They do EXACTLY the same thing that _I_ do when I: *recieve junk mail in my mailbox (sort it, throw it out) *receive telemarketing calls (listen long enough to determine what the nature of the call is, hang up) *receive door-to-door solicitors (listen long enough to determine what the nature of the visit is, slam the door in their face) *perceive ads in printed or broadcast or Internet media (recognize it as an ad, mentally filter it out/turn the page/change the channel, etc.)
In fact, it's EXACTLY the same thing that happens when I get a personal email that isn't spam that I nevertheless don't want to read.
None of these things are SO burdensome that it is even vaguely appropriate to act as a tolitarian censor in order to free ourselves from them. And this is coming from the person who would like to purge Madison Avenue in cleansing nuclear fire!
This is the small price we pay for not being total hermits. That is, we accept that there is ALWAYS going to be some degree of annoyance in the world that we have to cope with.
Some spam is worth legislating against, but that isn't because it's spam, it's because it's fraudulent, or sent by hackers, or in violation of explicit requests to stop.
Spam qua spam is not regulable. Annoying, but not regulable. Just like the Skokie Nazis.
No, I think it is. But it's a difference of opinion, and I respect that other people might not find ads to be as utterly abhorrent as I do. I don't understand that position, but it's valid enough.
Anyway, this is besides the point.
Spam, on the other hand, is theft. I pay for my server space. I pay for my bandwidth. ***I*** pay for the spammers to semd me there shite, which is why spam is wrong.
And how do you _not_ pay for your telephone, mailbox, or the property leading up to your front door? You pay for people to call you, mail you, or personally solicit you, or at least are harmed by it, probably about as much as you're harmed by spam.
Barring YOU explicitly getting them to stop, those things are allowed. Spam isn't fundementally different.
Who bears the costs is irrelevant, provided that they're costs ordinarily borne in society and you're not trying to avoid such costs meaningfully. Speech doesn't hinge on such silly things as cost bearing.
Oh yes they do. All the way from hijacking dial-up lines under false pretenses, through exploiting relays whose admins aren't smart enough to secure them, through backbones that are used in violation of TOS,
All well and good and _these_ things I don't mind if you go after spammers for.
all the way to my email account which is NOT for the purpose of receiving unsolicited bulk email, commercial or otherwise.
No. Unless you've actually notified spammers that you don't want unsolicited bulk email, you're fair game, all else being equal. After all, spammers aren't psychic. How should _they_ know what you do and do not like?
How hard is it for you to post notice of some sort? I wouldn't defend a violation of that notice, but if it hasn't been given, then that's your tough luck. People don't put up 'no solicitation' signs for their health, you know.
I won't tolerate neonazis on my own property, and neither should you.
And I don't.
But let's imagine that the Hitler Youth comes to my door and rings the bell to sell me cookies for their fundraising efforts to revive Hitler's Brain. They're not significantly distinguishable in this regards from the Girl Scouts, who do the same thing, barring the part about the brain AFAIK.
If they come to my door at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, I have no grounds to sue them for having done so. Anyone can do what they did.
OTOH... I _CAN_ tell them to leave, and sue if they don't. I _CAN_ tell them to never come back, and sue if they don't. I _CAN_ put up a sign before they ever arrive telling them to not even bother, and to stay off my property, and sue if they don't.
But I have to take some action on my own.
I'm not defending spammers that hack, or spammers that lie, or spammers that disregard notice to never spam a particular address or to leave and never spam it again.
But I see nothing to be done about law-abiding spammers that are truthful and obey requests to go the hell away. Those guys are still annoying as hell, but are something that we're stuck with.
You must not know me. I hate, with the burning passion of a thousand suns (i.e one kilosol) ALL advertising, be it spam, or tv ads, or junk mail, or billboards, or in magazines or newspapers, or the radio, or banner ads, or EVEN prominent logos on websites or various products!
I have so many Proxomitron filters running on my machine that weeks can pass between when I see an ad.
My dream technology would be something that I could use to filter ads out of real life -- glasses that turned ads into blank white spots, headphones that muted out jingles, etc.
So please don't call me a spammer. Chances are I hate ads more than you do.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that I'm willing to ignore the first amendment. I hate spammers, and I also hate neo-nazis. But I will vigorously defend the right of both to speak freely.
I'm not for ads. I'm for free speech. Ads are an unfortunate side effect of that, just as, e.g. Klan rallies are.
I wish that everyone would realize how awful ads are and simply stop advertising of their own accord. But I'll be damned if I'm going to force them to stop; that would be infinitely worse.
Well, do people you don't know, or people you haven't explicitly invited to do so, have a right to telephone you? Or to knock on your door and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letters?
Spam isn't anything like _forcing_ your way into a house. It is merely taking advantage of the limited authorization of the recipient to recieve such things. It's presumed to be authorized unless it is explicitly revoked.
Spam regulation has to balance these things. Spammers cannot force their way in regardless of the wishes of the recipient, but the recipient is assumed to want the spam sent until he says otherwise because that's how society works; we don't normally whitelist our entire human experience.
So regulation can regulate the truthfulness of spam -- it has to be truthful. False or misleading subject matter or headers or addresses are cause for regulation. Truthful spam is ok.
Regulation can regulate the time place and manner of spamming so as to not be harrassing. It's much in the way that we can regulte telemarketing so that calls don't come in at 3 am, but without actually _stopping_ it. It can only be channeled a little bit, and spam is not offensive enough in this manner (people can check their email at their lesuire) to warrant any of this AFAICT.
Regulation can require that once the implicit permission to spam is explicitly revoked -- either en masse or specifically as to a particular spammer -- by the provision of notice that spammers are reasonably likely to be aware of, that it will stop. But it can't deny spam from being sent to recipients who are too lazy to try to do anything about it, because they are assumed to want it. (just as I want Ed McMahon to knock on my door sometime, unexpectedly, with a gigantic check for a gigantic sum)
Nowhere does it permits anyone from using someone else's press, as spamming does by using someone else's computer/network ressources.
You are correct.
But, I ask, isn't it okay for other people to use your resources if you give them permission. You have to say yes, because the ability to grant or deny permission to others is very important if you want to assert control over things. If you're not able to act as the gatekeeper, someone else could let others in or deny them contrary to your wishes.
So you get to pick who gets to use your resources.
Isn't the mere fact that you have an email address implicit permission for people to mail you? I think it must be. It's a reasonable expectation in society that one's front door, or telephone, or email address, are invitations to make reasonable communications. Nothing harrassing -- door to door salesmen shouldn't be ringing on the bell at 3 in the morning. (though a sheriff come to warn you about an impending flood is a different matter) But email isn't especially harassing, being so damn easy to get rid of, to filter, etc. It's easier to dispose of than real live junk mail, which takes some physical effort, you know.
Telemarketing uses your phone resources, ties up your line, uses up your precious time. Junk mail fills up your mailbox displacing important mail, is sitting on your property, again uses up your time in sorting it from what you actually want, and may cost money or other resources to dispose of. Door to door soliciting is a trespass on your property, and again uses up your time.
But you're expected to suck it up like a man regardless of the cost to your resources because this is part of living in the world. And no one is stopping you from getting out of that expectation, but in the absence of action on your part, you'd better get used to it.
Now, if you explicitly retract this permission to contact you, that's fine. Put up a no soliciting sign and no one should come to your door to sell things to you. Get on a no call list and your phone should never ring with a sales pitch. Specifically tell junk mailers to leave you alone, and they had better. But UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU DO there is nothing wrong with people spamming you -- aside from that spam, or any other form of advertising, IMO, is amazingly evil.
Spam is not directed at an individual per se, but at a list of millions of people.
Oh, like a national magazine or newspaper? Or TV or radio? Or the messages on the side of the Goodyear blimp or written in the sky? Or mass mailings or even door-to-door canvassing?
Breadth is not a factor. Speech is speech whether directed at one person or literally everyone.
This is not a soapbox preacher that you can just walk away from
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it, or whitelist. You can tell spammers to stop sending you spam.
It has been determined repeatedly that the First Amendment is not protection for unproven claims, scams, or lack of "truth in advertising". Companies and individuals who have parlayed these things into First Amendment cases have invariably lost.
I wholeheartedly agree. But this means that we still have to put up with TRUTHFUL spam. And there's quite a lot of that. And there'll be more if we do something about false spam, since that'll act as an evolutionary pressure.
The first amendment guarantees your right to speak - NOT your right to hijack servers and bandwidth all across the world in order to force people to listen to you.
True. OTOH, spammers don't do that. If your email is set up to accept unsolicited email, why is it spammers' fault that they're sending you such email. You could always whitelist. In truth, email accounts, by their very existence, are an implicit invitation for people to mail to them. Much like I can use your property to go to your front door and solicit, or call your phone, or mail you junk mail. All use some of your resources and time and bother you.
Unless you give reasonable advance warning not to do that, or tell me to leave and never return, it's all okay. It's a part of society. I hate ads -- all ads, everywhere -- but there's not a great deal that can be done about this, just as many people hate neonazis, but have to put up with their continued existence since tolerance is safest for us all.
No, commercial speech is protected by the first amendment. There are some other limits to it: the advertising has to be truthful, and some disclosures can be required, e.g. ingredients lists, but it's basically protected. There no bogus legal pretext whatsoever. Do you need case cites?
Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
Why not? Remember when Jefferson said that creative works were like fire? Able to be spread, and to illuminate the originator equally as much as later persons who partake of it.
This argument is pretty foolish. It isn't for the artist to control such matters any more than it should be possible for Ford to tell people that they mustn't sell used cars to Jews in respect for Henry Ford's antisemitism. Anyone should be able to use art. If it couldn't, the usefulness of copyrights would plummet so dramatically that to grant them would be utter folly.
Please consider an author's Moral Rights under the Berne Convention
I don't believe that they exist. I certainly do not and never will respect them or adhere to them unless by coincidence I personally desire to what what the artist wanted me to do anyway.
And there is definitely no REASON for moral rights to exist. It's tripe. Please, tell me why _I_ should (as a person, or as an artist; I'm both) respect an artist's desire for moral rights. What's in it for me?
Ultimately, I feel that if enough people want to sample, they should be able to do so legally as much as they please. Perhaps some touchy artists will be upset with this and abandon their labors. If they do, but the world is better off for being able to sample than it was with those artists, then I would be happy to be rid of them. Only where the world is better off the other way would I accept a ban on sampling. And it still might seem suspicious to me.
What artists want is pretty irrelevant IMO. I don't really pay it any mind. Especially given how hostile many artists are to the society that must be sweet-talked into generously granting a copyright at its leisure. It's the right policy to adopt, again both as a person and as an artist.
Property is a right that the founders envisionsed as being inherent to mankind --- right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No, they didn't all think that. Jefferson cribbed Locke, but changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness' because Jefferson didn't believe that property was an inherent right. For much the same reasons that he didn't think that copyrights were an inherent right.
And in fact, it's not an inherent right. Property law appears to be basically utilitarian, just as copyrights are. The main difference is simply that the former developed over time and naturally worked out in such a manner, whereas by the time that copyrights were being invented, people had figured out the benefits of a utilitarian model and explicitly created it as such.
It's nice to see a fellow Rutgersian? Rutgersite? What the hell are we anyway? Even if you're up at Newark and I'm way down in Camden.
(Really they should just put everyone at New Brunswick; it's nicer than Camden or Newark, and it isn't as though this is a big state to begin with.)
Anyway, sure, there were no recordings until the Edison Phonograph AFAIK in 1877. I'm not sure that I see the point of your argument.
Musicians can nevertheless make money performing and composing music and even recording music.
Incidentally, sound recordings didn't become copyrightable until 1972. (previously all that was protected was the musical composition and the lyrics themselves) If, say, an orchestra performed a piece of public domain music and recorded it, they'd be SOL unless there was some state law remedy. This didn't seem to have stopped them.
As I said before, there is the fact that there will probably be less original music being created, but it is entirely possible that people would rather have basically free music with little more music being created than somewhat costly music with lots more music being created.
Both are valid positions. We don't HAVE to encourage artists to create more than they would otherwise you know.
Personally, I think that a reform to reduce the scope, availability, protection, and subject matter of copyright is in order. I don't advocate the abolition of copyright altogether, however. Such reform might prune the music industry, but I think that it would ultimately leave everyone better off.
When you recieved the email you were basically instructing your computer, even if you didn't know it, to copy information from the mail server.
Unless you're saying that the bits on the mail server are the same bits -- as opposed to DIFFERENT bits in the same configuration -- as on your computer. Which can be clearly demonstrated not to be true b/c the mail server can retain its copy of the message independently from your copy.
Computers make copies like we breathe; they can't help it. On a similar vein read the novel "Declare" by Tim Powers. Something similar is going on there where to think of a thing results in there actually being that thing, because they're indistinguishable.
Two of the factors in the fair use analysis are whether the allegedly fair use is one that tends to help the user profit, and whether it has a negative effect on the market for the source work. (AFAIK a positive effect is irrelevant)
Libraries, schools, and friends, are MORE likely to be able to copy things per fair use than a commercial user, but fair use cannot be abused, and it NEVER is blanket permission to engage in a particular course of action. All of those people can get in trouble. Fair use is always just a possibility; never a certainty.
As for the AHRA -- it does NOT apply to computer file sharing, probably doesn't include distribution of copies (just the making of copies), and isn't really relevant here. Unless Congress specifically takes action to extend it, it is not going to help computer file sharing.
It is impossible to make a copy unless you already have it.
Debatable. You don't already need a copy, you just need access to read one. The example that immediately comes to mind would be if there were copyrighted material on a billboard. I could stand a hundred yards away, have no control or possession of the billboard, but be able to copy enough of the work to infringe.
You are reffering to "ephemeral copies". Legally they don't count, just like the copy you create in the air when you play music doesn't count. If they did count then computers would constantly be infringing on everything.
Well no.
I was pointing out that all operations by computers require the creation of additional copies. Some are ephermeal, some are fixed.
But it doesn't matter. The MAI v Peak decision, which was wrong, which defied Congress' intent as well as good sense (e.g. copy in the air -- much like a copy in a mercury delay line -- much like a copy in volatile DRAM), basically did hold that computers are constantly infringing on everything. And worse yet, it's been followed quite a lot.
Well, part of it is that insofar as taping is time shifting, it's probably fair use. But fair use is slippery, as I've said before, and you cannot categorically say that some things are fair and some things are not.
Since there is a difference between the radio and file sharing, you can't just assume they'll be treated the same.
There is a list of factors that have to be taken into account in order to fit into fair use. You can see the four factors at 17 USC 107. Good explanations of them may be found in the Sony Betamax case and the Pretty Woman case. The Napster case discussed fair use as it pertains to file sharing and found that it was not fair.
However, if you merely want to make audio tapes from the radio, try doing so under the protection of 17 USC 1008 (see also section 1001 for important definitions!) which is basically intended for that purpose. It isn't relevant for computer file sharing, however, and given some of the requirements in that part of the code, it's a good thing.
Well... I don't think there's much dispute about how file downloading constitutes the making of a copy. You're quite right though in that what constitutes copying can be taken too far. Congress agrees with you, and even noted in the legislative history of 17 USC 102 (which regards the fixation requirement that has to be met for something to be a copy) that RAM, or CRT displays, etc. weren't fixed enough to be a copy.
The courts, however, following the MAI decision, have ignored that and held that even putting information into RAM was copying in an infringing sense.
I mean that due to the way that computers work, you cannot be given the same bits someone else has, you instead are getting a copy, and at best the original is just getting deleted.
As opposed to the real world, where if I have a CD, I can give it to you without inevitably retaining it for myself in some fashion.
I wasn't trying to talk about whether a copy was made knowingly or voluntarily or anything.
Artists will likely be paid for their labor to write songs, music, and perform. It shifts costs so that they're basically up front. It's rather like working on a commission basis.
Or artists will take their chances, because there are still advantages to being a 'first mover' with a particular product.
Or there are a few other methods.
Remember, music wasn't copyrightable until the mid-19th century IIRC. But there _was_ music. The musicians must have been making money somehow.
Yes, there is the fact that there will probably be less original music being created, but it is entirely possible that people would rather have basically free music with little more music being created than somewhat costly music with lots more music being created.
Both are valid positions. We don't HAVE to encourage artists to create more than they would otherwise you know.
No, not really, at least not that are germane to most/. users. They MAY be fair use, but fair use fundementally boils down to what is fair, judged by certain criteria, bearing in mind the interests of the copyright holder. As opposed to what you might think is fair. Certainly there is nothing that is DEFINATELY fair use, just as there is nothing that is DEFINATELY not fair use. It all depends on the specific circumstances.
Space shifting -- the argument that it's okay to copy content from one media to another, really for purposes of using the content where the first form of media isn't appropriate (as opposed to archiving copies) -- is likely to, but may not always, work for copies you make yourself of legally owned copies.
It probably WON'T work for downloading copies because you're too lazy to make them yourself. In part because that's unusual and it's not a great burden to have to make your own rips. The mp3.com case involved a discussion along these lines and the record industry won the case.
So I basically stand by what I said.
If you get sued, go out and but the CDs (used, of course) and then contact a lawyer.
DO NOT DO THIS. If you did this, then claimed that it was okay because you owned copies at the time of the alleged infringement, you would be perjuring yourself. ABSOLUTELY do not do that.
Downloading is copyrignt infringement in that it necessarily causes a copy to be made, and one of the rights that a copyright establishes as exclusive to the copyright holder is reproduction.
Both the uploader as a distributor and the downloader as a copier are individually breaking the law.
Merely receiving a copy without making or causing to be made, that copy, isn't possible in the online world. And offline, it could still be construed as contributory infringement perhaps.
Oh, I'm not a lawyer. Check out the.sig appended to my posts. I'm just personally interested in the subject.
Life terms will do ME more than a mere 25 years, meaning that when I write "treasure island", "fantasia" or what not, it will keep me economically viable for my life.
Ah but there are three issues with that.
One, as you've noted, if you're motivated by greed -- which may have been the case if the copyrights were motivating you to begin with since they don't help ensure reputation or artistic merit -- then a shorter term will encourage you to create ANOTHER work like "Kidnapped" or "Peter Pan" and I think we'd all prefer that rather than having you sit on your laurels, set for life.
Two, if you would've been motivated to do the same with a 25 year term, then that's all you should recieve -- the public likes to get a bargain, and doesn't want to spend more than something is worth. Of course, it's all fairly abstract since the terms couldn't possibly be determined on a case-by-case basis. This is why I have a short term that's got a lot of renewals -- each time a copyright is desired initially or to be renewed, there's a barrier to that which weeds out artists that don't absolutely insist upon such protection.
Three, the odds are against you. Most artists never strike it rich due to their art. If you think that creating a single work will leave you well-off for life, I would advise you to play the Lotto, as the odds are better. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you'll be a big name artist. I wish you luck, I'm just reminding you to have a backup plan: a day job, and a 401(k) retirement plan. Expecting lots of royalties is NOT a retirement plan.
Fantasia was a huge flop, incidentally -- Walt publicly apologized for having created it. Only when stoned hippies started watching it, and 2001, did it finally break even and become somewhat successful.
I still see no practicle example of a modern copyright causing the production of any work within the public good.
Well remember, I'm not saying that any specific work is good and ergo beneficial, I'm saying that ANY work is in some manner good.
The Constitution empowers Congress to create copyrights for the promotion of science. But it was 1789 and the meaning of the word 'science' was different than it is today. They meant that they wanted to promote KNOWLEDGE.
Good or ill, knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't matter if you actually like the subject matter or not, it's always good if such information is known, or at least relatively easily knowable.
So while I might not personally care about post-modernism, and you might think that it is a harmful movement in the art field, I think that it's good to promote getting it into the public domain where at least the public has an opportunity to do with it as they will. If you're right, it'll just be ignored and little harm done. If not, then it's good that it's getting where people can enjoy it.
Asthetics shouldn't enter into it... everyone's are different.
Also, as a philosphical tangent, why should copyright law deviate from the ethics preventing intellectual piracy?
You mean plagarism? Should copyright law prohibit plagarism?
No. Plagarism -- provided it isn't otherwise an infringement of a copyright -- is exactly what copyright law seeks to promote. That's the reuse of existing works, perhaps to create a derivative.
OTOH I can absolutely see why educators or members of the learned communities wouldn't like it, so I have no qualms with them taking a dim view of it and discouraging it.
And if it rises to the level of fraud, well no one likes fraud.
But as a general thing, with regards to copyright, it's not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what filters do.
They do EXACTLY the same thing that _I_ do when I:
*recieve junk mail in my mailbox (sort it, throw it out)
*receive telemarketing calls (listen long enough to determine what the nature of the call is, hang up)
*receive door-to-door solicitors (listen long enough to determine what the nature of the visit is, slam the door in their face)
*perceive ads in printed or broadcast or Internet media (recognize it as an ad, mentally filter it out/turn the page/change the channel, etc.)
In fact, it's EXACTLY the same thing that happens when I get a personal email that isn't spam that I nevertheless don't want to read.
None of these things are SO burdensome that it is even vaguely appropriate to act as a tolitarian censor in order to free ourselves from them. And this is coming from the person who would like to purge Madison Avenue in cleansing nuclear fire!
This is the small price we pay for not being total hermits. That is, we accept that there is ALWAYS going to be some degree of annoyance in the world that we have to cope with.
Some spam is worth legislating against, but that isn't because it's spam, it's because it's fraudulent, or sent by hackers, or in violation of explicit requests to stop.
Spam qua spam is not regulable. Annoying, but not regulable. Just like the Skokie Nazis.
It's surprising you don't understand this.
All advertising is evil? Nah.
No, I think it is. But it's a difference of opinion, and I respect that other people might not find ads to be as utterly abhorrent as I do. I don't understand that position, but it's valid enough.
Anyway, this is besides the point.
Spam, on the other hand, is theft. I pay for my server space. I pay for my bandwidth. ***I*** pay for the spammers to semd me there shite, which is why spam is wrong.
And how do you _not_ pay for your telephone, mailbox, or the property leading up to your front door? You pay for people to call you, mail you, or personally solicit you, or at least are harmed by it, probably about as much as you're harmed by spam.
Barring YOU explicitly getting them to stop, those things are allowed. Spam isn't fundementally different.
Who bears the costs is irrelevant, provided that they're costs ordinarily borne in society and you're not trying to avoid such costs meaningfully. Speech doesn't hinge on such silly things as cost bearing.
Oh yes they do. All the way from hijacking dial-up lines under false pretenses, through exploiting relays whose admins aren't smart enough to secure them, through backbones that are used in violation of TOS,
All well and good and _these_ things I don't mind if you go after spammers for.
all the way to my email account which is NOT for the purpose of receiving unsolicited bulk email, commercial or otherwise.
No. Unless you've actually notified spammers that you don't want unsolicited bulk email, you're fair game, all else being equal. After all, spammers aren't psychic. How should _they_ know what you do and do not like?
How hard is it for you to post notice of some sort? I wouldn't defend a violation of that notice, but if it hasn't been given, then that's your tough luck. People don't put up 'no solicitation' signs for their health, you know.
I won't tolerate neonazis on my own property, and neither should you.
And I don't.
But let's imagine that the Hitler Youth comes to my door and rings the bell to sell me cookies for their fundraising efforts to revive Hitler's Brain. They're not significantly distinguishable in this regards from the Girl Scouts, who do the same thing, barring the part about the brain AFAIK.
If they come to my door at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, I have no grounds to sue them for having done so. Anyone can do what they did.
OTOH...
I _CAN_ tell them to leave, and sue if they don't. I _CAN_ tell them to never come back, and sue if they don't. I _CAN_ put up a sign before they ever arrive telling them to not even bother, and to stay off my property, and sue if they don't.
But I have to take some action on my own.
I'm not defending spammers that hack, or spammers that lie, or spammers that disregard notice to never spam a particular address or to leave and never spam it again.
But I see nothing to be done about law-abiding spammers that are truthful and obey requests to go the hell away. Those guys are still annoying as hell, but are something that we're stuck with.
Stop spamming, FUCKING SPAMMER
Wow. ROTFLMAO.
You must not know me. I hate, with the burning passion of a thousand suns (i.e one kilosol) ALL advertising, be it spam, or tv ads, or junk mail, or billboards, or in magazines or newspapers, or the radio, or banner ads, or EVEN prominent logos on websites or various products!
I have so many Proxomitron filters running on my machine that weeks can pass between when I see an ad.
My dream technology would be something that I could use to filter ads out of real life -- glasses that turned ads into blank white spots, headphones that muted out jingles, etc.
So please don't call me a spammer. Chances are I hate ads more than you do.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that I'm willing to ignore the first amendment. I hate spammers, and I also hate neo-nazis. But I will vigorously defend the right of both to speak freely.
I'm not for ads. I'm for free speech. Ads are an unfortunate side effect of that, just as, e.g. Klan rallies are.
I wish that everyone would realize how awful ads are and simply stop advertising of their own accord. But I'll be damned if I'm going to force them to stop; that would be infinitely worse.
Well, do people you don't know, or people you haven't explicitly invited to do so, have a right to telephone you? Or to knock on your door and ask to speak to you? Or to send you letters?
Spam isn't anything like _forcing_ your way into a house. It is merely taking advantage of the limited authorization of the recipient to recieve such things. It's presumed to be authorized unless it is explicitly revoked.
Spam regulation has to balance these things. Spammers cannot force their way in regardless of the wishes of the recipient, but the recipient is assumed to want the spam sent until he says otherwise because that's how society works; we don't normally whitelist our entire human experience.
So regulation can regulate the truthfulness of spam -- it has to be truthful. False or misleading subject matter or headers or addresses are cause for regulation. Truthful spam is ok.
Regulation can regulate the time place and manner of spamming so as to not be harrassing. It's much in the way that we can regulte telemarketing so that calls don't come in at 3 am, but without actually _stopping_ it. It can only be channeled a little bit, and spam is not offensive enough in this manner (people can check their email at their lesuire) to warrant any of this AFAICT.
Regulation can require that once the implicit permission to spam is explicitly revoked -- either en masse or specifically as to a particular spammer -- by the provision of notice that spammers are reasonably likely to be aware of, that it will stop. But it can't deny spam from being sent to recipients who are too lazy to try to do anything about it, because they are assumed to want it. (just as I want Ed McMahon to knock on my door sometime, unexpectedly, with a gigantic check for a gigantic sum)
Nowhere does it permits anyone from using someone else's press, as spamming does by using someone else's computer/network ressources.
You are correct.
But, I ask, isn't it okay for other people to use your resources if you give them permission. You have to say yes, because the ability to grant or deny permission to others is very important if you want to assert control over things. If you're not able to act as the gatekeeper, someone else could let others in or deny them contrary to your wishes.
So you get to pick who gets to use your resources.
Isn't the mere fact that you have an email address implicit permission for people to mail you? I think it must be. It's a reasonable expectation in society that one's front door, or telephone, or email address, are invitations to make reasonable communications. Nothing harrassing -- door to door salesmen shouldn't be ringing on the bell at 3 in the morning. (though a sheriff come to warn you about an impending flood is a different matter) But email isn't especially harassing, being so damn easy to get rid of, to filter, etc. It's easier to dispose of than real live junk mail, which takes some physical effort, you know.
Telemarketing uses your phone resources, ties up your line, uses up your precious time. Junk mail fills up your mailbox displacing important mail, is sitting on your property, again uses up your time in sorting it from what you actually want, and may cost money or other resources to dispose of. Door to door soliciting is a trespass on your property, and again uses up your time.
But you're expected to suck it up like a man regardless of the cost to your resources because this is part of living in the world. And no one is stopping you from getting out of that expectation, but in the absence of action on your part, you'd better get used to it.
Now, if you explicitly retract this permission to contact you, that's fine. Put up a no soliciting sign and no one should come to your door to sell things to you. Get on a no call list and your phone should never ring with a sales pitch. Specifically tell junk mailers to leave you alone, and they had better. But UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU DO there is nothing wrong with people spamming you -- aside from that spam, or any other form of advertising, IMO, is amazingly evil.
So stop bullshitting, bullshitter.
First Amendment rights do not apply to spam.
Wrong.
Spam is not directed at an individual per se, but at a list of millions of people.
Oh, like a national magazine or newspaper? Or TV or radio? Or the messages on the side of the Goodyear blimp or written in the sky? Or mass mailings or even door-to-door canvassing?
Breadth is not a factor. Speech is speech whether directed at one person or literally everyone.
This is not a soapbox preacher that you can just walk away from
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it, or whitelist. You can tell spammers to stop sending you spam.
It has been determined repeatedly that the First Amendment is not protection for unproven claims, scams, or lack of "truth in advertising". Companies and individuals who have parlayed these things into First Amendment cases have invariably lost.
I wholeheartedly agree. But this means that we still have to put up with TRUTHFUL spam. And there's quite a lot of that. And there'll be more if we do something about false spam, since that'll act as an evolutionary pressure.
The first amendment guarantees your right to speak - NOT your right to hijack servers and bandwidth all across the world in order to force people to listen to you.
True. OTOH, spammers don't do that. If your email is set up to accept unsolicited email, why is it spammers' fault that they're sending you such email. You could always whitelist. In truth, email accounts, by their very existence, are an implicit invitation for people to mail to them. Much like I can use your property to go to your front door and solicit, or call your phone, or mail you junk mail. All use some of your resources and time and bother you.
Unless you give reasonable advance warning not to do that, or tell me to leave and never return, it's all okay. It's a part of society. I hate ads -- all ads, everywhere -- but there's not a great deal that can be done about this, just as many people hate neonazis, but have to put up with their continued existence since tolerance is safest for us all.
No, commercial speech is protected by the first amendment. There are some other limits to it: the advertising has to be truthful, and some disclosures can be required, e.g. ingredients lists, but it's basically protected. There no bogus legal pretext whatsoever. Do you need case cites?
Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
Why not? Remember when Jefferson said that creative works were like fire? Able to be spread, and to illuminate the originator equally as much as later persons who partake of it.
This argument is pretty foolish. It isn't for the artist to control such matters any more than it should be possible for Ford to tell people that they mustn't sell used cars to Jews in respect for Henry Ford's antisemitism. Anyone should be able to use art. If it couldn't, the usefulness of copyrights would plummet so dramatically that to grant them would be utter folly.
Please consider an author's Moral Rights under the Berne Convention
I don't believe that they exist. I certainly do not and never will respect them or adhere to them unless by coincidence I personally desire to what what the artist wanted me to do anyway.
And there is definitely no REASON for moral rights to exist. It's tripe. Please, tell me why _I_ should (as a person, or as an artist; I'm both) respect an artist's desire for moral rights. What's in it for me?
Ultimately, I feel that if enough people want to sample, they should be able to do so legally as much as they please. Perhaps some touchy artists will be upset with this and abandon their labors. If they do, but the world is better off for being able to sample than it was with those artists, then I would be happy to be rid of them. Only where the world is better off the other way would I accept a ban on sampling. And it still might seem suspicious to me.
What artists want is pretty irrelevant IMO. I don't really pay it any mind. Especially given how hostile many artists are to the society that must be sweet-talked into generously granting a copyright at its leisure. It's the right policy to adopt, again both as a person and as an artist.
Property is a right that the founders envisionsed as being inherent to mankind --- right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No, they didn't all think that. Jefferson cribbed Locke, but changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness' because Jefferson didn't believe that property was an inherent right. For much the same reasons that he didn't think that copyrights were an inherent right.
And in fact, it's not an inherent right. Property law appears to be basically utilitarian, just as copyrights are. The main difference is simply that the former developed over time and naturally worked out in such a manner, whereas by the time that copyrights were being invented, people had figured out the benefits of a utilitarian model and explicitly created it as such.
It's nice to see a fellow Rutgersian? Rutgersite? What the hell are we anyway? Even if you're up at Newark and I'm way down in Camden.
(Really they should just put everyone at New Brunswick; it's nicer than Camden or Newark, and it isn't as though this is a big state to begin with.)
Anyway, sure, there were no recordings until the Edison Phonograph AFAIK in 1877. I'm not sure that I see the point of your argument.
Musicians can nevertheless make money performing and composing music and even recording music.
Incidentally, sound recordings didn't become copyrightable until 1972. (previously all that was protected was the musical composition and the lyrics themselves) If, say, an orchestra performed a piece of public domain music and recorded it, they'd be SOL unless there was some state law remedy. This didn't seem to have stopped them.
As I said before, there is the fact that there will probably be less original music being created, but it is entirely possible that people would rather have basically free music with little more music being created than somewhat costly music with lots more music being created.
Both are valid positions. We don't HAVE to encourage artists to create more than they would otherwise you know.
Personally, I think that a reform to reduce the scope, availability, protection, and subject matter of copyright is in order. I don't advocate the abolition of copyright altogether, however. Such reform might prune the music industry, but I think that it would ultimately leave everyone better off.
When you recieved the email you were basically instructing your computer, even if you didn't know it, to copy information from the mail server.
Unless you're saying that the bits on the mail server are the same bits -- as opposed to DIFFERENT bits in the same configuration -- as on your computer. Which can be clearly demonstrated not to be true b/c the mail server can retain its copy of the message independently from your copy.
Computers make copies like we breathe; they can't help it. On a similar vein read the novel "Declare" by Tim Powers. Something similar is going on there where to think of a thing results in there actually being that thing, because they're indistinguishable.
No.
Two of the factors in the fair use analysis are whether the allegedly fair use is one that tends to help the user profit, and whether it has a negative effect on the market for the source work. (AFAIK a positive effect is irrelevant)
Libraries, schools, and friends, are MORE likely to be able to copy things per fair use than a commercial user, but fair use cannot be abused, and it NEVER is blanket permission to engage in a particular course of action. All of those people can get in trouble. Fair use is always just a possibility; never a certainty.
As for the AHRA -- it does NOT apply to computer file sharing, probably doesn't include distribution of copies (just the making of copies), and isn't really relevant here. Unless Congress specifically takes action to extend it, it is not going to help computer file sharing.
Well there is the danger of laches, etc. If you do hold a patent it is wise to pursue your legal remedies anyway.
It is impossible to make a copy unless you already have it.
Debatable. You don't already need a copy, you just need access to read one. The example that immediately comes to mind would be if there were copyrighted material on a billboard. I could stand a hundred yards away, have no control or possession of the billboard, but be able to copy enough of the work to infringe.
You are reffering to "ephemeral copies". Legally they don't count, just like the copy you create in the air when you play music doesn't count. If they did count then computers would constantly be infringing on everything.
Well no.
I was pointing out that all operations by computers require the creation of additional copies. Some are ephermeal, some are fixed.
But it doesn't matter. The MAI v Peak decision, which was wrong, which defied Congress' intent as well as good sense (e.g. copy in the air -- much like a copy in a mercury delay line -- much like a copy in volatile DRAM), basically did hold that computers are constantly infringing on everything. And worse yet, it's been followed quite a lot.
So don't get your hopes up.
Well, part of it is that insofar as taping is time shifting, it's probably fair use. But fair use is slippery, as I've said before, and you cannot categorically say that some things are fair and some things are not.
Since there is a difference between the radio and file sharing, you can't just assume they'll be treated the same.
There is a list of factors that have to be taken into account in order to fit into fair use. You can see the four factors at 17 USC 107. Good explanations of them may be found in the Sony Betamax case and the Pretty Woman case. The Napster case discussed fair use as it pertains to file sharing and found that it was not fair.
However, if you merely want to make audio tapes from the radio, try doing so under the protection of 17 USC 1008 (see also section 1001 for important definitions!) which is basically intended for that purpose. It isn't relevant for computer file sharing, however, and given some of the requirements in that part of the code, it's a good thing.
Well... I don't think there's much dispute about how file downloading constitutes the making of a copy. You're quite right though in that what constitutes copying can be taken too far. Congress agrees with you, and even noted in the legislative history of 17 USC 102 (which regards the fixation requirement that has to be met for something to be a copy) that RAM, or CRT displays, etc. weren't fixed enough to be a copy.
The courts, however, following the MAI decision, have ignored that and held that even putting information into RAM was copying in an infringing sense.
Fair enough -- but /. is a US-centric board, so US law is often assumed.
I mean that due to the way that computers work, you cannot be given the same bits someone else has, you instead are getting a copy, and at best the original is just getting deleted.
As opposed to the real world, where if I have a CD, I can give it to you without inevitably retaining it for myself in some fashion.
I wasn't trying to talk about whether a copy was made knowingly or voluntarily or anything.
Artists will likely be paid for their labor to write songs, music, and perform. It shifts costs so that they're basically up front. It's rather like working on a commission basis.
Or artists will take their chances, because there are still advantages to being a 'first mover' with a particular product.
Or there are a few other methods.
Remember, music wasn't copyrightable until the mid-19th century IIRC. But there _was_ music. The musicians must have been making money somehow.
Yes, there is the fact that there will probably be less original music being created, but it is entirely possible that people would rather have basically free music with little more music being created than somewhat costly music with lots more music being created.
Both are valid positions. We don't HAVE to encourage artists to create more than they would otherwise you know.
That's probably a fraudulent transfer. It hasn't fooled anyone (or worked) since the days of Queen Elizabeth. Bankruptcy is still an option though.
Archival copies are allow under US copyright law.
/. users. They MAY be fair use, but fair use fundementally boils down to what is fair, judged by certain criteria, bearing in mind the interests of the copyright holder. As opposed to what you might think is fair. Certainly there is nothing that is DEFINATELY fair use, just as there is nothing that is DEFINATELY not fair use. It all depends on the specific circumstances.
No, not really, at least not that are germane to most
Space shifting -- the argument that it's okay to copy content from one media to another, really for purposes of using the content where the first form of media isn't appropriate (as opposed to archiving copies) -- is likely to, but may not always, work for copies you make yourself of legally owned copies.
It probably WON'T work for downloading copies because you're too lazy to make them yourself. In part because that's unusual and it's not a great burden to have to make your own rips. The mp3.com case involved a discussion along these lines and the record industry won the case.
So I basically stand by what I said.
If you get sued, go out and but the CDs (used, of course) and then contact a lawyer.
DO NOT DO THIS. If you did this, then claimed that it was okay because you owned copies at the time of the alleged infringement, you would be perjuring yourself. ABSOLUTELY do not do that.
Downloading is copyrignt infringement in that it necessarily causes a copy to be made, and one of the rights that a copyright establishes as exclusive to the copyright holder is reproduction.
Both the uploader as a distributor and the downloader as a copier are individually breaking the law.
Merely receiving a copy without making or causing to be made, that copy, isn't possible in the online world. And offline, it could still be construed as contributory infringement perhaps.
You obviously are a lawyer
.sig appended to my posts. I'm just personally interested in the subject.
Oh, I'm not a lawyer. Check out the
Life terms will do ME more than a mere 25 years, meaning that when I write "treasure island", "fantasia" or what not, it will keep me economically viable for my life.
Ah but there are three issues with that.
One, as you've noted, if you're motivated by greed -- which may have been the case if the copyrights were motivating you to begin with since they don't help ensure reputation or artistic merit -- then a shorter term will encourage you to create ANOTHER work like "Kidnapped" or "Peter Pan" and I think we'd all prefer that rather than having you sit on your laurels, set for life.
Two, if you would've been motivated to do the same with a 25 year term, then that's all you should recieve -- the public likes to get a bargain, and doesn't want to spend more than something is worth. Of course, it's all fairly abstract since the terms couldn't possibly be determined on a case-by-case basis. This is why I have a short term that's got a lot of renewals -- each time a copyright is desired initially or to be renewed, there's a barrier to that which weeds out artists that don't absolutely insist upon such protection.
Three, the odds are against you. Most artists never strike it rich due to their art. If you think that creating a single work will leave you well-off for life, I would advise you to play the Lotto, as the odds are better. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you'll be a big name artist. I wish you luck, I'm just reminding you to have a backup plan: a day job, and a 401(k) retirement plan. Expecting lots of royalties is NOT a retirement plan.
Fantasia was a huge flop, incidentally -- Walt publicly apologized for having created it. Only when stoned hippies started watching it, and 2001, did it finally break even and become somewhat successful.
I still see no practicle example of a modern copyright causing the production of any work within the public good.
Well remember, I'm not saying that any specific work is good and ergo beneficial, I'm saying that ANY work is in some manner good.
The Constitution empowers Congress to create copyrights for the promotion of science. But it was 1789 and the meaning of the word 'science' was different than it is today. They meant that they wanted to promote KNOWLEDGE.
Good or ill, knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't matter if you actually like the subject matter or not, it's always good if such information is known, or at least relatively easily knowable.
So while I might not personally care about post-modernism, and you might think that it is a harmful movement in the art field, I think that it's good to promote getting it into the public domain where at least the public has an opportunity to do with it as they will. If you're right, it'll just be ignored and little harm done. If not, then it's good that it's getting where people can enjoy it.
Asthetics shouldn't enter into it... everyone's are different.
Also, as a philosphical tangent, why should copyright law deviate from the ethics preventing intellectual piracy?
You mean plagarism? Should copyright law prohibit plagarism?
No. Plagarism -- provided it isn't otherwise an infringement of a copyright -- is exactly what copyright law seeks to promote. That's the reuse of existing works, perhaps to create a derivative.
OTOH I can absolutely see why educators or members of the learned communities wouldn't like it, so I have no qualms with them taking a dim view of it and discouraging it.
And if it rises to the level of fraud, well no one likes fraud.
But as a general thing, with regards to copyright, it's not a problem.