>I don't think the line is anywhere near as clearcut as you say it is.
I didn't meant it to say that it is clearcut, either way. It depends on how and what you use. If you use the world in general but build your own story in it, there is no problem. If you start using the same specific descriptions, areas and places with the exact same people in the same places, at the same time in the world and so on, then you can be in problem.
Lets take another example, writing a continuation to an existing story. Is that OK or not? Might depend. I would say that in the US with the current copyright law, you will have a big problem. If you do it in Sweden, not sure, never tried in courts but I would say that chances are good you can do it. I am sure there are countries were it would be no problem at all. (ALl this based on derivative work and assuming there are no other trouble like trademark issues and such).
>Well, seeing as how that would make it a derivative work... no.
No, not nessecarilly. The "work" is not the world but the individual stories or episodes written. That is what you get copyright on, you won't get copyright on a world. So as long as your own story or novell just take olace in the world and doesn't use the spcificis of a previous story or novell, you would in general be OK.
Also note that in many countries the criteria for what is a derivative work is much more narrow than in for example US so you have even less problems.
>Copyright gives you the rights not only to control who publishes or >distributes the work you wrote, but it gives you the rights to control >who publishes works derived from that work.
Yes, but first it has to actually BE a derivative work as I explained above. Second, this does not hold true for many countries were the protection for a derivative work is less. For example, anyone can create a derivative work and will get the copyright to it. But again, what is considered a derivative work varies quite a bit and even in the US, I would say that just using a world in general for your story would be OK.
>If you're using the Federation, or the Foundation, or Known Space, you >have to either wait for the copyright to run out or ask permission from >teh copyright holder.
But there is no copyright holder to the "world". There are copyright holders to stories that take place in those worlds. Quite different.
The link you gave is to an explanation of derivative work in the US copyright law. Derivative work is one of the things in copyright laws arround the world that actually can differ quite a bit. I think that in the UK, which is relevant here since that is were the case is taking place, is quite similar to the US one. However, in many other countries the protection for derivative work is quite a bit less. This is why a case such as this is best done in US or UK (or other countrie similar to them).
As an example of differences, in Sweden for example, anyone is free to make a derivative work and will also be the copyright holder to the derivative work. The restiction that eixts is that even if you are the copyright holder to this derivative work your rights are no greater than what you have to the original, that is, you can't copy, distribute and make it available to the public in a way you could not do with the original. This of course does not really help in the current case but there is also a bit more narrow view on what actually is a derivative work, and that is were it again is goot to take the case in UK or US were the scope for what is a derivative work is quite large.
>They might not copy the spacing, images, fount, cover, backing, copy write >notice ect.
Obviously when we talk about "copying the book" here we talk about copying the story, which is what you get the copyright on. One might possibly get a copyright on the way it is presented as well, no idea, but typically it is the story and words in the book that one mean when one say "copying a book" and what is infringement.
>A "book" is an object made of paper, ink and glue. Google does not have >a "copy of a book", it doesn't have "a book" at all. That may not be what >you were thinking of when you used the word, but that's what it means.
With "a copy of a book" what is meant here is of course the copy of the story or writing in the book, gee how hard is that to understand.
>Sorry, I can't even understand that.
WHat does others doing have to do with anything? If someone else decides to commit copyright infringement, that is their bussiness. That does not turn ME into a infringer.
>>My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other >>media types
>Well, that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so >either.
Considering my whole post that you replied to was about doing the same that google do, but for another media type and from other sources, I don't what you try to claim. You should not have replied to it at all then I guess.
>>My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and >>creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of >>were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically >>is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are >>not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does >> > >No, it is not what Google does at all.
Ehh, perhaps you can enlighten us on what they do then. What I am talking about is two of the things google do. One is spidering the web and then making those webpages available to searching, giving you links to them and also present a small snipet of the page, typically the part that match your search criteria. They also present the option to view a cached version. The other is that they are doing the same with books (that they aquire in some way), building a similar database searchable and appearantly when you get a hit, you are shown a small snipet form the book along with links to the book (since the book is not online, I assume they give information about its publisher, author and so on).
The original poster thought this (mostly pointing to the book case) was all OK and obviously fair use. I then thought, "hey if that is OK", why would it be less OK to do the same with, say music files. ANd instead of scaning webpages on the net or scanning books, I would scan connections to various p2p networks. I would download (and scan them as well). Here is were I thought it was strange though that typically, many people feel that doing such downloading is "wrong" or infringement and so on, or at least not ok, no one at least use the "fair use" argument. However with google, it is suddenly "fair use" which I thought strange, why should they be able to spider, and copy content but no one else? That was my "example" and whole post. You seem to have missunderstood it and felt it was "quite irellevant".
You also seems to claim that google do something completely different, or at least doesn't do what I mention above which seems strange.
>A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be >unequivocally breaking copyright.
Perhaps, but that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
>But that's a whole other can of worms, Google isn't responsible for that, >each case has to be argued on its own merits.
My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other media types. Instead of books, I would do it for music, say. Instead of spidering the web, I spider p2p networks (yes, I know they don't find actual books that way, just presented two different and seperate examples).
>You'd have to limit it to a very small fragment, like the 3 lines or so >Google does.
So? And what says 3 lines from a book is the limit? I am not arguing exact specs, just the general idea. People tend to argue that for goole, almost anything goes, it is a search engine, all they doo is "fair use", while for a person, a single copying tend to be argued as infringement, almost no, matter what.
>And you can be sure that if your system effectively publishes the entire >book, or even more than a couple of pages, you won't get away with it.
Apart from my example not being about books at all but, for example music, I never claimed anything else. My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does and everything seems fine by most. Note,I am not arguing against google here, just trying to see why it is suddenly so wrong when someone else do it.
>In this analogy, Google's "copying" of the work is like the reviewer >reading the book.
So after the indexing, you claim that Google doesn't keep the copy of the book?
>Google goes to great lengths to prevent users from accessing more than a >few lines of a book they don't have explicit permission to feature
Sure, but are they keeping the whole book to be able to shop relevant parts of it? The main problem is not what they show to a user, they only show part it, the problem would be that they make copies of the whole book to start with to use for their search service. If it is OK for google, then it seems almost anyone could copy entire works for a whole lot of other reasons too, reasons thjat involve others than the collector. If google internally can use the book for whatever they do, then it seems I could too. Seems anyone can download at will and even use what they download as long as they don't make the entire work available to others. A small modification to for example torrent clients so that no one can get the entier work from you at once would make it completely OK crom a copyright infringeing perspective.
So? Why would they matter? Or are you saying that if google start to do it with other media they are suddenly in the wrong? Besides, I might just stick with music or movies.
>Secondly google are working in close company with some very esteemed universities on this project
So if you work with a University it is suddenly less copyright infringement?
>At no time are google going to give people access to books they don't own the copyright to, so your >comparison is innapropriate.
Were did I say I would do that? I would just index it and point people towards were to find it, showing a small part as an example of the "hit".
> Google will make money off advertising using their very successful advertising model,
So, I will not make ANY money out of my indexing, that is actually good, since making money out of it is typically giving it a HIGHER chance of being infringement nad not fair use.
>In my eyes googles book indexing service is still fair use as it's not abusing the copyright of the >books they are indexing and as it's fair use they don't even need to ask anyone. I'm not sure how this >case affects their book effort?
Lets see, so according to you, it would be OK for me to connect to every p2p network I find, dowload and keep a copy of everything for indexing and then making all those copies searchable and linking to were I find them and also provide small snipets from the files, for example music files. Cool.
I suppose it is a matter of knowing how the law and lawmakers interpret and what they meant with "owner" then. Might very well be that one should read it as "legally in possession" for example. Sometimes it can be very dangerous to simply interpret laws usaing a simple dictionary. I really have no idea though.
Other countries has it differently though, if you look at Swedish copyright law (which in this case is derived from a EU directive I believe) uses something along th eline of "right ot use the program" which, should be read and interpreted such as, has come into posession of a copy in a non infringing way. He does thus not nessecarilly have to be the owner of the copy.
>I doubt it. All that I've read says that your changes must be accepted, >and this is often done by counter-initialing or reprinting the contract >with the changes added.
Considering they usually want you to accept THEIR proposal just by opeing the package, installing the softwware or even just running the software, I don't see the problem, are you saying that it works for them but not for anyone else?
>I'm not sure what jurisdiction you are posting from, however, the >validity of EULAs is entirely based on this not being true. If you do >not agree to the EULA and run the program anyway, theoretically they >come after you for copyright infringement for running the program.
How would it be copyright infringement to run a program? It is generally not and that is one of the problems with EULAs. They really have nothing to do with copyright but are more a contract (or contract addition) to the sale, although since they are not between you and the seller, they really ends up in a mess.
So why do they not have (almost) anything to do with copyright? Well, simply running or using something is not a right of the copyright holder, and if we take books or music, neither is reading or listening, hence you don't need any license or permission to do so. What complicate matters some with software is that normal use and running or even installing software tends to create new copies. Are they infringeing? That would be the ONLY reason you would actually need a permision or alicense. The good thing is that in most countries, such copies are not infringement and hence no need, from a copyright point of view, for a license.
Typically copyright law would, for software, permit any such copies needed to run and use the program making them not infringing, as long as the original copy of the software is quired in a legal way. That can be either buying it, lending it, recieveiung it as a gift and whatever else you can think of. Basically, as long as you don't get your copy in an infringing way yourself, you are safe and are allowed to make additional copies needed to use it.
>Otherwise EULAs would have no teeth, as nobody would ever need agree to >it and we'd have a plethora of legally tight ways of disagreeing to the >EULA and still running the program.
Exactly. Obviously software makes wants you to believe differently though.
Not only prior art is a prooblem, a patent should also be on obvious for people in teh field. I am always amazed how it seems that by adding "on the internet" or "with a computer" tends to turn almost everything into something completely non obvious. Oh well.
Were did you get that strange idea from? For your information, it might be copyright infringement in some cases (but not nessecarilly all). Copyright infringement is also against the law by the way.
That has nothing to do with the fact that they are CDRs though, a CDR can have just as good audio quality as a "real" CD, depending on what you burn onto them.
Nice summary, just some small commentsa on your final statement:
>(Note: the above is all based on US law. Most countries are roughly >similar, but there are differences.)
One area of such difference that is actually relative significat is the one of derivative work were the protection in many countries are significat differencet or reduced. An example would be Sweden were anyone can create a derivative work and would actually be the copyright holder for that derivative work. The restriction is still there though in that your rights for distribution and all other rights are still restricted the same way that you would be with the original work. Typically this means you can't do much with it but you can never the less create derivative works, use them and under the variant of fair use we have, also make limited copies, distribution and such. And the copyright to it would belong to the one making hte derivative work.
Another area that differes quite a lot between countries is what you touch under point 5, the "fair use" which is handled quite differently in many countries, it can either be almost non existant or be in the form of more specific exceptions to the exclusive rights (instead of the "test system" used for fair use in US). For example, again taking the Swedish copyright law, it specifically allows you to make a few copies for private use. This includes making a copy and give to a friend for example. No need for any test, and no way to not allow it and so on. At the other end, it seems, there is (based soley on readin in various forums) any such fair use right at all, at least not for copying, in say the UK (I can be wrong though).
Other than this, I tend to agree that it is otherwsie more or less the same in every country but the above variations can be good to know about when discussing copyright on the net.
>Does anyone know where this "license" I supposedly agreed to by purchasing a >CD can be found?
No idea, but I have mostly wondered what it is FOR. I rarely find the need to get a license for any of the copyright holders rights and have almost never found myself in a situation were I would have needed one.
>It all comes down to whether a CD is physical property or intellectual >property.
Depends on what you mean by "intellectual property". Seems people tend to use it for a whole bunch of very different things, in whatever way that ssems to suit them. There really isn't any "intellectual property" if you go look in laws or such. If we stick to copyright, which seems appropriate here, a copy of a song is a material objected were the work is fixated into some sort of medium, like a CD. So for the most time, when you talk about a "CD", you are talking about a "copy" of a work, which is a material object as per US copyright law (for other countries, see similar definitions or reasoning in their copyright laws):
>So if a CD is physical goods, then why can't I make a copy of it and >give it to my friends? Why can't I convert it to MP3s and share it with >people on the internet?
Because creating a copy of a work that is protected by copyright law is usually an infringing act and a right hold by the copyright holder (the nature of the original is rarely relevant). Similary, making a work available to the public (which you would do if you share it over the internet) is also a right hold by the copyright holder.
>With my Honda, I can take photos, measurements, etc. of critical engine >parts and post all this information to the internet (in fact, this is >widely done), so that anyone else with the means can produce copies. I >can post pizza recipes all I want, as long as I've made the recipes >myself (again, reverse-engineering a Papa John's pizza is fully legal).
Neither your honda, not the recipies are works covered by copyright, that is the difference.
>But I can't post a copy of a CD? Why not?
See above. And again, the nature of the CD or if you want to view it as a physical object or not (no idea how it would NOT be a physical object) is irellevant.
>The thing that makes it illegal for me to hand out or sell copies of CDs >is copyright law, and the idea that what I'm buying is not physical >goods, but a license to use intellectual property.
Not correct, there is no "idea" about not being physical in copyright law, there is no "idea" of buying a license in copyright law (license is something you get to perform the acts exclusive to the copyright holder so that you don't infringe the copyright, if what you do is not infringing, you don't need a license) and there is no "idea" of intellectual property in the copyright law. You have got it all mixed up and missunderstood copyright law it seems.
The copyright law actually, as I allready showed, specifically separate the work and ownership of the work (which is intangible) from copies of the work and ownership of the copies and ownership of one one does not imply the other (see more in 202 "Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object" for example). Copyright only deals with the acts related to copyright. If you want to learn about buying stuff, you should turn to cales laws or consumer sales laws, they include and copver CDs and software too.
>Intellectual property isn't like real property.
Correct, it tends to be whatever a person likes it to be. Typically, people use it to cover copyright, patent AND trademark, which causes confusions since they are all different. Then many tends to also use it to mean, at least for copyright, all the copies of a work as well, which makes it even more confusing since the very same people then tends to think that by doing that, no other laws suddenly matter and that your CD suddenly turns immaterial and non physical. Bizzare, isn't it?
>Isn't music like software in that you have purchased the right to listen to >the music?
No, music is like software in that it is covered by copyright. Copyright deals with things such as making copies, distribution to the public, public performances. It is not about listening, reading or running the software which has very little or nothing to do with copyright and hence is not protected and thus no such things as "right" to hold, get or give.
>If you buy a cd and it gets damaged, I think it should be replaced for the >cost of the media,
If the damage is due to manufacture and such, then you can get a replacement in the store under the same (consumer) sales laws for any other things you buy. If it is due to your own fault, then you won't get a replacement, just as you won't get a replacement for the box for your playing cards (or the playing cards themselves) or any other thing that breaks due to your own use.
>you already purchased the rights to the music.
What "right"? Typically you don't need to purchase any right to the music unless you want to make copies to distribute yourself or to play it in the public. In such a case you need to get a license to do that from the copyright holder since that is rights exclusive to them. To play the CD in your CD player and to listen to the music you don't need any such things since that is not rights given to the copyright holder. Here is a link to the US copyright law which lists the rights the copyright holder has as "exclusive" (although exceptions exists as well), anything else is not regulated or controlled:
Note that software by its very nature typically requires copies of more permanent nature to be made to be able to use at all (for example to install on the hard disc) and even though making copies, for example for private use is in most countries allowed and not infringing (an exception as I mentioned above amde in different way in different countries, for example "fair use" in US), for software it is more restricted. To get arround the situation were you can't use software at all then, there is in almost every copyright law specific exceptions for computer software meaning you are allowed to make any such copies needed to use the software without any special permision, license or such. Again, I give you a link to the US copyright law for the limitations in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder that details that such copies are not infringing:
Intellectual property is often used to refer to copyrights, patents and trademarks (which are all quite different and governed by different laws which makes it confusing to just say "intellectual property), which are quite different to songs. A lot of people tend to use "intellectual property" to mean the actual works that you get copyright, patents and trademarks on which makes it even more confusing.
Now, in your case, I suppose you mean the song itself is not a physical or material. True. However, for it to be of any use, you would normally have to fixate that song onto some medium (you actually need to do that to get a copyright to start with), and that creates what is called a copy of it, which IS material. So there is no division between the CD itself and some intangible song on it, the CD WITH the song is a material copy, not at all different from any other physical or material object.
Here is a link to the US copyright law and its definitions, including "copies":
>Am I buying the right to listen to the contents of the CD,
Considering you don't need such a thing and allready have it, or rather, there is nothing preventing or forbiding you to listen to start with, this is not the case.
> or am I buying the CD?
Typically you would be buying a copy of the music, many times in toe form of a CD, but it can be in other formats too.
>When they see it on p2p networks, they will read the watermark, and trace it to a customer, so they can >sue them for the cost of the song times one quadrillion.
Huh? Just because someone has, for example bought some music does not mean that person has done anything wrong in the situation you describe. Someone else might have copied it while visiting you, while borrowing or perhaps got a copy in a perfectly legal way, not all copying are infringment, at least not in most countries in the world. Alternatively the original buyer might have sold or given the copy away and so on.
So you will take the file with the watermark to court???? So what if you identify a special source file, that does not mean the original buyer (for example) have made anything wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
>I don't think the line is anywhere near as clearcut as you say it is.
I didn't meant it to say that it is clearcut, either way. It depends on how and what you use. If you use the world in general but build your own story in it, there is no problem. If you start using the same specific descriptions, areas and places with the exact same people in the same places, at the same time in the world and so on, then you can be in problem.
Lets take another example, writing a continuation to an existing story. Is that OK or not? Might depend. I would say that in the US with the current copyright law, you will have a big problem. If you do it in Sweden, not sure, never tried in courts but I would say that chances are good you can do it. I am sure there are countries were it would be no problem at all. (ALl this based on derivative work and assuming there are no other trouble like trademark issues and such).
>Well, seeing as how that would make it a derivative work... no.
No, not nessecarilly. The "work" is not the world but the individual stories or episodes written. That is what you get copyright on, you won't get copyright on a world. So as long as your own story or novell just take olace in the world and doesn't use the spcificis of a previous story or novell, you would in general be OK.
Also note that in many countries the criteria for what is a derivative work is much more narrow than in for example US so you have even less problems.
>Copyright gives you the rights not only to control who publishes or
>distributes the work you wrote, but it gives you the rights to control
>who publishes works derived from that work.
Yes, but first it has to actually BE a derivative work as I explained above. Second, this does not hold true for many countries were the protection for a derivative work is less. For example, anyone can create a derivative work and will get the copyright to it. But again, what is considered a derivative work varies quite a bit and even in the US, I would say that just using a world in general for your story would be OK.
>If you're using the Federation, or the Foundation, or Known Space, you
>have to either wait for the copyright to run out or ask permission from
>teh copyright holder.
But there is no copyright holder to the "world". There are copyright holders to stories that take place in those worlds. Quite different.
>Well, you're not quite completely free.
The link you gave is to an explanation of derivative work in the US copyright law. Derivative work is one of the things in copyright laws arround the world that actually can differ quite a bit. I think that in the UK, which is relevant here since that is were the case is taking place, is quite similar to the US one. However, in many other countries the protection for derivative work is quite a bit less. This is why a case such as this is best done in US or UK (or other countrie similar to them).
As an example of differences, in Sweden for example, anyone is free to make a derivative work and will also be the copyright holder to the derivative work. The restiction that eixts is that even if you are the copyright holder to this derivative work your rights are no greater than what you have to the original, that is, you can't copy, distribute and make it available to the public in a way you could not do with the original. This of course does not really help in the current case but there is also a bit more narrow view on what actually is a derivative work, and that is were it again is goot to take the case in UK or US were the scope for what is a derivative work is quite large.
>They might not copy the spacing, images, fount, cover, backing, copy write
>notice ect.
Obviously when we talk about "copying the book" here we talk about copying the story, which is what you get the copyright on. One might possibly get a copyright on the way it is presented as well, no idea, but typically it is the story and words in the book that one mean when one say "copying a book" and what is infringement.
>A "book" is an object made of paper, ink and glue. Google does not have
>a "copy of a book", it doesn't have "a book" at all. That may not be what
>you were thinking of when you used the word, but that's what it means.
With "a copy of a book" what is meant here is of course the copy of the story or writing in the book, gee how hard is that to understand.
>Sorry, I can't even understand that.
WHat does others doing have to do with anything? If someone else decides to commit copyright infringement, that is their bussiness. That does not turn ME into a infringer.
>>My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other
>>media types
>Well, that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so
>either.
Considering my whole post that you replied to was about doing the same that google do, but for another media type and from other sources, I don't what you try to claim. You should not have replied to it at all then I guess.
>>My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and
>>creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of
>>were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically
>>is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are
>>not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does
>>
>
>No, it is not what Google does at all.
Ehh, perhaps you can enlighten us on what they do then. What I am talking about is two of the things google do. One is spidering the web and then making those webpages available to searching, giving you links to them and also present a small snipet of the page, typically the part that match your search criteria. They also present the option to view a cached version. The other is that they are doing the same with books (that they aquire in some way), building a similar database searchable and appearantly when you get a hit, you are shown a small snipet form the book along with links to the book (since the book is not online, I assume they give information about its publisher, author and so on).
The original poster thought this (mostly pointing to the book case) was all OK and obviously fair use. I then thought, "hey if that is OK", why would it be less OK to do the same with, say music files. ANd instead of scaning webpages on the net or scanning books, I would scan connections to various p2p networks. I would download (and scan them as well). Here is were I thought it was strange though that typically, many people feel that doing such downloading is "wrong" or infringement and so on, or at least not ok, no one at least use the "fair use" argument. However with google, it is suddenly "fair use" which I thought strange, why should they be able to spider, and copy content but no one else? That was my "example" and whole post. You seem to have missunderstood it and felt it was "quite irellevant".
You also seems to claim that google do something completely different, or at least doesn't do what I mention above which seems strange.
>A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be
>unequivocally breaking copyright.
Perhaps, but that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
>But that's a whole other can of worms, Google isn't responsible for that,
>each case has to be argued on its own merits.
My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other media types. Instead of books, I would do it for music, say. Instead of spidering the web, I spider p2p networks (yes, I know they don't find actual books that way, just presented two different and seperate examples).
>You'd have to limit it to a very small fragment, like the 3 lines or so
>Google does.
So? And what says 3 lines from a book is the limit? I am not arguing exact specs, just the general idea. People tend to argue that for goole, almost anything goes, it is a search engine, all they doo is "fair use", while for a person, a single copying tend to be argued as infringement, almost no, matter what.
>And you can be sure that if your system effectively publishes the entire
>book, or even more than a couple of pages, you won't get away with it.
Apart from my example not being about books at all but, for example music, I never claimed anything else. My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does and everything seems fine by most. Note,I am not arguing against google here, just trying to see why it is suddenly so wrong when someone else do it.
>In this analogy, Google's "copying" of the work is like the reviewer
>reading the book.
So after the indexing, you claim that Google doesn't keep the copy of the book?
>Google goes to great lengths to prevent users from accessing more than a
>few lines of a book they don't have explicit permission to feature
Sure, but are they keeping the whole book to be able to shop relevant parts of it? The main problem is not what they show to a user, they only show part it, the problem would be that they make copies of the whole book to start with to use for their search service. If it is OK for google, then it seems almost anyone could copy entire works for a whole lot of other reasons too, reasons thjat involve others than the collector. If google internally can use the book for whatever they do, then it seems I could too. Seems anyone can download at will and even use what they download as long as they don't make the entire work available to others. A small modification to for example torrent clients so that no one can get the entier work from you at once would make it completely OK crom a copyright infringeing perspective.
> firstly you are mixing media
So? Why would they matter? Or are you saying that if google start to do it with other media they are suddenly in the wrong? Besides, I might just stick with music or movies.
>Secondly google are working in close company with some very esteemed universities on this project
So if you work with a University it is suddenly less copyright infringement?
>At no time are google going to give people access to books they don't own the copyright to, so your
>comparison is innapropriate.
Were did I say I would do that? I would just index it and point people towards were to find it, showing a small part as an example of the "hit".
> Google will make money off advertising using their very successful advertising model,
So, I will not make ANY money out of my indexing, that is actually good, since making money out of it is typically giving it a HIGHER chance of being infringement nad not fair use.
>In my eyes googles book indexing service is still fair use as it's not abusing the copyright of the
>books they are indexing and as it's fair use they don't even need to ask anyone. I'm not sure how this
>case affects their book effort?
Lets see, so according to you, it would be OK for me to connect to every p2p network I find, dowload and keep a copy of everything for indexing and then making all those copies searchable and linking to were I find them and also provide small snipets from the files, for example music files. Cool.
>Sorry, I was talking about contracts, not EULAs.
Me too!
I suppose it is a matter of knowing how the law and lawmakers interpret and what they meant with "owner" then. Might very well be that one should read it as "legally in possession" for example. Sometimes it can be very dangerous to simply interpret laws usaing a simple dictionary. I really have no idea though.
Other countries has it differently though, if you look at Swedish copyright law (which in this case is derived from a EU directive I believe) uses something along th eline of "right ot use the program" which, should be read and interpreted such as, has come into posession of a copy in a non infringing way. He does thus not nessecarilly have to be the owner of the copy.
>I doubt it. All that I've read says that your changes must be accepted,
>and this is often done by counter-initialing or reprinting the contract
>with the changes added.
Considering they usually want you to accept THEIR proposal just by opeing the package, installing the softwware or even just running the software, I don't see the problem, are you saying that it works for them but not for anyone else?
>I'm not sure what jurisdiction you are posting from, however, the
>validity of EULAs is entirely based on this not being true. If you do
>not agree to the EULA and run the program anyway, theoretically they
>come after you for copyright infringement for running the program.
How would it be copyright infringement to run a program? It is generally not and that is one of the problems with EULAs. They really have nothing to do with copyright but are more a contract (or contract addition) to the sale, although since they are not between you and the seller, they really ends up in a mess.
So why do they not have (almost) anything to do with copyright? Well, simply running or using something is not a right of the copyright holder, and if we take books or music, neither is reading or listening, hence you don't need any license or permission to do so. What complicate matters some with software is that normal use and running or even installing software tends to create new copies. Are they infringeing? That would be the ONLY reason you would actually need a permision or alicense. The good thing is that in most countries, such copies are not infringement and hence no need, from a copyright point of view, for a license.
Typically copyright law would, for software, permit any such copies needed to run and use the program making them not infringing, as long as the original copy of the software is quired in a legal way. That can be either buying it, lending it, recieveiung it as a gift and whatever else you can think of. Basically, as long as you don't get your copy in an infringing way yourself, you are safe and are allowed to make additional copies needed to use it.
>Otherwise EULAs would have no teeth, as nobody would ever need agree to
>it and we'd have a plethora of legally tight ways of disagreeing to the
>EULA and still running the program.
Exactly. Obviously software makes wants you to believe differently though.
Not only prior art is a prooblem, a patent should also be on obvious for people in teh field. I am always amazed how it seems that by adding "on the internet" or "with a computer" tends to turn almost everything into something completely non obvious. Oh well.
>DOWNLOADING PIRATED FILMS IS STEALING
Were did you get that strange idea from? For your information, it might be copyright infringement in some cases (but not nessecarilly all). Copyright infringement is also against the law by the way.
>true because they are burned from a lossy source
That has nothing to do with the fact that they are CDRs though, a CDR can have just as good audio quality as a "real" CD, depending on what you burn onto them.
>because your writing off a lossilly encoded copy!
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the issue of a CDR being of less quality than a "normal" CD which the other posted claimed.
Nice summary, just some small commentsa on your final statement:
>(Note: the above is all based on US law. Most countries are roughly
>similar, but there are differences.)
One area of such difference that is actually relative significat is the one of derivative work were the protection in many countries are significat differencet or reduced. An example would be Sweden were anyone can create a derivative work and would actually be the copyright holder for that derivative work. The restriction is still there though in that your rights for distribution and all other rights are still restricted the same way that you would be with the original work. Typically this means you can't do much with it but you can never the less create derivative works, use them and under the variant of fair use we have, also make limited copies, distribution and such. And the copyright to it would belong to the one making hte derivative work.
Another area that differes quite a lot between countries is what you touch under point 5, the "fair use" which is handled quite differently in many countries, it can either be almost non existant or be in the form of more specific exceptions to the exclusive rights (instead of the "test system" used for fair use in US). For example, again taking the Swedish copyright law, it specifically allows you to make a few copies for private use. This includes making a copy and give to a friend for example. No need for any test, and no way to not allow it and so on. At the other end, it seems, there is (based soley on readin in various forums) any such fair use right at all, at least not for copying, in say the UK (I can be wrong though).
Other than this, I tend to agree that it is otherwsie more or less the same in every country but the above variations can be good to know about when discussing copyright on the net.
>Does anyone know where this "license" I supposedly agreed to by purchasing a
>CD can be found?
No idea, but I have mostly wondered what it is FOR. I rarely find the need to get a license for any of the copyright holders rights and have almost never found myself in a situation were I would have needed one.
>It all comes down to whether a CD is physical property or intellectual
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>property.
Depends on what you mean by "intellectual property". Seems people tend to use it for a whole bunch of very different things, in whatever way that ssems to suit them. There really isn't any "intellectual property" if you go look in laws or such. If we stick to copyright, which seems appropriate here, a copy of a song is a material objected were the work is fixated into some sort of medium, like a CD. So for the most time, when you talk about a "CD", you are talking about a "copy" of a work, which is a material object as per US copyright law (for other countries, see similar definitions or reasoning in their copyright laws):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>So if a CD is physical goods, then why can't I make a copy of it and
>give it to my friends? Why can't I convert it to MP3s and share it with
>people on the internet?
Because creating a copy of a work that is protected by copyright law is usually an infringing act and a right hold by the copyright holder (the nature of the original is rarely relevant). Similary, making a work available to the public (which you would do if you share it over the internet) is also a right hold by the copyright holder.
>With my Honda, I can take photos, measurements, etc. of critical engine
>parts and post all this information to the internet (in fact, this is
>widely done), so that anyone else with the means can produce copies. I
>can post pizza recipes all I want, as long as I've made the recipes
>myself (again, reverse-engineering a Papa John's pizza is fully legal).
Neither your honda, not the recipies are works covered by copyright, that is the difference.
>But I can't post a copy of a CD? Why not?
See above. And again, the nature of the CD or if you want to view it as a physical object or not (no idea how it would NOT be a physical object) is irellevant.
>The thing that makes it illegal for me to hand out or sell copies of CDs
>is copyright law, and the idea that what I'm buying is not physical
>goods, but a license to use intellectual property.
Not correct, there is no "idea" about not being physical in copyright law, there is no "idea" of buying a license in copyright law (license is something you get to perform the acts exclusive to the copyright holder so that you don't infringe the copyright, if what you do is not infringing, you don't need a license) and there is no "idea" of intellectual property in the copyright law. You have got it all mixed up and missunderstood copyright law it seems.
The copyright law actually, as I allready showed, specifically separate the work and ownership of the work (which is intangible) from copies of the work and ownership of the copies and ownership of one one does not imply the other (see more in 202 "Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object" for example). Copyright only deals with the acts related to copyright. If you want to learn about buying stuff, you should turn to cales laws or consumer sales laws, they include and copver CDs and software too.
>Intellectual property isn't like real property.
Correct, it tends to be whatever a person likes it to be. Typically, people use it to cover copyright, patent AND trademark, which causes confusions since they are all different. Then many tends to also use it to mean, at least for copyright, all the copies of a work as well, which makes it even more confusing since the very same people then tends to think that by doing that, no other laws suddenly matter and that your CD suddenly turns immaterial and non physical. Bizzare, isn't it?
>Isn't music like software in that you have purchased the right to listen to
s c_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
s c_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
>the music?
No, music is like software in that it is covered by copyright. Copyright deals with things such as making copies, distribution to the public, public performances. It is not about listening, reading or running the software which has very little or nothing to do with copyright and hence is not protected and thus no such things as "right" to hold, get or give.
>If you buy a cd and it gets damaged, I think it should be replaced for the
>cost of the media,
If the damage is due to manufacture and such, then you can get a replacement in the store under the same (consumer) sales laws for any other things you buy. If it is due to your own fault, then you won't get a replacement, just as you won't get a replacement for the box for your playing cards (or the playing cards themselves) or any other thing that breaks due to your own use.
>you already purchased the rights to the music.
What "right"? Typically you don't need to purchase any right to the music unless you want to make copies to distribute yourself or to play it in the public. In such a case you need to get a license to do that from the copyright holder since that is rights exclusive to them. To play the CD in your CD player and to listen to the music you don't need any such things since that is not rights given to the copyright holder. Here is a link to the US copyright law which lists the rights the copyright holder has as "exclusive" (although exceptions exists as well), anything else is not regulated or controlled:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
Note that software by its very nature typically requires copies of more permanent nature to be made to be able to use at all (for example to install on the hard disc) and even though making copies, for example for private use is in most countries allowed and not infringing (an exception as I mentioned above amde in different way in different countries, for example "fair use" in US), for software it is more restricted. To get arround the situation were you can't use software at all then, there is in almost every copyright law specific exceptions for computer software meaning you are allowed to make any such copies needed to use the software without any special permision, license or such. Again, I give you a link to the US copyright law for the limitations in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder that details that such copies are not infringing:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
you already purchased the rights to the music.
>The songs on them are intellectual property.
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
Intellectual property is often used to refer to copyrights, patents and trademarks (which are all quite different and governed by different laws which makes it confusing to just say "intellectual property), which are quite different to songs. A lot of people tend to use "intellectual property" to mean the actual works that you get copyright, patents and trademarks on which makes it even more confusing.
Now, in your case, I suppose you mean the song itself is not a physical or material. True. However, for it to be of any use, you would normally have to fixate that song onto some medium (you actually need to do that to get a copyright to start with), and that creates what is called a copy of it, which IS material. So there is no division between the CD itself and some intangible song on it, the CD WITH the song is a material copy, not at all different from any other physical or material object.
Here is a link to the US copyright law and its definitions, including "copies":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
So yes, a CD with a song (or several songs) is a physical property, not different from any other physical property.
>Am I buying the right to listen to the contents of the CD,
Considering you don't need such a thing and allready have it, or rather, there is nothing preventing or forbiding you to listen to start with, this is not the case.
> or am I buying the CD?
Typically you would be buying a copy of the music, many times in toe form of a CD, but it can be in other formats too.
>When they see it on p2p networks, they will read the watermark, and trace it to a customer, so they can
>sue them for the cost of the song times one quadrillion.
Huh? Just because someone has, for example bought some music does not mean that person has done anything wrong in the situation you describe. Someone else might have copied it while visiting you, while borrowing or perhaps got a copy in a perfectly legal way, not all copying are infringment, at least not in most countries in the world. Alternatively the original buyer might have sold or given the copy away and so on.
>The same way DNA comparisons hold up in court.
So you will take the file with the watermark to court???? So what if you identify a special source file, that does not mean the original buyer (for example) have made anything wrong.