Ordinarily I just get annoyed with people who fail to read the definitions of words in the law, instead substituting their own fantasy definitions to make themselves feel unjustifiably good about themselves.
You, I'm going to go a bit further and call you an idiot.
You actually quoted this: a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) But you failed to actually look to see what the definition was. I can't let that pass.
But let's now do the work you should have done before posting like an idiot.
The definition of a public broadcasting entity is to be found at 17 USC 118(g). It says:
the term "public broadcasting entity" means a noncommercial educational broadcast station as defined in section 397 of title 47 and any nonprofit institution or organization engaged in the activities described in paragraph (2) of subsection (c).
So there are two things that can qualify. Noncommercial educational broadcast stations as defined at 47 US 397, and nonprofit institutions or organizations doing the things described at 17 USC 118(c)(2).
47 USC 397 says, at subsection (6):
The terms "noncommercial educational broadcast station" and "public broadcast station" mean a television or radio broadcast station which-- (A) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on November 2, 1978, is eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association; or (B) is owned and operated by a municipality and which transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes.
17 USC 118(c)(2) is the subsection where she has to be a nonprofit institution or organization doing:
production of a transmission program, reproduction of copies or phonorecords of such a transmission program, and distribution of such copies or phonorecords, where such production, reproduction, or distribution is made by a nonprofit institution or organization solely for the purpose of transmissions specified in paragraph (1)
Which humorously brings us to:
performance or display of a work by or in the course of a transmission made by a noncommercial educational broadcast station referred to in subsection (g)
And thus full circle.
But in any event, it is clear enough that this woman does not apply for a part of the law that is intended to protect PBS stations and the like. For someone posting on a geek board, you don't seem very good at it.
Purchase of a physical media containing intellectual property has always granted the purchaser certain rights with regard to that IP.
First, let's not use the term 'intellectual property,' since, after all, it isn't generally clear what various people mean by that, and it is usually confusing, probably deliberately so. I can construct some examples to illustrate this, but it's easier if we just nip it in the bud now.
Thus, you're saying that when you buy a copy (i.e. a tangible medium of expression in which a work has been fixed) that certain exclusive rights of the copyright holder are licensed along with it.
Well, the copyright holder can only grant licenses for the exclusive rights he has. He cannot license rights outside of his control any more than I could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We know from reading 17 USC 106, what most of these rights are. We know as well that these rights are reduced somewhat due to the effect of 17 USC 107-122 and others, as applicable.
But what rights would be licensed with an ordinary purchase of, say, a book?
There is no exclusive right in copyright to read a book, so not that. There is an exclusive right to distribute the book, including selling it used, but 17 USC 109 says that so long as the book was lawfully made, the owner of the copy (as opposed to the copyright holder) can distribute that copy however he wants, so not that either. Sure, I can't write a sequel to the book without infringing on the copyright, if there is one, but why would the copyright holder license that right to mere readers anyway? No one expects him to.
So you're wrong.
The right to read a book does not come from the copyright holder. Rather, the right to do anything at all with the book comes from personal property law: you buy it, you own it, and that means you can do anything lawful with it. If I go to the store and buy a brick, it is exactly the same as if I go to the store and buy a book. I can use the brick to prop up my bed, or to build a wall, or as a doorstop, or anything else you can lawfully do with a brick. I can't hit people with it (usually) because it's illegal, but generally my rights stem from me owning the tangible object. Likewise, with a book, when I buy a copy -- which is what invariably happens -- I own it like a brick, and can use it for the same purposes. The trick is that if it is copyrighted, then it is illegal to do certain specific things with it -- e.g. make more copies, write a sequel -- without permission. Reading is not on that list, so I can read it merely because I bought it.
all the little government warnings on CDs and DVDs that spell out your rights? That's effectively a license.
Wrong.
Those are actually attempts to restate the law. The law says that if a work is copyrighted and if you infringe on that copyright, and the infringement meets certain standards, then it can be a criminal act with certain penalties, and infringement consists of certain things, such as making copies. Of course, they're often incorrect or misleading, but then the movie studios are not obligated to be accurate about this stuff.
Having looked on google quickly, here's what one version of the warning on a DVD says:
The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.
As I said, it's misleading. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is illegal, but only during the copyright term, which is finite, and only if there is no applicable exception. But they leave those bits out because they would prefer to scare you. You can still unauthorizedly sell the DVD, for example, pursuant to 17 USC 109 which describes the first sale doctrine.
The second sentence, which is most of the warning, just reminds you that criminal copyright infringement is a federal cr
But if I plant a tree in my yard you don't have the right to take the fruit even if I don't eat it myself.
But if that tree in your yard increases the value of my property next door merely due to proximity, I do have a right to that value, and you don't, even though you're responsible for it.
Merely creating a work does not entitle you to a monopoly over it. You cannot be forced to create the work, and you cannot be forced to publish it. But otherwise you have no rights in that work other than what the rest of society sees fit to give you according to their own self-interest.
And? Wanting free stuff is actually a very strong argument in the world of copyright policy. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the only reason we have copyright at all is because people want free stuff. Readers want free books, authors want free copyrights. It's a utilitarian system and everyone is in it for themselves. So long as you can look beyond your immediate gratification to your long-term gratification, it is possible to reconcile wanting free stuff with accepting a temporary limit on it... so long as the limit results in proportionately more free stuff (otherwise, why bother waiting?).
You do not have the right to force people agree with your views of property law.
But he can advocate in favor of his views on copyright law (which is not a branch of property law, and not even related), and should he be successful, he can get those laws changed accordingly. Authors do not have a right to copyrights, or to particular forms of copyright law, after all. We happen to have these laws, but nothing says that we must. Nor, aside from a couple of exceptions, does anything say that if we choose to have them, that they must be a certain way.
More precisely, it means it is non-actionable for consumers to noncommercially make recordings. It doesn't actually say that it's legal, nor does it say that the recordings must be noncommercial. Copyright law really deals more allowing or prohibiting certain actions, more than it has to do with the products of those actions.
The AHRA isn't strangely worded, it is cunningly deliberate.
If it was not infringing to make copies under the AHRA, then those copies would be lawfully made. That means that they would qualify for first sale. While you couldn't make the copies on a commercial basis, you could probably get away with selling them if the making and selling were far enough apart that a court wouldn't be convinced by an argument to connect the two.
The story I hear is that this little bit of wording was changed from the more common 'not infringing' language by the RIAA at the last minute, and that the copyright lawyers working for Congress didn't cotton on to it.
The key phrase is "No action may be brought under this title". It doesn't preclude bringing action under other laws (DMCA, Copyright Act, NET Act, etc)
Actually, the Copyright Act, the AHRA, the NET Act, the DMCA, etc. all are part of Title 17 of the US Code. If it is 17 USC anything, then it is part of that title. So yeah, if you make a copy in compliance with the AHRA, you cannot be sued for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. However, your ability to make that copy make nevertheless run afoul of the DMCA since the AHRA only makes infringement non-actionable, not circumvention, which is something else entirely.
No, you just buy the CD. Outside of Internet distributed music, no one is trying to license music to consumers, or even to claim it. It's just nerds who think that software EULAs are normal or useful (they're not even necessary, and AFAICT not helpful to anyone) who fall for this licensing claptrap.
When you buy a tangible copy -- a paperback book, a CD, a DVD, a poster, etc. -- then you're just buying it. I've heard of one or two attempts otherwise, but if it happens at all, it is astoundingly rare.
Even though it's obvious to everyone that what we're really doing is licensing the IP on a limited basis, with no right to redistribution, they're still trying to hold on to that physical media gravy train and claiming that duplication without redistribution is a crime...Something that could only possibly be the case if the product in question was a physical thing.
You're wrong, actually.
When you buy a CD (or a tape, or a book) you only buy the physical object. The copyright holder does not license anything to you; in fact they cannot license anything to you that would be of interest here. Remember that a copyright isn't a right to do absolutely anything involving a work. Rather, copyright is a bundle of rights to prohibit others from doing certain, specific things. If someone does something that isn't on that list, then the copyright doesn't apply, and unless some other law does, then it is legal to do it.
In the case of a musical work and sound recording fixed in a CD, the copyright holder has the following rights: He can prohibit you from making a copy. He can prohibit you from making a derivative. He can prohibit you from distributing copies. He can prohibit you from publicly performing or publicly displaying the musical work. He can prohibit you from digitally transmitting the sound recording.
That's it. Anything not on that is is not regulated by copyright. That includes privately performing the work (i.e. listening to it) There are also a number of exceptions where even certain things on that list are not regulated by copyright under certain circumstances (e.g. if the CD is lawfully made, you can sell it, but you can't rent it).
Pretty much no one licenses anything to ordinary retail consumers with the exception of things provided over the Internet (since you necessarily have to make a copy of it just to download it, whatever it is), and computer software (which is nonsensical, as there is no reason to bother doing it that way).
Namely the limitation I suggested was not to prevent an author from assigning redistribution rights, but to say that they could not give up their right to continue to assign more redistribution rights.
I did understand you, you're just tripping over a term of art. First, remember that rights in copyright are exclusive rights; that is a right to exclude. They are not rights to actually do anything, only to prevent others from doing something. Second, an assignment (also called a transfer) is different from a license. An assignment is when you confer on someone else the same exclusive right you have; sometimes this consists of sharing the right equally, and sometimes this consists of giving that right to the other person and losing it yourself. A license is when you retain a right, but rather than exclude someone under it, you don't exclude them, allowing them to do whatever they want within the bounds of your lack of exclusion.
E.g. if Alice has a copyright, and assigns it to Bob, then Bob has the copyright, and Alice has nothing. Or Alice could make Bob a joint copyright holder, in which case they can each act autonomously of each other for the most part (e.g. Alice can license people without Bob's permission, and Bob can license people without Alice's permission). If Alice licenses Bob, OTOH, then Alice retains the copyright and Bob is merely being allowed to do things that would infringe but for the license. Alice can license Bob exclusively, in which case she's not allowed to license anyone else (this is similar to some aspects of an assignment), or non-exclusively, in which case she can license other people as well.
So again, what you've been saying is that you would only permit nonexclusive licensing, or possibly joint copyrights as well.
And this is just a bad idea. It undermines the copyright system, because investors are not going to want to pay as much for non-exclusivity, thus reducing the economic incentive to authors. And it is paternalistic to authors, because you are only doing this because you are not treating them as adults who are free to make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them.
One might say that art is intrinsically tied to and part of a person.... Artwork is the core of an artist's identity
One might say any fool thing. But one would be wrong. And as an artist who later got into copyright law, I assure you, my art isn't at the core of my identity at all. Stop entertaining these stupid romantic notions. They're responsible for much of the problems of copyright in the first place. Art is not intrinsically tied to a person. And even if it were, it would be idiotic to treat it in that respect. Frankly, the non-rivalrous nature of works, their tendency to spread far and wide, the possibility of creating derivative works -- these all strongly indicate that art is not tied down to anyone, but is naturally meant to be liberated from anyone's control.
What you're actually saying is that you would prohibit assignments and exclusive licensing.
Again, this would seriously diminish the value of the copyright to the author, and thus reduce the economic incentive present. And again for no better reason than to paternalistically protect authors from themselves, when they do not need any such protection.
Think of it this way: Alice owns a parcel of land, and Bob wants to build a house. If Alice merely rents him the land, but won't sell it, then Bob will be unwilling to build a house there, since it would become useless to him when the rental period is over. Nor could he find a buyer for the house, since it would be just as useless to everyone else. It is only of use to Alice, and since she would control the underlying land, the ball is entirely in her court. She could buy it for a dollar, and Bob would basically have to agree, as there would be no better alternative for him. Likewise, if Bob wants to build a house in the countryside with no neighbors for miles, then he is going to be frustrated if Alice only sells him a tiny parcel and retains the right to put up a whole subdivision around him.
Both sides need maximum freedom to bargain in order for the subject of the bargain to be of maximum value to anyone.
Stop trying to treat authors as though they were children. If an author refuses to sell his copyright completely, and instead insists on a deal where he keeps significant rights, etc. then he is perfectly free to do so. He may not get any takers, but that's his problem. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with a publisher trying to buy a copyright in toto. If no one will agree of their own free will, the publisher will have to make a better deal or quit.
But where two parties can come to a mutual agreement, who the hell are you to tell them that they can't! It is presumptuous and misguided. Stop it.
If your concern is to help authors, then you should ensure that alienability is among their rights. That is, if an author decides that he wants to outright sell his rights in a work permanently, then he should be free to do so, just as he can sell a car, or land, etc. To prevent him from doing this is extremely paternalistic. Nor would it seem to be particularly efficient: what if the author really does want to get rid of the work, and not have to ever deal with it or think about it again? Having to relicense everything annually could be a big headache in terms of transactional costs. Further, it would be unfair to other parties to do that, as they are often just as, or even more responsible for the economic success of the work as the author. It's fine for the parties to negotiate an agreement whereby the author shares in the profits. But it's not fine for the author to be able to push risk onto the publisher, and then demand a windfall later on if the work has become successful. To mandate that would be to remove much investment in creative works. Given that that investment is less common than authors, that doesn't seem wise.
For authors to have rights means that they must also have the right to do things which are foolish, and perhaps not in their own long-term self-interest, but which they nevertheless wish to do. It is not your place, or anyone else's to protect them from themselves in ordinary circumstances.
Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech.
It's funny you say that. Mere anonymous speech is, in fact, protected. If there is something more to it, e.g. libel, then the anonymity might be lost, but otherwise it is as protected by the First Amendment as any other speech.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject in Talley v. California, 362 US 60 (1960) (internal citations omitted):
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity.
Again, sometimes it is necessary to pierce anonymity. But not all the time.
Here is a fairly simple yes-or-no, once again: Should the creators be allowed to control their creations?
That cannot be answered yes or no.
The best answer I can give you is this: Yes, IF, the creators want to (they should be free to sell their copyrights), and IF giving them control -- which raises questions of how much control, and how long it lasts, and to whom it applies, etc. -- is in the best interests of society. But if you merely want to give creators absolute control, forever, merely because they are creators and not for any better reason, then I would say 'No.'
You should probably try reading my earlier post instead of dismissing it out of hand. Some issues are too complex to be dealt with in a simplistic manner. Sorry if this shatters your illusions about the world, but it's true.
Just remember, that whatever you say about the creators of music, will also apply to the creators of software... If recorded music can be repeated without limitations (which, you say, is protected by the Free Speech), then, surely, source-code (GPL or not) can be shared likewise.
That does not bother me in the least.
However, do note that copyright policy needn't be uniform for every single type of work, or person involved, etc. In fact, it never has been! We can easily say that musical works are copyrightable but that architectural works are not. We can easily say that software copyrights last for x years and choreographic copyrights last for y years. We can easily say that natural persons acting noncommercially can never infringe, but that non-natural persons, or anyone acting commercially, can infringe.
So don't think that this 'likewise' principle is set in stone. It has never even existed in the copyright realm. That's why anyone is free to make a cover of a musical work, paying a small statutory license fee, but there is no similar right to make a cover of a literary work. Or why it's indisputably lawful to make backups of copies of computer software that you own, but not indisputably lawful to make backup copies of a movie from an encrypted DVD.
I like the GPL (and I'm not a programmer -- I'm an artist turned copyright lawyer) but I'd be willing to sacrifice it if there was no other way to have the best possible copyright law. A good default situation is more important.
Please, don't change the subject. We were talking about creators, you are switching to inventors.
When we're talking about issues of policy at such a high level, there is no material difference between copyrights and patents. They diverge later on. But if you like, imagine the first person to create the story of star-crossed lovers, or the first person to create the hero's journey story. If you care so much about creators, then why should creators of an idea be treated any less well than creators of a specific expression? The answer lies in not caring about creators, but caring about society as a whole.
The natural state of speech is to be free. Copyright is an artificial monopoly -- it must be justified, or else the natural state of the world should prevail.
It is possible to justify copyright, but copyright is by no means necessary or inherently desirable. Certainly fairness is irrelevant: copyright is a wholly utilitarian construct.
The members of the public have an inherent right of free speech, inclusive of repeating the speech of others. Further, only they can create a government to govern them, since it has to be empowered by their consent in order to be at all legitimate. Finally, they are self-interested, just as the subset of the public consisting of authors is.
It is in the public interest 1) to have as many original works created and published as possible; 2) to have as many derivative works created and published as possible, and; 3) to have as few restrictions on those works as possible.
Thus, an ideal world would be one in which all the potential authors were actual authors, all busily creating works, and everyone could use those works in any way they liked, without restriction, and without having to pay. Sadly, we don't live in that world, but we can strive to approach it.
Our baseline for comparison is a world without copyright. From history we know that some original works would be created and published, more derivative works would be, and there would be no restrictions at all.
If we imposed a very brief, very limited restriction on works, by means of giving authors an artificial, temporary, limited monopoly on their works, then we might encourage them to produce more. On the other hand, we would see a decline in the public interest vis a vis derivative works and a lack of restrictions. So if the creation of works happened to increase dramatically, and the other two only declined slightly, then the gain would outweigh the losses and we'd see a net increase in the public benefit. That is, for all the bad parts of copyright, it would nevertheless leave the public better off in the end.
However, what if we granted a somewhat different monopoly? Then we might see that the gain was outweighed by the loss, and there was a net public detriment.
As it happens, we know that there are many different incentives which cause authors to create works, such as the fame, or doing art for art's sake, etc. Most of these are natural, and exist regardless of copyright. Copyright is really only an economic incentive: it doesn't cause works to be profitable, and it doesn't cause all money ever involved with a work to go to the author. Instead, it causes whatever money could be made from certain activities involving a work (e.g. making copies, putting on public performances) to go to the copyright holder, instead of to someone else. If a work is a flop, then that money will be zero, even with a copyright. If the work is a commercial success, then instead of everyone getting a piece of the pie, it chiefly goes to the copyright holder, who is initially the author, unless the author decides to sell that right (which he might, if he feels it is in his best interests to do so). We vest copyright initially in the author because that's who we are trying to incentivize the most. If the money went to his next door neighbor, then the author probably wouldn't bother creating more works. It's not about fairness, it's just practical.
Well, anyway, copyright is an economic incentive. The way that creative work publishing works, we know that in the vast vast majority of cases, any given work has no economic value at all. Of the remaining fraction, we know that the in the vast vast majority of cases, those works' value is 'front-loaded.' That is, it all comes quite rapidly upon publication in a given medium.
For example, when you make a movie, and release it in theaters, you get the biggest box office take on opening weekend. Then it typically drops off, and within 3 to 6 weeks, it's no longer profitable enough to remain in theater
I'm not saying that (C) is a GoodThing(tm), but it provides a similar barrier as to what existed before (though it is a legal barrier, not a financial one).
Copyright does nothing of the sort. Remember that the costs of publishing are exactly the same for both the lawful publisher and the pirate publisher. And that if the pirate has to remain underground, then his costs are likely to be higher. Thus ten thousand pressed CDs are cheaper than ten thousand burned CDRs. The Internet is cheap, but nothing prevents the lawful publisher from using it too. Handwritten manuscripts are expensive to pirate, but just as expensive to publish in the first place.
The only cost unique to the lawful publisher is paying for the copyright (either buying it, or licensing it, or producing the work that it took to get it).
The RIAA is using a law that gives them a 5x damages rule (it multiplies a 30,000$ damage cap to 150,000$ if a test is met - that's 5x). The only have to prove the violation was 'willful' to get that multiple. The standard to prove willfullness is much, much easier than the standard I needed to justify 3x damages.
No, you're wrong. The way that statutory damages in copyright work is that there is a range and that the court determines whatever the just amount of damages is within that range.
For ordinary infringement, the range is $750 to $30,000 per work. For willful infringement, the ceiling goes up so that the range is $750 to $150,000. For "innocent" infringement, the floor goes down so that the range is $200 to $30,000. And you can only be in one of those ranges at a time.
So there is no multiplier. Even if the plaintiff can prove willfulness, the court can still decide that the damage award should be $750, because they can pretty much do whatever they want to do within the range provided.
Even if that was actually assumed the case, there's no "verified copyright claim or demarcation" on any file downloaded. Think of the absurdity that would be required to require every individual downloading any file be aware in advance in all cases of all copyrighted works whether something is indeed copyrighted. All the spoofs, all the similar titles, all the varying content in differing though similarly named files. All the files in public domain. Enforcing that would literally be laying a world-wide-web legal minefield.
Well, good news! That is exactly what the law is.
Civil copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter whether you meant to infringe or not. It doesn't matter whether you knew there was a copyright or not. It doesn't matter if there was literally nothing you could have possibly done to determine whether you were going to infringe, and you didn't mean to infringe at all, and would not have done so, had you known. Mens rea is simply not a factor whatsoever.
In fact, even if you are the most "innocent" infringer ever (that is, still liable, but not even so much as negligent) then the statutory damages that might be imposed against you are still at least $200 per work, and can go no lower.
Strict liability is uncommon but it is known at times. Statutory rape, for example, where even if it was impossible for you to know that the person you had sex with was underage, and that that person even lied to you about it, you're still guilty. Some traffic laws use it too.
But sharing it with your closest 200,000 friends on the internet? Gray area. . . as long as you weren't profitting from it, right?
Then the courts decided that, even if there's no money, you still "profit" by letting people download from you, because you get "street cred" (or whatever).They blew the one flimsy legal leg they had to stand on.
No, they still have a solid legal argument, they're just blowing it on other things, like suing the right person, and not looking horrible in the eyes of the public.
The Clear and Present Danger standard, which is the trickier of the two
Actually that was replaced long ago by Brandenburg's standard wherein the advocacy of lawless action may only be prohibited where that speech is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action, and the speech is likely to produce that action.
Anyway, there's others as well.
Also, it is 'falsely shouting fire, etc.' Truthfully shouting fire is not only lawful, it's a good deed.
I've got a quasi-legal project (if YouTube is legal than my project is legal)
A suggestion for you: Read 17 USC 512. Read it very, very carefully. Read every single line. Take notes if it helps. Then you'll know why the web page here is of vital importance to you. And you'll know why YouTube's legality depends on more issues than simply existing.
It could arguably be contributory infringement or inducement. But the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA do protect search engine providers as well as several other sorts of ISPs.
Consumers do not have an innate right to consume music/movies/etc. That is one part of the equation many people miss.
That's not quite accurate.
There is a natural right of free speech and press, and this encompasses respeaking or reprinting what another person has said or printed. There is copyright, but that is an artificial right, granted by government, which in order to be legitimate, must serve the public interest.
There is not a right to force authors to create works, however, nor is there a right to force authors to publish those works or otherwise make them known to others. But if a work is created and if it does come into the knowledge of others, then there is a natural right to do with those works as you will, subject only to restrictions that you -- via the government which draws its power from your consent to be governed, and which is obligated to act in your interests -- impose upon yourself for your own overall benefit.
So while we can't go around ordering the MPAA et al to make movies for us, it's easily possible to enjoy those movies freely if the MPAA willingly makes them. We need only change the law.
The real issue is what law would best serve the public interest. Immediate gratification is nice and all, but it can be delayed a bit if the eventual payoff is worth it.
Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".
Received a reply a few hours later, and they removed both the offending picture, and the thumbnail/link to it. Granted, it probably just went up somewhere else the next day, but the point still remains that it's beyond easy to have material removed using the DMCA.
Actually, looking at your story, it sounds as though it is overly easy to use the DMCA. Only copyright holders and their authorized agents may invoke the take-down provisions of the DMCA, and in that case of a photograph, that will typically be the photographer, not the subject. The mere fact that the girl was in the photograph probably means absolutely nothing. Now, it might be that there is a publicity right at issue, but the DMCA offers no remedies for that. Basically, given what you described, you probably acted inappropriately, and maybe tortiously.
Slashdot Mirror
You, I'm going to go a bit further and call you an idiot.
You actually quoted this: a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) But you failed to actually look to see what the definition was. I can't let that pass.
But let's now do the work you should have done before posting like an idiot.
The definition of a public broadcasting entity is to be found at 17 USC 118(g). It says:
So there are two things that can qualify. Noncommercial educational broadcast stations as defined at 47 US 397, and nonprofit institutions or organizations doing the things described at 17 USC 118(c)(2).
47 USC 397 says, at subsection (6):
17 USC 118(c)(2) is the subsection where she has to be a nonprofit institution or organization doing:
Which humorously brings us to: And thus full circle.
But in any event, it is clear enough that this woman does not apply for a part of the law that is intended to protect PBS stations and the like. For someone posting on a geek board, you don't seem very good at it.
First, let's not use the term 'intellectual property,' since, after all, it isn't generally clear what various people mean by that, and it is usually confusing, probably deliberately so. I can construct some examples to illustrate this, but it's easier if we just nip it in the bud now.
Thus, you're saying that when you buy a copy (i.e. a tangible medium of expression in which a work has been fixed) that certain exclusive rights of the copyright holder are licensed along with it.
Well, the copyright holder can only grant licenses for the exclusive rights he has. He cannot license rights outside of his control any more than I could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We know from reading 17 USC 106, what most of these rights are. We know as well that these rights are reduced somewhat due to the effect of 17 USC 107-122 and others, as applicable.
But what rights would be licensed with an ordinary purchase of, say, a book?
There is no exclusive right in copyright to read a book, so not that. There is an exclusive right to distribute the book, including selling it used, but 17 USC 109 says that so long as the book was lawfully made, the owner of the copy (as opposed to the copyright holder) can distribute that copy however he wants, so not that either. Sure, I can't write a sequel to the book without infringing on the copyright, if there is one, but why would the copyright holder license that right to mere readers anyway? No one expects him to.
So you're wrong.
The right to read a book does not come from the copyright holder. Rather, the right to do anything at all with the book comes from personal property law: you buy it, you own it, and that means you can do anything lawful with it. If I go to the store and buy a brick, it is exactly the same as if I go to the store and buy a book. I can use the brick to prop up my bed, or to build a wall, or as a doorstop, or anything else you can lawfully do with a brick. I can't hit people with it (usually) because it's illegal, but generally my rights stem from me owning the tangible object. Likewise, with a book, when I buy a copy -- which is what invariably happens -- I own it like a brick, and can use it for the same purposes. The trick is that if it is copyrighted, then it is illegal to do certain specific things with it -- e.g. make more copies, write a sequel -- without permission. Reading is not on that list, so I can read it merely because I bought it.
all the little government warnings on CDs and DVDs that spell out your rights? That's effectively a license.
Wrong.
Those are actually attempts to restate the law. The law says that if a work is copyrighted and if you infringe on that copyright, and the infringement meets certain standards, then it can be a criminal act with certain penalties, and infringement consists of certain things, such as making copies. Of course, they're often incorrect or misleading, but then the movie studios are not obligated to be accurate about this stuff.
Having looked on google quickly, here's what one version of the warning on a DVD says:
As I said, it's misleading. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is illegal, but only during the copyright term, which is finite, and only if there is no applicable exception. But they leave those bits out because they would prefer to scare you. You can still unauthorizedly sell the DVD, for example, pursuant to 17 USC 109 which describes the first sale doctrine.
The second sentence, which is most of the warning, just reminds you that criminal copyright infringement is a federal cr
But if I plant a tree in my yard you don't have the right to take the fruit even if I don't eat it myself.
But if that tree in your yard increases the value of my property next door merely due to proximity, I do have a right to that value, and you don't, even though you're responsible for it.
Merely creating a work does not entitle you to a monopoly over it. You cannot be forced to create the work, and you cannot be forced to publish it. But otherwise you have no rights in that work other than what the rest of society sees fit to give you according to their own self-interest.
You want free stuff. Everybody wants free stuff.
And? Wanting free stuff is actually a very strong argument in the world of copyright policy. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the only reason we have copyright at all is because people want free stuff. Readers want free books, authors want free copyrights. It's a utilitarian system and everyone is in it for themselves. So long as you can look beyond your immediate gratification to your long-term gratification, it is possible to reconcile wanting free stuff with accepting a temporary limit on it... so long as the limit results in proportionately more free stuff (otherwise, why bother waiting?).
You do not have the right to force people agree with your views of property law.
But he can advocate in favor of his views on copyright law (which is not a branch of property law, and not even related), and should he be successful, he can get those laws changed accordingly. Authors do not have a right to copyrights, or to particular forms of copyright law, after all. We happen to have these laws, but nothing says that we must. Nor, aside from a couple of exceptions, does anything say that if we choose to have them, that they must be a certain way.
More precisely, it means it is non-actionable for consumers to noncommercially make recordings. It doesn't actually say that it's legal, nor does it say that the recordings must be noncommercial. Copyright law really deals more allowing or prohibiting certain actions, more than it has to do with the products of those actions.
The AHRA isn't strangely worded, it is cunningly deliberate.
If it was not infringing to make copies under the AHRA, then those copies would be lawfully made. That means that they would qualify for first sale. While you couldn't make the copies on a commercial basis, you could probably get away with selling them if the making and selling were far enough apart that a court wouldn't be convinced by an argument to connect the two.
The story I hear is that this little bit of wording was changed from the more common 'not infringing' language by the RIAA at the last minute, and that the copyright lawyers working for Congress didn't cotton on to it.
The key phrase is "No action may be brought under this title". It doesn't preclude bringing action under other laws (DMCA, Copyright Act, NET Act, etc)
Actually, the Copyright Act, the AHRA, the NET Act, the DMCA, etc. all are part of Title 17 of the US Code. If it is 17 USC anything, then it is part of that title. So yeah, if you make a copy in compliance with the AHRA, you cannot be sued for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. However, your ability to make that copy make nevertheless run afoul of the DMCA since the AHRA only makes infringement non-actionable, not circumvention, which is something else entirely.
No, you just buy the CD. Outside of Internet distributed music, no one is trying to license music to consumers, or even to claim it. It's just nerds who think that software EULAs are normal or useful (they're not even necessary, and AFAICT not helpful to anyone) who fall for this licensing claptrap.
When you buy a tangible copy -- a paperback book, a CD, a DVD, a poster, etc. -- then you're just buying it. I've heard of one or two attempts otherwise, but if it happens at all, it is astoundingly rare.
Even though it's obvious to everyone that what we're really doing is licensing the IP on a limited basis, with no right to redistribution, they're still trying to hold on to that physical media gravy train and claiming that duplication without redistribution is a crime...Something that could only possibly be the case if the product in question was a physical thing.
You're wrong, actually.
When you buy a CD (or a tape, or a book) you only buy the physical object. The copyright holder does not license anything to you; in fact they cannot license anything to you that would be of interest here. Remember that a copyright isn't a right to do absolutely anything involving a work. Rather, copyright is a bundle of rights to prohibit others from doing certain, specific things. If someone does something that isn't on that list, then the copyright doesn't apply, and unless some other law does, then it is legal to do it.
In the case of a musical work and sound recording fixed in a CD, the copyright holder has the following rights: He can prohibit you from making a copy. He can prohibit you from making a derivative. He can prohibit you from distributing copies. He can prohibit you from publicly performing or publicly displaying the musical work. He can prohibit you from digitally transmitting the sound recording.
That's it. Anything not on that is is not regulated by copyright. That includes privately performing the work (i.e. listening to it) There are also a number of exceptions where even certain things on that list are not regulated by copyright under certain circumstances (e.g. if the CD is lawfully made, you can sell it, but you can't rent it).
Pretty much no one licenses anything to ordinary retail consumers with the exception of things provided over the Internet (since you necessarily have to make a copy of it just to download it, whatever it is), and computer software (which is nonsensical, as there is no reason to bother doing it that way).
Meh. That's why there are laws against joyriding apart from laws about car theft.
Namely the limitation I suggested was not to prevent an author from assigning redistribution rights, but to say that they could not give up their right to continue to assign more redistribution rights.
... Artwork is the core of an artist's identity
I did understand you, you're just tripping over a term of art. First, remember that rights in copyright are exclusive rights; that is a right to exclude. They are not rights to actually do anything, only to prevent others from doing something. Second, an assignment (also called a transfer) is different from a license. An assignment is when you confer on someone else the same exclusive right you have; sometimes this consists of sharing the right equally, and sometimes this consists of giving that right to the other person and losing it yourself. A license is when you retain a right, but rather than exclude someone under it, you don't exclude them, allowing them to do whatever they want within the bounds of your lack of exclusion.
E.g. if Alice has a copyright, and assigns it to Bob, then Bob has the copyright, and Alice has nothing. Or Alice could make Bob a joint copyright holder, in which case they can each act autonomously of each other for the most part (e.g. Alice can license people without Bob's permission, and Bob can license people without Alice's permission). If Alice licenses Bob, OTOH, then Alice retains the copyright and Bob is merely being allowed to do things that would infringe but for the license. Alice can license Bob exclusively, in which case she's not allowed to license anyone else (this is similar to some aspects of an assignment), or non-exclusively, in which case she can license other people as well.
So again, what you've been saying is that you would only permit nonexclusive licensing, or possibly joint copyrights as well.
And this is just a bad idea. It undermines the copyright system, because investors are not going to want to pay as much for non-exclusivity, thus reducing the economic incentive to authors. And it is paternalistic to authors, because you are only doing this because you are not treating them as adults who are free to make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them.
One might say that art is intrinsically tied to and part of a person.
One might say any fool thing. But one would be wrong. And as an artist who later got into copyright law, I assure you, my art isn't at the core of my identity at all. Stop entertaining these stupid romantic notions. They're responsible for much of the problems of copyright in the first place. Art is not intrinsically tied to a person. And even if it were, it would be idiotic to treat it in that respect. Frankly, the non-rivalrous nature of works, their tendency to spread far and wide, the possibility of creating derivative works -- these all strongly indicate that art is not tied down to anyone, but is naturally meant to be liberated from anyone's control.
What you're actually saying is that you would prohibit assignments and exclusive licensing.
Again, this would seriously diminish the value of the copyright to the author, and thus reduce the economic incentive present. And again for no better reason than to paternalistically protect authors from themselves, when they do not need any such protection.
Think of it this way: Alice owns a parcel of land, and Bob wants to build a house. If Alice merely rents him the land, but won't sell it, then Bob will be unwilling to build a house there, since it would become useless to him when the rental period is over. Nor could he find a buyer for the house, since it would be just as useless to everyone else. It is only of use to Alice, and since she would control the underlying land, the ball is entirely in her court. She could buy it for a dollar, and Bob would basically have to agree, as there would be no better alternative for him. Likewise, if Bob wants to build a house in the countryside with no neighbors for miles, then he is going to be frustrated if Alice only sells him a tiny parcel and retains the right to put up a whole subdivision around him.
Both sides need maximum freedom to bargain in order for the subject of the bargain to be of maximum value to anyone.
Stop trying to treat authors as though they were children. If an author refuses to sell his copyright completely, and instead insists on a deal where he keeps significant rights, etc. then he is perfectly free to do so. He may not get any takers, but that's his problem. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with a publisher trying to buy a copyright in toto. If no one will agree of their own free will, the publisher will have to make a better deal or quit.
But where two parties can come to a mutual agreement, who the hell are you to tell them that they can't! It is presumptuous and misguided. Stop it.
I disagree.
If your concern is to help authors, then you should ensure that alienability is among their rights. That is, if an author decides that he wants to outright sell his rights in a work permanently, then he should be free to do so, just as he can sell a car, or land, etc. To prevent him from doing this is extremely paternalistic. Nor would it seem to be particularly efficient: what if the author really does want to get rid of the work, and not have to ever deal with it or think about it again? Having to relicense everything annually could be a big headache in terms of transactional costs. Further, it would be unfair to other parties to do that, as they are often just as, or even more responsible for the economic success of the work as the author. It's fine for the parties to negotiate an agreement whereby the author shares in the profits. But it's not fine for the author to be able to push risk onto the publisher, and then demand a windfall later on if the work has become successful. To mandate that would be to remove much investment in creative works. Given that that investment is less common than authors, that doesn't seem wise.
For authors to have rights means that they must also have the right to do things which are foolish, and perhaps not in their own long-term self-interest, but which they nevertheless wish to do. It is not your place, or anyone else's to protect them from themselves in ordinary circumstances.
It's funny you say that. Mere anonymous speech is, in fact, protected. If there is something more to it, e.g. libel, then the anonymity might be lost, but otherwise it is as protected by the First Amendment as any other speech.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject in Talley v. California, 362 US 60 (1960) (internal citations omitted):
Again, sometimes it is necessary to pierce anonymity. But not all the time.
Here is a fairly simple yes-or-no, once again: Should the creators be allowed to control their creations?
That cannot be answered yes or no.
The best answer I can give you is this: Yes, IF, the creators want to (they should be free to sell their copyrights), and IF giving them control -- which raises questions of how much control, and how long it lasts, and to whom it applies, etc. -- is in the best interests of society. But if you merely want to give creators absolute control, forever, merely because they are creators and not for any better reason, then I would say 'No.'
You should probably try reading my earlier post instead of dismissing it out of hand. Some issues are too complex to be dealt with in a simplistic manner. Sorry if this shatters your illusions about the world, but it's true.
Just remember, that whatever you say about the creators of music, will also apply to the creators of software... If recorded music can be repeated without limitations (which, you say, is protected by the Free Speech), then, surely, source-code (GPL or not) can be shared likewise.
That does not bother me in the least.
However, do note that copyright policy needn't be uniform for every single type of work, or person involved, etc. In fact, it never has been! We can easily say that musical works are copyrightable but that architectural works are not. We can easily say that software copyrights last for x years and choreographic copyrights last for y years. We can easily say that natural persons acting noncommercially can never infringe, but that non-natural persons, or anyone acting commercially, can infringe.
So don't think that this 'likewise' principle is set in stone. It has never even existed in the copyright realm. That's why anyone is free to make a cover of a musical work, paying a small statutory license fee, but there is no similar right to make a cover of a literary work. Or why it's indisputably lawful to make backups of copies of computer software that you own, but not indisputably lawful to make backup copies of a movie from an encrypted DVD.
I like the GPL (and I'm not a programmer -- I'm an artist turned copyright lawyer) but I'd be willing to sacrifice it if there was no other way to have the best possible copyright law. A good default situation is more important.
Please, don't change the subject. We were talking about creators, you are switching to inventors.
When we're talking about issues of policy at such a high level, there is no material difference between copyrights and patents. They diverge later on. But if you like, imagine the first person to create the story of star-crossed lovers, or the first person to create the hero's journey story. If you care so much about creators, then why should creators of an idea be treated any less well than creators of a specific expression? The answer lies in not caring about creators, but caring about society as a whole.
No, the earlier poster was correct.
The natural state of speech is to be free. Copyright is an artificial monopoly -- it must be justified, or else the natural state of the world should prevail.
It is possible to justify copyright, but copyright is by no means necessary or inherently desirable. Certainly fairness is irrelevant: copyright is a wholly utilitarian construct.
The members of the public have an inherent right of free speech, inclusive of repeating the speech of others. Further, only they can create a government to govern them, since it has to be empowered by their consent in order to be at all legitimate. Finally, they are self-interested, just as the subset of the public consisting of authors is.
It is in the public interest 1) to have as many original works created and published as possible; 2) to have as many derivative works created and published as possible, and; 3) to have as few restrictions on those works as possible.
Thus, an ideal world would be one in which all the potential authors were actual authors, all busily creating works, and everyone could use those works in any way they liked, without restriction, and without having to pay. Sadly, we don't live in that world, but we can strive to approach it.
Our baseline for comparison is a world without copyright. From history we know that some original works would be created and published, more derivative works would be, and there would be no restrictions at all.
If we imposed a very brief, very limited restriction on works, by means of giving authors an artificial, temporary, limited monopoly on their works, then we might encourage them to produce more. On the other hand, we would see a decline in the public interest vis a vis derivative works and a lack of restrictions. So if the creation of works happened to increase dramatically, and the other two only declined slightly, then the gain would outweigh the losses and we'd see a net increase in the public benefit. That is, for all the bad parts of copyright, it would nevertheless leave the public better off in the end.
However, what if we granted a somewhat different monopoly? Then we might see that the gain was outweighed by the loss, and there was a net public detriment.
As it happens, we know that there are many different incentives which cause authors to create works, such as the fame, or doing art for art's sake, etc. Most of these are natural, and exist regardless of copyright. Copyright is really only an economic incentive: it doesn't cause works to be profitable, and it doesn't cause all money ever involved with a work to go to the author. Instead, it causes whatever money could be made from certain activities involving a work (e.g. making copies, putting on public performances) to go to the copyright holder, instead of to someone else. If a work is a flop, then that money will be zero, even with a copyright. If the work is a commercial success, then instead of everyone getting a piece of the pie, it chiefly goes to the copyright holder, who is initially the author, unless the author decides to sell that right (which he might, if he feels it is in his best interests to do so). We vest copyright initially in the author because that's who we are trying to incentivize the most. If the money went to his next door neighbor, then the author probably wouldn't bother creating more works. It's not about fairness, it's just practical.
Well, anyway, copyright is an economic incentive. The way that creative work publishing works, we know that in the vast vast majority of cases, any given work has no economic value at all. Of the remaining fraction, we know that the in the vast vast majority of cases, those works' value is 'front-loaded.' That is, it all comes quite rapidly upon publication in a given medium.
For example, when you make a movie, and release it in theaters, you get the biggest box office take on opening weekend. Then it typically drops off, and within 3 to 6 weeks, it's no longer profitable enough to remain in theater
I'm not saying that (C) is a GoodThing(tm), but it provides a similar barrier as to what existed before (though it is a legal barrier, not a financial one).
Copyright does nothing of the sort. Remember that the costs of publishing are exactly the same for both the lawful publisher and the pirate publisher. And that if the pirate has to remain underground, then his costs are likely to be higher. Thus ten thousand pressed CDs are cheaper than ten thousand burned CDRs. The Internet is cheap, but nothing prevents the lawful publisher from using it too. Handwritten manuscripts are expensive to pirate, but just as expensive to publish in the first place.
The only cost unique to the lawful publisher is paying for the copyright (either buying it, or licensing it, or producing the work that it took to get it).
The ease of copying thing is a specious argument.
The RIAA is using a law that gives them a 5x damages rule (it multiplies a 30,000$ damage cap to 150,000$ if a test is met - that's 5x). The only have to prove the violation was 'willful' to get that multiple. The standard to prove willfullness is much, much easier than the standard I needed to justify 3x damages.
No, you're wrong. The way that statutory damages in copyright work is that there is a range and that the court determines whatever the just amount of damages is within that range.
For ordinary infringement, the range is $750 to $30,000 per work. For willful infringement, the ceiling goes up so that the range is $750 to $150,000. For "innocent" infringement, the floor goes down so that the range is $200 to $30,000. And you can only be in one of those ranges at a time.
So there is no multiplier. Even if the plaintiff can prove willfulness, the court can still decide that the damage award should be $750, because they can pretty much do whatever they want to do within the range provided.
Even if that was actually assumed the case, there's no "verified copyright claim or demarcation" on any file downloaded. Think of the absurdity that would be required to require every individual downloading any file be aware in advance in all cases of all copyrighted works whether something is indeed copyrighted. All the spoofs, all the similar titles, all the varying content in differing though similarly named files. All the files in public domain. Enforcing that would literally be laying a world-wide-web legal minefield.
Well, good news! That is exactly what the law is.
Civil copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter whether you meant to infringe or not. It doesn't matter whether you knew there was a copyright or not. It doesn't matter if there was literally nothing you could have possibly done to determine whether you were going to infringe, and you didn't mean to infringe at all, and would not have done so, had you known. Mens rea is simply not a factor whatsoever.
In fact, even if you are the most "innocent" infringer ever (that is, still liable, but not even so much as negligent) then the statutory damages that might be imposed against you are still at least $200 per work, and can go no lower.
Strict liability is uncommon but it is known at times. Statutory rape, for example, where even if it was impossible for you to know that the person you had sex with was underage, and that that person even lied to you about it, you're still guilty. Some traffic laws use it too.
But sharing it with your closest 200,000 friends on the internet? Gray area.
. . as long as you weren't profitting from it, right?
Then the courts decided that, even if there's no money, you still "profit" by letting people download from you, because you get "street cred" (or whatever).They blew the one flimsy legal leg they had to stand on.
No, they still have a solid legal argument, they're just blowing it on other things, like suing the right person, and not looking horrible in the eyes of the public.
The Clear and Present Danger standard, which is the trickier of the two
Actually that was replaced long ago by Brandenburg's standard wherein the advocacy of lawless action may only be prohibited where that speech is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action, and the speech is likely to produce that action.
Anyway, there's others as well.
Also, it is 'falsely shouting fire, etc.' Truthfully shouting fire is not only lawful, it's a good deed.
I've got a quasi-legal project (if YouTube is legal than my project is legal)
A suggestion for you: Read 17 USC 512. Read it very, very carefully. Read every single line. Take notes if it helps. Then you'll know why the web page here is of vital importance to you. And you'll know why YouTube's legality depends on more issues than simply existing.
It could arguably be contributory infringement or inducement. But the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA do protect search engine providers as well as several other sorts of ISPs.
Consumers do not have an innate right to consume music/movies/etc. That is one part of the equation many people miss.
That's not quite accurate.
There is a natural right of free speech and press, and this encompasses respeaking or reprinting what another person has said or printed. There is copyright, but that is an artificial right, granted by government, which in order to be legitimate, must serve the public interest.
There is not a right to force authors to create works, however, nor is there a right to force authors to publish those works or otherwise make them known to others. But if a work is created and if it does come into the knowledge of others, then there is a natural right to do with those works as you will, subject only to restrictions that you -- via the government which draws its power from your consent to be governed, and which is obligated to act in your interests -- impose upon yourself for your own overall benefit.
So while we can't go around ordering the MPAA et al to make movies for us, it's easily possible to enjoy those movies freely if the MPAA willingly makes them. We need only change the law.
The real issue is what law would best serve the public interest. Immediate gratification is nice and all, but it can be delayed a bit if the eventual payoff is worth it.
Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".
Received a reply a few hours later, and they removed both the offending picture, and the thumbnail/link to it. Granted, it probably just went up somewhere else the next day, but the point still remains that it's beyond easy to have material removed using the DMCA.
Actually, looking at your story, it sounds as though it is overly easy to use the DMCA. Only copyright holders and their authorized agents may invoke the take-down provisions of the DMCA, and in that case of a photograph, that will typically be the photographer, not the subject. The mere fact that the girl was in the photograph probably means absolutely nothing. Now, it might be that there is a publicity right at issue, but the DMCA offers no remedies for that. Basically, given what you described, you probably acted inappropriately, and maybe tortiously.