>Unless, of course, people are fooled into buying licenses to view content, rather than the >content itself.
Of course, in most countries in the world, you don't need any license to "view" most conent at all. You may also wonder how, apart from the license, how the consumer would get hold of the copy of the work as that is also needed, a contract that allows you to view it (even if required) would be of litle use without a copy of the actual work as well.
>Yup. Its funny how a lot of people in just about every MMOs forget that one.
Or how people forget that in many countries there is consumer protection laws that doesn't allow for such contract terms when selling something to a consumer. Never stops to be funny either.
>Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away, >without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess >it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft?
Why would you want to do that and for what purpose?
>Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft.
Not really, even if you would go arround making up your own definition of "theft" (for whatever purpose). Just because A->B doesn't mean that B->A.
I still don't see your point though, even if it would work out by changing all defintions and laws to suit your purpose. Were do you you want to get at? Are you wanting to get rid of copyright laws and instead change the definition of theft and then apply that instead of copyright? What would be the point of that? Copyright law allready tells what types of copying, distribution and so on that is legal and what is illegal, you don't need to involve other types of illegal activities (such as theft). besides, no matter how you define your theft, you will most likely not end up either covering all types of current infrignement or doing so without extending current infringment acts.
>That'd make an interesting study - have a group of teenagers asked not to pirate for a >period of six months or so, and a control group which maintains normal habits, then >analyze how much each group spends on music.
And if they spend more, what do they spend less on. Add in things like movies, games and also non purchable costs such as going to the movie, concerts and so on and see how it is all affected. Then we are starting to get closer to any effects and who it affects and in what way. After all, most people have limited budgets and money can't be made out of thin air to suddenly pay for more music (or whatever).
>a) some people commit actual crimes (like, the kind with victims) on the internet,
Yet in almost no country does the post office keep track and logs of who mail who despite crimes both in the past and present probably occur thorugh mail. Further, many countries does not have any law requiring ISPs to keep logs, yet they do it anyway.
>b) there are good technical reasons, ie statistical data used for load-balancing purposes, >network expansion, upgrade scheduling etc, for keeping logs (although obviously, stripping >out identifying data ought to be done wherever this doesn't interfere with that purpose);
Which would be about every time or almost every time.
>(c) to some extent, keeping "logs" as such is an unavoidable consequence of doing what an >ISP does. Functions like billing depend on logs. If they didn't keep logs, what recourse >do you have if they bill you for 100GB over-quota usage during the month?
Which would only ever be important if you are billed by ammount of traffic which, at least in my country is almost non existant. Further, it requires no point in logging the IP number for example, you only need to keep track of ammount of data used (like electricity companies do for example).
>Replaces ToS and Eulas? How about at-start contracts with well-worded phrases. A paraphrase >at the top would do wonders.
Why replace them at all? Why would there be such an important need for them to start with? Appearantly most every other bussiness type seems to manage quite good without any at all.
>Not bad when you consider one of the guys was accused of downloading 13,000 tracks. His fine was cheaper than buying the tracks >from iTunes who charge 9kr per track.
It was not downloading, it was making them available to the public or uploading if you want to call it that (on DC I think) So it is quite irellevant what it would have cost him since he allready had the songs (probably downloaded in an infrigning way but remember that up until a year ago, the situation in Sweden was that downloading for private use would most likely have been legal (no case existed though).
>FTFA.. >>while courts in Sweden also fined two men who had downloaded movies and music for personal use.
>I know you said "most", but people shouldn't think that by "just downloading" copyrighted material they won't get in trouble.
The article is wrong though since both of them was charged for uploading (or sharing works to the public, not for downloading.
>Also FTFA >> Over 100 students at Växjö University, southern Sweden, have been banned from using the institution's network in the >>past two years because they downloaded copyrighted material without permission in their apartments on the university campus.
Again it was after complain for them making music available to the public, uploading.
Basically yes. They are also tied nationally so even in the same industry you can have two different companies in different countris with the same trademark.
>Didn't see any mention of them in the article. I'd imagine this is one of two things:
Actually there was a whole paragraph about it:
"Chester called online data collection "pervasive and ubiquitous" and said the two groups focused first on Microsoft because it has told potential advertisers its data collection techniques are better than those used by rivals such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc."
>I don't think there is anything exempt from VAT in >Sweden except books (and that just happened a few >years ago). I think some kinds of entertainment >like concerts and the like are "only" 6%. But there >are taxes on everything else.
Food in Sweden is interesting though, as the VAT varies depending on how you buy it. It is actually only 12% for food bought at shops or as "take away". If you order it on a resturant, it has 25% VAT. I believe that in England there is also VAT on food bought in restaurant (and eaten there, not take away) although not fully sure.
Books actually do have a VAT in Sweden, it is at 6% and it is the same for newspaper, cinema and some other similar things. One place to find detailed information (in Swedish') is from this document regariding differentiation on the VAT or not made by the goverment:
>Which is nice and all, but here the law does not allow it.
No, there are many uses invovling copying without a license which is not infringing.
>>Again, remember that allofmp3 HAS the right to sell the music to start with as well. > >Not in the US they don't.
They are not selling it in the US. gee, how hard is that to understand? Your own argument line is that the BUYER is bringing the copy into the US. So how is it ever relevant wether they have or not have a license to sell in US? I have not claimed they don't and they most surely doesn't, but that is a non issu since they are selling in Russia.
>I'm an American copyright lawyer. I'm very familiar with our copyright laws. I know that >there's no exception that applies. And fair use doesn't either, since all four factors in >the fair use analysis are completely against the downloader. This is because we don't view >buying from AllOfMP3 to be legitimate. It's piracy.
The Fair use is for the COPYING, not buying. Fair use is for cases of otherwise infringement. The buying from allofmp3 is done in Russia. Further, as you have yourself said, you are looking at the copying and you have, yourself, claimed that the source of it is irellevant. Hence it would be completely irellevant for the purpose of the copying being infringement or not, were the original comes from. And no, most factors would not be agianst purchaser and the owner of the music.
>Actually, the law prevents this. Copyright holders forbid it routinely, and tend to win in >the process. The law favors them greatly.
Taking a copy with you when you travel to another country (or even if you don't travell yourself) without changing the ownership of it is not something covered by copyright law and is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Unless given as an exlcusive right by the copyright holder to start with, he can't "forbid" anything. He can allow actions that are exlcusive to himself, he can't forbid other actions. Besdies, you yourself claimed the import law was specifically for copies only and it is clear that such a case I mentioned would be perfectly legal and not something a copyright holder can forbid. Notice that in such a case you would have to involve the law of the recieveing country.
>No, making more copies is always illegal unless there is permission from the US >rightsholder
Please tell were it says the source of the copy matters? You yourslef did even say it was irellevant in another post.
>If I take a legally made book, and print up a >thousand copies of it myself, I've broken the law.
Not nessecarilly, if you can apply any of the exceptions to the exclusive rights it might not be so. It can depend on how you copy, what you do with them and even how many (so a thousand might be infrigning, while 10 might not) and so on. So no, you might not have broken the law.
>If I sell them, I've broken another law.
Most likely, since for example, you would have a much harder time to claim fair use due to the comercial nature of it and how it affect others.
>If the buyers make more copies of those, they've broken >the law because what is illegal is making copies,
No, it is not certain they have broken the law, see above for the very same reason it might not have been so for you to start with.
>Here, there are copyrighted works, there is no permission from the US copyright holder, and >there is no exception in US law that applies. iTunes has permission from the proper >copyright holder.
iTunes has the permission to SELL the music. You are talking about the users USE of the music. allofmp3 also has the permission. As a BUYER there is no difference. The same applies if you enter a store and buy a music CD, you don't need any permission to play or listen to the CD even if it involves making certain copies to do so (which it in one form or another often do).
>Here, it's infringing, unless you can point an applicable exception in the law.
The same reason you can play the CD you buy in a store on a computer or CD player, record a song from the radio and so on. Basically, you are using the the work you bought. You may feel free to apply the test for Fair Use yourself to see how it applies. Do remmeber that you have bought the music legally from an authorized source and we are looking at a case were you don't resell or use it for any comercial purposes and so no. You may apply the same to the CD you buy in a store and the copies that might be created of it when you listen to it.
>The court cases were against organizations that were involved but >not the direct infringers, yes. But the law says that you cannot >sue an indirect infringer unless you can prove that they were closely >enough involved in a direct infringement. So you end up having to >make the case against the users anyway, and the defendant >still defends them since it will help them.
And there are two types of "users" the one making the copies available, and the ones creating copies.
I have noticed that you and me are replying to basically the same arguments in multiple locations of this thread. Since it feels quite pointless retyping the same thing in multiple palces, I will skip commenting on parts I feel I have allready commented and replied to (multiple times) to you in other posts. I hope that is OK.
>Assuming this is true, such a license is still only valid within >Russia, because it is a compulsory license created by Russian >law. Even if it claims to be valid elsewhere, Russian law cannot >override the law elsewhere, e.g. in the US.
And they are selling in Russia, which is the point. They arn't climing to overrule some other countries law, they are doing sales in Russia with people. What people then do with the songs they buy is of course, not their problem. I think we can agree on that, no? Or are you claiming they violate laws in countries were they are not selling and existing in? If so, one can wonder why VISA takes action against them to start with since they do nothing wrong. The other aspect one can put on it, which you raise is that the BUYER is doing something illegal with the music they buy (which of course is not allofmp3 problem). You seem to claim that the law doesn't permit anyone in USA to buy music from another country at all and even if you could somehow bring it to USA, you can't use it. For example, buying a CD in Japan and bringing it to USA, it would according to you (or what you claim the law says) illegal to for example, play the music on a CD player in the USA (since in one form or another it would crete a copy). Right? You also seems to make a blanket claim that no copying at all of music you have bought is allowed unless each copying is specifically licensed to you by the copyright holder. Right?
>Buying a copy is not the same thing as making a new copy.
The copy has to be made no? Or you can't buy it.
>>Hence, downloading from a s ource made availabel in a non >>infringing way is legal (or in some countries, personal/private >>copies is legal no mater what). > >Not in the US.
So, it is thus completely impossible to surf a majority of websites on the net if you live in the USA unless you get a specific license first to do so? Any site were you can not get specific license first is basically a legal trap were they can sue you since you are downloading from those sites without a license.
>>If you want to claim allofmp3 as illegal, you must claim iTunes and anyone else selling >>over then net as illegal too, they are the same. > >Wrong, because they have a license that is valid in the US. They are not the same.
And allofmp3 has one for Russia which is were they sell it while iTunes might have one for USA, which is were they sell it. If the buyer then goes to another country or brings the copy to another country is irellevant from the purchase point of view.
Again, your argument is against the consumer buying, not allofmop3, so how do you justify VISA going after allofmp3 instead of the consumers in USA?
>Sure, but this is not one of them. Here, the work copied isn't in the public domain, you do >not have permission from the US rightsholder, you do not have an exception under US law, so >you're sunk. You need one of those things in the US if you want to make copies.
Not true at all, you can have a whole bunch of different other situations were copying is still legal, for example under Fair Use. Chapter 1 lists several more that can or can not be applicable.
If you as a consumer buys something directly from another country there is quite little regulated and it not at all that clear how, which and what laws to apply form which country for example.
>In any event, importation is not happening here. Downloading is copying, not importation.
As far as I know, the copyright law, for example doesn't define "download", nor does it have any concept of "downloading". It deals with some specific actions, such as copying and distribution. It also deals with import in that it restrict certain types of import.
>Actually those are all forms of distribution, and copyright >law is very concerned about distribution.
No, it deals with WHO can distribute. It doesn't regulate how sales, for example, are done. In addition, the right of distribution is consumed, meaning basically that after the first case of distribution, most forms are free to do (on a per copy basis) for the owner of the copy and the copyright holder can no longer control it and it is thus a non copyright issue.
>Absolutely wrong. In the US, downloading is against the >law every bit as much as uploading is.
No, neither "downloading" nor "uploading" is concepts of the copyright law. Creating copies is and distribution and other forms of making it available to the public is. However, there is many exceptions to the exclusivness. The exceptions of course vary with country and in some are not listed specifically but given in the form of the Fair Use as in USA. For example, creating copies needed to actually use something you bought can be such a right, which makes sense since you would not sell compies to anyone and not wanting him to be able to use it. So no, you can't claim a blanket against the law for downloading at all since it can be perfectly legal in many cases. There are of course many ways to copy that is not what one can put into "downloading". You seem to claim that one need a seperate license (one for each country presumably) to create a copy of music one have bought, how would you come to that conclusion, based on for example the rules for Fair Use? Of course, you seem to also neglect the difference of actually purchasing a copy from a legitimate source with creating a copy from a non legitimate source.
>Yes, you always do. It is part of the iTunes EULA,
The EULA is not the law. If the law doesn't forbid you to make a copy to start with it isn't removed by someone presenting you with a contract. They don't need to grant you an additional license for it if the law allready allows it.
Again, remember that allofmp3 HAS the right to sell the music to start with as well.
>True. Not one of them applies in this case, however. Not one.
What makes you think that? What makes you think there is no possible exception, for example for fair use, that makes it not possible to make a copy of a the music you have bought?
>Copyrights are not international in nature, they are national.
Yes, that is what I said. However they are tied to a creator. The creator will get the copyright in all countries that have signed the Bern convention. You can't have different people gain the copyright to the same work in different countries. The way it works is that one country gives the same protection to work created outside it to those created in the country (which would be the one protected).
>A US copyright is not the same copyright as a Russian copyright. They are granted by >different governments. Berne doesn't combine them.
Yes it is, a copyright is basically certain rights given to a creator of a work. Some, but not all, of those rights can be transfered after they are granted to someone else. What the Bern convention do is basically that you get the copyright protection in all countries regardless of were you you are located and were the work was created. Of course, you can claim that each law grantsa "different" copyright but since they are tied in the way that this is automatic they are really one and the same. You can't have two different people been granted the same copyright in different countries and you automatically holds the copyright in all countries as soon as the work is created. But hey, if you like to call them different copyrights, fine, they are linked though in that the same person gets them in all countries.
>While they are usually granted to the same person initially, >that person can dispose of the copyrights as they see fit. >They can sell them or keep them.
Yes some of them, but not all, can be transfered, have I claimed different?
>He didn't. Russian law says that anyone has permission >automatically. It's a compulsory license.
I was commenting on your specific example of someone else in Russia having the copyright, gee, comment what I write and don't make up things I have not said.
Geting a license or permission to do something not otherwise allowed from the copyright holder is not the same as geting and holding the copyright. Your example was about two different enteties having the copyright in different countries which is what I commented on.
The example at hand is about someone in Russia (allofmp3), having the permission to sell music in Russia. Nothing prevents anyone buing such music to then move the copy bought to some other country without the permission from copyrighth holder (at least as long as it is for private/personal use and so on). A copyright holder in another country can't forbid that, nor is owning such a copy infringing in any way nor is the use of it. In the same way, making additional copies from it is not treated any different based on from were it came as long as it was not an infrining one to start with, which, it isn't since allofmp3 has the legal right to sell it to start with. The selling is legal, the purchase is legal, and you can do with that copy anything you can do with any other legal copy of a work that you own. Except for redistribution it is quite irellevant were a copy originally was sold (in this case Russia). One can create copies in USA in many instances that are not infringing, and that applies regardless of were the original came from.
>Yes, exactly. You need a license in order to legally download from iTunes. You are, in >fact, granted such a license when you make your purchase. If you weren't, you'd be >infringing.
You missed the point of my whole post which was basically the contrary to the part you quoted. No, you do not nessecarilly need a license to download music from iTuenes. There are many exceptions when you can create copies without having to get a license. Buying the music would be just that (remember, it is an authorized sale by allofmp3).
>Let's say the copyright in some work X is held by person A in the United States and person >B in Russia.
Actually there is basically one entity (or a gorup of persons if joint) that holds the copyright, they can then grant others right to, for example copy, sell, distribute or whatever. Those persons would not be copyright holders though. So if A creates the work he would hold the copyright in both US and Russia. Copyright are not hel per teritory (as patents or trademarks) you will get the copyright in basically the whole world automatically, at least those countries which have signed the Bern convention which is basically all countries in the world.
Now, if he grants someone in Russia the permission to sell copies in Russia, then that person can do so in Russia. If someone buys them there, it doesn't mean they can't move the copies to some other place or bring them with them back home and so on.
>The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites
Right there it turns out your example is a quite different one since it assumes the source is infringing to start with. That is not the case with allofmp3, they are not commiting any infringment and buying from them is not buying from an infringing source.
> I agree that downloading a song from allofmp2.com > is similar to downloading one through Kazaa.
(Assuming you meant allofmp3) Rethinking after having written the below text, I think we actually agree on the end result but I still think the details and differences is worth pointing out.
It is most certainly not similar in most cases since most work on Kazaa is made available unautorized and in an infringing way. On allofmp3 it is made avilable for purchase in a perfectly legal way!
>You may note, however, that downloaders do not get sued for using Kazaa, uploaders do.
Well, you can get sued for violating the copyright law, it has nothing to do with if you are an "uploader" or a downloader". Both can get sued. Uploaders can get sued for distribution/making the work available to the public. The downloader can be sued for making a copy in an infriging way. Due to the way it works, it is very hard to spot or catch a downloader while relatively more easu to catch an uploader, so you go for the uploader.
Downloading from an unauthorizez source on Kazaa is very different from buying from an authorized source though so while one can get you in trouble, the other won't.
>(see, e.g. the Napster case, or Grokster, or Netcom, >or my personal favorite, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)
In those cases (never heared about the last one though), the one making the work available was doing so non authorized (and that was what those cases was about when they was not directly against the software maker that created the software). In such a case (of various forms of P2P networks), you actually has a case of one part making a work available and another one making copies. Both can commit infringinement, none can commit infringnemet or one of them while not the other do it. Often, depending on country, the act of copying and its legalness depends on how the work is made available, that is, if it was made avialbel in an infriging way or not. If you take iTunes for example (or allofmp3) the one making the music is doing so in a legal way, there is no problem making a copy. The same applies if you buy software, ebooks or whatever over the net, you don't need, as a buyer, any special permission from the copyright holder. In addition, there can be several other cases and situations were making a copy is perfectly legal that has nothing to do with the source and its legalness.
US copyright law protects work in US (due to treates wuch as the Bern convention and others, it applies to works created outside US as well). Russian copyright law protects works in Russia (including works created in US). To sell music in Russia, you need prermission to do so, and allofmp3 has such a permission form the required authority in Russia and follows Russian copyright law. In the same way, a US company in US that wants to sell music (regardless of if it is US or Russina music) must follow US laws. It doesn't matter what Russian copyright law says in such a case).
>The russians can sell all the russian music they'd >like however they'd like to but if AllofMP3.com >wants to sell music protected by US Copyright law >they have to play by those rules.
You seem to think that one countries copyright law protects the work all over the world. That is not so. Each country has a copyright law which protects works created in that country and by its citizens or people living there. Through treates, such as the Bern convention, which most countries in the world have signed, the same protection is given to works created in other countries. However, for each country, the laws of THAT country protects the work.
Lets say a specific tyoe of act, copying for private use, is allowed in country A but not in country B. Now, in country A, ANY work, regardless of if it is created in country A or country B can be copied for private use. SImilar, a work created in country A can still not be copiped for private use in country B.
So, if allofmp3 wants to sell music in Russia, they have to follow Russian copyright law, which they do, they pay applicable license fees for example. It is completely irellevant what the copyright law of another country says. In the same way, if you want to sell or make a copy in USA of a work created in Russia, and US law allows it, it is irellevant if Russian law would forbid it.
>Don't I keep hearing how Microsoft has to play by EU rules >if they want to sell software in the EU?
Exactly, and allofmp3 must play by Russian rules when selling in Russia (which happens to be were they are located and are selling).
>You don't get to pick and choose who they appl to and under what circmstances.
Exactly, so....
>The RIAA is well within their rights to have AllofMP3.com >to remove any music protected by US Copyright law for which >the RIAA member companies hold the copyrights.... no, RIAA can't pick US copyright law to be applicable in Russia, Russian copyright law applies. It is a fairly basic principle, the laws of the country applies in that country. If you sell in Russia, Russian law aplies, if you sell in EU, EU laws applies (not strictly since there is no EU law, but the individual laws of the countries in EU are harmonized and are mostly the same and similar) and if you sell in USA, US laws applies.
Slashdot Mirror
>Unless, of course, people are fooled into buying licenses to view content, rather than the
>content itself.
Of course, in most countries in the world, you don't need any license to "view" most conent at all. You may also wonder how, apart from the license, how the consumer would get hold of the copy of the work as that is also needed, a contract that allows you to view it (even if required) would be of litle use without a copy of the actual work as well.
>Yup. Its funny how a lot of people in just about every MMOs forget that one.
Or how people forget that in many countries there is consumer protection laws that doesn't allow for such contract terms when selling something to a consumer. Never stops to be funny either.
>Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away,
>without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess
>it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft?
Why would you want to do that and for what purpose?
>Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft.
Not really, even if you would go arround making up your own definition of "theft" (for whatever purpose). Just because A->B doesn't mean that B->A.
I still don't see your point though, even if it would work out by changing all defintions and laws to suit your purpose. Were do you you want to get at? Are you wanting to get rid of copyright laws and instead change the definition of theft and then apply that instead of copyright? What would be the point of that? Copyright law allready tells what types of copying, distribution and so on that is legal and what is illegal, you don't need to involve other types of illegal activities (such as theft). besides, no matter how you define your theft, you will most likely not end up either covering all types of current infrignement or doing so without extending current infringment acts.
>That'd make an interesting study - have a group of teenagers asked not to pirate for a
>period of six months or so, and a control group which maintains normal habits, then
>analyze how much each group spends on music.
And if they spend more, what do they spend less on. Add in things like movies, games and also non purchable costs such as going to the movie, concerts and so on and see how it is all affected. Then we are starting to get closer to any effects and who it affects and in what way. After all, most people have limited budgets and money can't be made out of thin air to suddenly pay for more music (or whatever).
>a) some people commit actual crimes (like, the kind with victims) on the internet,
Yet in almost no country does the post office keep track and logs of who mail who despite crimes both in the past and present probably occur thorugh mail. Further, many countries does not have any law requiring ISPs to keep logs, yet they do it anyway.
>b) there are good technical reasons, ie statistical data used for load-balancing purposes,
>network expansion, upgrade scheduling etc, for keeping logs (although obviously, stripping
>out identifying data ought to be done wherever this doesn't interfere with that purpose);
Which would be about every time or almost every time.
>(c) to some extent, keeping "logs" as such is an unavoidable consequence of doing what an
>ISP does. Functions like billing depend on logs. If they didn't keep logs, what recourse
>do you have if they bill you for 100GB over-quota usage during the month?
Which would only ever be important if you are billed by ammount of traffic which, at least in my country is almost non existant. Further, it requires no point in logging the IP number for example, you only need to keep track of ammount of data used (like electricity companies do for example).
>Replaces ToS and Eulas? How about at-start contracts with well-worded phrases. A paraphrase
>at the top would do wonders.
Why replace them at all? Why would there be such an important need for them to start with? Appearantly most every other bussiness type seems to manage quite good without any at all.
>Not bad when you consider one of the guys was accused of downloading 13,000 tracks. His fine was cheaper than buying the tracks
>from iTunes who charge 9kr per track.
It was not downloading, it was making them available to the public or uploading if you want to call it that (on DC I think) So it is quite irellevant what it would have cost him since he allready had the songs (probably downloaded in an infrigning way but remember that up until a year ago, the situation in Sweden was that downloading for private use would most likely have been legal (no case existed though).
>FTFA ..
>>while courts in Sweden also fined two men who had downloaded movies and music for personal use.
>I know you said "most", but people shouldn't think that by "just downloading" copyrighted material they won't get in trouble.
The article is wrong though since both of them was charged for uploading (or sharing works to the public, not for downloading.
>Also FTFA
>> Over 100 students at Växjö University, southern Sweden, have been banned from using the institution's network in the
>>past two years because they downloaded copyrighted material without permission in their apartments on the university campus.
Again it was after complain for them making music available to the public, uploading.
>Trademarks are tied to the industry aren't they?
Basically yes. They are also tied nationally so even in the same industry you can have two different companies in different countris with the same trademark.
>Didn't see any mention of them in the article. I'd imagine this is one of two things:
Actually there was a whole paragraph about it:
"Chester called online data collection "pervasive and ubiquitous" and said the two groups focused first on Microsoft because it has told potential advertisers its data collection techniques are better than those used by rivals such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc."
>I don't think there is anything exempt from VAT in
>Sweden except books (and that just happened a few
>years ago). I think some kinds of entertainment
>like concerts and the like are "only" 6%. But there
>are taxes on everything else.
Food in Sweden is interesting though, as the VAT varies depending on how you buy it. It is actually only 12% for food bought at shops or as "take away". If you order it on a resturant, it has 25% VAT. I believe that in England there is also VAT on food bought in restaurant (and eaten there, not take away) although not fully sure.
Books actually do have a VAT in Sweden, it is at 6% and it is the same for newspaper, cinema and some other similar things. One place to find detailed information (in Swedish') is from this document regariding differentiation on the VAT or not made by the goverment:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5266/a/46528
(check the summary in part 1)
>Which is nice and all, but here the law does not allow it.
No, there are many uses invovling copying without a license which is not infringing.
>>Again, remember that allofmp3 HAS the right to sell the music to start with as well.
>
>Not in the US they don't.
They are not selling it in the US. gee, how hard is that to understand? Your own argument line is that the BUYER is bringing the copy into the US. So how is it ever relevant wether they have or not have a license to sell in US? I have not claimed they don't and they most surely doesn't, but that is a non issu since they are selling in Russia.
>I'm an American copyright lawyer. I'm very familiar with our copyright laws. I know that
>there's no exception that applies. And fair use doesn't either, since all four factors in
>the fair use analysis are completely against the downloader. This is because we don't view
>buying from AllOfMP3 to be legitimate. It's piracy.
The Fair use is for the COPYING, not buying. Fair use is for cases of otherwise infringement. The buying from allofmp3 is done in Russia. Further, as you have yourself said, you are looking at the copying and you have, yourself, claimed that the source of it is irellevant. Hence it would be completely irellevant for the purpose of the copying being infringement or not, were the original comes from. And no, most factors would not be agianst purchaser and the owner of the music.
>Actually, the law prevents this. Copyright holders forbid it routinely, and tend to win in
>the process. The law favors them greatly.
Taking a copy with you when you travel to another country (or even if you don't travell yourself) without changing the ownership of it is not something covered by copyright law and is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Unless given as an exlcusive right by the copyright holder to start with, he can't "forbid" anything. He can allow actions that are exlcusive to himself, he can't forbid other actions. Besdies, you yourself claimed the import law was specifically for copies only and it is clear that such a case I mentioned would be perfectly legal and not something a copyright holder can forbid. Notice that in such a case you would have to involve the law of the recieveing country.
>No, making more copies is always illegal unless there is permission from the US
>rightsholder
Please tell were it says the source of the copy matters? You yourslef did even say it was irellevant in another post.
If you prefer to sling mud instead, calling names, tell lies, fine.
>If I take a legally made book, and print up a
>thousand copies of it myself, I've broken the law.
Not nessecarilly, if you can apply any of the exceptions to the exclusive rights it might not be so. It can depend on how you copy, what you do with them and even how many (so a thousand might be infrigning, while 10 might not) and so on. So no, you might not have broken the law.
>If I sell them, I've broken another law.
Most likely, since for example, you would have a much harder time to claim fair use due to the comercial nature of it and how it affect others.
>If the buyers make more copies of those, they've broken
>the law because what is illegal is making copies,
No, it is not certain they have broken the law, see above for the very same reason it might not have been so for you to start with.
>Here, there are copyrighted works, there is no permission from the US copyright holder, and
>there is no exception in US law that applies. iTunes has permission from the proper
>copyright holder.
iTunes has the permission to SELL the music. You are talking about the users USE of the music. allofmp3 also has the permission. As a BUYER there is no difference. The same applies if you enter a store and buy a music CD, you don't need any permission to play or listen to the CD even if it involves making certain copies to do so (which it in one form or another often do).
>Here, it's infringing, unless you can point an applicable exception in the law.
The same reason you can play the CD you buy in a store on a computer or CD player, record a song from the radio and so on. Basically, you are using the the work you bought. You may feel free to apply the test for Fair Use yourself to see how it applies. Do remmeber that you have bought the music legally from an authorized source and we are looking at a case were you don't resell or use it for any comercial purposes and so no. You may apply the same to the CD you buy in a store and the copies that might be created of it when you listen to it.
>The court cases were against organizations that were involved but
>not the direct infringers, yes. But the law says that you cannot
>sue an indirect infringer unless you can prove that they were closely
>enough involved in a direct infringement. So you end up having to
>make the case against the users anyway, and the defendant
>still defends them since it will help them.
And there are two types of "users" the one making the copies available, and the ones creating copies.
I have noticed that you and me are replying to basically the same arguments in multiple locations of this thread. Since it feels quite pointless retyping the same thing in multiple palces, I will skip commenting on parts I feel I have allready commented and replied to (multiple times) to you in other posts. I hope that is OK.
>Assuming this is true, such a license is still only valid within
>Russia, because it is a compulsory license created by Russian
>law. Even if it claims to be valid elsewhere, Russian law cannot
>override the law elsewhere, e.g. in the US.
And they are selling in Russia, which is the point. They arn't climing to overrule some other countries law, they are doing sales in Russia with people. What people then do with the songs they buy is of course, not their problem. I think we can agree on that, no? Or are you claiming they violate laws in countries were they are not selling and existing in? If so, one can wonder why VISA takes action against them to start with since they do nothing wrong. The other aspect one can put on it, which you raise is that the BUYER is doing something illegal with the music they buy (which of course is not allofmp3 problem). You seem to claim that the law doesn't permit anyone in USA to buy music from another country at all and even if you could somehow bring it to USA, you can't use it. For example, buying a CD in Japan and bringing it to USA, it would according to you (or what you claim the law says) illegal to for example, play the music on a CD player in the USA (since in one form or another it would crete a copy). Right? You also seems to make a blanket claim that no copying at all of music you have bought is allowed unless each copying is specifically licensed to you by the copyright holder. Right?
>Buying a copy is not the same thing as making a new copy.
The copy has to be made no? Or you can't buy it.
>>Hence, downloading from a s ource made availabel in a non
>>infringing way is legal (or in some countries, personal/private
>>copies is legal no mater what).
>
>Not in the US.
So, it is thus completely impossible to surf a majority of websites on the net if you live in the USA unless you get a specific license first to do so? Any site were you can not get specific license first is basically a legal trap were they can sue you since you are downloading from those sites without a license.
>>If you want to claim allofmp3 as illegal, you must claim iTunes and anyone else selling
>>over then net as illegal too, they are the same.
>
>Wrong, because they have a license that is valid in the US. They are not the same.
And allofmp3 has one for Russia which is were they sell it while iTunes might have one for USA, which is were they sell it. If the buyer then goes to another country or brings the copy to another country is irellevant from the purchase point of view.
Again, your argument is against the consumer buying, not allofmop3, so how do you justify VISA going after allofmp3 instead of the consumers in USA?
>Sure, but this is not one of them. Here, the work copied isn't in the public domain, you do
>not have permission from the US rightsholder, you do not have an exception under US law, so
>you're sunk. You need one of those things in the US if you want to make copies.
Not true at all, you can have a whole bunch of different other situations were copying is still legal, for example under Fair Use. Chapter 1 lists several more that can or can not be applicable.
>No, all of that is still quite regulated.
If you as a consumer buys something directly from another country there is quite little regulated and it not at all that clear how, which and what laws to apply form which country for example.
>In any event, importation is not happening here. Downloading is copying, not importation.
As far as I know, the copyright law, for example doesn't define "download", nor does it have any concept of "downloading". It deals with some specific actions, such as copying and distribution. It also deals with import in that it restrict certain types of import.
>Actually those are all forms of distribution, and copyright
>law is very concerned about distribution.
No, it deals with WHO can distribute. It doesn't regulate how sales, for example, are done. In addition, the right of distribution is consumed, meaning basically that after the first case of distribution, most forms are free to do (on a per copy basis) for the owner of the copy and the copyright holder can no longer control it and it is thus a non copyright issue.
>Absolutely wrong. In the US, downloading is against the
>law every bit as much as uploading is.
No, neither "downloading" nor "uploading" is concepts of the copyright law. Creating copies is and distribution and other forms of making it available to the public is. However, there is many exceptions to the exclusivness. The exceptions of course vary with country and in some are not listed specifically but given in the form of the Fair Use as in USA. For example, creating copies needed to actually use something you bought can be such a right, which makes sense since you would not sell compies to anyone and not wanting him to be able to use it. So no, you can't claim a blanket against the law for downloading at all since it can be perfectly legal in many cases. There are of course many ways to copy that is not what one can put into "downloading". You seem to claim that one need a seperate license (one for each country presumably) to create a copy of music one have bought, how would you come to that conclusion, based on for example the rules for Fair Use? Of course, you seem to also neglect the difference of actually purchasing a copy from a legitimate source with creating a copy from a non legitimate source.
>Yes, you always do. It is part of the iTunes EULA,
The EULA is not the law. If the law doesn't forbid you to make a copy to start with it isn't removed by someone presenting you with a contract. They don't need to grant you an additional license for it if the law allready allows it.
Again, remember that allofmp3 HAS the right to sell the music to start with as well.
>True. Not one of them applies in this case, however. Not one.
What makes you think that? What makes you think there is no possible exception, for example for fair use, that makes it not possible to make a copy of a the music you have bought?
>Copyrights are not international in nature, they are national.
Yes, that is what I said. However they are tied to a creator. The creator will get the copyright in all countries that have signed the Bern convention. You can't have different people gain the copyright to the same work in different countries. The way it works is that one country gives the same protection to work created outside it to those created in the country (which would be the one protected).
>A US copyright is not the same copyright as a Russian copyright. They are granted by
>different governments. Berne doesn't combine them.
Yes it is, a copyright is basically certain rights given to a creator of a work. Some, but not all, of those rights can be transfered after they are granted to someone else. What the Bern convention do is basically that you get the copyright protection in all countries regardless of were you you are located and were the work was created. Of course, you can claim that each law grantsa "different" copyright but since they are tied in the way that this is automatic they are really one and the same. You can't have two different people been granted the same copyright in different countries and you automatically holds the copyright in all countries as soon as the work is created. But hey, if you like to call them different copyrights, fine, they are linked though in that the same person gets them in all countries.
>While they are usually granted to the same person initially,
>that person can dispose of the copyrights as they see fit.
>They can sell them or keep them.
Yes some of them, but not all, can be transfered, have I claimed different?
>He didn't. Russian law says that anyone has permission
>automatically. It's a compulsory license.
I was commenting on your specific example of someone else in Russia having the copyright, gee, comment what I write and don't make up things I have not said.
Geting a license or permission to do something not otherwise allowed from the copyright holder is not the same as geting and holding the copyright. Your example was about two different enteties having the copyright in different countries which is what I commented on.
The example at hand is about someone in Russia (allofmp3), having the permission to sell music in Russia. Nothing prevents anyone buing such music to then move the copy bought to some other country without the permission from copyrighth holder (at least as long as it is for private/personal use and so on). A copyright holder in another country can't forbid that, nor is owning such a copy infringing in any way nor is the use of it. In the same way, making additional copies from it is not treated any different based on from were it came as long as it was not an infrining one to start with, which, it isn't since allofmp3 has the legal right to sell it to start with. The selling is legal, the purchase is legal, and you can do with that copy anything you can do with any other legal copy of a work that you own. Except for redistribution it is quite irellevant were a copy originally was sold (in this case Russia). One can create copies in USA in many instances that are not infringing, and that applies regardless of were the original came from.
>Yes, exactly. You need a license in order to legally download from iTunes. You are, in
>fact, granted such a license when you make your purchase. If you weren't, you'd be
>infringing.
You missed the point of my whole post which was basically the contrary to the part you quoted. No, you do not nessecarilly need a license to download music from iTuenes. There are many exceptions when you can create copies without having to get a license. Buying the music would be just that (remember, it is an authorized sale by allofmp3).
>Let's say the copyright in some work X is held by person A in the United States and person
>B in Russia.
Actually there is basically one entity (or a gorup of persons if joint) that holds the copyright, they can then grant others right to, for example copy, sell, distribute or whatever. Those persons would not be copyright holders though. So if A creates the work he would hold the copyright in both US and Russia. Copyright are not hel per teritory (as patents or trademarks) you will get the copyright in basically the whole world automatically, at least those countries which have signed the Bern convention which is basically all countries in the world.
Now, if he grants someone in Russia the permission to sell copies in Russia, then that person can do so in Russia. If someone buys them there, it doesn't mean they can't move the copies to some other place or bring them with them back home and so on.
From your quote of a case:
>The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites
Right there it turns out your example is a quite different one since it assumes the source is infringing to start with. That is not the case with allofmp3, they are not commiting any infringment and buying from them is not buying from an infringing source.
> I agree that downloading a song from allofmp2.com
> is similar to downloading one through Kazaa.
(Assuming you meant allofmp3) Rethinking after having written the below text, I think we actually agree on the end result but I still think the details and differences is worth pointing out.
It is most certainly not similar in most cases since most work on Kazaa is made available unautorized and in an infringing way. On allofmp3 it is made avilable for purchase in a perfectly legal way!
>You may note, however, that downloaders do not get sued for using Kazaa, uploaders do.
Well, you can get sued for violating the copyright law, it has nothing to do with if you are an "uploader" or a downloader". Both can get sued. Uploaders can get sued for distribution/making the work available to the public. The downloader can be sued for making a copy in an infriging way. Due to the way it works, it is very hard to spot or catch a downloader while relatively more easu to catch an uploader, so you go for the uploader.
Downloading from an unauthorizez source on Kazaa is very different from buying from an authorized source though so while one can get you in trouble, the other won't.
>(see, e.g. the Napster case, or Grokster, or Netcom,
>or my personal favorite, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)
In those cases (never heared about the last one though), the one making the work available was doing so non authorized (and that was what those cases was about when they was not directly against the software maker that created the software). In such a case (of various forms of P2P networks), you actually has a case of one part making a work available and another one making copies. Both can commit infringinement, none can commit infringnemet or one of them while not the other do it. Often, depending on country, the act of copying and its legalness depends on how the work is made available, that is, if it was made avialbel in an infriging way or not. If you take iTunes for example (or allofmp3) the one making the music is doing so in a legal way, there is no problem making a copy. The same applies if you buy software, ebooks or whatever over the net, you don't need, as a buyer, any special permission from the copyright holder. In addition, there can be several other cases and situations were making a copy is perfectly legal that has nothing to do with the source and its legalness.
>Just posessing copyright infringing material is an offense in the US. Keep that in mind.
So? There is no infriging material to start with!!
As an aside, feel free to point to the law claiming such possession is illegal.
>Oh, I don't know, how about US Copyright law?
... no, RIAA can't pick US copyright law to be applicable in Russia, Russian copyright law applies. It is a fairly basic principle, the laws of the country applies in that country. If you sell in Russia, Russian law aplies, if you sell in EU, EU laws applies (not strictly since there is no EU law, but the individual laws of the countries in EU are harmonized and are mostly the same and similar) and if you sell in USA, US laws applies.
US copyright law protects work in US (due to treates wuch as the Bern convention and others, it applies to works created outside US as well). Russian copyright law protects works in Russia (including works created in US). To sell music in Russia, you need prermission to do so, and allofmp3 has such a permission form the required authority in Russia and follows Russian copyright law. In the same way, a US company in US that wants to sell music (regardless of if it is US or Russina music) must follow US laws. It doesn't matter what Russian copyright law says in such a case).
>The russians can sell all the russian music they'd
>like however they'd like to but if AllofMP3.com
>wants to sell music protected by US Copyright law
>they have to play by those rules.
You seem to think that one countries copyright law protects the work all over the world. That is not so. Each country has a copyright law which protects works created in that country and by its citizens or people living there. Through treates, such as the Bern convention, which most countries in the world have signed, the same protection is given to works created in other countries. However, for each country, the laws of THAT country protects the work.
Lets say a specific tyoe of act, copying for private use, is allowed in country A but not in country B. Now, in country A, ANY work, regardless of if it is created in country A or country B can be copied for private use. SImilar, a work created in country A can still not be copiped for private use in country B.
So, if allofmp3 wants to sell music in Russia, they have to follow Russian copyright law, which they do, they pay applicable license fees for example. It is completely irellevant what the copyright law of another country says. In the same way, if you want to sell or make a copy in USA of a work created in Russia, and US law allows it, it is irellevant if Russian law would forbid it.
>Don't I keep hearing how Microsoft has to play by EU rules
>if they want to sell software in the EU?
Exactly, and allofmp3 must play by Russian rules when selling in Russia (which happens to be were they are located and are selling).
>You don't get to pick and choose who they appl to and under what circmstances.
Exactly, so....
>The RIAA is well within their rights to have AllofMP3.com
>to remove any music protected by US Copyright law for which
>the RIAA member companies hold the copyrights.