The personal use exemption is not in Title 17, but it appears to be elsewhere in legislation. Copying to send to others, is still very very prohibited.
I didn't say to not listen to music, but you should either abide by the rules, or find artists that feel the same way you do (Radiohead?)
also, how does a death-plus-75-year stretch stifle innovation? I fail to see the point? Extended copyrights are inconvenient to you, but they don't change the encouragement for innovation. Patents are still finite, remember.
If you don't like the present course then call/email/write/visit your congressman/senator/governor/president and tell them how you feel, then vote accordingly. If enough people make enough noise, then stuff will get changed.
This is my absolute last post in this thread/article/whatever, after a nice flamewar, I am ready to quit.
I love the greater common good as much as the next guy, but as a capitalist, I believe that most people will work toward that good only when "encouraged" by economic incentives. This doesn't necessarily mean wealth, but it probably does. Bill Gates' 60" television is the product of his success. He might not be the best example, but he still helped bring computing to the masses, in exchange for this, he became fabulously wealthy. A move toward that greater good was established through financial incentive. Had Microsoft failed, Bill would have probably graduated Harvard and become a lawyer/accountant/whatever.
- Copyrights can be transferred, therefore, I cannot assume that your artist owns her own copyright. Check it out, thats what this whole SCO suit is about. Think before you type.
- I have studied IP law. I know it like the back of my hand.
- you said "There's a real world out there. In that world, scanbots search sites looking for.mp3s with names resembling that of songs belonging to RIAA member labels, and bots send DMCA takedown notices to ISP...It is not required that a DMCA takedown notice be fair or reasonable." Which is true, but you CAN represent yourself, someone who is (self proclaimed) as knowledgable about IP laws as yourself should be able to handle it. Besides, it would be a silly move to name all of your songs with the names of copyrighted songs, change the names on the MP3s and they won't get busted. The RIAA also doesn't stand a chance in hell of beating you in court if the MP3s aren't in violation of a copyright.
-You win on fair use I guess, my definition did not take into account for the cited legislation. (I'll conceed to you on that one)
-"Why don't you run along and play with matches?" No problem, just tell me where your house is...
-I attened a private high school and college. Tax-payer funds weren't "wasted" on me.
-I am not a member of the GOP, and, in fact voted (mostly) for independant candidates in the last election. You are still a communist. I am not a born-again, I am an athiest. You are an ignorant biggot.
-You are still ignorant. I am only fortified in this belief by your insistence on ad hominem attacks (which I must admit that I too am guilty of, in retaliation). You are a typical pinko liberal shmo who probably would suck Bill Clinton's dick if he promised to end capitalism as we know it.
In theory I like the DMCA. Thats right, mods, do your worst. In many ways the DMCA has provisions that protect parties from being wrongfully charged with infringement. That said, it does have its abuses - these are holes that should be plugged.
To oppose fair enforcement of copyright laws is anti-capitalist, and against the essential principals that define this country. Unless you believe that Communism works (worked real well in the USSR) or hell, even socialism (worked out perfectly in the UK), you should stop trying to convert this country to one of those systems.
"I'm also published writer on computers and the Net. This means that people pay for what I write on occasion. "
You pay for the copy of the music that comes on the physical media. You do not inherit the right to copy that music, that right is retained by the copyright holder.
Ripping your CD to MP3 is technically making a copy of it, and therefore is against the copyright, and it is definitely making a copy to burn those songs.
That said, nobody is going to sue you for doing so, and there may even be some sort of implied consent to copy the recording for personal use. In other words, as long as you are keeping those copies to yourself, the RIAA probably won't shit a brick on you.
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2)to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
Read my other posts to this thread for another longish quote on Fair Use.
And I used Radiohead only because I knew that commies like the people who would argue with me tend to love Radiohead.
Personally I think they suck. IMHO
Oh, BTW, I'm working with an independent musician now. I can't find any friends willing to host her work for P2P networks because they're afraid of attack by the people who you are being a paid or unpaid mouthpiece for. So promoting her outside the RIAA framework is more difficult. Tell your bosses "Thanks, assholes"...
If your indie artist owns her own copyrights, and she is dumb if she doesn't, then the RIAA can't attack your friends for hosting her. Learn how copyright works before you give me your uninformed pinko BS.
I don't want anyone to destroy computers by the millions to "protect" my work. I don't want protecting my work to come at the price of eventually forcing consumer electronics development to move out of the US and if EU follows the US lead as it seems to be doing, following software development to India and China. If someone xeroxes a copy of one of my print articles at a public library, I don't want any of your buddies to burn down the library to "protect" my copyright.
neither do I.
With respect to your. . . interesting interpretation of copyright law, was your omission of any mention of "fair use" in your post deliberate, or left out of the RIAA propaganda you obviously based your post on.
Title 17 US Code Chapter 1 Section 107 - Fair Use. Read it. Does it apply? Does it?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
No, doesn't seem to apply, does it.
Read the goddamned statute before you cite it
Its 4am, I wasn't even going to reply to this but your ignorance is so astounding that I was forced to. Have fun voting for Ralph Nader
You made my argument for me in an attempt to make your own.
Since you own the copy, you have the right to listen to it, since it is not one of the explicit copy rights. If you are deaf, or just curious, you have the right use an oscilliscope to watch your music, instead of listen to it, since that is not one of the explicit copyrights. You have the right to use it as a coaster, since that is not one of the explicit copy rights. You have the right to use the media as a shotgun target, or do anything else you like with the media, except those things explicilty laid out as the copy rights.
I never said you didn't own the actual disc. I said you didn't buy the copyrighted work on the disc, just the right to use it in the ways outlined in Title 17 and in any way the creator allows.
For example, some bands encourage you to rip and share MP3s, in that case, they are permitting you to copy their works. Without that express permission though, you cannot.
With the exception of Monica Lewinsky and Anna Nicole and bob dole, all of the celebrities mentioned attained their celeb status through their art. Monica obtained it through a blowjob and not through intellectual property of any sort - basically the same deal for anna.
Now, back to example A) Poor Black Blues musicians - they were basically treated by their record labels as if they had no intellectual property rights. None of them got rich. Only a few of them made a living. There are exceptions, mostly those were the ones that survived until relatively recently, and were able to take advantage of intellectual property laws (B.B. King, for example).
Some of these artists were even quite famous, but they never really prospered.
I sense a certain degree of sarcasm in your comment, but you are absolutely right. You pay money for something alright, you are buying two things when you go to the record store:
1) The physical media - the CD itself 2) The right to listen to that physical media
You are not purchasing the music itself - your rights in terms of how you may use that music are limited. This has a strong basis in copyright law. Ever wonder what, "All Rights Reserved" means? The artist in question reserves all rights to their work, their intellectual property.
Copyright legislation can be found at Title 17 US Code. You can read all about it, but the gist is that you don't buy the copyright, or any rights, other than those that the copyright holder is willing to give you - in the RIAA's case, they say you only have the right to listen to your CDs in private. Deal with it.
Copyright law has an important purpose, it protects the rights of those who generate the IP. This encourages people to do this, adding to the culture and technological prowess of our nation. Without copyright laws, Musicians, Authors, Poets, Software companies, and others would be either unable to make money or would recieve greatly diminished returns.
What kind of music will you be listening to when Radiohead has to work the day shift at the 7-11 just to make ends meat? Perhaps J.D. Salinger's work would have been better if he had worked full time as an accountant and only wrote on the weekends? By denying copyright protection, that is what you create, a rotting cesspool of a nation with diminished culture (art/music/literature/etc). You would surely stifle technological advancements, why would a software company even bother to invest their money in research if others can benefit from their work at a far-lesser cost?
Mobile phones are also banned from the trading floor. A trader can get in trouble/fired for using one. All in-office communication MUST be recorded, its not for the entertainment of the employer, but rather for the protection of the consumer (insider trading).
Remember in the movie Wall Street, Bud Fox used to make all of his calls on his cell phone?
This is not a matter of the employer "owning the communication" its a matter of the employer taking reasonable steps to ensure that their employees aren't cheating. When the SEC comes along to investigate, they need to be able to produce this stuff.
The libertarian in you is right. Open Source is really cool, and its benefits are apparent to a lot of folks, but the free market is called such for a reason. By essentially trying to force Microsoft to comply in this fashion, politicians are once again not giving the free market the opportunity to weed the weak members out of the herd.
Slashdot Mirror
The personal use exemption is not in Title 17, but it appears to be elsewhere in legislation. Copying to send to others, is still very very prohibited.
I didn't say to not listen to music, but you should either abide by the rules, or find artists that feel the same way you do (Radiohead?)
also, how does a death-plus-75-year stretch stifle innovation? I fail to see the point? Extended copyrights are inconvenient to you, but they don't change the encouragement for innovation. Patents are still finite, remember.
If you don't like the present course then call/email/write/visit your congressman/senator/governor/president and tell them how you feel, then vote accordingly. If enough people make enough noise, then stuff will get changed.
This is my absolute last post in this thread/article/whatever, after a nice flamewar, I am ready to quit.
I love the greater common good as much as the next guy, but as a capitalist, I believe that most people will work toward that good only when "encouraged" by economic incentives. This doesn't necessarily mean wealth, but it probably does. Bill Gates' 60" television is the product of his success. He might not be the best example, but he still helped bring computing to the masses, in exchange for this, he became fabulously wealthy. A move toward that greater good was established through financial incentive. Had Microsoft failed, Bill would have probably graduated Harvard and become a lawyer/accountant/whatever.
Oh, and for the DMCA folks, Clicky Here
Almost forgot.
You are the king of the trolls. Congrats.
- Copyrights can be transferred, therefore, I cannot assume that your artist owns her own copyright. Check it out, thats what this whole SCO suit is about. Think before you type.
.mp3s with names resembling that of songs belonging to RIAA member labels, and bots send DMCA takedown notices to ISP ...It is not required that a DMCA takedown notice be fair or reasonable." Which is true, but you CAN represent yourself, someone who is (self proclaimed) as knowledgable about IP laws as yourself should be able to handle it. Besides, it would be a silly move to name all of your songs with the names of copyrighted songs, change the names on the MP3s and they won't get busted. The RIAA also doesn't stand a chance in hell of beating you in court if the MP3s aren't in violation of a copyright.
- I have studied IP law. I know it like the back of my hand.
- you said "There's a real world out there. In that world, scanbots search sites looking for
-You win on fair use I guess, my definition did not take into account for the cited legislation. (I'll conceed to you on that one)
-"Why don't you run along and play with matches?" No problem, just tell me where your house is...
-I attened a private high school and college. Tax-payer funds weren't "wasted" on me.
-I am not a member of the GOP, and, in fact voted (mostly) for independant candidates in the last election. You are still a communist. I am not a born-again, I am an athiest. You are an ignorant biggot.
-You are still ignorant. I am only fortified in this belief by your insistence on ad hominem attacks (which I must admit that I too am guilty of, in retaliation). You are a typical pinko liberal shmo who probably would suck Bill Clinton's dick if he promised to end capitalism as we know it.
In theory I like the DMCA. Thats right, mods, do your worst. In many ways the DMCA has provisions that protect parties from being wrongfully charged with infringement. That said, it does have its abuses - these are holes that should be plugged.
To oppose fair enforcement of copyright laws is anti-capitalist, and against the essential principals that define this country. Unless you believe that Communism works (worked real well in the USSR) or hell, even socialism (worked out perfectly in the UK), you should stop trying to convert this country to one of those systems.
"I'm also published writer on computers and the Net. This means that people pay for what I write on occasion. "
God help those people.
You pay for the copy of the music that comes on the physical media. You do not inherit the right to copy that music, that right is retained by the copyright holder.
Ripping your CD to MP3 is technically making a copy of it, and therefore is against the copyright, and it is definitely making a copy to burn those songs.
That said, nobody is going to sue you for doing so, and there may even be some sort of implied consent to copy the recording for personal use. In other words, as long as you are keeping those copies to yourself, the RIAA probably won't shit a brick on you.
Read my other posts to this thread for another longish quote on Fair Use.
And I used Radiohead only because I knew that commies like the people who would argue with me tend to love Radiohead.
Personally I think they suck. IMHO
If your indie artist owns her own copyrights, and she is dumb if she doesn't, then the RIAA can't attack your friends for hosting her. Learn how copyright works before you give me your uninformed pinko BS.
Thats what FM radio is for... /ducks for cover
More power to ya.
Just because Disney owns the copyright, doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't allow derivativve works.
Why do you even bother listening to the crap though? Why download it if it is so bad?
With the exception of Monica Lewinsky and Anna Nicole and bob dole, all of the celebrities mentioned attained their celeb status through their art. Monica obtained it through a blowjob and not through intellectual property of any sort - basically the same deal for anna.
Now, back to example A) Poor Black Blues musicians - they were basically treated by their record labels as if they had no intellectual property rights. None of them got rich. Only a few of them made a living. There are exceptions, mostly those were the ones that survived until relatively recently, and were able to take advantage of intellectual property laws (B.B. King, for example).
Some of these artists were even quite famous, but they never really prospered.
I sense a certain degree of sarcasm in your comment, but you are absolutely right. You pay money for something alright, you are buying two things when you go to the record store:
1) The physical media - the CD itself
2) The right to listen to that physical media
You are not purchasing the music itself - your rights in terms of how you may use that music are limited. This has a strong basis in copyright law. Ever wonder what, "All Rights Reserved" means? The artist in question reserves all rights to their work, their intellectual property.
Copyright legislation can be found at Title 17 US Code. You can read all about it, but the gist is that you don't buy the copyright, or any rights, other than those that the copyright holder is willing to give you - in the RIAA's case, they say you only have the right to listen to your CDs in private. Deal with it.
Copyright law has an important purpose, it protects the rights of those who generate the IP. This encourages people to do this, adding to the culture and technological prowess of our nation. Without copyright laws, Musicians, Authors, Poets, Software companies, and others would be either unable to make money or would recieve greatly diminished returns.
What kind of music will you be listening to when Radiohead has to work the day shift at the 7-11 just to make ends meat? Perhaps J.D. Salinger's work would have been better if he had worked full time as an accountant and only wrote on the weekends? By denying copyright protection, that is what you create, a rotting cesspool of a nation with diminished culture (art/music/literature/etc). You would surely stifle technological advancements, why would a software company even bother to invest their money in research if others can benefit from their work at a far-lesser cost?
Even Microsoft isn't dumb enough to use Windows...
are they?
Why would anyone want to do that?
You obviously don't drive on the NJ Turnpike to often...
Wow. I wish I had that. I hate it when I turn the cruise control on and then some asshat in front of me decides to make sure his brakes still work.
I basically gave up on cruise control because of that.
yep, and in those days, "the public good" meant ensuring the king his "rightful kickback"
Lawyers can prove anything if you pay them enough.
bah. Mensa members aren't right in the head.
Disclaimer: I was a Mensa member. I am no longer a member.
Winsock.. i haven't heard that word in nigh 4 years! They have winsock 2 now?
Mobile phones are also banned from the trading floor. A trader can get in trouble/fired for using one. All in-office communication MUST be recorded, its not for the entertainment of the employer, but rather for the protection of the consumer (insider trading).
Remember in the movie Wall Street, Bud Fox used to make all of his calls on his cell phone?
This is not a matter of the employer "owning the communication" its a matter of the employer taking reasonable steps to ensure that their employees aren't cheating. When the SEC comes along to investigate, they need to be able to produce this stuff.
Ford Obviously has an illegal monopoly on the market for Ford Expeditions... the DOJ should shut them down, post-haste
The libertarian in you is right. Open Source is really cool, and its benefits are apparent to a lot of folks, but the free market is called such for a reason. By essentially trying to force Microsoft to comply in this fashion, politicians are once again not giving the free market the opportunity to weed the weak members out of the herd.