>1)The use in quesiton is the use of the person producing the work, not the >consumer of the work. the guy writing the guy is doing so to make money, so >yes it is comercial.
And of course, we first has to determine WHAT infringing use we are looking. That is step one, to identify a copyright infringement, if there is no infringement, there is no issue or point in dealing with fair use. The fair use test is not to determine if some action is infirngement, it is to determine the opposite, if an infringing action is NOT so. SO what infringement are we looking at?
>2&3)The specifics of how the game works and how a character interacts with >the world can be considered part of the copyrighted work.
So you claim that he has copied the work or part of a work, and in this case, what he copied was game rules and interaction mechanisms, right? Now, please go and find how copyright law gives protection for such things and you will come up that they are NOT something you get copyright on. In addition, he has not copied them, that would be understandable if he had written his own game or character interaction interface or something. What he do is describe some of those, in his own word (no copying there thus) so even if you WOULD get copyright on any of them, there is still no clear infringement.
As a side "thread", would you then say that Blizzard's implementation of how to interact with the game is also unique and can't be said to have copied anything from other games? I would say that the interaction for example is very similar between games and they borrow from each other freely.
>The settings, the unique characters, the mechanics are all creative >expressions in addition to artwork.
But has he copied any of those? Or has he simply explained how a player should play the game?
>4)Blizzard publishes their own game guide based on their copyrighted game. >Therefore this game guide directly competes with a Blizzard products and >reduces the market.
But you must look at the infringnement, what is it? As stated above, if there is none, then this is irellevant. Just because you make a product that in itself compete with someone else does not create an infringement.
One factor to consider is the ammount of a work you would use. You seem to do it with the whole movie which for sure would not be OK, especially since that is all you seem to do. On the other hand, had you taken just a few frames and incorporated them into your own work, pehraps to illustrate a point your make or as an example of something, it would be much more different and OK.
>The burden of proof then shifts to you to prove you haven't.
What "then"?? If someone wants to show that I have commited some sort of illegal activity, they have to show it, not me showing I have NOT done it. Claiming a possibility is not the same. It would trivially be easy to show it could NOT have been me as well.
>That is the way that US law works (where this is likely to be tried).
What makes you think so? It would obviously be tried in whatever country the person lives who would be accused of having done something illegal.
I never claimed no one writing books might have copied other books. The point was the stance to not read other books at all to avoid such "tainting" was rediculous.
>More open sourced games can only be a good thing. How does Microsoft's >shared-source license affect me as a professional game developer, though? >I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of >taint.
I guess as a professional book writer I would have to stop reading other books, otherwsie my own books could be "tainted" or "contaminated" by what I read. What a shock!!!
Yes you can. That is why it is very important for someone who has a trademark to not use it carelessly. It should be used for the product only and not generally because then it becomes such a generic name for a type of product and a common word in the language for a certain type of product instead of a brand of a specific such product from a company.
>>Yes, but it does not mean those that get it themsevles get a right to >>reproduce it and distribute those copies, now do it? >> >I would say that it does, because of the inherent way the web and usenet >work.
Yes, usenet, but not the web.
>>Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on >>the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something >>is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange. >> > >Not only me, but the legal system (which, given copyright only exists as a >legal construct and has no natural equivalent, is fairly significant).
OK, show me ONE legal system that says copyright is terminated and no longer exist as soon as you publish something on the net! Just one is OK!!
Just because anyone can come and see your page or what you present on a web page (for as long as it is there only though), does not mean anyone in turn are allowed to start copying and distributing the content. There is no copyright law saying so either, feel free to check all of them.
>For your book analogy to be accurate, the person would not only be handing >out books on the corner, *but also* telling everyone who took one to make >copies for anyone else who asked.
Someone that show something on the net does NOT tell everyone to copy and distribute it in any way, well there are probably some pages that specifically states so but not in general.
>Can people on Slashdot stop being pedantic for once? It's blatantly obvious >what he means.
It is blatantly obvious I was not serious in my post. I don't agreee he was "obvious" though. Perhaps you could enlighten us what he would type if he actually DID mean the files was stolen?
>If it is an OEM copy then it is at least against the EULA, and most people >have OEM copies.
Perhaps they have never agreed to it, perhaps they have terminated their agreement (thus not in force any more) or perhaps there was something that made the EULA or that particular part not valid, perhaps they disagreed to it when presented, perhaps there are some other reason that makes it possible to sell it...
I can understand you, it is so much work having to type it all in again afterwards and if you don't remember it all correctly, you will not end up with the same program again...
>by stealing my programs
Easier, just recompile and you have your program back again! Unless they stole you code as well, then you are back to retyping it all agian first.
>"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human >intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, >the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," >the court said.
This is cool, now all those torrent sites PLUS all those that in addition also store and relay actual content are safe as long as they do it automatically. They have no intent as long as it is automatic!!! Great news!
>The difference is, when you post something on the web (or usenet), you are >doing so with the *knowledge and intention* that your "content" will be >freely available and distributed to all.
Yes, but it does not mean those that get it themsevles get a right to reproduce it and distribute those copies, now do it? Imagine someone promoting their book that stands on the streets handing out free copies to whoever passes by (they even have a press with them to print new books, as many as needed). Obviously they do this with the knowledge and intent that it (the book) is freely available to anyone who comes by. Does it gives you the right to pick up a copy, save it and start top reproduce it yourself and then stand on the street your self distributing such copies, even long after the one providing the original stoped? Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange.
>The difference is that anybody putting material on the web is doing so in >the knowledge that others will be accessing the material.
Yes, but the problem is not that people access it. The problems is when others not only access it but makes additional copies and also make those available to the public themselves.
So? How does that changes for example copyright? Copyright laws are typically written so that the media is irellevant.
>As soon as people recognize that fact, half of the stupid legal >issues and lawsuits will go away.
Why? The only reason for this would be if one claim that on internet, copyright doe snot work, hence it should not exist and we will get rid of all stupid lawsuits.
>All (sane?) copyright law was written and all the major cases were >heard before the Internet existed,
And as I mentioned, are typically written so that it doesn't depend on specific media types and handle futre ones. In addition, adjustments are made to handle things such as internet if needed.
>but now that routers and switches make copies of information as they >forward it, proxies and internet browsers cache information, RAM and >swap files store information,
ANd in most such cases the, typically temporary copies thus created are not considered as copies from a copyright infringement point of view and thus no problem, for the exact reason you mention, they are needed as part of for example the process of transmitting copies. It only turns into a problem and possible infringement if such copies are also stored and used as permanent (or long time) copies, independant of the original, such as google storing copies of web pages and showing them to anyone who so request. This is very different from temporary caches or a proxie that send a cached copie when you request the original (most likely still present even, although a good one will of course check if the original has changed lately so you get the latest) and so on.
>and there is very, very little practical difference between >forwarding a URL and forwarding the content it points to,
If you make a copy and stores it and hands it out to anyone that requests it you have in most cases commited copyright infringement. The fact that you do it on the net or off the net is irellevant. Keeping a temporary copy while you transmit it to someone or in a cache to send instead of reretriveving the original (and perhaps only if it still exists).
Imagine someone operating a copying machine were people can pay a sum to use it to make copies of stuff they bring. Would it then be OK for you to simply keep copies of everything copied there and then hand it out to people instead of them having to bring their own original? WHat about you going arround pre copying every book, paper you can find, just to prepare yourself if someone ever comes and wants to copy such a thing?
If such a thing is correct, be it on the internet or off the internet, ANY copying would always be legal and NEVER infringing.
Note that I am not discussing if current laws are good or bad or should be changed or not, only how the current copyright laws work and what they say which happens to handle "new" things such as the internet quite well. For some reason, many people seems to think that as long as you are a search engine, you are excemted from copyright laws or that as soon as you do it on the net, copyright laws doesn't work and should not be applicable.
And I assume that while playing the game, fighting monsters and trying to survive in general in the game, you read every single message that comes to you, just in case one might be a GM?
I also assume you never disable the chat window completely so that you don't see chat messages? For example, switching to the combat window instead?
>But that's nothing at all to do with it being a bottle of Coke, or >ownership. That's to do with not being allowed to throw anything through >your window.
Exactly, and in many cases the same is true for a copy of, say, a book or a music CD, it has to do with your ability to create a *new* copy for example. My point was that even though you own something, laws might regulate what you do with it. In the case of music, it happens to be copyright laws. It is of course impossible to make exact examples with other things, such as a can of coke, that is not the point. It was an illustration that other laws might regulate and restrict your actions when you use something, even if you own it.
>I'm not allowed to copy the recipe and pass off bottle of Coke as my own.
Copying a recipie is typically OK, nothing prevents you from doing that. You would not be allowed to call it "Coke" or "Coca Cola" though (despite owning your created bottle with liquid) due to trademark laws as you say.
>but Coca Cola is not forcing any special restrictions on my use of this >specific bottle, or its contents, because it's "their" drink.
nor could they any more that someone creating a music CD can do so beyoned what copyright law allows, which is a few specific sets of actions only.
>I'm not nitpicking. This is fundamentally different with music (and films) >and I am talking specifically about the single instance of the music >recorded on the single CD that I've just purchased (the equivalent of the >specific 1 1/2 litres of Coke in my bottle that I was allowed to share with >my friends without breaching Coke's rights).
There is no such "fundamental difference" as you seem to think or imply. Feel free to point to what make you think so, for example applicable copyright laws. Actually, copyright law specifically make a difference about the work itself (an abstract non tangible thing) and copies of the work (tangible, material objects) and make a distinction in the ownership of the two. Ownership of one does not imply ownership of the other and each can be transfered freely seperate from the other. For US laws, here are some links to it defining "copies" and to the distinction of ownership to the copyright and ownership to material copies.
>If I had written and recorded my own music, I could broadcast it, lend it >out, play it in public and do just about anything I wanted with it (except >throw it through your window or play it very load at night).
Sure, and you could do it EVEN if you did not own the specific copy of the CD you would use. The reason is you own the COPYRIGHT to the music, it has nothing to do with the ownership of the material COPIES of it. That is the difference. They are two different things.
>If I actually own the CD, I should be allowed to do any of those things - >there is nothing fundamentally illegal about performing those activities >with a CD.
Well, "should" is an opinion, however, copyright laws does not allow so, EVEN if you own the CD. However, you are drawing a wrong and non logical conclusion that just because you are not allowed to do so, you can't be the owner of the CD which is an erroneous conclusion. Copyright specifcally dissalow so regardless of if you own the CD or not, you need to own the copyright to the music to be allowed to do so.
One might argue that this is bad and that copyright laws should be written differently so that it doesn't apply if you own a copy but that is currently not how copyright works.
>Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted >that they must have it?
Completely unrelated, but have you EVER borrowed something from someone instead of going out and buying it yourself? Have you ever, for example, read the newspaper at someone elses place instead of buying your own copy? Have you ever done anything without paying when there have been an alternative were you could pay instead? Or are you so poor that you can't afford to pay for any of that yet must have it?
>You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right >to listen to them.
No, you own a copy of the music. A copy is the work in question (music) fixed into some sort of media, the CD. That is the copy and you own it (including the copy of the music). There is no such thing as "right to listen" and you don't "own" such a thing either. There is nothing strange about that. What do exist is copyright law that forbids certain things (despite you owning a copy of the music), such as creating new copies or making public performances. That does not transform into you not owning the copy.
>>If we stick to music in general, yes it is yours, those specific copies of >>the music are.
>Not as far as I can tell it isn't. Most CDs say somewhere on the case >something along the lines of "no unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, >reproduction, public performance or broadcasting of the work".
So? What does that have to do with the ownership of the copy? The things printed is basically telling about what copyright law says. Copyright prohibit certain types of action regardless of if you own a copy of a work or not. That has nothing to do with ownership. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do anything.
You can do anything that is not against the law. The law, copyright in this case, restricts you in some way. Other laws can restrict you in other ways. For example, despite owning a car, you might not be allowed to drive it if you don't hold a valid driving license. You might own a stereo equipment, yet is not allowed to play it, at night at increadible high volume if you live in an appartment. And so on. Ownership does not alaways give complete freedom although it typially gives you almost complete freedom to do whatever you want.
More importantly, just because there are some things you is NOT allowed to do, does not mean you don't own it. That is a completely erroneous conclusion.
>If I was the actual owner of the music that I'd just purchased,
Small nitpicking, you are the owner of *A COPY* of the music.
>why is anyone else able to put those restrictions on what I do with it?
Because there is this thing called copyright that restricts you in a few ways in what you can do with copies of works that someone else holds the copyright to.
>If I buy a bottle of Coke, I'm not told that I wouldn't be allowed to serve >it at a public gathering,
Correct, because a bottle of Coke is not covered by copyright. This has nothing to do with ownership.
>In that instance I own the Coke in that bottle to do with pretty much as I >see fit.
No, not really, you can't do a host of things. For example there is nothing telling you that you can't thrown the bottle through my window (and thus breaking the glass), despite you owning that bottle, yet you can't do that because law regulating damaging of others property forbids it, this is regardless of if you own what you throw or not.
If we exchange the content of the bottle for some content that is highly damaging to nature or man, there might be laws that forbids you from empyting in some place because it can cause harm.
This of course has nothing to do with copyright or ownership.
The point is, ownership and holding copyright are two different things, you can own something while not holding the copyright to it which means you are somewhat restricted.
Slashdot Mirror
The only possible trademarks I am aware of, although I have not searched any trademark register would be Blizzard and World Of Warcraft.
>1)The use in quesiton is the use of the person producing the work, not the
>consumer of the work. the guy writing the guy is doing so to make money, so
>yes it is comercial.
And of course, we first has to determine WHAT infringing use we are looking. That is step one, to identify a copyright infringement, if there is no infringement, there is no issue or point in dealing with fair use. The fair use test is not to determine if some action is infirngement, it is to determine the opposite, if an infringing action is NOT so. SO what infringement are we looking at?
>2&3)The specifics of how the game works and how a character interacts with
>the world can be considered part of the copyrighted work.
So you claim that he has copied the work or part of a work, and in this case, what he copied was game rules and interaction mechanisms, right? Now, please go and find how copyright law gives protection for such things and you will come up that they are NOT something you get copyright on. In addition, he has not copied them, that would be understandable if he had written his own game or character interaction interface or something. What he do is describe some of those, in his own word (no copying there thus) so even if you WOULD get copyright on any of them, there is still no clear infringement.
As a side "thread", would you then say that Blizzard's implementation of how to interact with the game is also unique and can't be said to have copied anything from other games? I would say that the interaction for example is very similar between games and they borrow from each other freely.
>The settings, the unique characters, the mechanics are all creative
>expressions in addition to artwork.
But has he copied any of those? Or has he simply explained how a player should play the game?
>4)Blizzard publishes their own game guide based on their copyrighted game.
>Therefore this game guide directly competes with a Blizzard products and
>reduces the market.
But you must look at the infringnement, what is it? As stated above, if there is none, then this is irellevant. Just because you make a product that in itself compete with someone else does not create an infringement.
>Games, however, usually have nothing but trademarked characters in the
>screens.
Name a single trademark that appears on a typical screen when playing WoW. Just one.
One factor to consider is the ammount of a work you would use. You seem to do it with the whole movie which for sure would not be OK, especially since that is all you seem to do. On the other hand, had you taken just a few frames and incorporated them into your own work, pehraps to illustrate a point your make or as an example of something, it would be much more different and OK.
>The burden of proof then shifts to you to prove you haven't.
What "then"?? If someone wants to show that I have commited some sort of illegal activity, they have to show it, not me showing I have NOT done it. Claiming a possibility is not the same. It would trivially be easy to show it could NOT have been me as well.
>That is the way that US law works (where this is likely to be tried).
What makes you think so? It would obviously be tried in whatever country the person lives who would be accused of having done something illegal.
>More likely they will be "tagged" with a UID so it can be tracked back to
>you when found on P2P.
So? That doesn't mean you have done anything wrong or illegal no matter what.
I never claimed no one writing books might have copied other books. The point was the stance to not read other books at all to avoid such "tainting" was rediculous.
>Downloading source is great, but not if looking at said
>source "contaminates" you.
I guess that is why no sane musicioan ever listens, and more important, never looks at the scores (or is it notes?), of other music at all!
>More open sourced games can only be a good thing. How does Microsoft's
>shared-source license affect me as a professional game developer, though?
>I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of
>taint.
I guess as a professional book writer I would have to stop reading other books, otherwsie my own books could be "tainted" or "contaminated" by what I read. What a shock!!!
>Ianal, but iirc you cannot lose a trademark
Yes you can. That is why it is very important for someone who has a trademark to not use it carelessly. It should be used for the product only and not generally because then it becomes such a generic name for a type of product and a common word in the language for a certain type of product instead of a brand of a specific such product from a company.
>Which means that it should only be the consumer who has standing to sue for
>infringement
In most of those cases the consumer would of course not even know since he was fooled or confused by the branding. So it is hardly a good situation.
>>Yes, but it does not mean those that get it themsevles get a right to
>>reproduce it and distribute those copies, now do it?
>>
>I would say that it does, because of the inherent way the web and usenet
>work.
Yes, usenet, but not the web.
>>Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on
>>the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something
>>is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange.
>>
>
>Not only me, but the legal system (which, given copyright only exists as a
>legal construct and has no natural equivalent, is fairly significant).
OK, show me ONE legal system that says copyright is terminated and no longer exist as soon as you publish something on the net! Just one is OK!!
Just because anyone can come and see your page or what you present on a web page (for as long as it is there only though), does not mean anyone in turn are allowed to start copying and distributing the content. There is no copyright law saying so either, feel free to check all of them.
>For your book analogy to be accurate, the person would not only be handing
>out books on the corner, *but also* telling everyone who took one to make
>copies for anyone else who asked.
Someone that show something on the net does NOT tell everyone to copy and distribute it in any way, well there are probably some pages that specifically states so but not in general.
>Can people on Slashdot stop being pedantic for once? It's blatantly obvious
>what he means.
It is blatantly obvious I was not serious in my post. I don't agreee he was "obvious" though. Perhaps you could enlighten us what he would type if he actually DID mean the files was stolen?
>If it is an OEM copy then it is at least against the EULA, and most people
>have OEM copies.
Perhaps they have never agreed to it, perhaps they have terminated their agreement (thus not in force any more) or perhaps there was something that made the EULA or that particular part not valid, perhaps they disagreed to it when presented, perhaps there are some other reason that makes it possible to sell it...
>I wouldn't want someone stealing my code
I can understand you, it is so much work having to type it all in again afterwards and if you don't remember it all correctly, you will not end up with the same program again...
>by stealing my programs
Easier, just recompile and you have your program back again! Unless they stole you code as well, then you are back to retyping it all agian first.
>"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human
>intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users,
>the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing,"
>the court said.
This is cool, now all those torrent sites PLUS all those that in addition also store and relay actual content are safe as long as they do it automatically. They have no intent as long as it is automatic!!! Great news!
>The difference is, when you post something on the web (or usenet), you are
>doing so with the *knowledge and intention* that your "content" will be
>freely available and distributed to all.
Yes, but it does not mean those that get it themsevles get a right to reproduce it and distribute those copies, now do it? Imagine someone promoting their book that stands on the streets handing out free copies to whoever passes by (they even have a press with them to print new books, as many as needed). Obviously they do this with the knowledge and intent that it (the book) is freely available to anyone who comes by. Does it gives you the right to pick up a copy, save it and start top reproduce it yourself and then stand on the street your self distributing such copies, even long after the one providing the original stoped? Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange.
>The difference is that anybody putting material on the web is doing so in
>the knowledge that others will be accessing the material.
Yes, but the problem is not that people access it. The problems is when others not only access it but makes additional copies and also make those available to the public themselves.
>It's more like picking up a flier off a stack under a sign saying "TAKE A
>FLYER".
Sure, if that was all they did. But they do in addition save it and makes it available for others as well.
>If you don't want people taking your flyers, don't stick them under a sign
>saying "TAKE A FLYER
That is different from wanting OTHERS to copy your fliers and then put up their own sign and having people pick up copes.
>The Internet is not a book, a movie, or a CD.
So? How does that changes for example copyright? Copyright laws are typically written so that the media is irellevant.
>As soon as people recognize that fact, half of the stupid legal
>issues and lawsuits will go away.
Why? The only reason for this would be if one claim that on internet, copyright doe snot work, hence it should not exist and we will get rid of all stupid lawsuits.
>All (sane?) copyright law was written and all the major cases were
>heard before the Internet existed,
And as I mentioned, are typically written so that it doesn't depend on specific media types and handle futre ones. In addition, adjustments are made to handle things such as internet if needed.
>but now that routers and switches make copies of information as they
>forward it, proxies and internet browsers cache information, RAM and
>swap files store information,
ANd in most such cases the, typically temporary copies thus created are not considered as copies from a copyright infringement point of view and thus no problem, for the exact reason you mention, they are needed as part of for example the process of transmitting copies. It only turns into a problem and possible infringement if such copies are also stored and used as permanent (or long time) copies, independant of the original, such as google storing copies of web pages and showing them to anyone who so request. This is very different from temporary caches or a proxie that send a cached copie when you request the original (most likely still present even, although a good one will of course check if the original has changed lately so you get the latest) and so on.
>and there is very, very little practical difference between
>forwarding a URL and forwarding the content it points to,
If you make a copy and stores it and hands it out to anyone that requests it you have in most cases commited copyright infringement. The fact that you do it on the net or off the net is irellevant. Keeping a temporary copy while you transmit it to someone or in a cache to send instead of reretriveving the original (and perhaps only if it still exists).
Imagine someone operating a copying machine were people can pay a sum to use it to make copies of stuff they bring. Would it then be OK for you to simply keep copies of everything copied there and then hand it out to people instead of them having to bring their own original? WHat about you going arround pre copying every book, paper you can find, just to prepare yourself if someone ever comes and wants to copy such a thing?
If such a thing is correct, be it on the internet or off the internet, ANY copying would always be legal and NEVER infringing.
Note that I am not discussing if current laws are good or bad or should be changed or not, only how the current copyright laws work and what they say which happens to handle "new" things such as the internet quite well. For some reason, many people seems to think that as long as you are a search engine, you are excemted from copyright laws or that as soon as you do it on the net, copyright laws doesn't work and should not be applicable.
And I assume that while playing the game, fighting monsters and trying to survive in general in the game, you read every single message that comes to you, just in case one might be a GM?
I also assume you never disable the chat window completely so that you don't see chat messages? For example, switching to the combat window instead?
>But that's nothing at all to do with it being a bottle of Coke, or
>ownership. That's to do with not being allowed to throw anything through
>your window.
Exactly, and in many cases the same is true for a copy of, say, a book or a music CD, it has to do with your ability to create a *new* copy for example. My point was that even though you own something, laws might regulate what you do with it. In the case of music, it happens to be copyright laws. It is of course impossible to make exact examples with other things, such as a can of coke, that is not the point. It was an illustration that other laws might regulate and restrict your actions when you use something, even if you own it.
>I'm not allowed to copy the recipe and pass off bottle of Coke as my own.
Copying a recipie is typically OK, nothing prevents you from doing that. You would not be allowed to call it "Coke" or "Coca Cola" though (despite owning your created bottle with liquid) due to trademark laws as you say.
>but Coca Cola is not forcing any special restrictions on my use of this
>specific bottle, or its contents, because it's "their" drink.
nor could they any more that someone creating a music CD can do so beyoned what copyright law allows, which is a few specific sets of actions only.
>I'm not nitpicking. This is fundamentally different with music (and films)
>and I am talking specifically about the single instance of the music
>recorded on the single CD that I've just purchased (the equivalent of the
>specific 1 1/2 litres of Coke in my bottle that I was allowed to share with
>my friends without breaching Coke's rights).
There is no such "fundamental difference" as you seem to think or imply. Feel free to point to what make you think so, for example applicable copyright laws. Actually, copyright law specifically make a difference about the work itself (an abstract non tangible thing) and copies of the work (tangible, material objects) and make a distinction in the ownership of the two. Ownership of one does not imply ownership of the other and each can be transfered freely seperate from the other. For US laws, here are some links to it defining "copies" and to the distinction of ownership to the copyright and ownership to material copies.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
>If I had written and recorded my own music, I could broadcast it, lend it
>out, play it in public and do just about anything I wanted with it (except
>throw it through your window or play it very load at night).
Sure, and you could do it EVEN if you did not own the specific copy of the CD you would use. The reason is you own the COPYRIGHT to the music, it has nothing to do with the ownership of the material COPIES of it. That is the difference. They are two different things.
>If I actually own the CD, I should be allowed to do any of those things -
>there is nothing fundamentally illegal about performing those activities
>with a CD.
Well, "should" is an opinion, however, copyright laws does not allow so, EVEN if you own the CD. However, you are drawing a wrong and non logical conclusion that just because you are not allowed to do so, you can't be the owner of the CD which is an erroneous conclusion. Copyright specifcally dissalow so regardless of if you own the CD or not, you need to own the copyright to the music to be allowed to do so.
One might argue that this is bad and that copyright laws should be written differently so that it doesn't apply if you own a copy but that is currently not how copyright works.
>However, copyright protection prev
>Who are the people who are so poor they can't afford music and so addicted
>that they must have it?
Completely unrelated, but have you EVER borrowed something from someone instead of going out and buying it yourself? Have you ever, for example, read the newspaper at someone elses place instead of buying your own copy? Have you ever done anything without paying when there have been an alternative were you could pay instead? Or are you so poor that you can't afford to pay for any of that yet must have it?
>You physically own a CD. The contents of that CD, you simply own the right
>to listen to them.
No, you own a copy of the music. A copy is the work in question (music) fixed into some sort of media, the CD. That is the copy and you own it (including the copy of the music). There is no such thing as "right to listen" and you don't "own" such a thing either. There is nothing strange about that. What do exist is copyright law that forbids certain things (despite you owning a copy of the music), such as creating new copies or making public performances. That does not transform into you not owning the copy.
>>If we stick to music in general, yes it is yours, those specific copies of
>>the music are.
>Not as far as I can tell it isn't. Most CDs say somewhere on the case
>something along the lines of "no unauthorised copying, hiring, lending,
>reproduction, public performance or broadcasting of the work".
So? What does that have to do with the ownership of the copy? The things printed is basically telling about what copyright law says. Copyright prohibit certain types of action regardless of if you own a copy of a work or not. That has nothing to do with ownership. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do anything.
You can do anything that is not against the law. The law, copyright in this case, restricts you in some way. Other laws can restrict you in other ways. For example, despite owning a car, you might not be allowed to drive it if you don't hold a valid driving license. You might own a stereo equipment, yet is not allowed to play it, at night at increadible high volume if you live in an appartment. And so on. Ownership does not alaways give complete freedom although it typially gives you almost complete freedom to do whatever you want.
More importantly, just because there are some things you is NOT allowed to do, does not mean you don't own it. That is a completely erroneous conclusion.
>If I was the actual owner of the music that I'd just purchased,
Small nitpicking, you are the owner of *A COPY* of the music.
>why is anyone else able to put those restrictions on what I do with it?
Because there is this thing called copyright that restricts you in a few ways in what you can do with copies of works that someone else holds the copyright to.
>If I buy a bottle of Coke, I'm not told that I wouldn't be allowed to serve
>it at a public gathering,
Correct, because a bottle of Coke is not covered by copyright. This has nothing to do with ownership.
>In that instance I own the Coke in that bottle to do with pretty much as I
>see fit.
No, not really, you can't do a host of things. For example there is nothing telling you that you can't thrown the bottle through my window (and thus breaking the glass), despite you owning that bottle, yet you can't do that because law regulating damaging of others property forbids it, this is regardless of if you own what you throw or not.
If we exchange the content of the bottle for some content that is highly damaging to nature or man, there might be laws that forbids you from empyting in some place because it can cause harm.
This of course has nothing to do with copyright or ownership.
The point is, ownership and holding copyright are two different things, you can own something while not holding the copyright to it which means you are somewhat restricted.