So if I live in Strongbadia, and Strongbadian law says that I can pay the government $5 to purchase the Statue of Liberty, can I go to New York, put the statute on a boat, and sail off with it? After all, I bought it.
I don't think that the US would give a rat's ass what some foreign law said I could do once I tried to do things within US territory. They won't think I bought it, and they'll be cross with me if I try to take it.
So do you really think that the transaction between allofmp3 and the Russian government will be found to have any effect whatsoever as to events occuring within the US? Allofmp3 might be okay with that -- they're not in the US. US-based downloaders OTOH are subject to US law, and could get in trouble.
Seriously, has any group producing a contemporary translation of the Bible claimed a copyright violation against anyone else?
I recall that there have been such cases, yeah.
What would be the legal status for a work that is supposed to be freely copyable by its original authors?
Well, the Torah, and the original version of the Bible (which is largely in Greek, IIRC) and such are all public domain. Copy at will.
But that doesn't mean that a translation of them is. The translation adds something new, and is therefore protectable. If you want a copy of the Torah in English, you'll either need to use a public domain translation, or use the public domain version in Hebrew to translate it yourself.
Check out the four-factor test for fair use in 17 USC 107. If you're just downloading something without permission, then likely all four factors will be against you. OTOH, if you're reproducing the work only to the extent involved in an antiskip buffer, and the copy you're reproducing it from is a legitimate copy, then the fourth factor is likely to be sufficient to keep you on the right side of the law.
There is a good essay online somewhere called something like "The Color of Your Bits" which discusses how two otherwise identical scenarios might have different legal outcomes due to, e.g. the intent or identity of the people involved. It discusses how this might seem odd to people used to how computers work, where intent isn't really a factor, but that it is nevertheless important. I'm thinking that you might want to google for it and read it.
Unless you're not, again per 17 USC 602. So it's not always perfectly legal to bring copies of music into the US, and some copies are illegal in the US.
But since your argument also must mean that Russia doesn't make law in the US, it can be legal in Russia and illegal in the US. There's no grey area, really.
Well, you're in Denmark. I'm talking about US law.
Plus of course, the tax codes might have different provisions than the copyright law does. It's not unreasonable for something to be importation for the purposes of one law and not importation for the purposes of an entirely different law. Annoying, but so long as each law is clear as to how it defines importation for its own purposes, it's not a big deal.
As in all cases, there remains the significant issue of 'does he have that much money' since you can't get what he doesn't have, and 'can I practically enforce this judgment' since that's always a bit thorny, and 'will bankruptcy reduce the recoverable damages' which is a matter of some debate, last I heard.
Always gotta keep track of how much money you'll have in hand at the end. A judgment for money damages isn't good enough by itself.
1) allofmp3 is legally licenced to distribute in russia (just because the labels have no say in this doesn't make it illegal)
1) By your own admission then, they aren't legally licensed to distribute in the US. Which is what I'm talking about. I've never addressed their legality entirely within Russia, because I don't know or care. I'm talking about the legal situation of individuals in the US who download from allofmp3.
2) The US is probably not going to enforce such a compulsory license here. That would be an exceptionally strange result, and I don't recall it having happened in the past. So yeah, it is, as far as we'd be concerned, illegal.
2) US (afaik, like Canada) allows importation of licensed copyright works from other signatories. The theoretical status of such works if produced here is irrelevent.
What's your basis of this, and incidentally, what is the thing being signed (since you refer to signatories), and what's the relevant part of it. Since presumably you wouldn't mention it if it were not somehow relevant, and you knew what it was, whatever it is, I am sure your next post will have useful information for the discussion. I can't wait to see it.
you keep blathering on with the same arguments that have been debunked.
I don't recall successful debunkings. I recall attempts, such as yours above, but never any successful ones.
In that thread, the assertion arose while I was in bed. The link was to another thread within this same story, you know.
I've responded to it since. Essentially the response is that the license is not valid outside of Russia (e.g. as to US downloaders) if it is valid at all. This is basically because the US isn't going to enforce other country's compulsory licensing laws within our own borders save perhaps to the extent that they might fall within our own local compulsory licensing provisions. (which we don't have for sound recordings in commercial settings)
Other results wouldn't make sense because we'd be allowing other countries to undermine us, which is precisely what a lot of our laws are set up to avoid. IIRC, we don't allow parallel importation of articles embodying or made via patented inventions protected here, either, which is a pretty analagous situation.
Courts won't let it fly. They'll ignore the Russian license, and that's fairly appropriate. They have a history of construing licenses in manners favorable to copyright holders, so it's not surprising either.
Think about it from the plaintiff's viewpoint. There are three possible targets for a lawsuit: Alice, who runs a P2P network enabling tons of infringement. Bob, who is an uploader and therefore infringes, and who enables some infringement. And Carol, who downloads, and thus infringes herself, but doesn't upload, and thus doesn't enable further infringement.
You are a copyright holder, and you have a limited amount of resources available.
If you sue Alice and win, you can stop the enabling of all the P2P trading using her network. The users will have to either quit, or find another provider who you might also sue into oblivion, more easily the next time with the Alice precedent behind you.
If you sue Bob and win, you don't stop a lot of the infringement on the network, but you do stop Bob's, and you again cause people d/l'ing from him to have to quit, or to find other sources, who will be more strained under the load.
If you sue Carol, all you stop is her own infringement. There are no beneficial side effects.
So that's why there haven't been civil cases brought, nor criminal suits prosecuted against, downloaders, AFAIK. It's not as effective as going after networks or uploaders.
That doesn't mean that downloaders are never going to be sued. It just means that since RIAA isn't going to want to use money in a less than maximally effective manner, they're going to go after larger game first.
If as Allofmp3.com say they have a bought from the copyright owners a licence which allows them to distribute copies of their works then it cannot be illegal can it ?
Provided that the license is enforcable within the US.
There is no particular reason to believe that it is, especially given how the courts tend to read licenses in a manner that's very favorable to copyright holders. (e.g. assignment of 'all rights' doesn't include some rights not explicitly named, etc.)
Well, I did say works, and this is a copyright discussion, so yeah, it only applies to copyrighted works. Of course, as another poster pointed out, there are similar import controls in the patent field.
The relevant provision is 17 USC 602(b), which reads in pertinent part: In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited.
So, even though I've discussed why this is NOT a matter of importation, even if it were, if allofmp3 were operating under US law (the title that would be applicable), they'd be breaking the law. Their entire claim to legality rests on provisions that appear to be unique to Russian law. We haven't got compulsory licensing of that sort here.
N.b. that under US law, the only person who can lawfully make copies is the US copyright holder, or people authorized by that person. (and a few others in certain cases not important here)
602 does have a lot of clumsy wording though, and a lot of people seem to read 602(a)(2) and stop before they get to the still-applicable 602(b), so I'm not surprised this isn't noticed more.
No, that's only in Russia. That license doesn't have any weight in the US. We've been over that too.
This is why I avoid addressing whether allofmp3 is legal as to transactions entirely within Russia. I don't know, and I don't care. I merely discuss the matter as it pertains to US users, who are subject to US law, and don't get the benefits of Russian law.
You could make a CD in Russia from their service and bring it into the US since it would then be a tangible object and be legit.
No, that would violate 17 USC 602(b), actually and still be illegal to bring into the country.
Not to mention, we have software "export" laws governing what crypto can go to other nations. By your argument, if I make that software available to someone in North Korea, I'm not exporting, I'm letting them reproduce.
No, my argument stands nicely. A large part of my argument is that often words in the law are defined in the law and have meanings other than that which you'd normally expect them to. If you care to poke around in the CFR's relevant to export controls, you'll find that they even define export to include transmission. If they didn't, then the ordinary meaning would more likely apply, and you'd have some basis for your claim.
I have no idea why you feel SO strongly on the subject
But to sum up, it's because I don't like people being misinformed as to what the law is. It's not because I dislike allofmp3, because I don't particularly.
Ah, no, it's Customs that is in charge -- has been for some time -- of keeping certain copies out of the country. Check out 17 USC 602(b) (which is unaffected by any exemptions you might notice in 602(a)).
Well, it is true that the US generally didn't grant copyrights to Russians during the Cold War, but that had more to do with poor relations between the countries than anything else. Basically there were no treaties between them that covered this.
Oh, and 1) there is no such thing as a 'world copyright.' Copyrights are entirely national, though you can hold multiple copyrights on a work in multiple countries. 2) The US would never grant a copyright for a rifle design per se due to the utility doctrine for sculptural works; national origin wouldn't matter. For that, you would've wanted a utility patent, I think, and it's a bit too late for one.
Well, by 'actual damages' really what is meant is damages and profits of the infringer. But even if you can prove down to the penny how much that is, you can still opt for statutory damages. It's not a backup provision. Pretty commonplace, really.
Until there is an actual precedent that directly touches upon all the issues involved (Napster and Kazaa were different) I don't think it is really clear whether allofmp3.com is legal or not.
There is no material difference. You cannot sue someone for contributory or vicarious infringement unless you can show an underlying direct infringement.
Hence:
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.
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
Hell, Napster was notable for putting forth every defense imaginable, and it still barely bothered to claim that there was no prima face direct infringement.
You can make some very nice arguments, but who knows how it will shake out in a court of law when the defense is there to give it's side of the story?
Well, I've been going to law school for three years now, and I'm about 1/4th done with my fourth year. (I'm getting a master's -- I already got a JD)
One of the things they train you in is dispassionately analyzing the law. In order to make a good argument, you need to have fully anticipated all the possible counterarguments the other side is going to make, so that you can counter them. And you need to be able to find trends and similarities in the caselaw so that you can figure out what's most likely to happen, so you can use the limited resources your client is willing to dedicate to legal action effectively. (Which is why settling is a big thing -- it's often most practical to not waste resources in fighting for Pyrrhic victories)
So please trust me when I say that I assure you, I have considered counterarguments, and I have found them wanting. I don't think that they have any chance of success, even if I would like them to succeed.
Sometimes I'm surprised. Martingon used an argument I've been making for a little while now, and I really hadn't expected it to make any headway. Probably that it was a criminal case helped. (And it's still a rather technical argument that Congress can avoid with a correction next session that will likely not be disputed at all)
But I don't think there's going to be any surprises as to this.
I think you would need clairvoyance to be 100% sure how it would pan out.
Well, I don't know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can be pretty confident about it. Likewise, I can look at the law and past trends in the caselaw, and make a good inference as to what'll happen in the next case to come along. This is not an amazing feat of precognition.
Of course, as we've been discussing elsewhere, allofmp3 is astoundingly illegal to download from if you're in the US. Otherwise, apart from the shady Russian thing you note, it sounds relatively good.
It is also glaringly wrong. So I wouldn't bother much with it. I liked the part where they cited 'a high school student majoring in law.' That sounds reliable.
And your URL is wrong (what with that trailing / ).
Ironic that you refer to 20 years, as that's the length of time Disney et al bought in the 90's, retroactively extending their copyrights, and it's widely expected that they'll lobby for another extension in about ten more years.
I'd like to see reform. The problem is that there's literally billions of dollars, and enormous fame on their side. And our side is basically limited to promoting little up-and-coming artists at the expense of those already established, and promoting the public interest.
This is why for the last century or so, copyright law has been put together by different industries divvying up the pie. We only luck out when their interests happen to coincide with our own. They often don't.
You may be interested in reading the books by Professor Litman, and Siva Vaidhyanathan, for more on how this has all gone on previously.
'Work' in the copyright field is a bit of jargon. The work is the actual creative content being protected by copyright, as distinguished from the copyright itself, or a copy, which is a tangible object in which the work is embodied.
For example, "Star Wars" is a work. Lucasfilm, or 20th Century Fox, or someone holds a copyright that pertains to that work. A DVD from which "Star Wars" can be perceived is a copy of the work; the same work exists simultaneously in multiple copies.
So getting back to your post -- since when is oil a copyrightable work?
Slashdot Mirror
So if I live in Strongbadia, and Strongbadian law says that I can pay the government $5 to purchase the Statue of Liberty, can I go to New York, put the statute on a boat, and sail off with it? After all, I bought it.
I don't think that the US would give a rat's ass what some foreign law said I could do once I tried to do things within US territory. They won't think I bought it, and they'll be cross with me if I try to take it.
So do you really think that the transaction between allofmp3 and the Russian government will be found to have any effect whatsoever as to events occuring within the US? Allofmp3 might be okay with that -- they're not in the US. US-based downloaders OTOH are subject to US law, and could get in trouble.
Seriously, has any group producing a contemporary translation of the Bible claimed a copyright violation against anyone else?
I recall that there have been such cases, yeah.
What would be the legal status for a work that is supposed to be freely copyable by its original authors?
Well, the Torah, and the original version of the Bible (which is largely in Greek, IIRC) and such are all public domain. Copy at will.
But that doesn't mean that a translation of them is. The translation adds something new, and is therefore protectable. If you want a copy of the Torah in English, you'll either need to use a public domain translation, or use the public domain version in Hebrew to translate it yourself.
Maybe, maybe not.
Check out the four-factor test for fair use in 17 USC 107. If you're just downloading something without permission, then likely all four factors will be against you. OTOH, if you're reproducing the work only to the extent involved in an antiskip buffer, and the copy you're reproducing it from is a legitimate copy, then the fourth factor is likely to be sufficient to keep you on the right side of the law.
There is a good essay online somewhere called something like "The Color of Your Bits" which discusses how two otherwise identical scenarios might have different legal outcomes due to, e.g. the intent or identity of the people involved. It discusses how this might seem odd to people used to how computers work, where intent isn't really a factor, but that it is nevertheless important. I'm thinking that you might want to google for it and read it.
Unless you're not, again per 17 USC 602. So it's not always perfectly legal to bring copies of music into the US, and some copies are illegal in the US.
You gotta start qualifying your statements more.
But this brings us back to the problem of that then it is not an issue of importation, but rather of reproduction. And that's illegal too.
But since your argument also must mean that Russia doesn't make law in the US, it can be legal in Russia and illegal in the US. There's no grey area, really.
Well, you're in Denmark. I'm talking about US law.
Plus of course, the tax codes might have different provisions than the copyright law does. It's not unreasonable for something to be importation for the purposes of one law and not importation for the purposes of an entirely different law. Annoying, but so long as each law is clear as to how it defines importation for its own purposes, it's not a big deal.
Well, the value at trial will be.
As in all cases, there remains the significant issue of 'does he have that much money' since you can't get what he doesn't have, and 'can I practically enforce this judgment' since that's always a bit thorny, and 'will bankruptcy reduce the recoverable damages' which is a matter of some debate, last I heard.
Always gotta keep track of how much money you'll have in hand at the end. A judgment for money damages isn't good enough by itself.
1) allofmp3 is legally licenced to distribute in russia (just because the labels have no say in this doesn't make it illegal)
1) By your own admission then, they aren't legally licensed to distribute in the US. Which is what I'm talking about. I've never addressed their legality entirely within Russia, because I don't know or care. I'm talking about the legal situation of individuals in the US who download from allofmp3.
2) The US is probably not going to enforce such a compulsory license here. That would be an exceptionally strange result, and I don't recall it having happened in the past. So yeah, it is, as far as we'd be concerned, illegal.
2) US (afaik, like Canada) allows importation of licensed copyright works from other signatories. The theoretical status of such works if produced here is irrelevent.
What's your basis of this, and incidentally, what is the thing being signed (since you refer to signatories), and what's the relevant part of it. Since presumably you wouldn't mention it if it were not somehow relevant, and you knew what it was, whatever it is, I am sure your next post will have useful information for the discussion. I can't wait to see it.
you keep blathering on with the same arguments that have been debunked.
I don't recall successful debunkings. I recall attempts, such as yours above, but never any successful ones.
Ah, but I've been stridently claiming with support.
Everyone else's argument seems to be well grounded in 'but I want it to be true, so therefore it must be true.'
Much as I'd like to see the law change in numerous ways, I try not to delude myself as to what it is now.
(And yeah, it is a discussion -- polarized, but still a discussion)
In that thread, the assertion arose while I was in bed. The link was to another thread within this same story, you know.
I've responded to it since. Essentially the response is that the license is not valid outside of Russia (e.g. as to US downloaders) if it is valid at all. This is basically because the US isn't going to enforce other country's compulsory licensing laws within our own borders save perhaps to the extent that they might fall within our own local compulsory licensing provisions. (which we don't have for sound recordings in commercial settings)
Other results wouldn't make sense because we'd be allowing other countries to undermine us, which is precisely what a lot of our laws are set up to avoid. IIRC, we don't allow parallel importation of articles embodying or made via patented inventions protected here, either, which is a pretty analagous situation.
Courts won't let it fly. They'll ignore the Russian license, and that's fairly appropriate. They have a history of construing licenses in manners favorable to copyright holders, so it's not surprising either.
No, I'm not aware of any.
Why would there be?
Think about it from the plaintiff's viewpoint. There are three possible targets for a lawsuit: Alice, who runs a P2P network enabling tons of infringement. Bob, who is an uploader and therefore infringes, and who enables some infringement. And Carol, who downloads, and thus infringes herself, but doesn't upload, and thus doesn't enable further infringement.
You are a copyright holder, and you have a limited amount of resources available.
If you sue Alice and win, you can stop the enabling of all the P2P trading using her network. The users will have to either quit, or find another provider who you might also sue into oblivion, more easily the next time with the Alice precedent behind you.
If you sue Bob and win, you don't stop a lot of the infringement on the network, but you do stop Bob's, and you again cause people d/l'ing from him to have to quit, or to find other sources, who will be more strained under the load.
If you sue Carol, all you stop is her own infringement. There are no beneficial side effects.
So that's why there haven't been civil cases brought, nor criminal suits prosecuted against, downloaders, AFAIK. It's not as effective as going after networks or uploaders.
That doesn't mean that downloaders are never going to be sued. It just means that since RIAA isn't going to want to use money in a less than maximally effective manner, they're going to go after larger game first.
If as Allofmp3.com say they have a bought from the copyright owners a licence which allows them to distribute copies of their works then it cannot be illegal can it ?
Provided that the license is enforcable within the US.
There is no particular reason to believe that it is, especially given how the courts tend to read licenses in a manner that's very favorable to copyright holders. (e.g. assignment of 'all rights' doesn't include some rights not explicitly named, etc.)
Well, I did say works, and this is a copyright discussion, so yeah, it only applies to copyrighted works. Of course, as another poster pointed out, there are similar import controls in the patent field.
The relevant provision is 17 USC 602(b), which reads in pertinent part: In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited.
So, even though I've discussed why this is NOT a matter of importation, even if it were, if allofmp3 were operating under US law (the title that would be applicable), they'd be breaking the law. Their entire claim to legality rests on provisions that appear to be unique to Russian law. We haven't got compulsory licensing of that sort here.
N.b. that under US law, the only person who can lawfully make copies is the US copyright holder, or people authorized by that person. (and a few others in certain cases not important here)
602 does have a lot of clumsy wording though, and a lot of people seem to read 602(a)(2) and stop before they get to the still-applicable 602(b), so I'm not surprised this isn't noticed more.
AllOfMP3 has license to sell the material.
No, that's only in Russia. That license doesn't have any weight in the US. We've been over that too.
This is why I avoid addressing whether allofmp3 is legal as to transactions entirely within Russia. I don't know, and I don't care. I merely discuss the matter as it pertains to US users, who are subject to US law, and don't get the benefits of Russian law.
You could make a CD in Russia from their service and bring it into the US since it would then be a tangible object and be legit.
No, that would violate 17 USC 602(b), actually and still be illegal to bring into the country.
Not to mention, we have software "export" laws governing what crypto can go to other nations. By your argument, if I make that software available to someone in North Korea, I'm not exporting, I'm letting them reproduce.
No, my argument stands nicely. A large part of my argument is that often words in the law are defined in the law and have meanings other than that which you'd normally expect them to. If you care to poke around in the CFR's relevant to export controls, you'll find that they even define export to include transmission. If they didn't, then the ordinary meaning would more likely apply, and you'd have some basis for your claim.
I have no idea why you feel SO strongly on the subject
I discussed why here.
But to sum up, it's because I don't like people being misinformed as to what the law is. It's not because I dislike allofmp3, because I don't particularly.
Yeah, we do actually. But it's good to specify what you mean. Patent rights are generally a lot broader than copyrights.
Ah, no, it's Customs that is in charge -- has been for some time -- of keeping certain copies out of the country. Check out 17 USC 602(b) (which is unaffected by any exemptions you might notice in 602(a)).
Well, it is true that the US generally didn't grant copyrights to Russians during the Cold War, but that had more to do with poor relations between the countries than anything else. Basically there were no treaties between them that covered this.
Oh, and 1) there is no such thing as a 'world copyright.' Copyrights are entirely national, though you can hold multiple copyrights on a work in multiple countries. 2) The US would never grant a copyright for a rifle design per se due to the utility doctrine for sculptural works; national origin wouldn't matter. For that, you would've wanted a utility patent, I think, and it's a bit too late for one.
Well, by 'actual damages' really what is meant is damages and profits of the infringer. But even if you can prove down to the penny how much that is, you can still opt for statutory damages. It's not a backup provision. Pretty commonplace, really.
You're right about the other bit, though.
There is no material difference. You cannot sue someone for contributory or vicarious infringement unless you can show an underlying direct infringement.
Hence: A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
Hell, Napster was notable for putting forth every defense imaginable, and it still barely bothered to claim that there was no prima face direct infringement.
You can make some very nice arguments, but who knows how it will shake out in a court of law when the defense is there to give it's side of the story?
Well, I've been going to law school for three years now, and I'm about 1/4th done with my fourth year. (I'm getting a master's -- I already got a JD)
One of the things they train you in is dispassionately analyzing the law. In order to make a good argument, you need to have fully anticipated all the possible counterarguments the other side is going to make, so that you can counter them. And you need to be able to find trends and similarities in the caselaw so that you can figure out what's most likely to happen, so you can use the limited resources your client is willing to dedicate to legal action effectively. (Which is why settling is a big thing -- it's often most practical to not waste resources in fighting for Pyrrhic victories)
So please trust me when I say that I assure you, I have considered counterarguments, and I have found them wanting. I don't think that they have any chance of success, even if I would like them to succeed.
Sometimes I'm surprised. Martingon used an argument I've been making for a little while now, and I really hadn't expected it to make any headway. Probably that it was a criminal case helped. (And it's still a rather technical argument that Congress can avoid with a correction next session that will likely not be disputed at all)
But I don't think there's going to be any surprises as to this.
I think you would need clairvoyance to be 100% sure how it would pan out.
Well, I don't know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can be pretty confident about it. Likewise, I can look at the law and past trends in the caselaw, and make a good inference as to what'll happen in the next case to come along. This is not an amazing feat of precognition.
Of course, as we've been discussing elsewhere, allofmp3 is astoundingly illegal to download from if you're in the US. Otherwise, apart from the shady Russian thing you note, it sounds relatively good.
It is also glaringly wrong. So I wouldn't bother much with it. I liked the part where they cited 'a high school student majoring in law.' That sounds reliable.
And your URL is wrong (what with that trailing / ).
Ironic that you refer to 20 years, as that's the length of time Disney et al bought in the 90's, retroactively extending their copyrights, and it's widely expected that they'll lobby for another extension in about ten more years.
I'd like to see reform. The problem is that there's literally billions of dollars, and enormous fame on their side. And our side is basically limited to promoting little up-and-coming artists at the expense of those already established, and promoting the public interest.
This is why for the last century or so, copyright law has been put together by different industries divvying up the pie. We only luck out when their interests happen to coincide with our own. They often don't.
You may be interested in reading the books by Professor Litman, and Siva Vaidhyanathan, for more on how this has all gone on previously.
'Work' in the copyright field is a bit of jargon. The work is the actual creative content being protected by copyright, as distinguished from the copyright itself, or a copy, which is a tangible object in which the work is embodied.
For example, "Star Wars" is a work. Lucasfilm, or 20th Century Fox, or someone holds a copyright that pertains to that work. A DVD from which "Star Wars" can be perceived is a copy of the work; the same work exists simultaneously in multiple copies.
So getting back to your post -- since when is oil a copyrightable work?
Who's the author?