This portion of the bill would add an exemption. It doesn't do anything else.
Therefore, it merely says that skipping over material other than commercials and some other things, accomplished in a particular manner, is completely legal.
It doesn't say that anything is illegal. So skipping commercials, which isn't within this exemption, will have to merely not be prima face infringement or will have to fall into a different exemption, just as it does right now!
So if it is legal to skip commercials now, it will still be legal even if this exemption becomes law.
Outfits are absolutely not protected under copyright laws.
This is wrong. There is actually some dispute whether or not they are, and courts have gone both ways.
Clearly they fall within the open endedness of 17 USC 102(a), if not the specific category of pictoral, graphical, and sculptural works in 102(a)(5).
The only real issue is whether they suffer from the utility doctrine (if they have some utility and are not physically and conceptually seperable). National Theme Productions, Inc. v. Beck, Inc. 696 F. Supp. 1348 (S.D. Cal. 1988) found that costumes were copyrightable because they were seperable. Whimsicality, Inc. v. Battat, 27 F. Supp. 2d 456(S.D.N.Y. 1998) went the other way, because they thought that the costumes were not seperable. Given that there are over a half dozen tests for seperability that I can think of off the top of my head, and that there's certainly more still, I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon.
Maybe you ought to stop talking about copyright law altogether. You seem to have this issue with not understanding it at all, and I think it devalues your posts.
Re:Disconnect and motivation
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
In the US, it's legal for you to copy a CD onto a music CD-R and give it away to a friend without charging for it.
Well, it's not so much that it is legal to do the reproduction as it is not actionable.
Of course not every CD can be reproduced under the 1008 exemption. It's fairly limited. And it can only be done by a consumer, noncommercially.
The problem is that the second half of what you said is probably wrong. You cannot be sued for making the reproduction, but that doesn't make it a legal copy. And you cannot distribute copies at all, unless the law permits you to. And it only permits you to distribute legal copies.
So if you reproduce some music onto an Audio CDR you're fine, but you've pretty likely crossed the line when you pass it on, regardless of whether or not there is a charge in the overall transaction.
Thanks for the typically imbicilic post. I had wondered a bit why 1008 was unusual in making something inactionable rather than noninfringing, and having to smack you around gave me an opportunity to think about it a bit and now I think I see Congress' logic.
it's legal because under copyright law, the only thing illegal is to copy the music (1). As you did not, in fact, make a copy, you are legal.
Damn Sam, you're not that good at this, huh.
What is in fact the relevant exclusive right of the copyright holder in 17 USC 106 is the right to reproduce the work in copies and phonorecords. Due to historical oddities, what we're actually concerned with with regards to mp3s are phonorecords.
What is a phonorecord? It's defined in 17 USC 101: "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds... are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
The creative work itself is an intangible, capable of existing simultaneously in multiple copies or phonorecords. Think of the difference between a story and a book in which that story is printed, or a box full of books, each one containing an embodiment of the story.
So is a computer a material object? Yes.
If we fix sounds in it by any method by which it can be perceived, is the computer, among other things, a phonorecord? Yes.
Do we infringe upon the copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce the work into new phonorecords if we do it without permission or an applicable exemption? Yes.
It's the guy at the other end, who set up his computer to make copies on demand, that broke the law.
No, he ALSO broke the law. Surely you didn't think that only one person was in trouble here?
This is why we see lovely little gems like the Napster decision:
We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.
Or the Intellectual Reserve decision:
The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites are infringing plaintiff's copyright. Central to this inquiry is whether the persons browsing are merely viewing the Handbook (which is not a copyright infringement), or whether they are making a copy of the Handbook (which is a copyright infringement). See 17 U.S.C. 106.
"Copy" is defined in the Copyright Act as: "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 U.S.C. 101. "A work is fixed' . . . when its . . . sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Id.
When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by licence, such an act constitutes copyright infringement); Marobie-Fl., Inc. v. National Ass'n of Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F. Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer); see also Nimmer on Copyright 8.08(A)(1) (stating that the infringing act of copying may occur from "loading the copyrighted material . . . into the computer's random a
You could argue that, but it wouldn't matter. For a general discussion of this topic, I recommend the essay What Colour Are Your Bits?.
I think that a significant amount of the nonsense spouted on/. about this and other legal issues is due to people just not understanding that this is important in law even if it seems weird.
IIRC the Napster architecture relied on centralized servers with listings of what was being shared. Presumably Opennap has similar servers, so as to continue to work with the unchanged Napster clients (though perhaps the servers are on a smaller scale and there are multiple networks). Whoever's running them is in the same position Napster was. And of course users are breaking the law just as much as they were under Napster.
Well, neither really. To be more precise, it was the business practices of Napster the company as executed via how they designed and kept control over their network.
Since the Napster app is more or less useless without a network that would give rise to liability, I don't think it's entirely inappropriate to lump 'em in together. Napster was basically the whole package.
Now we have developers making software and avoiding the network, and they're fine. The people involved with the P2P network are still potentially or certainly in danger due to their practices (depending on what goes on and what their involvement is), but the developers can at least say now 'thank God that's not us, the poor bastards.'
Not really. He's saying, as I did, that the source cited to is worthless. And we're right.
Good sources for law tend to be the law itself, valid cases interpreting those laws, legislative histories, restatements, and scholarly works by learned persons in the profession such as practicing lawyers, judges, and law professors.
Bad sources for law include oddballs such as these idiots in NY who don't seem to be citing to any of the good sources.
Now, you can validly disagree with what the good sources say, but that disagreement isn't worth much. It's like saying that the sky shouldn't be blue, it should be yellow and green stripes. Saying it won't make it true. The best that can be hoped for is to get enough support to make it true in the future, whereupon the good sources will all agree as to that since they generally don't spout bullshit.
Yeah, I've read that case frequently, and also just the other day.
The trick is that fair use analyses hinge on the circumstances involved. There are no blanket fair uses.
Now, an individual who is space shifting, doing his own ripping, from lawfully created copies he owns and keeps ownership and possession of for the duration of the existence of the mp3s, is probably going to fall within fair use.
But it isn't for sure. It might be a fair use for Alice, and not a fair use for Bob.
Which is why I said that it depends.
Re:What Disconnect?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Says you.
Well, says the law, actually. The exemptions are all right there. None of them covers what you're talking about.
As for the people you cite, they lie somewhere in the range from being misinformed to being crackpots with only a tenuous hold on reality.
You can only own a limited license called a Copyright or patent to exploit your idea for comercial purposes, or not to exploit it if you choose to.
See, that's very wrong. A copyright is a right to prevent other people from doing certain things with regards to creative works. It is not a right to do those things itself. And no one needs a right to not do any of those things. You can not do those things anyway; you don't need a copyright to refrain. In fact, if someone else has a pertinent copyright, you're expected to refrain since he has the right to exclude.
FBI Warning on Video Tapes. The FBI Warning about copying a video tape is a lie. Owners of Copyrighted material are allowed to copy the VHS Tape for their personal use. Copying is not a crime.
There is no broad exemption for reproduction for personal use. It is illegal unless a real exemption applies. Sometimes one might, sometimes one might not. Depends on the circumstances and the nature of the work and the parties, basically.
Oh, and infringement of the reproduction right may indeed be a crime. Again, refer to 17 USC 506, and there are some provisions in Title 18 I don't recall the precise section numbers of. You can google for 'em easily enough.
Ripping CD's to MP3 files. This is LEGAL. Copying legally purchased Copyrighted material is a protected act under the Constitution.
Ditto. Also note that the Supreme Court, in Eldred, pretty much destroyed any sort of first amendment argument you can make. You might want to do yourself a favor and read it.
Copying software in a business. Illegal - Don't do it.
Copying software you own for personal use. Legal if no money is passing hands.
Wrong on both counts. Some reproduction of software if you own a lawful copy of it is allowed regardless of who's making the copy. This falls under 17 USC 117. It doesn't permit for just any sort of reproduction, however. Money isn't a factor.
Sell copies of software you own and no longer use. Legal as a second sale.
This is surprisingly accurate, but misleading. 17 USC 109 (the First Sale doctrine) applies just fine to software. But you have to own the software, so licenses can interfere with this. And if you own it but have agreed not to do so as a term of the sale, you might not be lawfully able to either. Copyright doesn't command that you can do so. It just permits it. Restrictions can arise from other places.
Quoting bad caselaw doesnt make your case by the way.
I didn't cite a single bad case in the post you were referring to. The only cites were to statutes, other than one to RIAA v. Diamond, which is a good case as far as it goes. (RIAA lost, and mp3 software and hardware remains cheap and useful)
As for you, I'd strongly advise you to stop citing morons. You want to know what the copyright law is? Read Title 17 and read the relevant cases. There are numerous good casebooks about copyright written for law students -- you might find them useful too. But given what you've been writing, I wonder if Dick and Jane Explain Copyright Law might be over your head.
Re:What Disconnect?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sharing an MP3 music file... without charge: This is LEGAL unless your doing this as part of a business plan or promotion. You can have a website full of MP3's as long as it is not a business site, you are not selling ad space etc. If you can afford it, have fun.
Yeah, see, that's the part that is simply wrong, at least with regards to US law.
Copyright infringement occurs, per 17 USC 501, whenever someone violates one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Two of those exclusive rights are set out in 17 USC 106.
One of them is the exclusive right to reproduce the work. Another is the exclusive right to distribute the work.
When you download a work, reproduction necessarily occurs. When you provide a work on a server for people to download, distribution occurs.
Thus, sharing anything, if it is copyrighted, and if you are not authorized by the relevant copyright holders to do so, is illegal. There are various exemptions. In the case of ordinary people sharing mp3s in an otherwise infringing manner, even if not for charge, no exemptions apply.
There is, actually, an exemption for sharing certain sound recordings and music via certain media such as analog cassette tapes. But that's not applicable to mp3s via websites and filesharing networks.
If you have a cite to a case or a statute, I'd love to see it. But you pretty certainly don't, at least not one that is valid or that you have read properly. (People invariably seem to misread 17 USC 1008 -- it annoys me. Read 1001, and read RIAA v. Diamond for what 1008 actually means, if you're going to cite it.)
Re:this guy is just holding up a sign
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
Copyright infringement. Check out 17 USC 501, 506, and 106(1).
Re:What Disconnect?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Dowloading files that play what sounds like music is not illegal and niether is burning those files to a CDR.
I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. If the music and sounds are copyrighted and you don't have permission to download them, however they're expressed, it's infringing.
"piracy" relates only to the selling of other peoples works, not the copying of files.
Meh. It's a slang term, not a legal one. It can probably encompass both. Me, I try to avoid using it altogether.
Re:Disconnect and motivation
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, it has been the practice of the RIAA only to go after the people sharing their music with others.
That doesn't really mean anything. The law is pretty clear that downloading is infringing, and the courts have uniformly agreed whenever the issue has come before them.
It seems that P2P apps are legal, and they look likely to stay that way.
No, they're neither legal nor illegal per se. Some P2P apps may be illegal (Napster) whilst others are legal (Grokster). The reasons for why their legality differs isn't to do with their being P2P programs, it's something slightly different.
The developer of such software can be held liable for the copyright infringement of the users in either or both of two situations:
1) Contributory liability stands where the developer knows of or has reason to know of the infringing activity, and at that time induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing activity.
The Sony case held that where a technology is developed that has potential, substantial noninfringing uses, the mere fact that it can be used in an infringing manner isn't sufficient to show knowledge.
However, the Napster case held that where the developer has actual knowledge of the infringement and the knowledge requirement is satisfied.
Grokster, following both Sony and Napster, pointed out that the actual knowledge must exist at a time when the material contribution is made, or else there is no duty by the developer to avoid such contribution. Since their software is designed in such a way that by the time they receive such knowledge they can no longer do anything about it and are no longer contributing to it, the developer is safe -- if he has carefully limited his involvement with the P2P network. Napster was too closely involved with their network, and thus were contributorially liable.
Grokster -- which I should point out is the weakest of the cases cited here -- also opined that mere software development without involvement as to the network wasn't a material contribution.
2) Vicarious liability stands where a developer has the right and ability to control whether infringement occurs, regardless of whether he has knowledge of it, and where he has a direct financial interest in the infringement.
Sony is not applicable to this form of liability, as the Napster case pointed out. This is because knowledge is not a factor.
Again, what might protect a developer is the lack of a right and ability to control whether infringement occurs. Napster, which could ban users and files, clearly did have such right and control. Coupled with the premise that their interest in the infringement was to draw in users who would eventually pay or be advertised to, Napster was found liable.
Most P2P developers are paying attention to the fallout of Napster to avoid the pitfalls that did it in. Those pitfalls still exist, and thus great caution should be taken since you cannot blithely assume any given P2P app is itself legal to create and support. Its architecture and your business practices are important.
IIRC it had more to do with that the Venetians really hated the Turks. (Although there was that joke about the Sybarites, who liked new and inventive recipies)
Well, I'm pretty sure that the ancient greeks, at least, conceived of the cube, as well as a number of other interesting solids, such as spheres, dodecahedrons, and so forth.
But they so rarely applied anything they came up with that I can believe that no one ever got around to actually building a cube until the 70's.
The funny thing is, Lego sold something like that. I remember having a round denim sheet with a cord running through the circumference. All you had to do was gather the cord to pull the sheet closed into a bag.
Of course, the serious lego enthusiast probably has a toolchest or something.
But Cyptic studios did request from marvel a list of trademarked named they can ban.
Proving that they can ban things only makes it worse. But remember, if this is a copyright suit, then a list of trademarked names is irrelevant. Especially since names aren't copyrightable.
You are right though, in that the Napster decision, following Sony, won't impute knowledge for contributory liability purposes without there being actual knowledge. But having done so, failure to remove such infringing material is contributory infringement. Even if it is difficult.
Of course, knowledge is not a factor for vicarious infringement, so CoH would have to dispute their direct financial gain from the infringement. I think they can do so, but it's not a cakewalk.
the basic requirement of napster which is willfull contribution
It's not a matter of willfulness, it's a matter of knowledge. That's a lesser standard. Of course, it's still better than copyright generally, which is usually strict liability.
No, it is actually a little different. The trick is that Bic cannot take the pen away, cannot review what you've drawn, and basically is not involved.
Think back to the Napster case and the Grokster case. Napster was destroyed in court, whereas Grokster has (so far) survived. The key difference was that Napster had centralized servers, and could therefore check to see whether infringement was occurring, and could act to stop it. Grokster could not since they made the software, but didn't have any involvement with the network.
CoH is centralized.
They should be taking this very seriously.
The contributory infringement case against them would be stronger than a vicarious infringement case, but so long as direct infringements are going on, they really are in some degree of trouble.
But I don't want to be a member of a party. The proposed rule should be limited to general elections, or elections within a party only if you are at that time a member of the party holding the election.
Slashdot Mirror
This portion of the bill would add an exemption. It doesn't do anything else.
Therefore, it merely says that skipping over material other than commercials and some other things, accomplished in a particular manner, is completely legal.
It doesn't say that anything is illegal. So skipping commercials, which isn't within this exemption, will have to merely not be prima face infringement or will have to fall into a different exemption, just as it does right now!
So if it is legal to skip commercials now, it will still be legal even if this exemption becomes law.
it's still not the tool which is against the law here, but the use to which it is put.
I'd agree for the most part, but I'd be cautious about going too far. I don't think there's a good basis for an absolute statement, just a broad one.
Outfits are absolutely not protected under copyright laws.
This is wrong. There is actually some dispute whether or not they are, and courts have gone both ways.
Clearly they fall within the open endedness of 17 USC 102(a), if not the specific category of pictoral, graphical, and sculptural works in 102(a)(5).
The only real issue is whether they suffer from the utility doctrine (if they have some utility and are not physically and conceptually seperable). National Theme Productions, Inc. v. Beck, Inc. 696 F. Supp. 1348 (S.D. Cal. 1988) found that costumes were copyrightable because they were seperable. Whimsicality, Inc. v. Battat, 27 F. Supp. 2d 456(S.D.N.Y. 1998) went the other way, because they thought that the costumes were not seperable. Given that there are over a half dozen tests for seperability that I can think of off the top of my head, and that there's certainly more still, I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon.
Maybe you ought to stop talking about copyright law altogether. You seem to have this issue with not understanding it at all, and I think it devalues your posts.
In the US, it's legal for you to copy a CD onto a music CD-R and give it away to a friend without charging for it.
Well, it's not so much that it is legal to do the reproduction as it is not actionable.
Of course not every CD can be reproduced under the 1008 exemption. It's fairly limited. And it can only be done by a consumer, noncommercially.
The problem is that the second half of what you said is probably wrong. You cannot be sued for making the reproduction, but that doesn't make it a legal copy. And you cannot distribute copies at all, unless the law permits you to. And it only permits you to distribute legal copies.
So if you reproduce some music onto an Audio CDR you're fine, but you've pretty likely crossed the line when you pass it on, regardless of whether or not there is a charge in the overall transaction.
Thanks for the typically imbicilic post. I had wondered a bit why 1008 was unusual in making something inactionable rather than noninfringing, and having to smack you around gave me an opportunity to think about it a bit and now I think I see Congress' logic.
Damn Sam, you're not that good at this, huh.
What is in fact the relevant exclusive right of the copyright holder in 17 USC 106 is the right to reproduce the work in copies and phonorecords. Due to historical oddities, what we're actually concerned with with regards to mp3s are phonorecords.
What is a phonorecord? It's defined in 17 USC 101: "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds
The creative work itself is an intangible, capable of existing simultaneously in multiple copies or phonorecords. Think of the difference between a story and a book in which that story is printed, or a box full of books, each one containing an embodiment of the story.
So is a computer a material object? Yes.
If we fix sounds in it by any method by which it can be perceived, is the computer, among other things, a phonorecord? Yes.
Do we infringe upon the copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce the work into new phonorecords if we do it without permission or an applicable exemption? Yes.
It's the guy at the other end, who set up his computer to make copies on demand, that broke the law.
No, he ALSO broke the law. Surely you didn't think that only one person was in trouble here?
This is why we see lovely little gems like the Napster decision:
Or the Intellectual Reserve decision:
You could argue that, but it wouldn't matter. For a general discussion of this topic, I recommend the essay What Colour Are Your Bits?.
/. about this and other legal issues is due to people just not understanding that this is important in law even if it seems weird.
I think that a significant amount of the nonsense spouted on
I'm not familiar with Opennap.
IIRC the Napster architecture relied on centralized servers with listings of what was being shared. Presumably Opennap has similar servers, so as to continue to work with the unchanged Napster clients (though perhaps the servers are on a smaller scale and there are multiple networks). Whoever's running them is in the same position Napster was. And of course users are breaking the law just as much as they were under Napster.
Well, neither really. To be more precise, it was the business practices of Napster the company as executed via how they designed and kept control over their network.
Since the Napster app is more or less useless without a network that would give rise to liability, I don't think it's entirely inappropriate to lump 'em in together. Napster was basically the whole package.
Now we have developers making software and avoiding the network, and they're fine. The people involved with the P2P network are still potentially or certainly in danger due to their practices (depending on what goes on and what their involvement is), but the developers can at least say now 'thank God that's not us, the poor bastards.'
I'm not making an argument. I'm stating what the law currently is, as a fact.
If you're planning on giving what you download to somebody else, you're redistributing it, and it is illegal.
Generally true, though the right term is distribution, not redistribution, which implies allowed conduct.
Otherwise, the copy you make when downloading is (by definition) for personal use, and thus exempt.
Aside from difficulties with your definition, THERE IS NO BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR PERSONAL USE.
It's in copyright law.
Then you can prove it, since you know it's there. Cite the specific section that it's in. And the subsection, if pertinent. I am all fucking ears.
Not really. He's saying, as I did, that the source cited to is worthless. And we're right.
Good sources for law tend to be the law itself, valid cases interpreting those laws, legislative histories, restatements, and scholarly works by learned persons in the profession such as practicing lawyers, judges, and law professors.
Bad sources for law include oddballs such as these idiots in NY who don't seem to be citing to any of the good sources.
Now, you can validly disagree with what the good sources say, but that disagreement isn't worth much. It's like saying that the sky shouldn't be blue, it should be yellow and green stripes. Saying it won't make it true. The best that can be hoped for is to get enough support to make it true in the future, whereupon the good sources will all agree as to that since they generally don't spout bullshit.
Yeah, I've read that case frequently, and also just the other day.
The trick is that fair use analyses hinge on the circumstances involved. There are no blanket fair uses.
Now, an individual who is space shifting, doing his own ripping, from lawfully created copies he owns and keeps ownership and possession of for the duration of the existence of the mp3s, is probably going to fall within fair use.
But it isn't for sure. It might be a fair use for Alice, and not a fair use for Bob.
Which is why I said that it depends.
Says you.
Well, says the law, actually. The exemptions are all right there. None of them covers what you're talking about.
As for the people you cite, they lie somewhere in the range from being misinformed to being crackpots with only a tenuous hold on reality.
You can only own a limited license called a Copyright or patent to exploit your idea for comercial purposes, or not to exploit it if you choose to.
See, that's very wrong. A copyright is a right to prevent other people from doing certain things with regards to creative works. It is not a right to do those things itself. And no one needs a right to not do any of those things. You can not do those things anyway; you don't need a copyright to refrain. In fact, if someone else has a pertinent copyright, you're expected to refrain since he has the right to exclude.
FBI Warning on Video Tapes. The FBI Warning about copying a video tape is a lie. Owners of Copyrighted material are allowed to copy the VHS Tape for their personal use. Copying is not a crime.
There is no broad exemption for reproduction for personal use. It is illegal unless a real exemption applies. Sometimes one might, sometimes one might not. Depends on the circumstances and the nature of the work and the parties, basically.
Oh, and infringement of the reproduction right may indeed be a crime. Again, refer to 17 USC 506, and there are some provisions in Title 18 I don't recall the precise section numbers of. You can google for 'em easily enough.
Ripping CD's to MP3 files. This is LEGAL. Copying legally purchased Copyrighted material is a protected act under the Constitution.
Ditto. Also note that the Supreme Court, in Eldred, pretty much destroyed any sort of first amendment argument you can make. You might want to do yourself a favor and read it.
Copying software in a business. Illegal - Don't do it.
Copying software you own for personal use. Legal if no money is passing hands.
Wrong on both counts. Some reproduction of software if you own a lawful copy of it is allowed regardless of who's making the copy. This falls under 17 USC 117. It doesn't permit for just any sort of reproduction, however. Money isn't a factor.
Sell copies of software you own and no longer use. Legal as a second sale.
This is surprisingly accurate, but misleading. 17 USC 109 (the First Sale doctrine) applies just fine to software. But you have to own the software, so licenses can interfere with this. And if you own it but have agreed not to do so as a term of the sale, you might not be lawfully able to either. Copyright doesn't command that you can do so. It just permits it. Restrictions can arise from other places.
Quoting bad caselaw doesnt make your case by the way.
I didn't cite a single bad case in the post you were referring to. The only cites were to statutes, other than one to RIAA v. Diamond, which is a good case as far as it goes. (RIAA lost, and mp3 software and hardware remains cheap and useful)
As for you, I'd strongly advise you to stop citing morons. You want to know what the copyright law is? Read Title 17 and read the relevant cases. There are numerous good casebooks about copyright written for law students -- you might find them useful too. But given what you've been writing, I wonder if Dick and Jane Explain Copyright Law might be over your head.
Sharing an MP3 music file ... without charge: This is LEGAL unless your doing this as part of a business plan or promotion. You can have a website full of MP3's as long as it is not a business site, you are not selling ad space etc. If you can afford it, have fun.
Yeah, see, that's the part that is simply wrong, at least with regards to US law.
Copyright infringement occurs, per 17 USC 501, whenever someone violates one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Two of those exclusive rights are set out in 17 USC 106.
One of them is the exclusive right to reproduce the work. Another is the exclusive right to distribute the work.
When you download a work, reproduction necessarily occurs. When you provide a work on a server for people to download, distribution occurs.
Thus, sharing anything, if it is copyrighted, and if you are not authorized by the relevant copyright holders to do so, is illegal. There are various exemptions. In the case of ordinary people sharing mp3s in an otherwise infringing manner, even if not for charge, no exemptions apply.
There is, actually, an exemption for sharing certain sound recordings and music via certain media such as analog cassette tapes. But that's not applicable to mp3s via websites and filesharing networks.
If you have a cite to a case or a statute, I'd love to see it. But you pretty certainly don't, at least not one that is valid or that you have read properly. (People invariably seem to misread 17 USC 1008 -- it annoys me. Read 1001, and read RIAA v. Diamond for what 1008 actually means, if you're going to cite it.)
Copyright infringement. Check out 17 USC 501, 506, and 106(1).
Dowloading files that play what sounds like music is not illegal and niether is burning those files to a CDR.
I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. If the music and sounds are copyrighted and you don't have permission to download them, however they're expressed, it's infringing.
"piracy" relates only to the selling of other peoples works, not the copying of files.
Meh. It's a slang term, not a legal one. It can probably encompass both. Me, I try to avoid using it altogether.
Well, it has been the practice of the RIAA only to go after the people sharing their music with others.
That doesn't really mean anything. The law is pretty clear that downloading is infringing, and the courts have uniformly agreed whenever the issue has come before them.
It seems that P2P apps are legal, and they look likely to stay that way.
No, they're neither legal nor illegal per se. Some P2P apps may be illegal (Napster) whilst others are legal (Grokster). The reasons for why their legality differs isn't to do with their being P2P programs, it's something slightly different.
The developer of such software can be held liable for the copyright infringement of the users in either or both of two situations:
1) Contributory liability stands where the developer knows of or has reason to know of the infringing activity, and at that time induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing activity.
The Sony case held that where a technology is developed that has potential, substantial noninfringing uses, the mere fact that it can be used in an infringing manner isn't sufficient to show knowledge.
However, the Napster case held that where the developer has actual knowledge of the infringement and the knowledge requirement is satisfied.
Grokster, following both Sony and Napster, pointed out that the actual knowledge must exist at a time when the material contribution is made, or else there is no duty by the developer to avoid such contribution. Since their software is designed in such a way that by the time they receive such knowledge they can no longer do anything about it and are no longer contributing to it, the developer is safe -- if he has carefully limited his involvement with the P2P network. Napster was too closely involved with their network, and thus were contributorially liable.
Grokster -- which I should point out is the weakest of the cases cited here -- also opined that mere software development without involvement as to the network wasn't a material contribution.
2) Vicarious liability stands where a developer has the right and ability to control whether infringement occurs, regardless of whether he has knowledge of it, and where he has a direct financial interest in the infringement.
Sony is not applicable to this form of liability, as the Napster case pointed out. This is because knowledge is not a factor.
Again, what might protect a developer is the lack of a right and ability to control whether infringement occurs. Napster, which could ban users and files, clearly did have such right and control. Coupled with the premise that their interest in the infringement was to draw in users who would eventually pay or be advertised to, Napster was found liable.
Most P2P developers are paying attention to the fallout of Napster to avoid the pitfalls that did it in. Those pitfalls still exist, and thus great caution should be taken since you cannot blithely assume any given P2P app is itself legal to create and support. Its architecture and your business practices are important.
IIRC it had more to do with that the Venetians really hated the Turks. (Although there was that joke about the Sybarites, who liked new and inventive recipies)
I hope they are still made from the good stuff.
You mean Tonka-tough steel? Better be. I don't hold with playing with dumptrucks made out of bronze.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the ancient greeks, at least, conceived of the cube, as well as a number of other interesting solids, such as spheres, dodecahedrons, and so forth.
But they so rarely applied anything they came up with that I can believe that no one ever got around to actually building a cube until the 70's.
The funny thing is, Lego sold something like that. I remember having a round denim sheet with a cord running through the circumference. All you had to do was gather the cord to pull the sheet closed into a bag.
Of course, the serious lego enthusiast probably has a toolchest or something.
Odd sort of trademark case then. I'm not sure that I see how it'd be infringement. Dilution might stand, I guess.
As for Marvel being litigious, well, that's no surprise.
But Cyptic studios did request from marvel a list of trademarked named they can ban.
Proving that they can ban things only makes it worse. But remember, if this is a copyright suit, then a list of trademarked names is irrelevant. Especially since names aren't copyrightable.
You are right though, in that the Napster decision, following Sony, won't impute knowledge for contributory liability purposes without there being actual knowledge. But having done so, failure to remove such infringing material is contributory infringement. Even if it is difficult.
Of course, knowledge is not a factor for vicarious infringement, so CoH would have to dispute their direct financial gain from the infringement. I think they can do so, but it's not a cakewalk.
the basic requirement of napster which is willfull contribution
It's not a matter of willfulness, it's a matter of knowledge. That's a lesser standard. Of course, it's still better than copyright generally, which is usually strict liability.
No, it is actually a little different. The trick is that Bic cannot take the pen away, cannot review what you've drawn, and basically is not involved.
Think back to the Napster case and the Grokster case. Napster was destroyed in court, whereas Grokster has (so far) survived. The key difference was that Napster had centralized servers, and could therefore check to see whether infringement was occurring, and could act to stop it. Grokster could not since they made the software, but didn't have any involvement with the network.
CoH is centralized.
They should be taking this very seriously.
The contributory infringement case against them would be stronger than a vicarious infringement case, but so long as direct infringements are going on, they really are in some degree of trouble.
But I don't want to be a member of a party. The proposed rule should be limited to general elections, or elections within a party only if you are at that time a member of the party holding the election.