I agree; the situations where it is infringing seem to me to be very rare.
Actually, there is one exception to that, but so far it hasn't been working.
Congress did specifically note that they did not consider it to be the making of an infringing copy when someone puts something into volatile computer memory. Probably because they knew that it involved not just the making of a copy, but the making of a copy with a lifespan measured in nanoseconds. And not just one copy, but due to the short lifespan, a flaming assload of copies.
Just as reading a book aloud does modify air in a way that the pressure can be said to be a copy, but no one sane thinks of this as a copy, the even shorter-lived copies in RAM were felt to not be, for copyright purposes, copies. They're too ephemeral.
But the courts, making it up as they go along (really, read the MAI decision -- they just arbitrarily decided this) feel that copies in RAM are sufficiently 'there' so that they can be infringing copies.
Even if the courts were not making a splendid fuck up of the law, this wouldn't help the distribution angle, however; at best it might just metamorphosize things into a suit regarding performances.
But this is the kind of fun stuff you find when you really dig deep.
And it was not a trivial matter to copy and redistribute their materal then, either. You wanted a copy of a Monet? You hired a skilled hack to paint you a copy. You wanted a copy of a book, you hired some scribes to hand-copy it for you.
That is, however, EXACTLY, as trivial as it would be for anyone including the original artist, to make a copy at the time. So pirates could compete with artists on equal terms.
Right now, for hard copies, publishers are winning. For information-only copies (e.g. over the net) there are still equal terms. It's not as though RIAA members can't hop on the P2P networks if they want to. They're quite capable.
And let us not forget that until the advent of the popular media, made possible by copyright law, BTW, most artists worked exclusively for rich patrons.
That still happens, actually. Most artists don't make a living from royalty payments. They have non-art related jobs, sell copies of their work that they made themselves, take commissions or perform, or work at art-related jobs in work-for-hire situations.
Hardly anyone makes a living by writing or painting something, and then selling to others the right to make duplicates. In fact, most artists are ignored by pirates anyway.
No, this argument of copyright laws not being needed is pure BS espoused by those who have never created anything of value and tried to make a living based on their gifts.
I disagree.
Firstly, I think you don't understand what I meant. I said that copyright laws aren't needed, but I never said we shouldn't have them. I think copyright laws are a good idea. More importantly, what I was trying to say was that the extent of copyright laws we have now may be bad. Maybe we'd be better off with more expansive copyright laws. Or maybe with less expansive copyright laws. A super-expansive copyright law would, I think, be much more harmful to artists and to the general public than it would be beneficial.
Secondly, for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist. I had a pretty comfortable lifestyle, but copyrights were wholly irrelevant to that. Right now I still do some art for fun, but I'm back in school, training up for a different profession. (but still an art-related one, since I really like art, and artists, and I want the public to enjoy art as much as possible)
So maybe you ought to check a little harder to see if there's any BS or not. From where I'm sitting, I just smell roses.
Someone will. The world did get along fine without copyrights not that long ago, and we still had the arts.
It is entirely possible that the world would be better off with fewer artists AND less copyright. I would certainly like more artists, but there is a problem of diminishing returns. In fact, if you really wanted a lot of artists, it might be downright harmful given the high cost.
So we'll always have some artists. However many more than that we have will be based on what is a good price to pay to encourage more people to be artists.
How does it not promote science? Before you answer, remember that the Constitution was written in the late 18th century; the word science may not have meant then what we think it means now. Take a look at what they were trying to say at the time.
Why the hell would anyone bother with such a run-around? Putting them online is distribution. Downloading them is copying. They're both direct infringements. Providing the venue MAY be contributory infringement, but whether it is, and whether it'll work anyway, depends on the details.
What payout? This isn't about money, it's about making a point and discouraging other people from being on the P2P networks b/c they might be next.
If the RIAA sues Joe Schmoe for one infringement or ten thousand infringements, Joe still is not going to be able to pay. He'll have to settle and/or declare bankruptcy. (the maximum statutory damages for a single infringement is $150,000)
No, copyright law says that you cannot distribute and you cannot make copies. Without getting into too much detail, you also can't encourage other people to do those things. And there are other prohibited acts as well that aren't really important right now.
Downloaders are, by necessity, making a copy. This is an infringement; just as bad as the infringement of the distributor that they copied from. The Napster case discussed this, since Napster couldn't be held liable unless their users were acting illegally.
it is unequivocally illegal, at least in the US, to share copyrighted material without the owner's permission
No, it might be -- depends on the circumstances, actually. Depending on what you mean by share (just distributing infringing copies, or also performances?) it might be allowed. Probably not, but maybe. See, basically, 17 USC 107-122, 507, 1008, etc.
Still, you are generally right. I just object to your use of the word 'unequivocally' when indeed there may be some circumstances that allow it.
Well, there are two sources of Fair Use. The first is an interpretation of the Constitution and the copyright laws by the courts. The second is a sort of statutory recognition of that. At the moment they're both the same, but either the courts or Congress could change their version of Fair Use without it having any effect on the other.
But there are no sorts of uses that are absolutely fair uses. Instead, there is a four part analysis that is used to determine if, based on the specific facts of the case, a particular use is fair or not.
So you cannot correctly make a blanket statement like there being a right to make backups. That's not true. Some backups may be fair uses; others may not be. You have to check in each instance to see if they are or not.
The statutory form of Fair Use is in 17 USC 109. But numerous cases have explained it in further detail, and of course, none of the specific factors is probative -- even if a use was, say, commercial, that doesn't mean it cannot be fair.
There's also a reason that the law is written down and is, by and large, available to the public to read with little hassle. It's so that we don't have to rely on you.
There are SEVERAL ways to infringe a copyright. Making a copy is one of them. Distributing copies is another, and they're both violations of equal weight.
Go read 17 USC 106 sometime. It should prove illuminating.
I think that it must be pretty low. I have one of the Abit IC7-G motherboards, and it can be set up to shut down everything but RAM. Even the PSU turns itself off when it's in this mode. But when you turn it back on, it restarts, everything back where you left it, in a flash. (though it does have to reestablish network connections) Non-volatile RAM would also be a solution; the old core-memory computers were like that.
But not easy to use. Lots of cases have a side panel that comes off. But the logic board on this monster is still buried deep within the bowels of the case. It's not easy to add or remove things from the board -- it's just easy to take off the side panel.
It's because maybe he seizes only $100 worth of stuff to try to satisfy a $10,000 debt.
You really can't just have the sheriff take absolutely everything, unless the debt is at least in the range of what those things would fetch. Seizing gratuituous stuff is basically just mean, and I would suspect you can get in trouble for it.
Ditto for valueless nonexempt stuff that's nontheless important for the debtor.
Good faith and fair dealing remain important even in a default situation.
Read this part very carefully: This is NOT legal advice. I am NOT a lawyer, much less a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Furthermore, I have no idea what Nebraska law is like. So there will be things that are different than how I've described them here. Possibly there are additional steps you need to take, or additional things you need to do.
So don't rely on this.
Here we go:
You have a judgment. You need to execute that judgment. Because right now the judgment alone is just a pretty piece of paper. All you are right now is an unsecured creditor. Little more than scum, in the greater scheme of things, no offense. You need to act to raise your status!
Go to the courthouse, find the clerk of courts, and get a writ of execution (aka a writ fi. fa., or writ of attachment).
The writ is an order by the court to the Sheriff ordering him to go find property owned by the debtor that is not exempt from execution (such as the clothes on their backs, were the debtors individuals), take it, sell it at auction, keep enough money to handle their own costs, give you however much is left until you have all you were owed, and then the surplus goes back to the debtor.
Basically, once you've gotten the writ and the sheriff has recieved it, he'll go out there one day in a pickup truck and start taking stuff. Find out when he's going, and go along, so that you can pick out good stuff that is sure to sell at auction for enough money. But make sure that you don't pick out things that are exempt by law; you may need to do some research on Nebraska law to figure this out.
BE AWARE that sheriff's auctions hardly ever get the full value of whatever's being sold. You may want to find something that you PERSONALLY want, have it seized, then buy it at auction, likely for whatever price you were owed. Then use it, or sell it yourself, or whatever.
Note that some property is difficult to load in a pickup truck -- land, for example. Don't worry if the sheriff merely declares that he has executed on it, and maybe tapes on a piece of paper to that effect. It's legal, and the debtor will get in serious trouble if he fucks with that property (selling it or damaging it), including, e.g. contempt of court.
HOWEVER, if the sheriff can't find anything, he will report back to the court (on a document called a return that lists whatever he finds) 'nulla bona.' (at least if he has any respect for tradition)
Anyhow, once the sheriff got something, you are now a judicial lien creditor BUT IN THAT PROPERTY ONLY. Otherwise your status is unchanged.
PLUS there are even more fun things you can do.
Instead of bothering with the writ fi. fa., you may be able to take advantage of your state's turnover statute. This dispenses with the sheriff and is a court order directing the debtor to just give you property in his control, even if not in his posession. And since you can use discovery rules in this process, you can make him tell you, under oath, with penalties for perjury applicable, as to what it is he's got.
If there is real estate in the county, you might be able to have your lien recorded in the county courthouse. This might also be called abstraction. It places a lien on the real property in the county (NOT personal property; that is, land, not pick-up-able stuff). This prevents him from selling it, since anyone who bought it later, until you're paid off, would basically wind up having to pay.
Or if negotiations haven't entirely broken down, you could offer to trade your judgment for a security interest in some specific property (you will be much more likely to want a lawyer for this, as all the p's and q's HAVE to be minded) which basically means you'd have a much stronger claim.
Since, if the debtor goes into bankruptcy, you're in serious trouble. You DON'T want that to happen. It will totally fuck you up.
Additionally, ACT FAST. There is a sort of pecking order. Firstly, sold property pays court/sheriff's expenses.
Oh for fucks sake. Where the hell is this sophesty coming from? You're saying that because Clean Flicks says it's removing the sex and violence that it's not passing off it's edits as versions of the original?
News for you pal: why would anyone watch these films if they didn't believe it was fundementally the same, just less offensive? I mean, why not go and watch an entirely different film, one that makes sense? Answer: BECAUSE THE CONSUMERS BELIEVE THESE ARE THE ORIGINALS, only edited to make them less offensive.
Yeah right. Been to Clean Flick's website? They don't conceal what it is that they're doing. Hell, it's the ONLY thing that makes them stand out against the Blockbusters of the world.
If you're an overprotective parent -- which you have a right to be -- you might not have a problem with your kids watching "Titanic." It's a good movie. But you don't want your kids seeing any nudity. And there is some. It makes up just a fraction of the movie; its removal doesn't wreck the plot. I don't see why it seems so strange to imagine that someone, somewhere, might want it edited out before they show that movie to their kids. Or even for themselves.
I think that the people renting the movies know EXACTLY what they're getting into. Otherwise, why go through the added trouble and expense of Clean Flicks in the first place? It's possible that the kids might not, but parents have a lot of leeway in our society. They can lie to children about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. They can lie to children regarding the death of a pet, a friend, or a relative. They can decide to not talk to their kids about sex, or they can decide when and how they want to do so.
Hell, my mom had a habit of putting her hand over my eyes during certain parts of certain movies when I was but a little kid.
This is just a much higher-tech version of the same thing. It's not really objectionable. Though it's a matter of personal preference as to whether you'd want it or not. I don't think I'd rent from Clean Flicks.
What you do with a film is up to you. When you ask someone to edit a film so you'll not be so offended by it, or when you edit a film to make it less offensive to someone else, you go over the line as you fundementally alter the conceptions of someone who'll otherwise not be exposed to the original.
That is not even internally consistant.
You said you have no objections if I were to edit a movie for my own consumption.
Why can't I ask someone -- likely someone with the equipment and expertise I lack -- to do that for me?
If _I_ have no problems granting someone some autonomy when they're doing something for me, what business is it of yours? Example 1: I want to take a package someplace. I know what route I'd take. I ask my brother to take it there for me. If he takes a different route, but the job gets done, is it a federal case? Example 2: I want to go to a movie. I ask my sister, of the movies showing at the local Googleplex, which one I should go see. Now I'm entrusting her to, based on the information she has, decide which movie I would like the best. She could be altogether wrong. But I willingly am placing $5 and two hours of my life in her hands. If I'm willing to do this, then I've accepted the risk that she might send me to watch something I hate. But that's still an acceptable transaction for me to engage in overall.
Why is it so wrong for me to go to Clean Flicks, tell them I want to rent a movie, and accept the fact that they've edited it in a way that makes sense to them, and that that's what I'm gonna see.
I may not have decided on the precise EDL. I may not even agree with some of it -- maybe they left in too much violence, and took out too much sex. But I knew that it was going to be their decision, obviously.
I absolutely don't understand what's wrong with people making decisions for other people, so long as everyone involved is there of their own free will!
AH! I was wondering what had made you act this way. Now I see what it was that you didn't understand.
CleanFlicks is absolutely forthright about what they're doing. If you get one of these edited movies from them, they are making absolutely clear that it IS edited. In fact, people are going there IN ORDER to get the edited versions of the films.
There is absolutely no confusion. People WANT bowdlerized versions. They KNOW they're getting edited versions.
works of artists are being abused here
I'm not really sure how a mere work can be abused, but okay.
fake and fraudulant visions are being attributed to them
NO. Nothing is being attributed to the artists. They're being attributed with the original version. CleanFlicks is being attributed with the edits.
artists definitely, 100%, have the right to say they do not want their works destroyed in this way in their lifetimes
I agree. It's a free country. People can say what they like.
If you don't want to use the work of artists whose opinions you disagree, at least be honest about it: don't use that work.
But what if I want to use 50% of it? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
"What's Up Tiger Lily" started life as a Japanese spy movie, Kokusai Himitsu Keisatsu: Kagi no Kagi. (International Secret Police: Key of Keys)
Woody Allen then redubbed it into English, with a totally new script. He changed a bad action movie into a funny bad action movie because the dialog is often so inappropriate. The joke is largely at the expense of the original creators, and it radically changes the meaning of what they intended to do.
It's also funny. Not as funny as some of Allen's other movies. (I was just watching Sleeper the other night, in fact) But still worth a watch.
(According to the IMDb, it appears that someone then parodied it by doing the same thing to a bad monster movie. It's called "What's Up, Hideous Sun Demon." I'll have to find a copy. It sounds every bit as good as "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter.")
Anyway, "Kung Pao: Enter the Fist" is vaguely similar in that footage was taken from a generic 1970's kung fu flick, the star was taken out and replaced with someone new, and some scenes were recreated or altered to accomodate this. It's basically weird and stupid, but it's perfectly legitimate.
We're specifically talking here about the deliberate editing of a movie to mean something else.
I think that this happened to both.
I'm curious as to whether it works the other way. For example, what if I edited "Plan Nine From Outer Space" so that it was actually good and serious? Which is precisely what Ed Wood intended, he just had this problem with being inept at filmmaking. And we all love him for it.
It's, at the very least, a form of slander against the artists who produce the work.
Slander is spoken. Libel is written or otherwise fixed in media. But I don't see how it's either. The opinion 'it stinks,' aside from often being echoed by film critics around the world (God, I miss Jay Sherman), is totally acceptable. It is a matter of opinion.
Further details, viz. 'it stinks because of A, B, and C.' doesn't change anything.
Even more details, viz. 'here's what it would look like if I fixed the parts that stink' just seems to me to be -- sometimes desirable -- and merely further criticism. If not an independent artistic statement.
I have a question for you: what did you think of Marcel Duchamp's famous painting, L.H.O.O.Q.? (you can easily find it online if you haven't seen it, so please look it up)
Is it a funny artistic statement? Dadaist? (Duchamp is the same artist that once signed his name on a urinal and showed it off -- it's now exhibited in the Pompadeau Center, IIRC)
Or do you think it's offensive to Leonardo daVinci?
How could it not be clear-cut? Have they read 17 USC 109? Or read the 1908 case that established it prior to codification, which was Bobbs Merrill v. someone, I forget the exact name.
You might want to get further clarification. I'd like to see their reasoning!
I am an artist. But I'm also interested in technology. And copyright law.
I'm saying that the right thing to do is either respect an artist's wishes or do not abuse that artist's work.
Mm, I more or less agree with this. I wish that the self-censoring crowd _wasn't_ doing what they're doing. But that doesn't mean that they cannot. There's a saying regarding freedom of speech that is similar in tone: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
I should go to hell because it's everyone's "right" to misrepresent someone else's work, to offer services that will change the entire meaning of someone's work in the name of removing offensiveness to the potential customer?
Well, yeah. And it's a better world where that is possible, than where people are FORCED to respect the artist. Hell man, are you telling me that I ought to be flogged or something because I have a set of refrigerator magnets that has Michaelangelo's "David," plus a set of magnetic 'clothes' that can be put on top of him? (making a David in drag, or a biker David, or whatever) Sure, I've transformed a copy -- a COPY -- of religious high art into something that is campy and really only a little bit amusing. But how does that hurt anyone else? Maybe it alters my perceptions of the original (which I've had the good fortune to see) but hell, why should I be required to think the same things that other people do? The last thing we need are thought police, or art police, that tell us that whatever the artist intended is the ONLY way. If for no other reason than because there are some very weird artists, believe me.
And censorship, whatever you would like it to mean, does not mean "Limiting you to seeing the whole picture."
It can. It means that you decide what I'll see, if I see anything at all. What, really, is the difference between the person who censors out parts of movies, and the person who adds bits of propaganda to movies? They both want to control what I'm thinking about.
The only way that either one is acceptable to me is if it was my free choice to see _THAT_ censorship, or _THAT_ propoganda, as opposed to something else, _OR_ nothing at all.
I can tolerate people having censors that take orders from the exact audience they're censoring. People can do the same thing themselves by futzing with the remote, or closing their eyes, or whatever. I've been known to pop in a copy of an action movie and just watch the fight scene or the chase scene, and skip the plot stuff. I've seen it before, and it doesn't satisfy my desire for some raw action at the time.
That's wrong? I should have to watch it in context? Why? It would be far less enjoyable or convenient for me to do so!
Respect those who create books, films, music, and all the other forms of art, that you so wish to use to enrich your own life.
I do. To the degree that my life is more or less dedicated to supporting the arts in various forms.
BUT -- Art is not more important than people. In fact, it's pointless to have art without an audience for it. And that audience, as free, adult, human beings, is capable of making their own decisions about a lot of things, and I have to respect their freedoms. In part because they're my freedoms too.
No one is destroying art in the sense of burning the negatives for Midnight Cowboy or anything. But if people edit a legally made copy for their personal use and make no bones about it, then I can't see what's wrong with that.
Indeed -- you may have been too stupid to realize this, but it can even be a form of art.
The artist who uses collage often recycles existing art into new art. The artist who uses parody or satire does it even more so.
What if I perform a play, each scene being from a different play of Shakespeare? That's art. Not necessarily good art, but do you dare now force your standards of good taste on the world too? Whether the art is the ceiling of the Sist
Well, you're still a little off. There is still not a problem with people later in time than the artist profiting from the work. Imagine that I set the Wayback Machine for the 1880's, and buy some Van Goghs from the artist at discount prices. (As long as I'm there, I'll ask him to do one of dogs playing poker) Then I stick 'em someplace safe, return to the 21st century, and retrieve the paintings. I can now sell them at auction -- assuming people believe they're real -- for millions of dollars. It's an enormous profit.
The trick is, I didn't make a copy (which is itself an infringement), then distribute that copy for the first time (another infringement). The ways in which you can infringe are listed in 17 USC 106, basically. Then there are numerous exceptions elsewhere, such as First Sale, in 17 USC 109, and also in the caselaw, before it was codified.
Remember the bru-ha-ha about the version of the first Star Wars prequel known as the Phantom Edit? It was basically the same movie, minus some of the more annoying parts with Anakin and Jar-Jar.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree; the situations where it is infringing seem to me to be very rare.
Actually, there is one exception to that, but so far it hasn't been working.
Congress did specifically note that they did not consider it to be the making of an infringing copy when someone puts something into volatile computer memory. Probably because they knew that it involved not just the making of a copy, but the making of a copy with a lifespan measured in nanoseconds. And not just one copy, but due to the short lifespan, a flaming assload of copies.
Just as reading a book aloud does modify air in a way that the pressure can be said to be a copy, but no one sane thinks of this as a copy, the even shorter-lived copies in RAM were felt to not be, for copyright purposes, copies. They're too ephemeral.
But the courts, making it up as they go along (really, read the MAI decision -- they just arbitrarily decided this) feel that copies in RAM are sufficiently 'there' so that they can be infringing copies.
Even if the courts were not making a splendid fuck up of the law, this wouldn't help the distribution angle, however; at best it might just metamorphosize things into a suit regarding performances.
But this is the kind of fun stuff you find when you really dig deep.
And it was not a trivial matter to copy and redistribute their materal then, either. You wanted a copy of a Monet? You hired a skilled hack to paint you a copy. You wanted a copy of a book, you hired some scribes to hand-copy it for you.
That is, however, EXACTLY, as trivial as it would be for anyone including the original artist, to make a copy at the time. So pirates could compete with artists on equal terms.
Right now, for hard copies, publishers are winning. For information-only copies (e.g. over the net) there are still equal terms. It's not as though RIAA members can't hop on the P2P networks if they want to. They're quite capable.
And let us not forget that until the advent of the popular media, made possible by copyright law, BTW, most artists worked exclusively for rich patrons.
That still happens, actually. Most artists don't make a living from royalty payments. They have non-art related jobs, sell copies of their work that they made themselves, take commissions or perform, or work at art-related jobs in work-for-hire situations.
Hardly anyone makes a living by writing or painting something, and then selling to others the right to make duplicates. In fact, most artists are ignored by pirates anyway.
No, this argument of copyright laws not being needed is pure BS espoused by those who have never created anything of value and tried to make a living based on their gifts.
I disagree.
Firstly, I think you don't understand what I meant. I said that copyright laws aren't needed, but I never said we shouldn't have them. I think copyright laws are a good idea. More importantly, what I was trying to say was that the extent of copyright laws we have now may be bad. Maybe we'd be better off with more expansive copyright laws. Or maybe with less expansive copyright laws. A super-expansive copyright law would, I think, be much more harmful to artists and to the general public than it would be beneficial.
Secondly, for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist. I had a pretty comfortable lifestyle, but copyrights were wholly irrelevant to that. Right now I still do some art for fun, but I'm back in school, training up for a different profession. (but still an art-related one, since I really like art, and artists, and I want the public to enjoy art as much as possible)
So maybe you ought to check a little harder to see if there's any BS or not. From where I'm sitting, I just smell roses.
Someone will. The world did get along fine without copyrights not that long ago, and we still had the arts.
It is entirely possible that the world would be better off with fewer artists AND less copyright. I would certainly like more artists, but there is a problem of diminishing returns. In fact, if you really wanted a lot of artists, it might be downright harmful given the high cost.
So we'll always have some artists. However many more than that we have will be based on what is a good price to pay to encourage more people to be artists.
How does it not promote science? Before you answer, remember that the Constitution was written in the late 18th century; the word science may not have meant then what we think it means now. Take a look at what they were trying to say at the time.
Why the hell would anyone bother with such a run-around? Putting them online is distribution. Downloading them is copying. They're both direct infringements. Providing the venue MAY be contributory infringement, but whether it is, and whether it'll work anyway, depends on the details.
What payout? This isn't about money, it's about making a point and discouraging other people from being on the P2P networks b/c they might be next.
If the RIAA sues Joe Schmoe for one infringement or ten thousand infringements, Joe still is not going to be able to pay. He'll have to settle and/or declare bankruptcy. (the maximum statutory damages for a single infringement is $150,000)
No, copyright law says that you cannot distribute and you cannot make copies. Without getting into too much detail, you also can't encourage other people to do those things. And there are other prohibited acts as well that aren't really important right now.
Downloaders are, by necessity, making a copy. This is an infringement; just as bad as the infringement of the distributor that they copied from. The Napster case discussed this, since Napster couldn't be held liable unless their users were acting illegally.
Whoops -- First Sale is 109, Fair Use is 107. It's too damn hot today. Sorry.
it is unequivocally illegal, at least in the US, to share copyrighted material without the owner's permission
No, it might be -- depends on the circumstances, actually. Depending on what you mean by share (just distributing infringing copies, or also performances?) it might be allowed. Probably not, but maybe. See, basically, 17 USC 107-122, 507, 1008, etc.
Still, you are generally right. I just object to your use of the word 'unequivocally' when indeed there may be some circumstances that allow it.
Well, there are two sources of Fair Use. The first is an interpretation of the Constitution and the copyright laws by the courts. The second is a sort of statutory recognition of that. At the moment they're both the same, but either the courts or Congress could change their version of Fair Use without it having any effect on the other.
But there are no sorts of uses that are absolutely fair uses. Instead, there is a four part analysis that is used to determine if, based on the specific facts of the case, a particular use is fair or not.
So you cannot correctly make a blanket statement like there being a right to make backups. That's not true. Some backups may be fair uses; others may not be. You have to check in each instance to see if they are or not.
The statutory form of Fair Use is in 17 USC 109. But numerous cases have explained it in further detail, and of course, none of the specific factors is probative -- even if a use was, say, commercial, that doesn't mean it cannot be fair.
There's also a reason that the law is written down and is, by and large, available to the public to read with little hassle. It's so that we don't have to rely on you.
There are SEVERAL ways to infringe a copyright. Making a copy is one of them. Distributing copies is another, and they're both violations of equal weight.
Go read 17 USC 106 sometime. It should prove illuminating.
I think that it must be pretty low. I have one of the Abit IC7-G motherboards, and it can be set up to shut down everything but RAM. Even the PSU turns itself off when it's in this mode. But when you turn it back on, it restarts, everything back where you left it, in a flash. (though it does have to reestablish network connections) Non-volatile RAM would also be a solution; the old core-memory computers were like that.
But it was Tom Hanks' eye that was transplanted. As far as the computers knew, that's who it was.
But not easy to use. Lots of cases have a side panel that comes off. But the logic board on this monster is still buried deep within the bowels of the case. It's not easy to add or remove things from the board -- it's just easy to take off the side panel.
It's a distinct step backwards.
It's because maybe he seizes only $100 worth of stuff to try to satisfy a $10,000 debt.
You really can't just have the sheriff take absolutely everything, unless the debt is at least in the range of what those things would fetch. Seizing gratuituous stuff is basically just mean, and I would suspect you can get in trouble for it.
Ditto for valueless nonexempt stuff that's nontheless important for the debtor.
Good faith and fair dealing remain important even in a default situation.
Damn straight, brother Surreal! Testify!
Read this part very carefully: This is NOT legal advice. I am NOT a lawyer, much less a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Furthermore, I have no idea what Nebraska law is like. So there will be things that are different than how I've described them here. Possibly there are additional steps you need to take, or additional things you need to do.
So don't rely on this.
Here we go:
You have a judgment. You need to execute that judgment. Because right now the judgment alone is just a pretty piece of paper. All you are right now is an unsecured creditor. Little more than scum, in the greater scheme of things, no offense. You need to act to raise your status!
Go to the courthouse, find the clerk of courts, and get a writ of execution (aka a writ fi. fa., or writ of attachment).
The writ is an order by the court to the Sheriff ordering him to go find property owned by the debtor that is not exempt from execution (such as the clothes on their backs, were the debtors individuals), take it, sell it at auction, keep enough money to handle their own costs, give you however much is left until you have all you were owed, and then the surplus goes back to the debtor.
Basically, once you've gotten the writ and the sheriff has recieved it, he'll go out there one day in a pickup truck and start taking stuff. Find out when he's going, and go along, so that you can pick out good stuff that is sure to sell at auction for enough money. But make sure that you don't pick out things that are exempt by law; you may need to do some research on Nebraska law to figure this out.
BE AWARE that sheriff's auctions hardly ever get the full value of whatever's being sold. You may want to find something that you PERSONALLY want, have it seized, then buy it at auction, likely for whatever price you were owed. Then use it, or sell it yourself, or whatever.
Note that some property is difficult to load in a pickup truck -- land, for example. Don't worry if the sheriff merely declares that he has executed on it, and maybe tapes on a piece of paper to that effect. It's legal, and the debtor will get in serious trouble if he fucks with that property (selling it or damaging it), including, e.g. contempt of court.
HOWEVER, if the sheriff can't find anything, he will report back to the court (on a document called a return that lists whatever he finds) 'nulla bona.' (at least if he has any respect for tradition)
Anyhow, once the sheriff got something, you are now a judicial lien creditor BUT IN THAT PROPERTY ONLY. Otherwise your status is unchanged.
PLUS there are even more fun things you can do.
Instead of bothering with the writ fi. fa., you may be able to take advantage of your state's turnover statute. This dispenses with the sheriff and is a court order directing the debtor to just give you property in his control, even if not in his posession. And since you can use discovery rules in this process, you can make him tell you, under oath, with penalties for perjury applicable, as to what it is he's got.
If there is real estate in the county, you might be able to have your lien recorded in the county courthouse. This might also be called abstraction. It places a lien on the real property in the county (NOT personal property; that is, land, not pick-up-able stuff). This prevents him from selling it, since anyone who bought it later, until you're paid off, would basically wind up having to pay.
Or if negotiations haven't entirely broken down, you could offer to trade your judgment for a security interest in some specific property (you will be much more likely to want a lawyer for this, as all the p's and q's HAVE to be minded) which basically means you'd have a much stronger claim.
Since, if the debtor goes into bankruptcy, you're in serious trouble. You DON'T want that to happen. It will totally fuck you up.
Additionally, ACT FAST. There is a sort of pecking order. Firstly, sold property pays court/sheriff's expenses.
No, Boston is home to many ornery fucking bastards. It's kind of a local industry, really.
;)
Damn, but I can't wait to move back up there, you fucking imbecile.
Oh for fucks sake. Where the hell is this sophesty coming from? You're saying that because Clean Flicks says it's removing the sex and violence that it's not passing off it's edits as versions of the original?
News for you pal: why would anyone watch these films if they didn't believe it was fundementally the same, just less offensive? I mean, why not go and watch an entirely different film, one that makes sense? Answer: BECAUSE THE CONSUMERS BELIEVE THESE ARE THE ORIGINALS, only edited to make them less offensive.
Yeah right. Been to Clean Flick's website? They don't conceal what it is that they're doing. Hell, it's the ONLY thing that makes them stand out against the Blockbusters of the world.
If you're an overprotective parent -- which you have a right to be -- you might not have a problem with your kids watching "Titanic." It's a good movie. But you don't want your kids seeing any nudity. And there is some. It makes up just a fraction of the movie; its removal doesn't wreck the plot. I don't see why it seems so strange to imagine that someone, somewhere, might want it edited out before they show that movie to their kids. Or even for themselves.
I think that the people renting the movies know EXACTLY what they're getting into. Otherwise, why go through the added trouble and expense of Clean Flicks in the first place? It's possible that the kids might not, but parents have a lot of leeway in our society. They can lie to children about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. They can lie to children regarding the death of a pet, a friend, or a relative. They can decide to not talk to their kids about sex, or they can decide when and how they want to do so.
Hell, my mom had a habit of putting her hand over my eyes during certain parts of certain movies when I was but a little kid.
This is just a much higher-tech version of the same thing. It's not really objectionable. Though it's a matter of personal preference as to whether you'd want it or not. I don't think I'd rent from Clean Flicks.
What you do with a film is up to you. When you ask someone to edit a film so you'll not be so offended by it, or when you edit a film to make it less offensive to someone else, you go over the line as you fundementally alter the conceptions of someone who'll otherwise not be exposed to the original.
That is not even internally consistant.
You said you have no objections if I were to edit a movie for my own consumption.
Why can't I ask someone -- likely someone with the equipment and expertise I lack -- to do that for me?
If _I_ have no problems granting someone some autonomy when they're doing something for me, what business is it of yours? Example 1: I want to take a package someplace. I know what route I'd take. I ask my brother to take it there for me. If he takes a different route, but the job gets done, is it a federal case? Example 2: I want to go to a movie. I ask my sister, of the movies showing at the local Googleplex, which one I should go see. Now I'm entrusting her to, based on the information she has, decide which movie I would like the best. She could be altogether wrong. But I willingly am placing $5 and two hours of my life in her hands. If I'm willing to do this, then I've accepted the risk that she might send me to watch something I hate. But that's still an acceptable transaction for me to engage in overall.
Why is it so wrong for me to go to Clean Flicks, tell them I want to rent a movie, and accept the fact that they've edited it in a way that makes sense to them, and that that's what I'm gonna see.
I may not have decided on the precise EDL. I may not even agree with some of it -- maybe they left in too much violence, and took out too much sex. But I knew that it was going to be their decision, obviously.
I absolutely don't understand what's wrong with people making decisions for other people, so long as everyone involved is there of their own free will!
If Clean Flicks were FORCING THIS o
AH! I was wondering what had made you act this way. Now I see what it was that you didn't understand.
CleanFlicks is absolutely forthright about what they're doing. If you get one of these edited movies from them, they are making absolutely clear that it IS edited. In fact, people are going there IN ORDER to get the edited versions of the films.
There is absolutely no confusion. People WANT bowdlerized versions. They KNOW they're getting edited versions.
works of artists are being abused here
I'm not really sure how a mere work can be abused, but okay.
fake and fraudulant visions are being attributed to them
NO. Nothing is being attributed to the artists. They're being attributed with the original version. CleanFlicks is being attributed with the edits.
artists definitely, 100%, have the right to say they do not want their works destroyed in this way in their lifetimes
I agree. It's a free country. People can say what they like.
If you don't want to use the work of artists whose opinions you disagree, at least be honest about it: don't use that work.
But what if I want to use 50% of it? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
"What's Up Tiger Lily" started life as a Japanese spy movie, Kokusai Himitsu Keisatsu: Kagi no Kagi. (International Secret Police: Key of Keys)
Woody Allen then redubbed it into English, with a totally new script. He changed a bad action movie into a funny bad action movie because the dialog is often so inappropriate. The joke is largely at the expense of the original creators, and it radically changes the meaning of what they intended to do.
It's also funny. Not as funny as some of Allen's other movies. (I was just watching Sleeper the other night, in fact) But still worth a watch.
(According to the IMDb, it appears that someone then parodied it by doing the same thing to a bad monster movie. It's called "What's Up, Hideous Sun Demon." I'll have to find a copy. It sounds every bit as good as "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter.")
Anyway, "Kung Pao: Enter the Fist" is vaguely similar in that footage was taken from a generic 1970's kung fu flick, the star was taken out and replaced with someone new, and some scenes were recreated or altered to accomodate this. It's basically weird and stupid, but it's perfectly legitimate.
We're specifically talking here about the deliberate editing of a movie to mean something else.
I think that this happened to both.
I'm curious as to whether it works the other way. For example, what if I edited "Plan Nine From Outer Space" so that it was actually good and serious? Which is precisely what Ed Wood intended, he just had this problem with being inept at filmmaking. And we all love him for it.
It's, at the very least, a form of slander against the artists who produce the work.
Slander is spoken. Libel is written or otherwise fixed in media. But I don't see how it's either. The opinion 'it stinks,' aside from often being echoed by film critics around the world (God, I miss Jay Sherman), is totally acceptable. It is a matter of opinion.
Further details, viz. 'it stinks because of A, B, and C.' doesn't change anything.
Even more details, viz. 'here's what it would look like if I fixed the parts that stink' just seems to me to be -- sometimes desirable -- and merely further criticism. If not an independent artistic statement.
I have a question for you: what did you think of Marcel Duchamp's famous painting, L.H.O.O.Q.? (you can easily find it online if you haven't seen it, so please look it up)
Is it a funny artistic statement? Dadaist? (Duchamp is the same artist that once signed his name on a urinal and showed it off -- it's now exhibited in the Pompadeau Center, IIRC)
Or do you think it's offensive to Leonardo daVinci?
How could it not be clear-cut? Have they read 17 USC 109? Or read the 1908 case that established it prior to codification, which was Bobbs Merrill v. someone, I forget the exact name.
You might want to get further clarification. I'd like to see their reasoning!
I am an artist. But I'm also interested in technology. And copyright law.
I'm saying that the right thing to do is either respect an artist's wishes or do not abuse that artist's work.
Mm, I more or less agree with this. I wish that the self-censoring crowd _wasn't_ doing what they're doing. But that doesn't mean that they cannot. There's a saying regarding freedom of speech that is similar in tone: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
I should go to hell because it's everyone's "right" to misrepresent someone else's work, to offer services that will change the entire meaning of someone's work in the name of removing offensiveness to the potential customer?
Well, yeah. And it's a better world where that is possible, than where people are FORCED to respect the artist. Hell man, are you telling me that I ought to be flogged or something because I have a set of refrigerator magnets that has Michaelangelo's "David," plus a set of magnetic 'clothes' that can be put on top of him? (making a David in drag, or a biker David, or whatever) Sure, I've transformed a copy -- a COPY -- of religious high art into something that is campy and really only a little bit amusing. But how does that hurt anyone else? Maybe it alters my perceptions of the original (which I've had the good fortune to see) but hell, why should I be required to think the same things that other people do? The last thing we need are thought police, or art police, that tell us that whatever the artist intended is the ONLY way. If for no other reason than because there are some very weird artists, believe me.
And censorship, whatever you would like it to mean, does not mean "Limiting you to seeing the whole picture."
It can. It means that you decide what I'll see, if I see anything at all. What, really, is the difference between the person who censors out parts of movies, and the person who adds bits of propaganda to movies? They both want to control what I'm thinking about.
The only way that either one is acceptable to me is if it was my free choice to see _THAT_ censorship, or _THAT_ propoganda, as opposed to something else, _OR_ nothing at all.
I can tolerate people having censors that take orders from the exact audience they're censoring. People can do the same thing themselves by futzing with the remote, or closing their eyes, or whatever. I've been known to pop in a copy of an action movie and just watch the fight scene or the chase scene, and skip the plot stuff. I've seen it before, and it doesn't satisfy my desire for some raw action at the time.
That's wrong? I should have to watch it in context? Why? It would be far less enjoyable or convenient for me to do so!
Respect those who create books, films, music, and all the other forms of art, that you so wish to use to enrich your own life.
I do. To the degree that my life is more or less dedicated to supporting the arts in various forms.
BUT -- Art is not more important than people. In fact, it's pointless to have art without an audience for it. And that audience, as free, adult, human beings, is capable of making their own decisions about a lot of things, and I have to respect their freedoms. In part because they're my freedoms too.
No one is destroying art in the sense of burning the negatives for Midnight Cowboy or anything. But if people edit a legally made copy for their personal use and make no bones about it, then I can't see what's wrong with that.
Indeed -- you may have been too stupid to realize this, but it can even be a form of art.
The artist who uses collage often recycles existing art into new art. The artist who uses parody or satire does it even more so.
What if I perform a play, each scene being from a different play of Shakespeare? That's art. Not necessarily good art, but do you dare now force your standards of good taste on the world too? Whether the art is the ceiling of the Sist
Well, you're still a little off. There is still not a problem with people later in time than the artist profiting from the work. Imagine that I set the Wayback Machine for the 1880's, and buy some Van Goghs from the artist at discount prices. (As long as I'm there, I'll ask him to do one of dogs playing poker) Then I stick 'em someplace safe, return to the 21st century, and retrieve the paintings. I can now sell them at auction -- assuming people believe they're real -- for millions of dollars. It's an enormous profit.
The trick is, I didn't make a copy (which is itself an infringement), then distribute that copy for the first time (another infringement). The ways in which you can infringe are listed in 17 USC 106, basically. Then there are numerous exceptions elsewhere, such as First Sale, in 17 USC 109, and also in the caselaw, before it was codified.
But overall, you're getting the idea alright!
Remember the bru-ha-ha about the version of the first Star Wars prequel known as the Phantom Edit? It was basically the same movie, minus some of the more annoying parts with Anakin and Jar-Jar.