for you to be a programmer. It also would not exist unless those others had made their contribution. That's a strong case for saying your work belongs in the public domain. However, as an incentive, you've been offered a temporary monopoly on the right to copy that work. You own that right, not the work itself. If you don't agree, just go consult with your IP lawyer, he/she will set you straight soon enough. Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand.
If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism.
You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the different (legitimate) ways the word "your" can be used. "Your pencil" would generally mean the pencil is your property. "Your parents" does not indicate that the parents are your property. If I purchase a book, I can quite legitimately say "That's my book". If I lend it to someone, when they give it back to me, they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism? But get this, I own that book, not the author. The author owns the copyright. See the difference yet?
In any case, here are some points you still haven't answered. I'm really not interested in anything you have to say unless you answer these points:
"if copyright gave you ownership of resulting copies there would be no exclusion for parody etc."
Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?
"Would you claim that the time limitation on copyrights and patents is unjust? That society is stealing from the IP holders when their rights expire? After all, my car, furniture, house, none of my physical possessions have a time limitation to my ownership, even though there may be various taxes such as land tax payable."
Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire? Does the public domain consist almost exlusively of stolen material?
Face it, the effort you put in to create a program is tiny compared to the work to develop the language you wrote it in, to develop the computer you wrote it on, to develop the ideas and curriculum you were educated with, to develop the electrical delivery that powered your computer. You only have those ideas to implement because you were allowed to build on the ideas of others. It is appropriate that others will be allowed to build on your ideas, which is to say, they are not your exclusive property, even though it is appropriate for you to be rewarded for your efforts.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want"
/why/ the government cannot grant ownership of something you created, only enforce it. In return for this protection, you pay a sort of tax - you give your work to the greater society after the period of protection is up.
No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work. Secondly I have said that the purchase of work should grant you rights, including format shifting and backing up, because you have paid for the work, and should be able to store the work however you see fit, in a way you can use and future protect it. There is no lacking of consistency here at all.
"This post from yesterday may explain it to you"
Leaving aside the false assertions in that post, what it discusses is the rights your government will grant and enforce. What the law grants you is protection, not ownership. Ownership is something that can only be given away/passed on/shared, by the creator/current owner (eg, as a gift or part of a trade). You cannot grant ownership of something that you do not own, which is
"Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation..."
So is the technology that goes into physical construction. That argument would mean you can't own something physical that exists due to the work of the people who invented the tools you used to make it, that it must belong to the public.
"Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand"
If I was stupid enough to pay you a couple hundred dollars an hour for coming up with arguments with zero weight such as that last one, I doubt I'd even have any ability to understand my own name.
"they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism?"
This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't. So saying "this is my book" would be correct, but saying "this is my story" would be plagiarism. "Catch that"???
"Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?"
I think it's theft in the same way that income tax is. (note to anyone who misunderstands, I'm not asserting that income tax is theft, I'm purely drawing a parallel between the two).
"Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire?"
Again, in the same way I believe income tax is theft. I believe you're giving something to society in return for something. If you don't wish for something to enter public domain, then you opt out of government protection over your creation, and have to enforce protection yourself, ie, keep it under lock and key. If you want to release it into the wild, and have government enforce protection, then the cost of that protection is releasing it to the society that has formed the government/police that have protected it over the years.
Your last paragraph is also flawed, again, due to the fact that you seem to say that something physical can be your property (eg, when you buy a car) but something nonphysical can't, because the nonphysical thing could only be built on years of previous work, inventions, ideas etc. You think this is not true of a car? The people who make a car make it entirely on their own, with all their own tools, which they invented themselves, with electicity that they generate using methods they invented themselves, designed on computers that they designed, built, invented themselves, etc etc etc?
Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?
The people who made my car don't still claim ownership of it. It's mine.
No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work.
You said if someone takes a copy they are stealing. For it to be stealing, that copy would have to be your property.
This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't.
Rubbish. I can read it, think about it, tell it to my kids. If it's my book, and the only way to remove the story is by removing the book, it's my story. The only thing I don't have is the copyright.
The law says you own the copyright, that is, it's the right that is exclusively yours, not the idea, work, story or whatever. But you don't want to go by the law, or any existing philosophy of right and wrong. You have your own arbitrary standard that nearly nobody other than RIAA/MPAA and similar standover organisations share. The law in every country disagrees with you.
Well, guess what, you can have your arbitrary ideas, but if you ever have a real dispute with me on this, you'll have to do it by the law, not your ideas. No government deals with personal copyright infringement as theft. Everywhere I know it is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Your assertions to the contrary are meaningless.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/