Copying a movie is clearly not legal. Therefore it is theft, and therefore stealing.
Huh. Well, I think you've just beaten 'All men are Socrates' for most illogical statement.
First, copying a movie can be legal, or not. It depends on a number of things. So it's not 'clearly' anything.
Second, not all illegal things are theft. For example, if I burn down your house, that's arson; it's not theft. Even though I've deprived you of your house, it's still not theft. Nor is it kidnapping. The law is just a little more nuanced -- by which I mean, a hell of a lot more nuanced -- than you seem to think it is.
Third, copyright infringement in particular is not theft. It is copyright infringement; it is sui generis. This issue actually came before the Supreme Court once; it was argued that an infringer ought to be able to be prosecuted for transporting unlawfully made copies across state lines under a law that made it a crime to transport stolen goods in such a manner. The Court said that he could not be so prosecuted. The case is Dowling v. US, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), if you'd like to read it.
The whole 'theft' thing is first, grossly inaccurate, and second, a very sad, very transparent attempt to confuse discussions of copyright with norms drawn from the utterly unrelated field of personal property, so as to mislead people. It is needlessly pejorative, and in my experience a sign of a weak argument from either a weak intellect or a dishonest one.
If you want to talk about copyright infringement then just call it copyright infringement. That is what it is. There is no need for any other term. To invoke 'theft' is inaccurate and unhelpful. Don't do it.
Recording of broadcast data for timeshifting purposes is declared legal under 'fair use' definition.
No, it's not. It can be a fair use, but there's no guarantee of it. Sometimes it is not, I'm sure.
Many people here seem to think that copying a movie for backup purposes is legal. It is not.
Again, it can be a fair use, but there's no guarantee of it. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. That's what fair use is like: it protects uses that are fair. Anything can be a fair use, but nothing is certain to be. It depends. It always depends.
I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation
Well, while that's a noble purpose -- the same one that is behind most of my posts, in fact -- you're doing a terrible job of it, I've got to say. You're spreading much more misinformation instead, and you're not being accurate in your corrections.
Dear God! Someone read the definitions in the AHRA! And the Diamond case! You deserve the highest kudos; the kind with M&Ms.
Still, though, while I surely don't have to remind you, let me just point out for the sake of others that the AHRA does permit some format shifting, provided that you satisfy the virtually-never-satisfied requirements of the AHRA. If you can't manage to fall under its aegis, then fair use is usually your next resort, which is precisely what happened in the Diamond case; the court found that the copying involved wasn't AHRA-compliant copying, but could perhaps be a fair use.
Neither of these are valid examples of fair use as defined under US law. Go look it up.
But there's practically no such thing as a valid example of fair use. Oh, I suppose each case in which a use is found to be a fair use could be thought of as an example, but in fact, they're not useful as precedents, so there's no point. Just because a parody was a fair use in case A is no guarantee that it will be in case B; the specific circumstances of each case must be judged on their own merits. As for the statute itself, it doesn't provide examples of anything at all.
So I have to ask: Did you look it up?
Just because something is repeated doesn't make it true.
Said the man who has been spouting inaccuracies quite a lot today.
Sorry, but it wasn't the last major fair use case before the Court, nor is that what they said. Indeed, fair use would never support such a thing!
The gist of the Sony case was that where a secondary infringer contributed to an infringement by means of a device that could be used for legitimate purposes, they're not liable. To get to that, the Court said that time shifting (place shifting didn't come up at all, IIRC) could, under some circumstances, be just such a legitimate purpose. There's no blanket protection for it, however. And fair use is fact-dependent; Alice and Bob might each time shift something on TV, but it is entirely possible for Alice to be a fair user, and Bob not to be, given the specific circumstances in each case. Fair use precedents are really about how a court determined whether something was fair or not; there's really no valid precedents to say that a specific use is fair or not. That is, the precedents only have value as to the process, not the outcome.
GP statement makes a limited amount of sense, given that the license to view what's on the media is tied to that specific undamaged copy of the media. Which isn't really the way it should be; it should either be a license you're buying (so you can get a replacement copy at no charge or postage only in the event of damage or theft), or it should be a disc you're buying that you can do with as you please (for example, back it up in case your copy gets damaged or stolen).
No worries then. That isn't the way that it is. The third scenario you list is the most accurate for most things. That is, when you buy a paperback book, you buy the book itself, there is no license, and there is no need for one, since copyright doesn't cover many of the things you'd do with the book (e.g. read it, lend it out, sell it used).
However, copyright does prevent you from doing certain things with the book, such as making another copy of it (usually).
GP is off the mark with his statement about how media in a digital format shouldn't be treated differently from physical property, though. It is a simple fact that digital media can be reproduced with very little effort. Even digital media designed to be unable to be copied can be copied anyway with only a bit more effort. Digital media is different, so to say that it must not be treated different is foolish.
I really don't get this. Copyright mainly originated around books, and books are digital. There's nothing magical about copies in digital formats. Nor is there anything magical about copies in machine-readable formats, which is not the same thing as 'digital.' Ease of copying is really irrelevant for purposes of copyright policy. Especially since it's really in everyone's best interests for everything to be as easy to copy as possible!
It can be, sure. Check out 17 USC 117. But look for the operative word in subsection (a), and you'll see one of the dangers of permitting the practice of EULAs.
There is no law AFAIK that makes it illegal to have a diamond ring, go 'abracadabra,' and have another identical ring. Well, other than perhaps from physics, but that's not really the kind we're talking about.
Would you please cite whatever law you're talking about so that we can look it up and read it?
Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
Well, no, it depends. Why, just yesterday, I made a copy of 'Charade,' and I assure you that it was perfectly legal (though not a fair use, since it didn't have to be). And since any kind of use can be a fair use, though no specific use is guaranteed to be a fair use, there's no reason why fair use cannot apply. The statutory form of fair use is located at 17 USC 107, by the way, if you'd like to read it. It really does cover any kind of infringement.
No. When you buy a software program you buy a license. Thats why its legal to make copies of the media as the license to run the software is separate.
Actually, no. If you buy a lawfully made copy of a computer program, instead of licensing it, then an exception in the copyright law (17 USC 117) permits you to make any copies or modifications necessary in order to run it, and to make all the backups you like. With a few exceptions (site licenses, the GPL, etc.) there is actually no need for software licensing. I've discussed this with other copyright lawyers, and so far no one has been able to think of any reason to do it. And in some jurisdictions, it isn't even enforceable, so there's no point. It is a silly waste of time and effort, and an anachronism that just needs to die. Particularly, because of the harmful effects it has had on the popular conception of copyright.
When you buy a movie you are buying the media with a copy of the movie on it for private viewing only.
No again! When you buy a DVD of a movie, you are just buying a DVD of the movie. You can do any lawful thing with it, ranging from non-public performance to throwing it across the room like a frisbee. If the movie is not copyrighted, there are more lawful things you can do with it. If the movie was copyrighted when you bought the DVD, and enters the public domain later, your rights with regard to the movie increase, without the disc having changed in anyway, or your having to get another one. Also, there is nothing magical about the disc itself. For example, a radio station can buy CDs from the store, just as you do, but they can broadcast the music over the radio straight from the CD, due to the way that they are treated under the law. At most, they may have to pay a fee to the composer; possibly, not even that.
The CD doesn't carry these rights with it. It's just a medium, after all. The only rights that accompany the medium are the ordinary ones. Think of a brick: if you don't own the brick, you can't use it. When you buy the brick, you can use it in any lawful manner, e.g. propping open a door, or as part of a wall, but not thrown at someone's head. A CD is the same thing. The person who owns the CD -- as distinguished from the copyright applicable to the music on the CD -- gets to determine who uses the CD. If it belongs to Alice, Bob cannot snatch it away and listen to it. But Alice can listen, and if Alice sells it to Bob, Bob can listen.
My comparison makes perfect sense when you know what you are talking about.
Well, if you're saying that your brand of erroneousness is internally self-consistent, then great, but I still don't see the point.
I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
No worries. It's not, and he's wrong.
If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
Yeah, this is one of the reasons why reform is so urgently needed. If the laws are so bad as to engender disrespect for the laws, that disrespect can and will grow, harming even reasonable laws. Just look at the lasting ill effects of Prohibition.
You buy a LICENSE to use your media. The physical disk is not what you're buying.
That's almost never true. This is why I absolutely hate EULAs -- they've managed to brainwash scads of people into thinking that they are normal, acceptable, and even enforceable.
In fact, for the vast majority of copies of works, you are just buying the copy (i.e. the physical medium) and not being licensed to do anything, at all. This is because while copyright prevents you from, say, making a copy of a paperback novel (unless certain exceptions apply), copyright does not prevent anyone from reading a copy. Since a copyright holder cannot license a right he doesn't have, your legitimate access to the paperback entitles you to read it. In fact, the copyright holder can insist that you not read it, and you can ignore him since he lacks a leg to stand on.
The main list of things that you cannot do without permission from the copyright holder -- or an applicable exception in the law -- is at 17 USC 106. It says that you can't make another copy, that you can't make a derivative work, and you can't distribute copies of the work. It also says that you can't publicly perform or display certain kinds of works. And there are lots of exceptions, e.g. you can distribute lawfully made copies (except when you can't -- the exceptions have exceptions). If it isn't on the list of prohibited things, or if it is but there is an applicable exception, then you do not need permission, which is all that a license is in the first place. You can just do it.
For some reason, certain copyright holders are not eager for people to know this. They spread FUD, or at least appreciate it, when it benefits them.
However, I've never heard of anyone who was in a position to do so suggest that books from the bookstore are licensed, and not merely sold. Ditto CDs, DVDs, etc. That's just a stupid Internet rumor.
Software is where that claim is made a lot -- even though there is absolutely no reason for it in 99.44% of cases. Downloads are also licensed in some manner, since they consist of making a copy, and that is on the prohibited list.
No, I bought a movie, not a software program. You would never say your VHS tapes were full of data.
Well, I certainly could. Data can be digital or analog, and the storage medium doesn't really matter a whole lot. If you prefer, you could imagine that he said 'content' instead; that's a fairly popular term for the same thing, these days. (Also, there's nothing intrinsically analog about videotape. It's magnetic tape, after all, and that's been widely used for digital storage too. In fact, there were some peripherals, long, long ago, which could attach to VCRs so as to use them for computer storage.)
Just because the medium happens to be digital people take this as an excuse to think they can do whatever they like with it.
I hadn't noticed. What I had noticed is that the medium seems not to matter. To wit: Way, way back in the 1980's, when big shoulders were in, and Michael Jackson was merely thought of as eccentric and good with kids, a lot of people listened to music on audiotape. Further, they tended to copy music from other sources (other tapes, LPs, the radio, etc.) onto blank tapes. The music industry started a big publicity campaign against this, with the motto 'Home taping is killing music.' No one took them seriously, even back then. The Dead Kennedys even released a tape with their music on one side, and the other side blank, in order to help.
Really, I think it would be more accurate to say that if people have access to a work, they like to think that they can do anything they want with it, so long as it's not commercial. That is, most people would not find it objectionable to copy a tape (or a DVD) for a friend, but they probably would object to selling such copies. I don't think the medium matters, though some things are easier to copy than others; I can burn a CD trivially, but it's more work to order a big chunk of marble and carve up another Pieta or David (not that it's impossible, by any means).
Every other product I have, cars, TV, etc. all run the risk of being damaged in some way each and every time I use them. does that mean I should have free copies of each?
If possible, why not? Scarcity is one of humanity's big problems. A solution would be very nice. As it happens, we're in no need of a solution in the intangible, nonrivalrous world of information; it doesn't experience scarcity like the material world does.
What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like?
That's not a very clear sentence. I think you tried to say something like "Isn't fair use merely the right to watch a movie you have a copy of as much as you like?"
If so, you are dead wrong.
Fair use is a method by which you can infringe on a copyright and yet have it turn out to be legal! Any kind of infringement can be a fair use: copying, creating derivatives, distribution, public performance or display, etc. However, any specific act of infringement might also not be a fair use. Whether or not a specific infringing act is or is not fair is highly fact-dependent. Alice might copy a work and be protected by fair use, but Bob might do exactly the same, and not be protected. The specific circumstances of the use are key in any determination. It's a bit like being accused of murder and claiming self-defense; if the facts are right, you'll be excused for killing someone, but if not, you're in trouble.
In any event, since merely watching a movie is never infringing in the first place, it is not fair use because it is perfectly legal already. This is sort of like how if you were accused of murder, and the victim is still alive, the charges can't stand on their own, and you don't even have to defend yourself.
Really? I would imagine that if you knew the codec and the uncompressed lossy output, you could reconstruct the compressed data. After all, the codec should work predictably, right? I doubt it would ever be worthwhile to bother -- it seems like a lot of effort, and there are surely easier ways -- but I really don't see why it isn't possible.
Why? So long as the language remains alive and vibrant, and there's no doubt that English is, what it actually consists of isn't all that important. It is a highly mutable language, it's changed a great deal before, and it will surely continue to do so. For most of its history, most people have cursed plenty; this isn't always well remembered, but it is assuredly true. Part of the reason why this isn't always apparent is likely because the curses themselves change. We think of words like 'zounds' to be silly and archaic, but they weren't back in the day. We think of foreign curses like 'bloody' to be quaint and not bad, but they are to those that really use them.
HBO did a western series called Deadwood not long ago. The dialog is full of modern profanity, in stark contrast to the period setting. Apparently the writers experimented with using the profanity that would have been spoken in the day, but it just sounded silly to modern ears, like Yosemite Sam. Rather than maintain the same words, they went with different words that would keep the same effect. It works pretty well.
proctological orifice
Proktos is the root word there; it's greek for anus. You're being needlessly wordy, and it's just silly.
Politeness is lost
No, it's not. Politeness is just different. If you stick with the old forms of politeness, eventually you wind up being the person at the table who eats with their fingers when everyone else is using forks; it's not that the former was never polite, just that now there are new mores. Etiquette is not universal, though there are commonalities, and it's certainly not static. Most importantly, though, it's not absolute. So long as it is widely accepted, anything can be polite. E.g. in the west, you don't slurp soup, while in Japan it is polite to slurp soup and impolite not to (or so I'm told). So get it out of your head that profanity is, always was, and always shall be, rude. That's just not the case.
We've traded RW Emerson for HS Thompson.
There's no reason why we cannot have both, and more besides.
It's discourse that starts with, we don't say things that offend each other.
Indeed. But in modern American society, most people, in casual conversation amongst equals, do not take offense at mere profanity which is not uttered with the intent to offend. To compare this with modems, there is a kind of handshaking that goes on in which people beginning to converse with one another work out what is mutually acceptable. The thing is, you're talking about an old protocol in which profanity is not used until both sides are clearly comfortable with it, and I'm pointing out that the new protocol is one in which profanity often is used on the rebuttable assumption that both sides are comfortable with it already.
On the public airwaves, we don't have the opportunity to weigh idiom. Therefore a denominator that eschews initial offense and considers sensibilities is in order.
No.
On the public airwaves there is no conversation at all; the broadcaster speaks, and we either listen or don't. You want him to speak to the lowest common denominator, and offer us pablum. Furthermore, you intend to force the broadcaster to do so or else to muzzle him altogether! Censorship is never in keeping with our values as a society or a polity. Free speech for all is one of our most cherished and central values. And we deliberately protect not merely the inoffensive nothings you like and which no one objects to, because they don't need protecting anyway, but the offensive speech that no one likes at all, but which nevertheless is essential.
Let the broadcaster speak whatever he likes. It may have wide appeal, or it may offend everyone. The audience may choose to listen, or may choose not to.
To do otherwise, to follow your proposal -- that is the most deeply offensive, senseless thing of all.
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to.
So you're Humpty Dumpty now?
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to. People will use the word 'fuck' to do the same thing. In my case, it has nothing to do with a euphemism regarding the sex act. Why the sex act must be used to banally emphasis is only part of that word-- it's a negative exclamatory. Bad word. Conveys negative meaning at best. There are better choices.
No. You've disproven your own argument, I think. If the word is of arbitrary meaning, and you don't object to the meaning, and if the word isn't used in reference to sex, then all you're left to object to is a mere sound: fk. You cannot credibly say that the sound itself, regardless of meaning, is offensive enough for anyone to take notice or care. And there's nothing even slightly wrong in English with negative exclamatory words or sentences. It's not even as bad a split infinitive, and those aren't actually bad either.
Sadly, you seem to be out of touch with reality here, as is the FCC. We're neither living in the Victorian era, nor the 1950's -- neither of which was actually as clean cut as they're popularly believed to have been anyway. Instead, our era of history is more like almost every other; profanity is casually used by the high and the low.
Profanity has become so commonplace that it is the common denominator and, by virtue of its popularity, generally not that offensive merely for having been uttered. Context and intonation matter for offensiveness. Frankly, I can't think of a single person I know who would get offended if someone cursed in front of them in a way that was not intended to offend the listener, if indeed, anyone. (E.g. pointing to some third party who is blocking traffic, and saying "Look at that asshole.") And I don't hang out with a bunch of thugs; I work in an office in the city as a professional in a white collar job. Most of my friends do the same.
So in the real world, when you have a conversation with someone as amongst equals, they're likely to not filter their language by default. This is politeness. If you indicate that you find it offensive, even though no offensive was meant, people are likely to filter their language on your behalf. This too is politeness.
The main thing is that profanity does not inherently offend, and if you took a survey, you'd surely find that it usually does not, at least not all by itself. It can be used in deliberately offensive ways, but it's hardly necessary to curse in order to offend someone deliberately (or accidentally, for that matter).
Mainly, I'm curious as to who still says 'fie' in ordinary conversation.
Fie on your sense that boorish language is somehow justified in this way
It's not justified, it's just language. The English language is great, and I love it, but it's not some perfect thing. It has its grotty aspects, and they're just another part of the whole. Trying to cut them out is like trying to get rid of contractions; it's just bizarre that anyone would want to do so, much less that it would happen.
and that you don't give a fuck about the sensibilities of others by your references to sex, shit, and so on
I don't recall that I made a reference to shit. More importantly, though, I certainly do care about the sensibilities of others. The essential thing, however, is that I have freely chosen to do so! Whether I care about others, and which others, and to what degree, is my choice; it's not your place to dictate to me how I am to speak, just as it isn't my place to dictate to you.
I am not forcing you to speak in a manner you might find offensive, nor would I ever. And if you asked me to not use certain words when talking to you, I'd likely try to honor your request (it does depend on the circumstances, though).
But if I decide that I don't want to behave in the prim and proper manner you insist on, then I have every right not to. You don't have to listen, but that burden of not listening is on you. Free speech means that you can't cover my mouth, but you can cover your own ears. I can't force you to listen, but I can speak freely in public. If you're going to dare to go out in public, the risk you'll have to take is that other members of the public, people who have different opinions on the subject than you, will be there as well.
That they want to go through life with out scatalogical references, without pointing towards sex, or damnation, or a niggardly existence.
That's easy to do. If you want to avoid those things, never go out, never read anything, or listen to anything, or watch anything, and never interact with anyone. Become a hermit. It will work very well, and we'll all be happy.
And if you respect others, you will not forcibly compel them to respect you. Respect can only ever be freely given. If you compel someone to respect you, you're only getting your own self-respect reflected back at you, which is deplorable vanity, and you're engaging in petty tyranny in the process. Plus it tends to engender disrespect in the hearts of those you oppress, which will ultimately result in a backlash against you.
If society at large is insufficiently 'civil' for you (whatever that's supposed to mean), then it is intolerable for you to force it to submit. You can either tolerate it and try to convince other people to behave differently, or you can cloister yourself away from it. Those are your only options, really. Well, or you can change, and learn to live with the rest of us, which is infinitely preferable.
Many years ago, my father told me that a good reason not to use expletives in casual speech is that you won't have anything effectively shocking left to use as emphasis if and when the need arises.
Well, surely that depends on how many you know, and how much effort you're willing to put into turning the air a proper shade of blue.
Obscenities and indecencies are not vandalism of our language! They're an ordinary part of language. They have long been so; obscenities have likely been in human language since the first caveman dropped a rock on his foot. And they're widespread; I can't think of a single language that lacks them. To deny them would practically be to deny our very nature.
Further, Shakespeare is generally thought of to be the single greatest author in the English language. And he used them freely, and to good effect. Frankly, if you're going to claim that Shakespeare was a vandal of the very language he was such a great contributor to, I'm going to have to be forced to conclude that you're an abject and utter fool.
And let's remember, it was Bowdler who reprinted Shakespeare, editing out the obscenities, and thus giving us the word 'bowdlerization,' who is generally considered to be a great vandal. At best, he was a silly prude, much like those jerks in the church who had fig leaves added to works of art that featured nudes.
I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity.
No, you don't.
If you want to cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, that is your choice and your problem to live with. You are free to become a hermit and shut yourself away from the rest of the world. We're happy to be rid of you and your ilk, I'm certain.
You do not, however, get to dictate to the rest of the world that it has to live up to your petty mores.
You can ask, though! You have a right of free speech, which you certainly can exercise in that manner. I'll even defend your right to call for people to be prudes in a way that they really never have been in great numbers. It's sad, though, that while I will defend free speech for you, you who are my enemy, would not do so for me, or for others who disagree with you.
Also, as a technical matter, you seem to be so closeted away from the world that you don't know what an obscenity is in the context of free speech. As the Supreme Court has pointed out on many an occasion, something is only obscene if it is in some way erotic. Most curses simply are not. Calling someone a motherfucker, for example, does not actually result in sexual arousal, at least certainly not in the vast majority of the cases where that word is used. What you mostly seem to be thinking of are indecencies, which are treated quite differently under the law. If you're going to complain about the use of language, it would be nice if you knew enough to use the right word, you moralizing moron.
No, ever since the Supreme Court decided Cohen v. California, such ordinances have been well-known to be unconstitutional. You do not have a right to not be offended in public. You do have a right to offend others in public, however. No one's morality need be considered. You really need to read the opinion. It's pretty good, and can be found here.
So, in fact, I would be shocked and outraged if a public park did not allow a rapper to curse and swear at a public playground. Regardless of how I might feel about the rapper, his rights -- and by extension, everyone's rights -- are paramount. As for a supposed right to not be offended in a public place, there's just no such animal.
Please read the Court's opinion and educate yourself.
If you adopted the same idea in the US, you'd end legal threatening. "Well, we've got millions. You're a student. Your money will run out first. You'll be bankrupted......unless you settle."
No, not really. The courts are not perfect. It is entirely possible to be in the right and still lose. Think about toxic tort cases, where a small plaintiff goes up against a big polluter; even if you have a plaintiff's attorney who is willing to take the case on contingency, costs do mount up, and you may ultimately lose simply for lack of money to pay for scientific evidence to counter the other side. Loser pays merely amplifies the danger of going to court against anyone bigger than you. So long as you only pay your own expenses (and damages, if you're a defendant) you can control your exposure better.
Of course, your argument is also invalidated by the fact that copyright suits in the US do have a loser-pays statute, but it hasn't deterred the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Nor should it, since, to be honest, even though they have a lousy track record, most of the people they pursue really are liable!
The Supreme Court can't line item veto the section laying out fines nor the section laying out the length of the copyright term. They can merely rule the Copyright Statute, in whole, is unconstitutional.
It's not a veto, but yes, they can find parts of a law unconstitutional and other parts not unconstitutional. Happens all the time, in fact. Also, it's called the Copyright Act, or if you need to distinguish the current one from prior ones, it is the 1976 Copyright Act.
so the copyright does exist but it is held by the public
While that is one way of imagining the public domain, I suppose, it's very convoluted and even then not really accurate. In fact, for public domain works, there is no copyright at all. Such is the case for uncopyrightable works, as well as works that were copyrighted, but where the copyright term has expired. In the case of US government works, they are uncopyrightable ab initio; there is never a copyright, ever.
Of course, without knowing some more details about the work in question, I can't say whether it actually is a US government work or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Copying a movie is clearly not legal. Therefore it is theft, and therefore stealing.
Huh. Well, I think you've just beaten 'All men are Socrates' for most illogical statement.
First, copying a movie can be legal, or not. It depends on a number of things. So it's not 'clearly' anything.
Second, not all illegal things are theft. For example, if I burn down your house, that's arson; it's not theft. Even though I've deprived you of your house, it's still not theft. Nor is it kidnapping. The law is just a little more nuanced -- by which I mean, a hell of a lot more nuanced -- than you seem to think it is.
Third, copyright infringement in particular is not theft. It is copyright infringement; it is sui generis. This issue actually came before the Supreme Court once; it was argued that an infringer ought to be able to be prosecuted for transporting unlawfully made copies across state lines under a law that made it a crime to transport stolen goods in such a manner. The Court said that he could not be so prosecuted. The case is Dowling v. US, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), if you'd like to read it.
The whole 'theft' thing is first, grossly inaccurate, and second, a very sad, very transparent attempt to confuse discussions of copyright with norms drawn from the utterly unrelated field of personal property, so as to mislead people. It is needlessly pejorative, and in my experience a sign of a weak argument from either a weak intellect or a dishonest one.
If you want to talk about copyright infringement then just call it copyright infringement. That is what it is. There is no need for any other term. To invoke 'theft' is inaccurate and unhelpful. Don't do it.
Recording of broadcast data for timeshifting purposes is declared legal under 'fair use' definition.
No, it's not. It can be a fair use, but there's no guarantee of it. Sometimes it is not, I'm sure.
Many people here seem to think that copying a movie for backup purposes is legal. It is not.
Again, it can be a fair use, but there's no guarantee of it. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. That's what fair use is like: it protects uses that are fair. Anything can be a fair use, but nothing is certain to be. It depends. It always depends.
I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation
Well, while that's a noble purpose -- the same one that is behind most of my posts, in fact -- you're doing a terrible job of it, I've got to say. You're spreading much more misinformation instead, and you're not being accurate in your corrections.
Dear God! Someone read the definitions in the AHRA! And the Diamond case! You deserve the highest kudos; the kind with M&Ms.
Still, though, while I surely don't have to remind you, let me just point out for the sake of others that the AHRA does permit some format shifting, provided that you satisfy the virtually-never-satisfied requirements of the AHRA. If you can't manage to fall under its aegis, then fair use is usually your next resort, which is precisely what happened in the Diamond case; the court found that the copying involved wasn't AHRA-compliant copying, but could perhaps be a fair use.
Neither of these are valid examples of fair use as defined under US law. Go look it up.
But there's practically no such thing as a valid example of fair use. Oh, I suppose each case in which a use is found to be a fair use could be thought of as an example, but in fact, they're not useful as precedents, so there's no point. Just because a parody was a fair use in case A is no guarantee that it will be in case B; the specific circumstances of each case must be judged on their own merits. As for the statute itself, it doesn't provide examples of anything at all.
So I have to ask: Did you look it up?
Just because something is repeated doesn't make it true.
Said the man who has been spouting inaccuracies quite a lot today.
Sorry, but it wasn't the last major fair use case before the Court, nor is that what they said. Indeed, fair use would never support such a thing!
The gist of the Sony case was that where a secondary infringer contributed to an infringement by means of a device that could be used for legitimate purposes, they're not liable. To get to that, the Court said that time shifting (place shifting didn't come up at all, IIRC) could, under some circumstances, be just such a legitimate purpose. There's no blanket protection for it, however. And fair use is fact-dependent; Alice and Bob might each time shift something on TV, but it is entirely possible for Alice to be a fair user, and Bob not to be, given the specific circumstances in each case. Fair use precedents are really about how a court determined whether something was fair or not; there's really no valid precedents to say that a specific use is fair or not. That is, the precedents only have value as to the process, not the outcome.
GP statement makes a limited amount of sense, given that the license to view what's on the media is tied to that specific undamaged copy of the media. Which isn't really the way it should be; it should either be a license you're buying (so you can get a replacement copy at no charge or postage only in the event of damage or theft), or it should be a disc you're buying that you can do with as you please (for example, back it up in case your copy gets damaged or stolen).
No worries then. That isn't the way that it is. The third scenario you list is the most accurate for most things. That is, when you buy a paperback book, you buy the book itself, there is no license, and there is no need for one, since copyright doesn't cover many of the things you'd do with the book (e.g. read it, lend it out, sell it used).
However, copyright does prevent you from doing certain things with the book, such as making another copy of it (usually).
GP is off the mark with his statement about how media in a digital format shouldn't be treated differently from physical property, though. It is a simple fact that digital media can be reproduced with very little effort. Even digital media designed to be unable to be copied can be copied anyway with only a bit more effort. Digital media is different, so to say that it must not be treated different is foolish.
I really don't get this. Copyright mainly originated around books, and books are digital. There's nothing magical about copies in digital formats. Nor is there anything magical about copies in machine-readable formats, which is not the same thing as 'digital.' Ease of copying is really irrelevant for purposes of copyright policy. Especially since it's really in everyone's best interests for everything to be as easy to copy as possible!
It can be, sure. Check out 17 USC 117. But look for the operative word in subsection (a), and you'll see one of the dangers of permitting the practice of EULAs.
Sure, but it's not legal.
There is no law AFAIK that makes it illegal to have a diamond ring, go 'abracadabra,' and have another identical ring. Well, other than perhaps from physics, but that's not really the kind we're talking about.
Would you please cite whatever law you're talking about so that we can look it up and read it?
Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
Well, no, it depends. Why, just yesterday, I made a copy of 'Charade,' and I assure you that it was perfectly legal (though not a fair use, since it didn't have to be). And since any kind of use can be a fair use, though no specific use is guaranteed to be a fair use, there's no reason why fair use cannot apply. The statutory form of fair use is located at 17 USC 107, by the way, if you'd like to read it. It really does cover any kind of infringement.
No. When you buy a software program you buy a license. Thats why its legal to make copies of the media as the license to run the software is separate.
Actually, no. If you buy a lawfully made copy of a computer program, instead of licensing it, then an exception in the copyright law (17 USC 117) permits you to make any copies or modifications necessary in order to run it, and to make all the backups you like. With a few exceptions (site licenses, the GPL, etc.) there is actually no need for software licensing. I've discussed this with other copyright lawyers, and so far no one has been able to think of any reason to do it. And in some jurisdictions, it isn't even enforceable, so there's no point. It is a silly waste of time and effort, and an anachronism that just needs to die. Particularly, because of the harmful effects it has had on the popular conception of copyright.
When you buy a movie you are buying the media with a copy of the movie on it for private viewing only.
No again! When you buy a DVD of a movie, you are just buying a DVD of the movie. You can do any lawful thing with it, ranging from non-public performance to throwing it across the room like a frisbee. If the movie is not copyrighted, there are more lawful things you can do with it. If the movie was copyrighted when you bought the DVD, and enters the public domain later, your rights with regard to the movie increase, without the disc having changed in anyway, or your having to get another one. Also, there is nothing magical about the disc itself. For example, a radio station can buy CDs from the store, just as you do, but they can broadcast the music over the radio straight from the CD, due to the way that they are treated under the law. At most, they may have to pay a fee to the composer; possibly, not even that.
The CD doesn't carry these rights with it. It's just a medium, after all. The only rights that accompany the medium are the ordinary ones. Think of a brick: if you don't own the brick, you can't use it. When you buy the brick, you can use it in any lawful manner, e.g. propping open a door, or as part of a wall, but not thrown at someone's head. A CD is the same thing. The person who owns the CD -- as distinguished from the copyright applicable to the music on the CD -- gets to determine who uses the CD. If it belongs to Alice, Bob cannot snatch it away and listen to it. But Alice can listen, and if Alice sells it to Bob, Bob can listen.
My comparison makes perfect sense when you know what you are talking about.
Well, if you're saying that your brand of erroneousness is internally self-consistent, then great, but I still don't see the point.
I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
No worries. It's not, and he's wrong.
If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
Yeah, this is one of the reasons why reform is so urgently needed. If the laws are so bad as to engender disrespect for the laws, that disrespect can and will grow, harming even reasonable laws. Just look at the lasting ill effects of Prohibition.
You buy a LICENSE to use your media. The physical disk is not what you're buying.
That's almost never true. This is why I absolutely hate EULAs -- they've managed to brainwash scads of people into thinking that they are normal, acceptable, and even enforceable.
In fact, for the vast majority of copies of works, you are just buying the copy (i.e. the physical medium) and not being licensed to do anything, at all. This is because while copyright prevents you from, say, making a copy of a paperback novel (unless certain exceptions apply), copyright does not prevent anyone from reading a copy. Since a copyright holder cannot license a right he doesn't have, your legitimate access to the paperback entitles you to read it. In fact, the copyright holder can insist that you not read it, and you can ignore him since he lacks a leg to stand on.
The main list of things that you cannot do without permission from the copyright holder -- or an applicable exception in the law -- is at 17 USC 106. It says that you can't make another copy, that you can't make a derivative work, and you can't distribute copies of the work. It also says that you can't publicly perform or display certain kinds of works. And there are lots of exceptions, e.g. you can distribute lawfully made copies (except when you can't -- the exceptions have exceptions). If it isn't on the list of prohibited things, or if it is but there is an applicable exception, then you do not need permission, which is all that a license is in the first place. You can just do it.
For some reason, certain copyright holders are not eager for people to know this. They spread FUD, or at least appreciate it, when it benefits them.
However, I've never heard of anyone who was in a position to do so suggest that books from the bookstore are licensed, and not merely sold. Ditto CDs, DVDs, etc. That's just a stupid Internet rumor.
Software is where that claim is made a lot -- even though there is absolutely no reason for it in 99.44% of cases. Downloads are also licensed in some manner, since they consist of making a copy, and that is on the prohibited list.
No, I bought a movie, not a software program. You would never say your VHS tapes were full of data.
Well, I certainly could. Data can be digital or analog, and the storage medium doesn't really matter a whole lot. If you prefer, you could imagine that he said 'content' instead; that's a fairly popular term for the same thing, these days. (Also, there's nothing intrinsically analog about videotape. It's magnetic tape, after all, and that's been widely used for digital storage too. In fact, there were some peripherals, long, long ago, which could attach to VCRs so as to use them for computer storage.)
Just because the medium happens to be digital people take this as an excuse to think they can do whatever they like with it.
I hadn't noticed. What I had noticed is that the medium seems not to matter. To wit: Way, way back in the 1980's, when big shoulders were in, and Michael Jackson was merely thought of as eccentric and good with kids, a lot of people listened to music on audiotape. Further, they tended to copy music from other sources (other tapes, LPs, the radio, etc.) onto blank tapes. The music industry started a big publicity campaign against this, with the motto 'Home taping is killing music.' No one took them seriously, even back then. The Dead Kennedys even released a tape with their music on one side, and the other side blank, in order to help.
Really, I think it would be more accurate to say that if people have access to a work, they like to think that they can do anything they want with it, so long as it's not commercial. That is, most people would not find it objectionable to copy a tape (or a DVD) for a friend, but they probably would object to selling such copies. I don't think the medium matters, though some things are easier to copy than others; I can burn a CD trivially, but it's more work to order a big chunk of marble and carve up another Pieta or David (not that it's impossible, by any means).
Every other product I have, cars, TV, etc. all run the risk of being damaged in some way each and every time I use them. does that mean I should have free copies of each?
If possible, why not? Scarcity is one of humanity's big problems. A solution would be very nice. As it happens, we're in no need of a solution in the intangible, nonrivalrous world of information; it doesn't experience scarcity like the material world does.
What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like?
That's not a very clear sentence. I think you tried to say something like "Isn't fair use merely the right to watch a movie you have a copy of as much as you like?"
If so, you are dead wrong.
Fair use is a method by which you can infringe on a copyright and yet have it turn out to be legal! Any kind of infringement can be a fair use: copying, creating derivatives, distribution, public performance or display, etc. However, any specific act of infringement might also not be a fair use. Whether or not a specific infringing act is or is not fair is highly fact-dependent. Alice might copy a work and be protected by fair use, but Bob might do exactly the same, and not be protected. The specific circumstances of the use are key in any determination. It's a bit like being accused of murder and claiming self-defense; if the facts are right, you'll be excused for killing someone, but if not, you're in trouble.
In any event, since merely watching a movie is never infringing in the first place, it is not fair use because it is perfectly legal already. This is sort of like how if you were accused of murder, and the victim is still alive, the charges can't stand on their own, and you don't even have to defend yourself.
Really? I would imagine that if you knew the codec and the uncompressed lossy output, you could reconstruct the compressed data. After all, the codec should work predictably, right? I doubt it would ever be worthwhile to bother -- it seems like a lot of effort, and there are surely easier ways -- but I really don't see why it isn't possible.
So much the worse, mostly.
Why? So long as the language remains alive and vibrant, and there's no doubt that English is, what it actually consists of isn't all that important. It is a highly mutable language, it's changed a great deal before, and it will surely continue to do so. For most of its history, most people have cursed plenty; this isn't always well remembered, but it is assuredly true. Part of the reason why this isn't always apparent is likely because the curses themselves change. We think of words like 'zounds' to be silly and archaic, but they weren't back in the day. We think of foreign curses like 'bloody' to be quaint and not bad, but they are to those that really use them.
HBO did a western series called Deadwood not long ago. The dialog is full of modern profanity, in stark contrast to the period setting. Apparently the writers experimented with using the profanity that would have been spoken in the day, but it just sounded silly to modern ears, like Yosemite Sam. Rather than maintain the same words, they went with different words that would keep the same effect. It works pretty well.
proctological orifice
Proktos is the root word there; it's greek for anus. You're being needlessly wordy, and it's just silly.
Politeness is lost
No, it's not. Politeness is just different. If you stick with the old forms of politeness, eventually you wind up being the person at the table who eats with their fingers when everyone else is using forks; it's not that the former was never polite, just that now there are new mores. Etiquette is not universal, though there are commonalities, and it's certainly not static. Most importantly, though, it's not absolute. So long as it is widely accepted, anything can be polite. E.g. in the west, you don't slurp soup, while in Japan it is polite to slurp soup and impolite not to (or so I'm told). So get it out of your head that profanity is, always was, and always shall be, rude. That's just not the case.
We've traded RW Emerson for HS Thompson.
There's no reason why we cannot have both, and more besides.
It's discourse that starts with, we don't say things that offend each other.
Indeed. But in modern American society, most people, in casual conversation amongst equals, do not take offense at mere profanity which is not uttered with the intent to offend. To compare this with modems, there is a kind of handshaking that goes on in which people beginning to converse with one another work out what is mutually acceptable. The thing is, you're talking about an old protocol in which profanity is not used until both sides are clearly comfortable with it, and I'm pointing out that the new protocol is one in which profanity often is used on the rebuttable assumption that both sides are comfortable with it already.
On the public airwaves, we don't have the opportunity to weigh idiom. Therefore a denominator that eschews initial offense and considers sensibilities is in order.
No.
On the public airwaves there is no conversation at all; the broadcaster speaks, and we either listen or don't. You want him to speak to the lowest common denominator, and offer us pablum. Furthermore, you intend to force the broadcaster to do so or else to muzzle him altogether! Censorship is never in keeping with our values as a society or a polity. Free speech for all is one of our most cherished and central values. And we deliberately protect not merely the inoffensive nothings you like and which no one objects to, because they don't need protecting anyway, but the offensive speech that no one likes at all, but which nevertheless is essential.
Let the broadcaster speak whatever he likes. It may have wide appeal, or it may offend everyone. The audience may choose to listen, or may choose not to.
To do otherwise, to follow your proposal -- that is the most deeply offensive, senseless thing of all.
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to.
So you're Humpty Dumpty now?
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to. People will use the word 'fuck' to do the same thing. In my case, it has nothing to do with a euphemism regarding the sex act. Why the sex act must be used to banally emphasis is only part of that word-- it's a negative exclamatory. Bad word. Conveys negative meaning at best. There are better choices.
No. You've disproven your own argument, I think. If the word is of arbitrary meaning, and you don't object to the meaning, and if the word isn't used in reference to sex, then all you're left to object to is a mere sound: fk. You cannot credibly say that the sound itself, regardless of meaning, is offensive enough for anyone to take notice or care. And there's nothing even slightly wrong in English with negative exclamatory words or sentences. It's not even as bad a split infinitive, and those aren't actually bad either.
Sadly, you seem to be out of touch with reality here, as is the FCC. We're neither living in the Victorian era, nor the 1950's -- neither of which was actually as clean cut as they're popularly believed to have been anyway. Instead, our era of history is more like almost every other; profanity is casually used by the high and the low.
Profanity has become so commonplace that it is the common denominator and, by virtue of its popularity, generally not that offensive merely for having been uttered. Context and intonation matter for offensiveness. Frankly, I can't think of a single person I know who would get offended if someone cursed in front of them in a way that was not intended to offend the listener, if indeed, anyone. (E.g. pointing to some third party who is blocking traffic, and saying "Look at that asshole.") And I don't hang out with a bunch of thugs; I work in an office in the city as a professional in a white collar job. Most of my friends do the same.
So in the real world, when you have a conversation with someone as amongst equals, they're likely to not filter their language by default. This is politeness. If you indicate that you find it offensive, even though no offensive was meant, people are likely to filter their language on your behalf. This too is politeness.
The main thing is that profanity does not inherently offend, and if you took a survey, you'd surely find that it usually does not, at least not all by itself. It can be used in deliberately offensive ways, but it's hardly necessary to curse in order to offend someone deliberately (or accidentally, for that matter).
Mainly, I'm curious as to who still says 'fie' in ordinary conversation.
Fie on your sense that boorish language is somehow justified in this way
It's not justified, it's just language. The English language is great, and I love it, but it's not some perfect thing. It has its grotty aspects, and they're just another part of the whole. Trying to cut them out is like trying to get rid of contractions; it's just bizarre that anyone would want to do so, much less that it would happen.
and that you don't give a fuck about the sensibilities of others by your references to sex, shit, and so on
I don't recall that I made a reference to shit. More importantly, though, I certainly do care about the sensibilities of others. The essential thing, however, is that I have freely chosen to do so! Whether I care about others, and which others, and to what degree, is my choice; it's not your place to dictate to me how I am to speak, just as it isn't my place to dictate to you.
I am not forcing you to speak in a manner you might find offensive, nor would I ever. And if you asked me to not use certain words when talking to you, I'd likely try to honor your request (it does depend on the circumstances, though).
But if I decide that I don't want to behave in the prim and proper manner you insist on, then I have every right not to. You don't have to listen, but that burden of not listening is on you. Free speech means that you can't cover my mouth, but you can cover your own ears. I can't force you to listen, but I can speak freely in public. If you're going to dare to go out in public, the risk you'll have to take is that other members of the public, people who have different opinions on the subject than you, will be there as well.
That they want to go through life with out scatalogical references, without pointing towards sex, or damnation, or a niggardly existence.
That's easy to do. If you want to avoid those things, never go out, never read anything, or listen to anything, or watch anything, and never interact with anyone. Become a hermit. It will work very well, and we'll all be happy.
And if you respect others, you will not forcibly compel them to respect you. Respect can only ever be freely given. If you compel someone to respect you, you're only getting your own self-respect reflected back at you, which is deplorable vanity, and you're engaging in petty tyranny in the process. Plus it tends to engender disrespect in the hearts of those you oppress, which will ultimately result in a backlash against you.
If society at large is insufficiently 'civil' for you (whatever that's supposed to mean), then it is intolerable for you to force it to submit. You can either tolerate it and try to convince other people to behave differently, or you can cloister yourself away from it. Those are your only options, really. Well, or you can change, and learn to live with the rest of us, which is infinitely preferable.
Many years ago, my father told me that a good reason not to use expletives in casual speech is that you won't have anything effectively shocking left to use as emphasis if and when the need arises.
Well, surely that depends on how many you know, and how much effort you're willing to put into turning the air a proper shade of blue.
Obscenities and indecencies are not vandalism of our language! They're an ordinary part of language. They have long been so; obscenities have likely been in human language since the first caveman dropped a rock on his foot. And they're widespread; I can't think of a single language that lacks them. To deny them would practically be to deny our very nature.
Further, Shakespeare is generally thought of to be the single greatest author in the English language. And he used them freely, and to good effect. Frankly, if you're going to claim that Shakespeare was a vandal of the very language he was such a great contributor to, I'm going to have to be forced to conclude that you're an abject and utter fool.
And let's remember, it was Bowdler who reprinted Shakespeare, editing out the obscenities, and thus giving us the word 'bowdlerization,' who is generally considered to be a great vandal. At best, he was a silly prude, much like those jerks in the church who had fig leaves added to works of art that featured nudes.
I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity.
No, you don't.
If you want to cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, that is your choice and your problem to live with. You are free to become a hermit and shut yourself away from the rest of the world. We're happy to be rid of you and your ilk, I'm certain.
You do not, however, get to dictate to the rest of the world that it has to live up to your petty mores.
You can ask, though! You have a right of free speech, which you certainly can exercise in that manner. I'll even defend your right to call for people to be prudes in a way that they really never have been in great numbers. It's sad, though, that while I will defend free speech for you, you who are my enemy, would not do so for me, or for others who disagree with you.
Also, as a technical matter, you seem to be so closeted away from the world that you don't know what an obscenity is in the context of free speech. As the Supreme Court has pointed out on many an occasion, something is only obscene if it is in some way erotic. Most curses simply are not. Calling someone a motherfucker, for example, does not actually result in sexual arousal, at least certainly not in the vast majority of the cases where that word is used. What you mostly seem to be thinking of are indecencies, which are treated quite differently under the law. If you're going to complain about the use of language, it would be nice if you knew enough to use the right word, you moralizing moron.
No, ever since the Supreme Court decided Cohen v. California, such ordinances have been well-known to be unconstitutional. You do not have a right to not be offended in public. You do have a right to offend others in public, however. No one's morality need be considered. You really need to read the opinion. It's pretty good, and can be found here.
So, in fact, I would be shocked and outraged if a public park did not allow a rapper to curse and swear at a public playground. Regardless of how I might feel about the rapper, his rights -- and by extension, everyone's rights -- are paramount. As for a supposed right to not be offended in a public place, there's just no such animal.
Please read the Court's opinion and educate yourself.
If you adopted the same idea in the US, you'd end legal threatening. "Well, we've got millions. You're a student. Your money will run out first. You'll be bankrupted... ...unless you settle."
No, not really. The courts are not perfect. It is entirely possible to be in the right and still lose. Think about toxic tort cases, where a small plaintiff goes up against a big polluter; even if you have a plaintiff's attorney who is willing to take the case on contingency, costs do mount up, and you may ultimately lose simply for lack of money to pay for scientific evidence to counter the other side. Loser pays merely amplifies the danger of going to court against anyone bigger than you. So long as you only pay your own expenses (and damages, if you're a defendant) you can control your exposure better.
Of course, your argument is also invalidated by the fact that copyright suits in the US do have a loser-pays statute, but it hasn't deterred the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Nor should it, since, to be honest, even though they have a lousy track record, most of the people they pursue really are liable!
The Supreme Court can't line item veto the section laying out fines nor the section laying out the length of the copyright term. They can merely rule the Copyright Statute, in whole, is unconstitutional.
It's not a veto, but yes, they can find parts of a law unconstitutional and other parts not unconstitutional. Happens all the time, in fact. Also, it's called the Copyright Act, or if you need to distinguish the current one from prior ones, it is the 1976 Copyright Act.
Hm, I would've tried a 1983 suit, personally.
so the copyright does exist but it is held by the public
While that is one way of imagining the public domain, I suppose, it's very convoluted and even then not really accurate. In fact, for public domain works, there is no copyright at all. Such is the case for uncopyrightable works, as well as works that were copyrighted, but where the copyright term has expired. In the case of US government works, they are uncopyrightable ab initio; there is never a copyright, ever.
Of course, without knowing some more details about the work in question, I can't say whether it actually is a US government work or not.