>First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by >the DMCA.
Is the GPL only intended for US? What about other countries with different or similar laws? ALso, the law tend to define what is, for example, an effective protection, you can't change that definition yourself.
>The compiled information provided by anyone who has actually done that is a >different matter, however.
Based on what? Copyright law is quite specific on what you get copyright on and facts is not such a thing. It doesn't matter who do or compile the facts, you still don't get copyright to them. You can get copyright on the database or your compilation of them,but you still don't get any for the facts themsleves.
>If I make maps, (for example), I don't claim copyright to the landscape, but >I do require payment (and can claim copyright) for the time and effort I put >into measuring it and making up the maps.
That is because maps are typically included in what gets protection under copyright.
>By the same argument, anyone who actually compiles and publishes statistics >should have ownership of the data it has taken them time and effort to >gather,
No, you are mixing up the data with the "creation". Just as someone writing a book doesn't get any copyright on the individual words, you don't get any copyright on the individual data or pieces of information you gather. Your compilation or database or whatever you call it, is protected though. The fatc that it took you great effort is irellevant.
>No, actually he's right, at least inasmuch as that the football authorities >claim that the fixtures are copyright.
I never said the site did not have the claim. I was saying that I doubted UK copyright law had any such provisions for which there could be a valid such claim and asked for a link to the law or similar to show it.
>The claim is presumably based on the principle that the fixtures >are "created" and therefore subject to copyright.
Just because something is created does not give it copyright. There need to be at least some form of creativity and/or orginality which we hardly have here. From what I have readin the UK copyright laws, they don't have much different requirements than other countries. Hence, again, why I asked for some link or information on the applicable copyright law.
>In the UK the dates for the Football matches around the country are >considered copyright
So you claim that UK copyright laws has specific regulation mentioning that the date of some football games ARE covered by copyright despite not having anything to do with what gives copyright and the requirements otherwise to get copyright on something? Fine, care to show that part of the UK copyright law? ALso note that since no other country I know of has such provisions it would be applicable to UK at most, although I don't believe there is such provisions in the UK copyright law, but feel free to point me to the law.
>the fixture list on the main website is accompanied by:
A website is not the law. If I decide to claim I have the copyright to my shoe size and post a copyright notice about it doesn't make that true.
>IIRC they successfully sued someone who was using the dates without >permission.
Data bases have copyright protection (or similar to copyright). BUt that is something completely different. It is not the individual content of it that is protected but the database as such. You can't just take it as a whole, you can take individual facts or information from it though and present it yourself. SImilary a phone list book typically is protected under copyright law and you can't just copy it, however, the individual phone numbers are not protected. I guess the same what you refer to here, but feel free to link to the actual case so we can see.
>Yeah, but you didn't buy a ticket from the corporation organizing the >wonder of weather to see it, did you?
Again, so what? You don't have to see something to be able to tell about it. I can tell about a score in a game even if I did not see it just as I can tell the temperature in some city even if I was not there to see or experience it myself.
>Be sure the check the EULA next time you go see a game of baseball! I'll >bet it says "You are granted a non-exclusive license to enjoy the game >yadda yadda but the ownership and rights to the results remain the sole >property of blah blah blaa.";-)
If we disregard that I don't go and see baseball since baseball is basically not played in my country, the point is that there is no such thing as "right to results". It is just plain facts and can't be owned of have any rights any more than you can own the right to the temperature of some place. There is no such "rights". Doesn't matter iof someone claims it. You can claim the right to the temperature in your garden all you want, that doesn't mean no one else can tell about it.
>Bear in mind statistics are one of the most important components in >baseball.
So? It is still just facts. Weather statistics, like the temperature and wether the sun is shining or not is one of the most important components for anyone in meteorology, still doesn't mean no one else can tell about the weather yesterday they read about or saw.
I think we are now having thr same discussion in two places, but just as I said in the other, having an office is not the same as the law requiring registration. The office in almost all cases seem to be to the ministary that deals with laws and such in the area by the way, there is nothing about registration. So try looking at the LAWS instead next time, since that is the important part, and no, most does not requiring registration. Many (most?) countries have never even had form requirements to copyright (like for example USA) but have had automatic copyright and thus have never had such things as registration needed or required.
That was not what I was saying, I was saying that registering a copyright is not needed to seek for example statuary damages as you say, copyright is automatic and so is your ability to get such damages without needing to register anything. hence there is no need to register either. The fact that they might have a copyright office is quite irellevant. Take Sweden for example, it is listed but it is in reality just part of a ministary that heppen to deal with such things, there is no registration for it (the industrial one is for patents by the way). So despite having such an office there is neither a possibility of registration, nor is it needed since the copyright law doesn't have such provisions or requirements. Try looking at the laws instead of a list of "offices" which clearly almost all countries have since they have laws regulating it.
>In most countries, statutory damages require that the user be aware of the copyright. Without >registration, this is difficult to prove. In general, if the copyright isn't registered, you can only >sue for loss of income.
Most countries doesn't have any such thing as registering at all, that is what I said. Being aware of copyright is quite easy as well, it can be assumed it exists or if you are not sure, check it. So no, you will in most countries be able to get even statuary damages despite there being no registering at all. The registering bit seems to be a left over in USA (and perhaps some other countries) from the time when there was formal requirements on how to get copyright to start with and it was not automatic.
Did you answer some other post and just decided to put it here? because what you write has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. As I said, the concept of registering doesn't exist in most part of the world.
>We MAY have reduced quanities of new content if we eradicate copyright >law, but that is by no means certain.
And even if we get quite a bit less content created, it would basically all be available to everyone. So in the end, even in that case, most people will have access and can use MUCH more content which in my opinion is what is important. The absolute number of content created. I mean, is it better if we tenfold the content created but without any real possibility for people to access it? Of course not.
>I said nothing about trademarks [So why did you reply to my post?],
You talked about "IP laws", "IP" and "IP owners". Typically the "IP" is used as bundling together things such as copyright, patents and trademarks. So yes, you were talking about not only trademarks but also copyrights and patents. If you were only talking about for example copyright, why not write copyright instead so that there is no confusion? This also clearly shows why the term "intellectual property" is such a bad thing.
>If I copy your school paper, what sort of damages are you going to seek? >Statutory? Nope, you can't get that unless you register your copyright >before the infringement occurs.
What makes you think everyone lives in the US? In most countries you don't need to register the copyright.
>Even a grocery list that you right is copyrighted,
Most grocery lists will not meet the criterias for recieveing a copyright though.
>However, because it made a big splash we made circumvention LEGAL, but the >tools illegal.
What TYPE of protection/circumvention do we talk about here though? The EUCD only deals with protection of rights under copyright, for example copying. It does not deal with what typical DRM deals with, namely access. Hence, to strictly implement the EUDC, you only need to prevent circumvention of protection that prevents copying, not those that prevents accessing. Many countries have gone further than the directive and added in for example access as well though. An example of a country that has not is Sweden. So my question is how Norway did.
A copy of the game. See the US copyright law for the definition of a copy for copyright purposes if you want. Basically a copy is content fixated onto some media.
>Ok, it seems you got me on the fact the downloader makes a copy but not for the same reasons. >What happens when I downlaod a file is that the uploader sends a copy of the file over the net and then >I save a copy of the data I recieve from the net. This means that both people are in fact making copies >of the file.
It is important to not get onself to bogged down on technicalities but look at it from a relevant law position. Who is the one actually making a copy (person, not whatever machine) and what is a copy? Start by looking at the copyright law and what is and is not considered a copy for example. Typcally temporary and/or cached copies are not considered copies for example, so it doens't matter if there is any copies made "along the way" for exmaple. So aåart from being the one actually doing it, a copy is not created until you save a copy on your computer, other than that, there is, from a copyright persepctive, no copies made (don note that different countries might have differences on exactly how to interpret copy and what is infringement and so on).
>The reason that the uploader makes a copy is because I do not have access to his filesystem. I can only >_ask_ him to send me a _copy_. He sends me a copy simply because he does not loose the original.
Wel, no he doesn't, a copmputer (that he owns) does. But a computer doesn't infringe, you (or he) do. YOU are making a copy with the help, of among other things, his computer. And as I said, the "copy" doesn't turn into a copy until you save it in a form that is considered a copy, typically with a sort of permanence for example.
>The thing that nobody seems to talk about is who is actually making the copy. I believe that the copy >is made by the person who is uploading the file.
No, he is making it available to the public, which in itself can be copyright infringement.
> The downloader recieves a copy(i.e. does not make one).
The downloader is the active part in the copying, and the one initiating it and the one creating it (on his computer), so I can't see how anyone else can be the one "copying". Although I can't give you a link out of my head, this type of reasoning has been done several times in swedish courts that has dealt with copyright infringement cases.
>This is the same as a guy selling illegal books on the street.
No it is not at all the same. There is no copying going on there, it is a sale and purchase of allready done copies.
> He made the copies and is the one who infringed on copyrights no the people who bought from him.
Exactly, he has allraedy made a bunch of copies that he is now distributing both actions of which can be infringement.
On the net, the uploader has not made a copy (well, he can of course) but is only making a single copy available for others to create copies of. Although still different and not so good, think of your guy on the street with only his own copy but bypassers instead use that to create new copies themselves.
>So, going by that logic recording that person singing happy birthday and then listening to it later >WOULD be copyright infringement? bu.. I thought time-shifting was legal in the US?
That is why should have read and quooted and understood ALL of my answer. For example the few qords just following after the ones you quoted:
" it may in many cases (but not always) be a copyright infringement"
or perhaps the next sentence after that:
" There are, depending on country), many cases when you CAN create a copy without it being infringement though."
>Equating downloading a file to "it's creating a copy and that's illegal" is bad voodoo
Were did I do that? See above.
> I could argue that I am simply on the receiving end of those bytes and recording them for later use,
Since you are the one initiating the transfer you are not just "recieveing", you are the one creating the copy.
>is that not the same as time-shifting a radio or television program?
In part, yes. But so what? What did that have to do with what I said? Now, go back and read the WHOLE post of mine, it is not that long you know....
Because it is a copying of a file. it may in many cases (but not always) be a copyright infringement since copying is a right that belongs to the copyright holder. There are, depending on country), many cases when you CAN create a copy without it being infringement though.
>Wouldn't distribution be illegal because it's copyright infringement?
Distribution is one of the other rights of a copyright holder. Again, it can in some cases not be an infringement though. The making it available for others (on for example typical p2p networks would typically not fal under that though).
>But how or why is downloading be illegal? >Isn't that just an extension of freedom of speech? The freedom to listen/watch?
It is creating a copy, see above.
>Is listening to someone, who didn't pay the RIAA, sing the copyrighted song Happy Birthday illegal?
No, but then you are not creating a copy.
>is it because there's a copy of something on the computer?
On your computer, yes. Note that "copies" such as those in a cache or other temporary ones that are only created as a mean of using it is typicaly not infringement, it is when such a copy becomes sort of permanent or usable as a new copy (sorry for not knowing the correct english terminology) that you get an infringement).
> Would streaming be more legal?
Yes, as long as the streaming (that is, making it available or publish it) is also legal. Again, that vary some between coutries.
Yes, but you are forgetting about the future legislation that is introduced to fix such things. It will make it illegal to circumvent such technological measurments. Obviously import restrictions will apply and the police will get the mandate to check on all imported goods. To be efficient, of course there need to be searches in peoples houses for such circumvention technology as well, because just owning it shows a possible intent to circumvent the protection that supports the DRM and such possession is of course illegal, jail would be the probable sentense. Next...... well you get the idea:)
>Uh, you mean other than the fact that the plaintiffs have an IP address >associated with the upload of the movie that are associated with the >defendant's use of his Internet service?
No the use of defendant's internet service. There is no way to make the connection that it was also him using it, could very well have been someone else. For example someone else in the household, friend visting, someont from the outside that managed to get control of thecomputer and so on. Many possibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, in many countries you can't just waive all responsabilities like that, doesn't matter that you have others to agree to it.
>First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by
>the DMCA.
Is the GPL only intended for US? What about other countries with different or similar laws? ALso, the law tend to define what is, for example, an effective protection, you can't change that definition yourself.
>The compiled information provided by anyone who has actually done that is a
,but you still don't get any for the facts themsleves.
>different matter, however.
Based on what? Copyright law is quite specific on what you get copyright on and facts is not such a thing. It doesn't matter who do or compile the facts, you still don't get copyright to them. You can get copyright on the database or your compilation of them
>If I make maps, (for example), I don't claim copyright to the landscape, but
>I do require payment (and can claim copyright) for the time and effort I put
>into measuring it and making up the maps.
That is because maps are typically included in what gets protection under copyright.
>By the same argument, anyone who actually compiles and publishes statistics
>should have ownership of the data it has taken them time and effort to
>gather,
No, you are mixing up the data with the "creation". Just as someone writing a book doesn't get any copyright on the individual words, you don't get any copyright on the individual data or pieces of information you gather. Your compilation or database or whatever you call it, is protected though.
The fatc that it took you great effort is irellevant.
>No, actually he's right, at least inasmuch as that the football authorities
>claim that the fixtures are copyright.
I never said the site did not have the claim. I was saying that I doubted UK copyright law had any such provisions for which there could be a valid such claim and asked for a link to the law or similar to show it.
>The claim is presumably based on the principle that the fixtures
>are "created" and therefore subject to copyright.
Just because something is created does not give it copyright. There need to be at least some form of creativity and/or orginality which we hardly have here. From what I have readin the UK copyright laws, they don't have much different requirements than other countries. Hence, again, why I asked for some link or information on the applicable copyright law.
>In the UK the dates for the Football matches around the country are
>considered copyright
So you claim that UK copyright laws has specific regulation mentioning that the date of some football games ARE covered by copyright despite not having anything to do with what gives copyright and the requirements otherwise to get copyright on something? Fine, care to show that part of the UK copyright law? ALso note that since no other country I know of has such provisions it would be applicable to UK at most, although I don't believe there is such provisions in the UK copyright law, but feel free to point me to the law.
>the fixture list on the main website is accompanied by:
A website is not the law. If I decide to claim I have the copyright to my shoe size and post a copyright notice about it doesn't make that true.
>IIRC they successfully sued someone who was using the dates without
>permission.
Data bases have copyright protection (or similar to copyright). BUt that is something completely different. It is not the individual content of it that is protected but the database as such. You can't just take it as a whole, you can take individual facts or information from it though and present it yourself. SImilary a phone list book typically is protected under copyright law and you can't just copy it, however, the individual phone numbers are not protected. I guess the same what you refer to here, but feel free to link to the actual case so we can see.
>Yeah, but you didn't buy a ticket from the corporation organizing the
;-)
>wonder of weather to see it, did you?
Again, so what? You don't have to see something to be able to tell about it. I can tell about a score in a game even if I did not see it just as I can tell the temperature in some city even if I was not there to see or experience it myself.
>Be sure the check the EULA next time you go see a game of baseball! I'll
>bet it says "You are granted a non-exclusive license to enjoy the game
>yadda yadda but the ownership and rights to the results remain the sole
>property of blah blah blaa."
If we disregard that I don't go and see baseball since baseball is basically not played in my country, the point is that there is no such thing as "right to results". It is just plain facts and can't be owned of have any rights any more than you can own the right to the temperature of some place. There is no such "rights". Doesn't matter iof someone claims it. You can claim the right to the temperature in your garden all you want, that doesn't mean no one else can tell about it.
>Bear in mind statistics are one of the most important components in
>baseball.
So? It is still just facts. Weather statistics, like the temperature and wether the sun is shining or not is one of the most important components for anyone in meteorology, still doesn't mean no one else can tell about the weather yesterday they read about or saw.
I think we are now having thr same discussion in two places, but just as I said in the other, having an office is not the same as the law requiring registration. The office in almost all cases seem to be to the ministary that deals with laws and such in the area by the way, there is nothing about registration. So try looking at the LAWS instead next time, since that is the important part, and no, most does not requiring registration. Many (most?) countries have never even had form requirements to copyright (like for example USA) but have had automatic copyright and thus have never had such things as registration needed or required.
>Most countries have a registration system.
That was not what I was saying, I was saying that registering a copyright is not needed to seek for example statuary damages as you say, copyright is automatic and so is your ability to get such damages without needing to register anything. hence there is no need to register either. The fact that they might have a copyright office is quite irellevant. Take Sweden for example, it is listed but it is in reality just part of a ministary that heppen to deal with such things, there is no registration for it (the industrial one is for patents by the way). So despite having such an office there is neither a possibility of registration, nor is it needed since the copyright law doesn't have such provisions or requirements. Try looking at the laws instead of a list of "offices" which clearly almost all countries have since they have laws regulating it.
>In most countries, statutory damages require that the user be aware of the copyright. Without
>registration, this is difficult to prove. In general, if the copyright isn't registered, you can only
>sue for loss of income.
Most countries doesn't have any such thing as registering at all, that is what I said. Being aware of copyright is quite easy as well, it can be assumed it exists or if you are not sure, check it. So no, you will in most countries be able to get even statuary damages despite there being no registering at all. The registering bit seems to be a left over in USA (and perhaps some other countries) from the time when there was formal requirements on how to get copyright to start with and it was not automatic.
Did you answer some other post and just decided to put it here? because what you write has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. As I said, the concept of registering doesn't exist in most part of the world.
>We MAY have reduced quanities of new content if we eradicate copyright
>law, but that is by no means certain.
And even if we get quite a bit less content created, it would basically all be available to everyone. So in the end, even in that case, most people will have access and can use MUCH more content which in my opinion is what is important. The absolute number of content created. I mean, is it better if we tenfold the content created but without any real possibility for people to access it? Of course not.
>I said nothing about trademarks [So why did you reply to my post?],
You talked about "IP laws", "IP" and "IP owners". Typically the "IP" is used as bundling together things such as copyright, patents and trademarks. So yes, you were talking about not only trademarks but also copyrights and patents. If you were only talking about for example copyright, why not write copyright instead so that there is no confusion? This also clearly shows why the term "intellectual property" is such a bad thing.
>If I copy your school paper, what sort of damages are you going to seek?
>Statutory? Nope, you can't get that unless you register your copyright
>before the infringement occurs.
What makes you think everyone lives in the US? In most countries you don't need to register the copyright.
>Even a grocery list that you right is copyrighted,
Most grocery lists will not meet the criterias for recieveing a copyright though.
>3) Even in the case of automatic copyright, if you haven't registered your
>copyright, you cannot seek statutory damages.
In most parts of the world this is not true, you don't need to register the copyright for such purposes or any other purposes either.
>However, because it made a big splash we made circumvention LEGAL, but the
>tools illegal.
What TYPE of protection/circumvention do we talk about here though? The EUCD only deals with protection of rights under copyright, for example copying. It does not deal with what typical DRM deals with, namely access. Hence, to strictly implement the EUDC, you only need to prevent circumvention of protection that prevents copying, not those that prevents accessing. Many countries have gone further than the directive and added in for example access as well though. An example of a country that has not is Sweden. So my question is how Norway did.
>"Right to use" would be more accurate.
There is no such thing. Or rather, there is nothing that prevents or forbids use to start with, hence no need for any "right to use".
>So what are we buying/renting here?
A copy of the game. See the US copyright law for the definition of a copy for copyright purposes if you want. Basically a copy is content fixated onto some media.
>Ok, it seems you got me on the fact the downloader makes a copy but not for the same reasons.
>What happens when I downlaod a file is that the uploader sends a copy of the file over the net and then
>I save a copy of the data I recieve from the net. This means that both people are in fact making copies
>of the file.
It is important to not get onself to bogged down on technicalities but look at it from a relevant law position. Who is the one actually making a copy (person, not whatever machine) and what is a copy? Start by looking at the copyright law and what is and is not considered a copy for example. Typcally temporary and/or cached copies are not considered copies for example, so it doens't matter if there is any copies made "along the way" for exmaple. So aåart from being the one actually doing it, a copy is not created until you save a copy on your computer, other than that, there is, from a copyright persepctive, no copies made (don note that different countries might have differences on exactly how to interpret copy and what is infringement and so on).
>The reason that the uploader makes a copy is because I do not have access to his filesystem. I can only
>_ask_ him to send me a _copy_. He sends me a copy simply because he does not loose the original.
Wel, no he doesn't, a copmputer (that he owns) does. But a computer doesn't infringe, you (or he) do. YOU are making a copy with the help, of among other things, his computer. And as I said, the "copy" doesn't turn into a copy until you save it in a form that is considered a copy, typically with a sort of permanence for example.
>The thing that nobody seems to talk about is who is actually making the copy. I believe that the copy
>is made by the person who is uploading the file.
No, he is making it available to the public, which in itself can be copyright infringement.
> The downloader recieves a copy(i.e. does not make one).
The downloader is the active part in the copying, and the one initiating it and the one creating it (on his computer), so I can't see how anyone else can be the one "copying". Although I can't give you a link out of my head, this type of reasoning has been done several times in swedish courts that has dealt with copyright infringement cases.
>This is the same as a guy selling illegal books on the street.
No it is not at all the same. There is no copying going on there, it is a sale and purchase of allready done copies.
> He made the copies and is the one who infringed on copyrights no the people who bought from him.
Exactly, he has allraedy made a bunch of copies that he is now distributing both actions of which can be infringement.
On the net, the uploader has not made a copy (well, he can of course) but is only making a single copy available for others to create copies of. Although still different and not so good, think of your guy on the street with only his own copy but bypassers instead use that to create new copies themselves.
>So, going by that logic recording that person singing happy birthday and then listening to it later
>WOULD be copyright infringement? bu.. I thought time-shifting was legal in the US?
That is why should have read and quooted and understood ALL of my answer. For example the few qords just following after the ones you quoted:
" it may in many cases (but not always) be a copyright infringement"
or perhaps the next sentence after that:
" There are, depending on country), many cases when you CAN create a copy without it being infringement though."
>Equating downloading a file to "it's creating a copy and that's illegal" is bad voodoo
Were did I do that? See above.
> I could argue that I am simply on the receiving end of those bytes and recording them for later use,
Since you are the one initiating the transfer you are not just "recieveing", you are the one creating the copy.
>is that not the same as time-shifting a radio or television program?
In part, yes. But so what? What did that have to do with what I said? Now, go back and read the WHOLE post of mine, it is not that long you know....
>How and why is downloading something illegal?
Because it is a copying of a file. it may in many cases (but not always) be a copyright infringement since copying is a right that belongs to the copyright holder. There are, depending on country), many cases when you CAN create a copy without it being infringement though.
>Wouldn't distribution be illegal because it's copyright infringement?
Distribution is one of the other rights of a copyright holder. Again, it can in some cases not be an infringement though. The making it available for others (on for example typical p2p networks would typically not fal under that though).
>But how or why is downloading be illegal?
>Isn't that just an extension of freedom of speech? The freedom to listen/watch?
It is creating a copy, see above.
>Is listening to someone, who didn't pay the RIAA, sing the copyrighted song Happy Birthday illegal?
No, but then you are not creating a copy.
>is it because there's a copy of something on the computer?
On your computer, yes. Note that "copies" such as those in a cache or other temporary ones that are only created as a mean of using it is typicaly not infringement, it is when such a copy becomes sort of permanent or usable as a new copy (sorry for not knowing the correct english terminology) that you get an infringement).
> Would streaming be more legal?
Yes, as long as the streaming (that is, making it available or publish it) is also legal. Again, that vary some between coutries.
Yes, but you are forgetting about the future legislation that is introduced to fix such things. It will make it illegal to circumvent such technological measurments. Obviously import restrictions will apply and the police will get the mandate to check on all imported goods. To be efficient, of course there need to be searches in peoples houses for such circumvention technology as well, because just owning it shows a possible intent to circumvent the protection that supports the DRM and such possession is of course illegal, jail would be the probable sentense. Next...... well you get the idea :)
>Uh, you mean other than the fact that the plaintiffs have an IP address
>associated with the upload of the movie that are associated with the
>defendant's use of his Internet service?
No the use of defendant's internet service. There is no way to make the connection that it was also him using it, could very well have been someone else. For example someone else in the household, friend visting, someont from the outside that managed to get control of thecomputer and so on. Many possibilities.
>A tech novice with 4 computers?
No, no, no! He just had a very fast processor. That would then be the *equivalency* of 4 computers. You must learn the correct mathematics.