That would seem to exclude files on a computer. There is no material object that is fixed.
The material objects are hard disks, floppy disks, and arrangements of circuits (typically banks of transistors) such as RAM.
we're going to have to stop using computers as you can't do anything useful without breaking several laws
Well, yes, that or reform the laws, or ignore the laws. It's the middle one that's best, IMO.
For a good example of how crazy this all is, consider the Utah Lighthouse case a few years back in the US: A website posted copies of documents pertaining to a religious group online. They were copyrighted, and the site had to take them down; that's not too unusual. But some other sites still had them up. The first site then pointed people to the other sites and encouraged them to read what was there. The first site was sued again for contributory infringement, and such a claim absolutely requires that there was a demonstrated instance of a direct infringement by someone else which they could've contributed to. In this case, based on the aforementioned MAI v. Peak case, the plaintiffs claimed the users who were reading the other sites were the direct infringers, since web browsers necessarily make copies of the pages viewed in RAM and typically on hard disks as well. The court agreed -- just _looking_ at something on a computer, due to the way a computer works, is capable of infringing copyrights.
The SCOTUS has a long record of siding with "users" and not corporate holders
Not to this extent, they don't. I agree that it's unlikely to see cases against users of this service anytime soon, but the practicalities of getting caught doesn't make it any less illegal.
It's doubtful the record industry could ever win a case against a user for "importing" their own legally purchased CDs via these electronic means
Well, I agree there is some doubt -- but things get much more clear cut when people are downloading music they don't have otherwise legal copies of.
"You can't defend the law in one breath..."
Like fun I can't. First, they're different laws. I think that import restrictions are necessary to keep the copyright system afloat, but that the particular system of the Berne Convention is totally unacceptable. A different system would be far better -- and need to be saved somewhat from end runs as importation could result in if left totally unchecked.
But I really could care less as to what goes on in Russia -- their laws should suit them, ours should suit ours, and I see no need for harmonization at all, with the possible exception that foreigners should be allowed to file for copyrights just as though they were locals.
We are, after all, allowed to legally tape that which which we hear on the radio
Not quite.
First, the 1008 statutory exception only applies to certain sound recordings; not everything on the radio -- or on CD or whatever -- is fair game. Second, it all hinges on the medium or method involved in the copying; taping is analog, and analog is allowed. Few forms of digital copying are allowed, and this won't qualify when you look at 1001 (upon which 1008 relies). Third, that only applies to reproduction, not distribution; arguably the Russian site violates US law by distributing to Americans, though there's a lot of strong arguments the other way as to that specific issue. Fourth, fair use might apply, but it might apply to literally any sort of otherwise infringing activity. Here it's not likely that this falls under fair use, as there are enough differences between this and recording from US-legal sources where no money changes hands. Even I couldn't find this a fair use, and I'm notoriously pro-public with regards to copyright issues.
I'm struggling to come up with a pragmatic definition of 'a copy' here
Well, the law defines a copy -- a fixed copy, rather -- as being a material object in which a work is fixed by any method and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, OR otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
That includes a hell of a lot, since even all the little tiny copies made in the course of using a computer can be perceived since obviously they're then passed along to different bits of hardware or software that wouldn't be able to get them otherwise.
It's a stupid definition, as anyone familiar with mercury delay lines and the game of telephone will know. But it's what we're stuck with for now.
By that logic it is impossible to steal an electronic file
That's right, provided that you're not talking about stealing the medium the electronic file is fixed in. That doesn't mean it can't be illegal, though, for a half-dozen different reasons.
the Russian site creates a copy specifically for you - once you've finished downloading it gets deleted
That wouldn't make a difference, IMO. The infringement revolves around the fact that the downloader's copy is not the copy -- even if it is bit for bit identical -- as the copy in Russia. What happens to the Russian copy later on, whether it's just after or years later isn't important.
make a copy of the bits in Russia and then send them to you via the internet
Well, now we get into the nitty gritty of how computers work. The bits on your hard drive are not the same PHYSICAL objects as the bits in your CPU or RAM or NIC or ethernet wire or whatever.
This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work. The leading case here is MAI v. Peak. I don't like it, but it's often followed, and it would hose you here. Though frankly, common sense would as well.
Importation involves moving physical objects. This means that the exporting place ends up with one object less, and you end up with one object more. That isn't happening here, as your ending up with a copy doesn't cause Russia to lose one.
In the US, yes. But it would have to be no more than one copy of any work at a time, and the copies would have to be not for further distribution in the US, and it would have to be for the private use of the importer. And probably a business couldn't receive it, but a natural person would have to.
The relevant statute is 17 USC 602. First sale, at 109, doesn't apply unless the copies were made lawfully under US law (regardless of where they were made) or with authorization of the US copyright holder (again regardless of where they were made). So 602 parallels first sale, it doesn't overlap. If first sale did apply, e.g. because the copies were made abroad in compliance with US law, then importation is a-ok without bothering with 602 and its more annoying limitations. (in fact there was a case about that, but the name escapes me at the moment)
This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law.
As it happens, in the US it is indeed the law.
Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation.
That's not quite right, actually.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.
So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.
Some degree of importation despite first sale is still allowed under 602. But importation is very clearly the bringing of things from one country into another country. It is, you'll agree, NOT the same as making new things in a country that are based on those in another country. For example, I could import a Scottish castle, but that would involve taking it apart brick by brick, mailing the bricks here, and putting it back together again. If I built an exact replica, and the original is still in Scotland, then I didn't import it, I reproduced it.
When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.
So it's not legal for Americans to use this site here. Ironically, it probably would be legal to use the site in Russia, provided that the provisions of 602 were complied with (as noted, first sale would likely not apply) when you brought the copies back in, but I expect few/.ers are going to be doing that.
I could really care less about the Berne Convention, and it's such a piece of crap, too. We really gotta get rid of that thing and abandon international copyright agreements.
But US copyright law treats them differently, and that's enough for Americans, at least.
Why is this any different to physically flying to Russia, buying a CD off the shelf for a much lower price than you pay in the US, then flying back with it?
Because that involves a copy made (legally, we assume) in Russia. The selfsame copy is then brought here. When you listen to it, you're listening to a copy of foreign origin.
This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made. Since, in the end, there is a copy on your computer, and a copy on their computer, it is pretty obvious that this involved an act of copying, not an act of importation (where only one copy exists, and it's moved physically).
Actually, as the downloader you're probably not breaking the copyright at least in the states, as you're not doing the copy. As long as you only use one copy.
This is incorrect. The downloader _is_ making a copy. Several, in fact. It's inevitable, given how our computers are designed. I'd suggest taking a look at the relevant bits of the infamous MAI v. Peak case. I don't pretend to agree with it, but it's commonly relied upon. The Napster case also confirmed that both downloaders and uploaders on P2P nets are seperately infringing. (RIAA hasn't gone after downloaders much yet because it's more effective to get suppliers than leechers, but the fact that they haven't sued downloaders yet doesn't mean that they can't -- they can, per 17 USC 106)
It's probably great for Russians. But for Americans at least, the site is illegal.
Our laws prohibit most unauthorized distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works in the US per 17 USC 106. The party that can authorize it is the US copyright holder -- this is prone to be a different entity than rights holders abroad.
While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify. A copy isn't merely being brought into the country, but rather due to the way computers work (see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon), a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia, and thus wasn't imported as 602 requires. (Though what it was copied _from_ did -- it's the difference betweeen a CD that can be brought from place to place, and making a tape of what you hear on the phone)
Even the ability to legally import unauthorizedly is somewhat limited; the idea is that if we have copyright laws domestically, to allow people to do an end run around it by operating in a country with less or no copyright, then importing works here en masse would result in things being, well, fucked up, basically. This site basically demonstrates how such a thing might happen.
The Russians are probably fine -- if they're careful, RIAA won't be able to shut them down. OTOH, Americans using the service could get into significant trouble if they're caught.
All that having been said, I'd like to see the law changed to better suit the desires of the public, but for now there are problems for this.
Well, basically the idea is one of shelter. If you do what you need to do to qualify for it, you're sheltered from legal actions you'd otherwise be exposed to. But it's just shorthand for an idea -- there are various safe harbor provisions in the law, and they differ in terms of what the prerequisites are to take advantage of them and what they protect one from.
Depends on how expensive it is. At the current price point, even extrapolating up to account for the increased storage space, I'd be happy to pay for it. Until it can actually play the music I have though, it's pretty worthless to me.
Not only because they don't have enough capacity -- I'd like about 100GB of storage for just music -- but more because it:
*Doesn't support enough music formats. I have a lot of flacs, apes, oggs, and mods. And I dunno if it plays mp2, but I've got some of those as well.
*Doesn't have good metadata support
*Doesn't have good client software. In fact, it's a bad thing that it _needs_ client software. It mostly just serves to make it a PITA to share music anyway.
*Doesn't have a good enough display -- I'd like something larger and denser.
*Doesn't have good integration with cars -- I'd like a head unit that an iPod could slot into, rather like the old Duo Docks. This would be considerably handier than minijack to cassette adapters.
I'm 99.44% in agreement with you. But again, I was talking about what the law is now, and not what it was once, or should be. I'm very much in favor of reforming and scaling back copyright law.
Contributory and vicarious infringement both require that there is in fact an underlying direct infringement, however. The Napster case discussed the violations of users as a necessary prerequisite for Napster itself to be liable.
Know this: I'm not defending the law as it stands. I don't like the law as it stands, though I do think that the circumstances are still such that _some_ form of (massively reduced) copyright is still a good idea. I'm just talking about what the law currently is, whether we like it or not.
It doesn't do any good to ignore what the current state of affairs is. In fact, it's an important thing to know so as to make cogent arguments in favor of changing it.
The distribution right? Man, it's an old one. I'd have to look up the precise language of the 1790 Act and the Statute of Anne, but I'd guess since the 18th century.
Are you saying I can't sell, or give away, my legally obtained books, cds, videos, dvds?
No, I'm not.
The distribution right is limited elsewhere (17 USC 109) such that it does not apply to people making certain later dispositions of copies of works that were originally distributed authorizedly by the copyright holder.
Selling a used, legally made and acquired copy of a book, for example, is perfectly legal, all else being equal.
I didn't really want to get into every single nuance of the law since a lot of it isn't relevant to the discussion right now and anyway it just muddies the waters -- title 17 isn't that hard to read through for the most part, but I have no desire to recap it just for the sake of making an unnecessarily thorough argument.
You're omitting a great deal. The are exceptions to the copyright laws, commonly called "Fair Use".
As I said to another poster, fair use is not relevant to my point which was to show that downloading is, at least, capable of being infringing behavior. Besides, I doubt that most P2P users can sucessfully show fair use.
You can duplicate for:
educational purposes; satirical purposes; personal use (yes, you can!); informative uses, such as news stories.
No, you cannot. Not like that.
You need to read more carefully -- there is a four prong test used to determine whether or not something is fair use. If you fail the test, even one of those uses you list above will still not be fair. And it's also possible to pass without having had one of those purposes. The purposes listed in the statute, say, (which you got wrong, anyhow) are illustrative at most. They don't really mean anything, other than that Congress expected that they'd be prone to be fair.
Jefferson wanted none at all
Of course, Jefferson was in France at the time, so he had somewhat less input into the Constitution than you might expect. At any rate, if it hadn't been an enumerated power of Congress, it would've fallen to the states. In fact, between 1776 and 1789, the states _did_ have their own copyright laws, and generally screwed it up. It's one of those things that is best handled at the federal level. In fact, there are still a handful of state copyright laws on the books today, and federal preemption may not be completely total.
The compromise simply limited copyright to a limited period of time, giving both side their due. Copyright holders made some dough, and eventually their work became fodder for other people's ideas.
I don't think it was a compromise, particularly, but I do think that the idea was to benefit the public and to hell with the authors. Authors are just a means to an end, they're not important in their own right.
but for creating a fair way of releasing a man's work into the commons, yet recompensing him. Reward for effort, and then seeding the greater whole.
I disagree -- It's not supposed to be fair. It's supposed to promote the public good. Any benefits that authors might enjoy are entirely secondary.
But I do agree generally that massive reform is needed to scale back the scope of copyrights and put authors and publishers back in their place. Sadly, that has little to do with the law _now_ which is mostly what has been discussed here.
The ruling in MAI v. Peak is that loading a program into RAM constitutes making a "copy" under Copyright law.
Well, to be more accurate, the holding is that copies in RAM are fixed. This hasn't just had an impact in the computer software arena; the Utah Lighthouse case found that people who read web pages that contained infringing copies had themselves made infringing copies due to the nature of how the computers used to read it operate. It's a terrible line of precedents, though, I have to say.
So, if you do not have a valid license (specific copyright), you may not execute programs.
No -- if you own a copy of a program, you can make any copies or adaptations you need to run it per 17 USC 117. Likewise you can make as many backup copies of the computer program (it doesn't apply to other kinds of works) as you like.
The problem with licensing is that licensors claim that the users don't own the copies of the software, and thus 117 is inapplicable. That means that if you can't just buy a copy outright, you have to license it and take whatever terms are forced on you as part of it. This is also a hotly contested point and not settled yet. But for MAI itself, it isn't an issue.
When downloading, I am not using MY computer to make the copy
Oh yes you are. Note that there are probably any number of short lived copies along the way. But according to MAI, so long as they can be percieved (and they can be) it's enough.
Thus:
1. Copy on sharer's hard disk. 2. Sharer's P2P software begins to read in this copy, making a new copy in RAM. 3. The NIC copies from RAM and sends packets down the line. 4. As the NIC reads in the step 2 copy, it's erased. 5. Lots of hardware on the network makes copies as the file goes down the line. 6. Your NIC makes a copy as it recieves packets. 7. The local NIC copy is used to make a copy in RAM 8. The copy in RAM is written to the hard disk.
Copies are fixed in tangible mediums, remember. If the medium changes, it's a new copy. Since your hard disk ends up with a copy in the end, that's going to be sufficient.
I listen to the radio, watch TV, read books, and download from the internet. In all of these cases I presume proper copyright, or that the copyright holders are pursuing the guilty.
This is an unsafe presumption. Copyright is a strict liability statute. It doesn't matter much (save for damages) whether you knew the work was copyrighted, or whether you intended to infringe. As long as you objectively infringed, regardless of your intent, you're toast.
Well, you let me know when you find people who are not only stupid enough to fall for that, but who are the right people. (No one cares if/. posters fall for it -- I want to see federal judges fall for it)
Yes, that's just what I expected. I didn't say that I _liked_ the law as it stands, but at least I know what it is.
Your Mona Lisa example is stupid. You must be trolling.
It's not the best example ever, but I'm not trolling. I don't troll.
I drew a mona lisa from memory (or even a picture of it) and I can go to jail for hanging it in my basement, and never selling it, advertising it, etc. Yea right.
1) The example presumes the Mona Lisa is copyrighted (which in fact it is not, I just wanted a very famous piece of art for the sake of example) 2) I didn't say jail, I said that it would infringe. At the moment it still takes a bit more than mere infringement for criminal penalties to apply, but not a hell of a lot more. So if you were to paint your own Mona Lisa from memory and hang it up in a secret place where only you ever saw it then you'd just have to worry about the copyright holder suing you for $150,000 or so.
If no one finds out, you're damn unlikely to ever get caught -- but that's merely a practical issue. It doesn't change the underlying offense, any more than saying that a murderer that isn't caught isn't a criminal.
And yes -- this is all fairly stupid, I agree. But that's how things are. I'd like to change it, but I haven't managed to yet. I think that awareness of how amazingly absurd and terrible this law is now is a good tool towards getting it reformed, though.
Slashdot Mirror
That would seem to exclude files on a computer. There is no material object that is fixed.
The material objects are hard disks, floppy disks, and arrangements of circuits (typically banks of transistors) such as RAM.
we're going to have to stop using computers as you can't do anything useful without breaking several laws
Well, yes, that or reform the laws, or ignore the laws. It's the middle one that's best, IMO.
For a good example of how crazy this all is, consider the Utah Lighthouse case a few years back in the US: A website posted copies of documents pertaining to a religious group online. They were copyrighted, and the site had to take them down; that's not too unusual. But some other sites still had them up. The first site then pointed people to the other sites and encouraged them to read what was there. The first site was sued again for contributory infringement, and such a claim absolutely requires that there was a demonstrated instance of a direct infringement by someone else which they could've contributed to. In this case, based on the aforementioned MAI v. Peak case, the plaintiffs claimed the users who were reading the other sites were the direct infringers, since web browsers necessarily make copies of the pages viewed in RAM and typically on hard disks as well.
The court agreed -- just _looking_ at something on a computer, due to the way a computer works, is capable of infringing copyrights.
It's crazy.
The SCOTUS has a long record of siding with "users" and not corporate holders
Not to this extent, they don't. I agree that it's unlikely to see cases against users of this service anytime soon, but the practicalities of getting caught doesn't make it any less illegal.
It's doubtful the record industry could ever win a case against a user for "importing" their own legally purchased CDs via these electronic means
Well, I agree there is some doubt -- but things get much more clear cut when people are downloading music they don't have otherwise legal copies of.
"You can't defend the law in one breath..."
Like fun I can't. First, they're different laws. I think that import restrictions are necessary to keep the copyright system afloat, but that the particular system of the Berne Convention is totally unacceptable. A different system would be far better -- and need to be saved somewhat from end runs as importation could result in if left totally unchecked.
But I really could care less as to what goes on in Russia -- their laws should suit them, ours should suit ours, and I see no need for harmonization at all, with the possible exception that foreigners should be allowed to file for copyrights just as though they were locals.
We are, after all, allowed to legally tape that which which we hear on the radio
Not quite.
First, the 1008 statutory exception only applies to certain sound recordings; not everything on the radio -- or on CD or whatever -- is fair game. Second, it all hinges on the medium or method involved in the copying; taping is analog, and analog is allowed. Few forms of digital copying are allowed, and this won't qualify when you look at 1001 (upon which 1008 relies). Third, that only applies to reproduction, not distribution; arguably the Russian site violates US law by distributing to Americans, though there's a lot of strong arguments the other way as to that specific issue. Fourth, fair use might apply, but it might apply to literally any sort of otherwise infringing activity. Here it's not likely that this falls under fair use, as there are enough differences between this and recording from US-legal sources where no money changes hands. Even I couldn't find this a fair use, and I'm notoriously pro-public with regards to copyright issues.
I'm struggling to come up with a pragmatic definition of 'a copy' here
Well, the law defines a copy -- a fixed copy, rather -- as being a material object in which a work is fixed by any method and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, OR otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
That includes a hell of a lot, since even all the little tiny copies made in the course of using a computer can be perceived since obviously they're then passed along to different bits of hardware or software that wouldn't be able to get them otherwise.
It's a stupid definition, as anyone familiar with mercury delay lines and the game of telephone will know. But it's what we're stuck with for now.
By that logic it is impossible to steal an electronic file
That's right, provided that you're not talking about stealing the medium the electronic file is fixed in. That doesn't mean it can't be illegal, though, for a half-dozen different reasons.
the Russian site creates a copy specifically for you - once you've finished downloading it gets deleted
That wouldn't make a difference, IMO. The infringement revolves around the fact that the downloader's copy is not the copy -- even if it is bit for bit identical -- as the copy in Russia. What happens to the Russian copy later on, whether it's just after or years later isn't important.
make a copy of the bits in Russia and then send them to you via the internet
Well, now we get into the nitty gritty of how computers work. The bits on your hard drive are not the same PHYSICAL objects as the bits in your CPU or RAM or NIC or ethernet wire or whatever.
This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work. The leading case here is MAI v. Peak. I don't like it, but it's often followed, and it would hose you here. Though frankly, common sense would as well.
Importation involves moving physical objects. This means that the exporting place ends up with one object less, and you end up with one object more. That isn't happening here, as your ending up with a copy doesn't cause Russia to lose one.
In the US, yes. But it would have to be no more than one copy of any work at a time, and the copies would have to be not for further distribution in the US, and it would have to be for the private use of the importer. And probably a business couldn't receive it, but a natural person would have to.
The relevant statute is 17 USC 602. First sale, at 109, doesn't apply unless the copies were made lawfully under US law (regardless of where they were made) or with authorization of the US copyright holder (again regardless of where they were made). So 602 parallels first sale, it doesn't overlap. If first sale did apply, e.g. because the copies were made abroad in compliance with US law, then importation is a-ok without bothering with 602 and its more annoying limitations. (in fact there was a case about that, but the name escapes me at the moment)
This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law.
/.ers are going to be doing that.
As it happens, in the US it is indeed the law.
Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation.
That's not quite right, actually.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.
So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.
Some degree of importation despite first sale is still allowed under 602. But importation is very clearly the bringing of things from one country into another country. It is, you'll agree, NOT the same as making new things in a country that are based on those in another country. For example, I could import a Scottish castle, but that would involve taking it apart brick by brick, mailing the bricks here, and putting it back together again. If I built an exact replica, and the original is still in Scotland, then I didn't import it, I reproduced it.
When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.
So it's not legal for Americans to use this site here. Ironically, it probably would be legal to use the site in Russia, provided that the provisions of 602 were complied with (as noted, first sale would likely not apply) when you brought the copies back in, but I expect few
I could really care less about the Berne Convention, and it's such a piece of crap, too. We really gotta get rid of that thing and abandon international copyright agreements.
But US copyright law treats them differently, and that's enough for Americans, at least.
Why is this any different to physically flying to Russia, buying a CD off the shelf for a much lower price than you pay in the US, then flying back with it?
Because that involves a copy made (legally, we assume) in Russia. The selfsame copy is then brought here. When you listen to it, you're listening to a copy of foreign origin.
This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made. Since, in the end, there is a copy on your computer, and a copy on their computer, it is pretty obvious that this involved an act of copying, not an act of importation (where only one copy exists, and it's moved physically).
Do you see the difference?
Actually, as the downloader you're probably not breaking the copyright at least in the states, as you're not doing the copy. As long as you only use one copy.
This is incorrect. The downloader _is_ making a copy. Several, in fact. It's inevitable, given how our computers are designed. I'd suggest taking a look at the relevant bits of the infamous MAI v. Peak case. I don't pretend to agree with it, but it's commonly relied upon. The Napster case also confirmed that both downloaders and uploaders on P2P nets are seperately infringing. (RIAA hasn't gone after downloaders much yet because it's more effective to get suppliers than leechers, but the fact that they haven't sued downloaders yet doesn't mean that they can't -- they can, per 17 USC 106)
It's probably great for Russians. But for Americans at least, the site is illegal.
Our laws prohibit most unauthorized distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works in the US per 17 USC 106. The party that can authorize it is the US copyright holder -- this is prone to be a different entity than rights holders abroad.
While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify. A copy isn't merely being brought into the country, but rather due to the way computers work (see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon), a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia, and thus wasn't imported as 602 requires. (Though what it was copied _from_ did -- it's the difference betweeen a CD that can be brought from place to place, and making a tape of what you hear on the phone)
Even the ability to legally import unauthorizedly is somewhat limited; the idea is that if we have copyright laws domestically, to allow people to do an end run around it by operating in a country with less or no copyright, then importing works here en masse would result in things being, well, fucked up, basically. This site basically demonstrates how such a thing might happen.
The Russians are probably fine -- if they're careful, RIAA won't be able to shut them down. OTOH, Americans using the service could get into significant trouble if they're caught.
All that having been said, I'd like to see the law changed to better suit the desires of the public, but for now there are problems for this.
No, to start off with they were two identical looking ugly little kids. So it's impressive they've done so well, really.
Well, basically the idea is one of shelter. If you do what you need to do to qualify for it, you're sheltered from legal actions you'd otherwise be exposed to. But it's just shorthand for an idea -- there are various safe harbor provisions in the law, and they differ in terms of what the prerequisites are to take advantage of them and what they protect one from.
Holy shit: Man lands on Mars!
I believe the headline you're looking for is:
Holy Fucking Shit: Man Lands on Goddamn Mars, Jesus Christ.
Depends on how expensive it is. At the current price point, even extrapolating up to account for the increased storage space, I'd be happy to pay for it. Until it can actually play the music I have though, it's pretty worthless to me.
Not only because they don't have enough capacity -- I'd like about 100GB of storage for just music -- but more because it:
*Doesn't support enough music formats. I have a lot of flacs, apes, oggs, and mods. And I dunno if it plays mp2, but I've got some of those as well.
*Doesn't have good metadata support
*Doesn't have good client software. In fact, it's a bad thing that it _needs_ client software. It mostly just serves to make it a PITA to share music anyway.
*Doesn't have a good enough display -- I'd like something larger and denser.
*Doesn't have good integration with cars -- I'd like a head unit that an iPod could slot into, rather like the old Duo Docks. This would be considerably handier than minijack to cassette adapters.
I'm 99.44% in agreement with you. But again, I was talking about what the law is now, and not what it was once, or should be. I'm very much in favor of reforming and scaling back copyright law.
Contributory and vicarious infringement both require that there is in fact an underlying direct infringement, however. The Napster case discussed the violations of users as a necessary prerequisite for Napster itself to be liable.
Know this: I'm not defending the law as it stands. I don't like the law as it stands, though I do think that the circumstances are still such that _some_ form of (massively reduced) copyright is still a good idea. I'm just talking about what the law currently is, whether we like it or not.
It doesn't do any good to ignore what the current state of affairs is. In fact, it's an important thing to know so as to make cogent arguments in favor of changing it.
The distribution right? Man, it's an old one. I'd have to look up the precise language of the 1790 Act and the Statute of Anne, but I'd guess since the 18th century.
Are you saying I can't sell, or give away, my legally obtained books, cds, videos, dvds?
No, I'm not.
The distribution right is limited elsewhere (17 USC 109) such that it does not apply to people making certain later dispositions of copies of works that were originally distributed authorizedly by the copyright holder.
Selling a used, legally made and acquired copy of a book, for example, is perfectly legal, all else being equal.
I didn't really want to get into every single nuance of the law since a lot of it isn't relevant to the discussion right now and anyway it just muddies the waters -- title 17 isn't that hard to read through for the most part, but I have no desire to recap it just for the sake of making an unnecessarily thorough argument.
You're omitting a great deal. The are exceptions to the copyright laws, commonly called "Fair Use".
As I said to another poster, fair use is not relevant to my point which was to show that downloading is, at least, capable of being infringing behavior. Besides, I doubt that most P2P users can sucessfully show fair use.
You can duplicate for:
educational purposes;
satirical purposes;
personal use (yes, you can!);
informative uses, such as news stories.
No, you cannot. Not like that.
You need to read more carefully -- there is a four prong test used to determine whether or not something is fair use. If you fail the test, even one of those uses you list above will still not be fair. And it's also possible to pass without having had one of those purposes. The purposes listed in the statute, say, (which you got wrong, anyhow) are illustrative at most. They don't really mean anything, other than that Congress expected that they'd be prone to be fair.
Jefferson wanted none at all
Of course, Jefferson was in France at the time, so he had somewhat less input into the Constitution than you might expect. At any rate, if it hadn't been an enumerated power of Congress, it would've fallen to the states. In fact, between 1776 and 1789, the states _did_ have their own copyright laws, and generally screwed it up. It's one of those things that is best handled at the federal level. In fact, there are still a handful of state copyright laws on the books today, and federal preemption may not be completely total.
The compromise simply limited copyright to a limited period of time, giving both side their due. Copyright holders made some dough, and eventually their work became fodder for other people's ideas.
I don't think it was a compromise, particularly, but I do think that the idea was to benefit the public and to hell with the authors. Authors are just a means to an end, they're not important in their own right.
but for creating a fair way of releasing a man's work into the commons, yet recompensing him. Reward for effort, and then seeding the greater whole.
I disagree -- It's not supposed to be fair. It's supposed to promote the public good. Any benefits that authors might enjoy are entirely secondary.
But I do agree generally that massive reform is needed to scale back the scope of copyrights and put authors and publishers back in their place. Sadly, that has little to do with the law _now_ which is mostly what has been discussed here.
The ruling in MAI v. Peak is that loading a program into RAM constitutes making a "copy" under Copyright law.
Well, to be more accurate, the holding is that copies in RAM are fixed. This hasn't just had an impact in the computer software arena; the Utah Lighthouse case found that people who read web pages that contained infringing copies had themselves made infringing copies due to the nature of how the computers used to read it operate. It's a terrible line of precedents, though, I have to say.
So, if you do not have a valid license (specific copyright), you may not execute programs.
No -- if you own a copy of a program, you can make any copies or adaptations you need to run it per 17 USC 117. Likewise you can make as many backup copies of the computer program (it doesn't apply to other kinds of works) as you like.
The problem with licensing is that licensors claim that the users don't own the copies of the software, and thus 117 is inapplicable. That means that if you can't just buy a copy outright, you have to license it and take whatever terms are forced on you as part of it. This is also a hotly contested point and not settled yet. But for MAI itself, it isn't an issue.
When downloading, I am not using MY computer to make the copy
Oh yes you are. Note that there are probably any number of short lived copies along the way. But according to MAI, so long as they can be percieved (and they can be) it's enough.
Thus:
1. Copy on sharer's hard disk.
2. Sharer's P2P software begins to read in this copy, making a new copy in RAM.
3. The NIC copies from RAM and sends packets down the line.
4. As the NIC reads in the step 2 copy, it's erased.
5. Lots of hardware on the network makes copies as the file goes down the line.
6. Your NIC makes a copy as it recieves packets.
7. The local NIC copy is used to make a copy in RAM
8. The copy in RAM is written to the hard disk.
Copies are fixed in tangible mediums, remember. If the medium changes, it's a new copy. Since your hard disk ends up with a copy in the end, that's going to be sufficient.
I listen to the radio, watch TV, read books, and download from the internet. In all of these cases I presume proper copyright, or that the copyright holders are pursuing the guilty.
This is an unsafe presumption. Copyright is a strict liability statute. It doesn't matter much (save for damages) whether you knew the work was copyrighted, or whether you intended to infringe. As long as you objectively infringed, regardless of your intent, you're toast.
Well, you let me know when you find people who are not only stupid enough to fall for that, but who are the right people. (No one cares if /. posters fall for it -- I want to see federal judges fall for it)
I can't find a damn thing to support my point.
Yes, that's just what I expected. I didn't say that I _liked_ the law as it stands, but at least I know what it is.
Your Mona Lisa example is stupid. You must be trolling.
It's not the best example ever, but I'm not trolling. I don't troll.
I drew a mona lisa from memory (or even a picture of it) and I can go to jail for hanging it in my basement, and never selling it, advertising it, etc. Yea right.
1) The example presumes the Mona Lisa is copyrighted (which in fact it is not, I just wanted a very famous piece of art for the sake of example) 2) I didn't say jail, I said that it would infringe. At the moment it still takes a bit more than mere infringement for criminal penalties to apply, but not a hell of a lot more. So if you were to paint your own Mona Lisa from memory and hang it up in a secret place where only you ever saw it then you'd just have to worry about the copyright holder suing you for $150,000 or so.
If no one finds out, you're damn unlikely to ever get caught -- but that's merely a practical issue. It doesn't change the underlying offense, any more than saying that a murderer that isn't caught isn't a criminal.
And yes -- this is all fairly stupid, I agree. But that's how things are. I'd like to change it, but I haven't managed to yet. I think that awareness of how amazingly absurd and terrible this law is now is a good tool towards getting it reformed, though.