The case involved the notion of copying content to a computer's ram when the person did not have authorization to even be using the work in the first place.
The author of the previous work made evident an obvious intent for his comment to be read by me, or else he would not have responded directly to me. In fact, the act of even putting it up on a public forum implicitly authorizes any user of that forum to read (but not necessarily copy) that post. However, a copy of a work which exists in a computer's ram that is necessary for one to be merely able to read such a work in the first place is actually just a so-called "incidental copy", and incidental copies of works do not infringe on copyright in the context of otherwise legitimately utilizing the work. (the referred to court case, again, revolved around somebody who was not legitimately utilizing the work).
That, and given that the poster's sig also plainly stated that the contents of his entire posts were public domain anyways, so any copyright claim he might try to make could prove to be extremely tenuous, and would probably not actually be sustainable. Even if it were, my claim of the copy being on my computer as a consequence of my reading it, which I supposedly had authorization to do, would clearly make the RAM copy of it an incidental copy in the context of otherwise legitimate utilization, and therefore non-infringing.
The "copy" that was made on my computer is not infringing on copyright, since it merely existed there for the purpose of reading it.
Please, feel free to consult a lawyer on the matter if you feel otherwise.... I have one at the ready as well. One who even specializes in copyright infringement cases, actually.
I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem. In fact, there is an abundance of precedent that the mere act of USING a copyrighted work, even if it somehow makes a copy, does not, by itself constitute copyright infringement. If it did, then even the act of memorization would be illegal, since that is making a copy in somebody's head.
Feel free to talk to your lawyer about the matter. if you feel that I've actually infringed on your copyright.
Because, in a nutshell, your claim strikes me as nothing but unadulterated bullshit, without an iota of legal claim. Try again.
So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?>/blockquote>Keeping recorded shows longer than the time it takes you to watch them might not be something that content holders particularly like, but it's definitely *NOT* a violation of copyright as long as all such home recordings are watched in the context of private home viewing.
Secondly, quoting from something or using small snippets of a sourtce is not copyright infringement either (it's fair use, actually), as long as 1) the source is acknowledged; 2) the amount of content so quoted or copied is small (a subjective term, but generally fairly easily agreed upon when its actually applicable) relative to the copyrighted work's entire content; and to some extent 3) is contextually relevant to the larger work in which it is contained.
One of the courses that I took at university actually addressed that *EXACT* issue when the subject of quoting previous research came up. This was apparently directly from the word of one of the university's law professors.
Finally, the only video content that I ever download is either personally made by the uploader, or else is available for legitimate free streaming for a limited time after airing on the applicable tv network's (nationwide, not just a small local station) website. I use bittorrent occasionally... perhaps once or twice a year, but the only content that I download with it is content that is being made freely available anyways.
I have little doubt in your ability to come up with dozens, if not hundreds of examples of how many people infringe on copyright without knowing it.... that doesn't mean I'm one of them. Secondly, my sympathy for people who aren't diligent enough to be informed about what the law actually says runs pretty low.
As firm a believer in the concept of copyright as I am, however, I equally rigidly (possibly even moreso) avidly support and promote the concepts of fair use and the utilizing of copyrighted works which *CAN* be freely distributed.
But in case it wasn't obvious, I do not ever advocate the notion of sharing copyrighted content that a person does not have any permission to distribute, or the obtaining of such infringing content in any way, shape, or form. Again, if somebody, anybody, can cite *ANY* instance wherein I am personally unknowingly practicing in such behavior, I may be able adjust my behavior to compensate, and would even pay whatever penalties are owed. Making vague and general accusations about stuff that a lot of other people do, however, without pinpointing any particular crime that I personally ever did is absolutely no better than the text of the copyright alerts themselves, which do absolutely nothing to point out to the alleged infringer what it was, precisely, that the person supposedly did.
Let's see.... I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others, I subscribe to certain youtube channels which only contain content that is copyrighted by the people who created the corresponding channel (ie, not any content that they copied from somewhere else), upload my own home videos to youtube, use itunes, and pay for all content that requires payment, keep all my existing software up to date, and finally watch all of my favorite tv shows online, legitimately, streamed right from the appropriate nationwide network's very own website.
Nope... I think I'm pretty safe. If somebody can point to any specific place where i'm infringing on copyright, I might be able to alter my behavior. Until then, however... I'm good.
You didn't read what I wrote very closely, did you?
>p>
Anyways, it's not the ISP's thar are trying to detect infringement, it's the companies that own the content, who would have no way to detect you were infringing on copyright in the first place unless the saw you downloading their content. The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.
Of course, as I said, since the alert doesn't contain any particulars about what was allegedly infringed on or when or where or anything that might remotely be used as a basis to appeal, the system as it stands needs a whole lot of improvement.
If a person is doing it without even realizing it, then it follows that it should be even *MORE* imperative that the alerts give specifics.
That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.
I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong.
I'd ask if you want to make a bet on that, but I know there's no possible way you'd ever pay up... you'd only argue that I somehow hide my tracks well enough to not be caught when you weren't able to find anything.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I live, it's borderline, and probably on the verge of being legalized within the next couple of years.
However, I neither consider myself particularly entitled or above any so-called commoner (I consider myself a commoner). I do, however, hold a lot of respect for the general concept of copyright, even if I do not necessarily respect all of the methods that are employed by organizations which utilize it. Infringing on copyright, however, weakens its practicality for *ALL* copyright holders, and as confidence in copyright to protect a holder's interest wanes, they can and almost certainly will resort to other means to protect their interests which can only result in a vastly reduced practical availability of future works as they resort to self-censorship, artificially limiting distribution, and other tactics.
Singing "happy birthday" to somebody you personally know, even in a public place, is a well established case of fair use, and not infringing on copyright, because the song is not being sung for the benefit of the public, but only for people personally known to those who are singing. If it were sung in such a way that it was apparent there was some deliberate intent for other people to hear it (and not merely a side effect of simply being nearby), then a copyright violation could be applicable, but such an intent would have to be pretty obvious... like standing up on a chair to be heard further, or singing/speaking in an unusually loud volume.
Employees of an establishment may be prohibited from singing such a song because since they are being paid, and fair use cannot apply, even if they personally know the people they may be singing to.
For what it's worth though... no, I don't sing happy birthday in public because it's embarrassing.
Jokes contain standard elements that are not, themselves, generally subject to copyright. There is also a significant difficulty that arises with even establishing that you originated a particular joke, since many are delivered verbally, which renders most attempts to claim any sort of copyright on them as moot.
First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.
Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.
However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.
According to the grounds for appeal, most of the reasons aren't even applicable unless the person who is accused actually knows what the alleged infringing content that was downloaded and in turn identified their IP as infringing on copyright. where it was downloaded from, when, etc, Absolutely none of the alerts that the consumer receives contain any of that information.
As that response, in the context I provided, would be nothing less than nonsense, should I take your comment to mean that you just felt it necessary to really respond to what I had originally thought was just a rhetorical question? Or should I infer from it that the most productive thing you felt you could possibly add to my comment was to refer to the fact that my above comment employs a construction which was once considered a grammatical error, but that is no the longer the case? If the latter, I might suggest you're off topic. If the former... well... you seem to get it. Good for you (golf clap)
The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today. Heck when the subject comes up, and I tell people that I don't download songs or movies online other than ones that I've paid for or are otherwise authorized to get, a lot of people look at me like I'm somehow abnormal. I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1 (although many I've met naively believe that there can't be anything wrong with what they are doing on the grounds that so many other people do it all the time).
If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.
There are, however, two major flaws that concern me greatly. The first is that if they are falsely alleging that a subscriber infringed on copyright with one of these alerts, the subscriber cannot actually challenge the alert until after about the 3rd or 4th one. The other issue, an even bigger one, is that all of the alerts, even including the ones which permit an alleged perpetrator to appeal, are worded very much like a form letter, and do not contain any particulars about the accusation, like what work was allegedly infringed on, which network the alleged infringement occurred on, when it occurred, etc. It doesn't even identify the *TYPE* of alleged infringing content, which strikes me as incrediby unfair.... and has a very similar feel in my opinion to the notion of, say, being stopped and given a warning by a police officer, but them not telling you what it was that you supposedly even did. If you don't know what they are even talking about, then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?
Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?
If people buy locked down shit, and you get what they deserve.
You are, like the people who figured that it was acceptable to lift the dmca exception that permitted cell phone unlocking until a couple of weeks ago, on the grounds that there is currently a respectable availability of unlocked phones for consumers to utilize anyways, failing to realize the perhaps less than immediately obvious unintended consequences of outlawing the unlocking of new cell phones.
In creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the technologically advanced culture at all.
Actually, the method they are using seems quite new compared to what they were doing before (although not necessarily particularly innovative... arguably obvious, in fact), and seems like it may even theoretically be blockable by a individuals, as long as they know every single one of the IP addresses that are ever going to be used to hunt for infringers.
You seem to have completely overlooked that I was only talking about false allegations being low with regards to people's networks who go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held responsible for.
If they were hacked, or more than one person uses that router and they aren't prepared to take responsibility for that person's actions, then of course all bets are off.
But in typical slashdot pedantry, people here are far more worried about exceptions than they are in noticing that the general rule might actually work for the most part, and the infrequency with which it doesn't (which is still theoretical, at this juncture) may very well be low enough to be manually managed.
One of the major problems I have with the copyright alert system they've implemented (I really only have two, but this one's the biggest one) is that when they make an allegation about you, they don't even make an attempt in the allegation to tell you what it was, exactly, that you allegedly did... it's just a vague form letter that doesn't identify one single thing about the alleged infringement, not even the *TYPE* of content that was supposedly infringing, let alone when, or what, or where.
But, the good news about that is that it won't carry any weight in court for them, should it go that far. The text of the alert makes far too vague an accusation to be usable, even if it *were* true. One might as well make the general accusation that "person XYZ lied" without actually specifying exactly what was lied about, where the lying happened, or when.
It's less a matter that they've promised they will only ever accuse guilty people (they haven't explicitly done so, in fact, to the best of my knowledge) as it is that the process they are evidently using to disover the IP addresses of infringers is actually pretty likely to produce valid results (insomuch as that an IP they get associated with particular infringing content was genuinely downloading the specified infringing content, not that the subscriber who personally leases that IP was necessarily directly responsible for the infringement). Thus, if a person does not download infringing content, and does not allow anyone who might download such content to use their internet connectivity, it strikes me that the chances of a genuinely false accusation are going to be pretty low.
And what evidence do *YOU* have which suggests that they have not altered their detection system? Because from what I've read about it, it looks like they have.
But hey.... if it makes you feel better, you are feel perfectly free to shout at me that I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. Until then, however... wait and see.
I expect the number of genuinely false allegations (that is, innocent people whose networks go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held accountable for) in this particular system to be relatively low.
It's a little more complicated than that in practice, but the general idea is sound.
If you a) don't download infringing content in the first place; and b) do not ever share your internet connectivity with anybody else who might, I might suggest that you'd be pretty safe from harassment.
Slashdot Mirror
No... more like If I was supposedly murdered, then why haven't I *actually* been murdered?
The allegation was that I do commit copyright infringement, after all...
The case involved the notion of copying content to a computer's ram when the person did not have authorization to even be using the work in the first place.
The author of the previous work made evident an obvious intent for his comment to be read by me, or else he would not have responded directly to me. In fact, the act of even putting it up on a public forum implicitly authorizes any user of that forum to read (but not necessarily copy) that post. However, a copy of a work which exists in a computer's ram that is necessary for one to be merely able to read such a work in the first place is actually just a so-called "incidental copy", and incidental copies of works do not infringe on copyright in the context of otherwise legitimately utilizing the work. (the referred to court case, again, revolved around somebody who was not legitimately utilizing the work).
That, and given that the poster's sig also plainly stated that the contents of his entire posts were public domain anyways, so any copyright claim he might try to make could prove to be extremely tenuous, and would probably not actually be sustainable. Even if it were, my claim of the copy being on my computer as a consequence of my reading it, which I supposedly had authorization to do, would clearly make the RAM copy of it an incidental copy in the context of otherwise legitimate utilization, and therefore non-infringing.
Actually it is.
The "copy" that was made on my computer is not infringing on copyright, since it merely existed there for the purpose of reading it.
Please, feel free to consult a lawyer on the matter if you feel otherwise.... I have one at the ready as well. One who even specializes in copyright infringement cases, actually.
So... why is it that i'm not receiving any copyright alerts, exactly?
Feel free to talk to your lawyer about the matter. if you feel that I've actually infringed on your copyright.
Because, in a nutshell, your claim strikes me as nothing but unadulterated bullshit, without an iota of legal claim. Try again.
Let's see.... I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others, I subscribe to certain youtube channels which only contain content that is copyrighted by the people who created the corresponding channel (ie, not any content that they copied from somewhere else), upload my own home videos to youtube, use itunes, and pay for all content that requires payment, keep all my existing software up to date, and finally watch all of my favorite tv shows online, legitimately, streamed right from the appropriate nationwide network's very own website.
Nope... I think I'm pretty safe. If somebody can point to any specific place where i'm infringing on copyright, I might be able to alter my behavior. Until then, however... I'm good.
You didn't read what I wrote very closely, did you? >p> Anyways, it's not the ISP's thar are trying to detect infringement, it's the companies that own the content, who would have no way to detect you were infringing on copyright in the first place unless the saw you downloading their content. The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.
Of course, as I said, since the alert doesn't contain any particulars about what was allegedly infringed on or when or where or anything that might remotely be used as a basis to appeal, the system as it stands needs a whole lot of improvement.
That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.
I'd ask if you want to make a bet on that, but I know there's no possible way you'd ever pay up... you'd only argue that I somehow hide my tracks well enough to not be caught when you weren't able to find anything.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I live, it's borderline, and probably on the verge of being legalized within the next couple of years.
However, I neither consider myself particularly entitled or above any so-called commoner (I consider myself a commoner). I do, however, hold a lot of respect for the general concept of copyright, even if I do not necessarily respect all of the methods that are employed by organizations which utilize it. Infringing on copyright, however, weakens its practicality for *ALL* copyright holders, and as confidence in copyright to protect a holder's interest wanes, they can and almost certainly will resort to other means to protect their interests which can only result in a vastly reduced practical availability of future works as they resort to self-censorship, artificially limiting distribution, and other tactics.
Singing "happy birthday" to somebody you personally know, even in a public place, is a well established case of fair use, and not infringing on copyright, because the song is not being sung for the benefit of the public, but only for people personally known to those who are singing. If it were sung in such a way that it was apparent there was some deliberate intent for other people to hear it (and not merely a side effect of simply being nearby), then a copyright violation could be applicable, but such an intent would have to be pretty obvious... like standing up on a chair to be heard further, or singing/speaking in an unusually loud volume.
Employees of an establishment may be prohibited from singing such a song because since they are being paid, and fair use cannot apply, even if they personally know the people they may be singing to.
For what it's worth though... no, I don't sing happy birthday in public because it's embarrassing.
Jokes contain standard elements that are not, themselves, generally subject to copyright. There is also a significant difficulty that arises with even establishing that you originated a particular joke, since many are delivered verbally, which renders most attempts to claim any sort of copyright on them as moot.
First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.
Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.
However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.
According to the grounds for appeal, most of the reasons aren't even applicable unless the person who is accused actually knows what the alleged infringing content that was downloaded and in turn identified their IP as infringing on copyright. where it was downloaded from, when, etc, Absolutely none of the alerts that the consumer receives contain any of that information.
Not exactly a reasonable comparison... since in such a case the content being downloaded would probably be infringing on copyright.
As that response, in the context I provided, would be nothing less than nonsense, should I take your comment to mean that you just felt it necessary to really respond to what I had originally thought was just a rhetorical question? Or should I infer from it that the most productive thing you felt you could possibly add to my comment was to refer to the fact that my above comment employs a construction which was once considered a grammatical error, but that is no the longer the case? If the latter, I might suggest you're off topic. If the former... well... you seem to get it. Good for you (golf clap)
The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today. Heck when the subject comes up, and I tell people that I don't download songs or movies online other than ones that I've paid for or are otherwise authorized to get, a lot of people look at me like I'm somehow abnormal. I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1 (although many I've met naively believe that there can't be anything wrong with what they are doing on the grounds that so many other people do it all the time).
If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.
There are, however, two major flaws that concern me greatly. The first is that if they are falsely alleging that a subscriber infringed on copyright with one of these alerts, the subscriber cannot actually challenge the alert until after about the 3rd or 4th one. The other issue, an even bigger one, is that all of the alerts, even including the ones which permit an alleged perpetrator to appeal, are worded very much like a form letter, and do not contain any particulars about the accusation, like what work was allegedly infringed on, which network the alleged infringement occurred on, when it occurred, etc. It doesn't even identify the *TYPE* of alleged infringing content, which strikes me as incrediby unfair.... and has a very similar feel in my opinion to the notion of, say, being stopped and given a warning by a police officer, but them not telling you what it was that you supposedly even did. If you don't know what they are even talking about, then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?
It's not really a reduction when you're not watching anything else anyways.
Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?
You are, like the people who figured that it was acceptable to lift the dmca exception that permitted cell phone unlocking until a couple of weeks ago, on the grounds that there is currently a respectable availability of unlocked phones for consumers to utilize anyways, failing to realize the perhaps less than immediately obvious unintended consequences of outlawing the unlocking of new cell phones.
In creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the technologically advanced culture at all.
Actually, the method they are using seems quite new compared to what they were doing before (although not necessarily particularly innovative... arguably obvious, in fact), and seems like it may even theoretically be blockable by a individuals, as long as they know every single one of the IP addresses that are ever going to be used to hunt for infringers.
You seem to have completely overlooked that I was only talking about false allegations being low with regards to people's networks who go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held responsible for.
If they were hacked, or more than one person uses that router and they aren't prepared to take responsibility for that person's actions, then of course all bets are off.
But in typical slashdot pedantry, people here are far more worried about exceptions than they are in noticing that the general rule might actually work for the most part, and the infrequency with which it doesn't (which is still theoretical, at this juncture) may very well be low enough to be manually managed.
One of the major problems I have with the copyright alert system they've implemented (I really only have two, but this one's the biggest one) is that when they make an allegation about you, they don't even make an attempt in the allegation to tell you what it was, exactly, that you allegedly did... it's just a vague form letter that doesn't identify one single thing about the alleged infringement, not even the *TYPE* of content that was supposedly infringing, let alone when, or what, or where.
But, the good news about that is that it won't carry any weight in court for them, should it go that far. The text of the alert makes far too vague an accusation to be usable, even if it *were* true. One might as well make the general accusation that "person XYZ lied" without actually specifying exactly what was lied about, where the lying happened, or when.
It's less a matter that they've promised they will only ever accuse guilty people (they haven't explicitly done so, in fact, to the best of my knowledge) as it is that the process they are evidently using to disover the IP addresses of infringers is actually pretty likely to produce valid results (insomuch as that an IP they get associated with particular infringing content was genuinely downloading the specified infringing content, not that the subscriber who personally leases that IP was necessarily directly responsible for the infringement). Thus, if a person does not download infringing content, and does not allow anyone who might download such content to use their internet connectivity, it strikes me that the chances of a genuinely false accusation are going to be pretty low.
But hey.... if it makes you feel better, you are feel perfectly free to shout at me that I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. Until then, however... wait and see.
I expect the number of genuinely false allegations (that is, innocent people whose networks go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held accountable for) in this particular system to be relatively low.
It's a little more complicated than that in practice, but the general idea is sound.
If you a) don't download infringing content in the first place; and b) do not ever share your internet connectivity with anybody else who might, I might suggest that you'd be pretty safe from harassment.