>People who are running emulated servers can use >hacked clients to fly to any area they please.
Why would you ever need a server for that? You allready have the full map on your own computer. Instead of using the normal client to show it, there is at least one program that simply access the map and graphics files directly and allow you to travell arround anywere in the world that you want, you don't need to connect to anywere.
>Wonder what this law say regarding downloading >material you already own?
It doesn't make such distinctions. What it says is that it is illegal to make copies from, for example the internet, if the "original" (the one put available on the internet) has not been put there with the concent of the copyright holder. Although I don't recall the exact wording, I would say that it would thus technically not be allowed to copy your own work if it is from a copy put on the net without your own permision. I think it is still allowed though since if you are the copyright holder, your copying would not be an infringing action anyway since you are the copyright holder. Although it seems like a possible bizare loophole.
So? That is not illegal in itself to do. For example, a friend of mine just came over and borrowed a book to read. According to you, he aquired "value" without any compensation to the copyright holder. Still, he did nothing ilegal (nor did anyone else).
>We're talking about the monetary loss to a >company as a result of someone using a piece of >software they haven't paid for.
What "loss"? At the most it is a missed income. That is certainly not a "loss". How do that "loss" end up in the companies budget for example. I would assume they list monetary losses there. What if gather 1 million people (none of whom even have a computer) all making a copy and using it, have that now created an even larger loss? So large so that the company suddenly is bancrupt?
Besides, I frequently use software I have not payed for, for example, earlier today I used my girlfriends copy of Word to write something. After that I used some software that was available for download by the creators. Later today I will play this game I got for free from a friend who was so tired of it he decided to give it to me instead of throwing it away.
>To deprive someone of that money by not paying >for something IS theft.
So, have you ever heared of anyone filing for a "theft" in such a case? Am I stealing when someone gave me a book they no longer wanted? What about if I made a copy of a music CD that my brother bought (which is perfectly legal were I live), since I did not pay, it seems to be theft in some way, despite that I use something I created (a copy of something). Next you will claim I steal when I make this chair that looks the same as one I saw at a friends home. After all, I sit in it despite not paying anything for it. No matter how you look at it, "depriving" someone of money they fell they should have got is not theft, nor illegal in itself. The laws typically have very clear definitions and regulation on when something is theft and when something is for example copyright infringement. That would turn an action illegal. I am not arguing that in your example people do something legal or not, but the reason you give is completely wrong.
>You can argue until you are blue in the face >about how a piece of software is not a real >tangible thing, but a copy of a piece of >software with a licence is a (legally) a 'thing' >which can be sold. To take (or make) a copy of >said 'thing' without paying is 'theft', and the >value of the loss is the current market price >of 'thing'. (In this context)
There is a VERY big difference between "taking" and "making" (regardless of if what you make is a copy of something or not). FOr example, you can "take" my chair (which would most likely be theft) or you can "make" a chair (identical for example of it) which would NOT be theft.
For some things, where there is copyright involved, the creation of something new that is identical (or very similar), typically called copying, can be copyright infringement, this can apply to a book or a computer program for example. That is different from actually taking a specific allready existing copy of it (which would be theft). In the latter case the theft is commited towards whoever owned that copy (which probably is not the copyright holder), while the creation of a new copy, is a copyrigh infringement versus the copyright holder, and mostly have no affect on the one who owns the original you copy (typically not the copyright holder). Learn the differences between such cases.
There usually no way to actually "take" something without commiting theft. There are howeever many cases where you can copy something, and not commiting copyright infringement (and hence not haing commited anything illegal). Weather you payed or not is in that case totally irellevant. Thus, using "have you payed for it?" as any sort of indicatio of if something is illegal or not is bogus. To then extent it to be called "theft" since you like to define theft as "not paying" is even more bogus since your first step of logic was false.
>If you are running a program you haven't paid >for it copyright infringement,
Tell me what country that has copyright laws that says RUNNING a software is infringement? In most it is not.At a minimum they requirement can be that you have at least in some way got in a legal way. That does not nessecarilly mean you have payed anything. Payment is not an issue for determining if something is copyright infringement.
>... that will >make it illegal to hack or break into the >digital locks often used to prevent the copying >of movies and software...
How more precisely is the law worded? Is it ineede "prevent the copying"? Or is it like for example in US were it is more "prevent the access"? Huge difference. Because many of those protection schemes out there are not about copying at all but about accessing the content. You can usually copy it perfectly (for example if it is encrypted) yet have problem acceessing it. If it is "prevent copying", such encryption for example is not covered.
And your proposed system works how? SPecifically so that there is no easy ways to abuse such a system. For example, low level players just standing/running arround together with high level ones (not initiating or even making any attacks to prevent systems were such a thing removes the dishonorable part). Should area effect spells not be usable there? Should you have to carefully look so your cursor is not on that level 20 player who just jumped out amogn the level 50 you was fighting? Should using low level chars as shields be the way to do it then?
>The terms that you are suggesting are actually >quite similar to the terms that the movie >industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI >warning at the beginning of a movie explains >that you are not allowed to show your copy at a >public event.
You do realise that this is simply a statement of what the copyright law says, right? No need for a contract or agreement of any sort. By default you are not allowed to make such public event of a work upnder copyright. It would apply even if there was no such warning shown.
>And the inability to resell your license to >someone else is core to many corporate software >contracts.
What license? What contract? When I buy a movie, I make no contract nor is there any need for a license (UNLESS I want to show it in public). If I do get a license for showing it in public, then yes, most likely I can't resell it. It is a matter of what contract I make with the copyright holder. For more information of such things, check chapter 2 of the copyright law.
>The law recognizes that it is not a physical >thing that can be taken away,
What makes you think so? According to 101 in chapter one of US copyright law it says:
""Copies" are material objects,"
No idea what you mean with "that can be taken away"
> and that copies >can be made with impunity.
Yes, that is the nature of all work that is covered by copyright (and most everything else as well). That has nothing to do with if copies can be sold or not, they most certianly can.
>As a result, all software is licensed.
Since the intial statements are false, the "as a result" is not nessecarilly true. In fact, enter a typical software shop and you will see they sell a lot of things, including software. Besdies, what would you need a license for? You mentioned copying. A typical software purchases is not interested in creating new copies of the software, for which you would need a license. Most will just need that very copy only for which there is no need for a liences. In case you want to read the citation above yourself, and perhaps other parts of the copyright law, here is a link:
>All I addressed was that copyright law allows a >copyright holder to control the distribution of >his works. That means that he has the right to >not give it to you if you do not wish to agree >to his terms.
No, this does not follow. You are confusing use with distribution, two completely different things. Use has nothing to do with copyright since it does not regulate use. Nor does it regulate HOW you distribute. It only gives distribution as a right to the copyright holder. Typically this right is consumed though, so that it only applies for the first case of distribution of individual copies, after that, there is typically no control of the (re)distribution. Some exceptions exists, like rental still not being allowed even after first distribution. The above is the reason why you usually see for examample used book stores. The copyright holder has no control over that.
As for adding extra conditions to a sale, sure, that is fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with copyright though. That can be done when you sell a chair as well. You may as well argue that someone selling a chair can control the use of it and forbid certain ways and persons to sit in it. Still, that does not affect for example anyone else since no one else had agreed to it. In addition, such extra contratcs in relation to a sale is usually goverened by (consumer) sales laws, which in many countries severly restricts what is allowed and not allowed to add as such contracts.
An interesting note is also that such ectra contratcs regulating the sale (not use!!) of course must be done at the time of the sale. As far as I know, this is typically not done.
So no, just because you can control distribution, you can't control use. And copyright laws has really nothing to do about it, it just sale that the act of initial distribution is a right for the copyright holder. Anything in regard to HOW the distribution is done, is controled by completely other laws.
>Wouldent this be covered under Derivative Works >as the author "derives" the finished product >from a copyrighted work?
Derivative works actually is a bit different in different countries. In many countries the author of a derivative work gets the copyright to it (and not the origial copyright holder) although the use of such derivative work is restricted to that of the original work. Exactly what is covered and considered as a derivative work varies and I believe that in the US, the scope is larger than in many other countries.
There is allready one good reply to this, just want to add a few things.
>When you buy a book, you're not buying the >author's conceptual work.
You are buying a copy of it.
>Rather, you're buying >the medium made available by the publisher, as >well as a publisher's license to use that medium >to enjoy the author's conceptual work.
Why are people tossing out this rubish all the time? There is no need for licenses at all. Here is a link to the US copyright law:
Go read it. Find the "rights" of the copyright holder, reading and other normal uses is NOT among them. There are basically just a few rights, listed in chapter 1, 106. That is all, there is nothing else. None of the things you liste in your first numbered list is among that. There is no right to enjoy and no right for compensation,
From your second list, the first point is true. The seoncd is not covered. The copyright holder can only control the first distribution, not any redistribution after that. This typically goes under various names in different countries. In US I believe it is the first sale doctrine. Finally, the last two about revenue streams, is not in the copyright law at all, try to find them if you want.
Also read chapter 1, 101 and go to "copies"
> You are >not purchasing the ability to redistribute or rebroadcast the author's conceptual work.
Who has ever claimed that. This IS one of the cases of copyright infringement. Nothing is "stealing" anything when distibuting new copies though.
>No, you are violating the author's right to >determine how his conceptual work is copied and >distrubted.
Some don't understand irony obviously. This is exactly what I am trying to tell you, it is is a copyright infringement, were you do something only the copyright holder is normally allowed to do. It is not about TAKING but about CREATING a copy.
>Any what if I do use Nintendo's actual artwork? >That would be copyright infringement, which is >drastically different than using the term >"copyright infringement" to denote the act of the >unauthorized copying and distribution of an >entire piece of work.
No, it is both copyright infringement. Go read the laws and you will see it.
>From dictionary.com:
What are you doing reading a dictionary? You nead to read the laws and see what they call theft and what they call copyright infringement.
Lets see what you have to say though:
>Steal: To take (the property of another) without >right or permission. > >Property: Something tangible or intangible to >which its owner has legal title: properties such >as copyrights and trademarks.
Wow, are you saying someone is actually TAKING the copyright from someone else when they copy? So if I copy the new star wars movie, I now hold the copyright to it? Does it work with Windows too? Does that mean Microsoft no longer have the copyright to it? Cool.
More seriously, you do realise that copying is actually a creating something new, right? Creating a copy. That new copy, happens to be yours. You did not "take" it from anyone. You did commit copyright infringement for doing the act of copying though, but you never took anything at all from anyone.
>What happens when somebody does something more >serious than steal music, are they just going to >look the law enforcement trying to get >information and shrug?
Don't know, what do the post office do when the police calls and wants to know what was written in letters they delivered, they need it for this murder case?
Wonderfull business plan, just sue the whole population and then let them all sort it out among themselves!!!! I mean the guilty is supposedly among them for sure!
Just because you share a household does not mean you are automatically all jointly responsible for the others action, can be sued in group or treated as one and the same for legal/illegal purposes.
>No, you own the media that you bought that music >on, but not that music itself.
Of course I did, I bought *a copy* of the music. Don't confuse holding (owning) the copyright to a work and owning copies of the work. They are two different and unrelated things. I assume you mean that I don't hold the copyright to the music but that is very dufferent from owning copies of the music. Whan a work (intangible) is fixated (in whatever form), there is a material copy created of the work, in this case a CD with a copy of thw music fixated onto it, that is what is sold in the shop and what you own.
>Along with your purchase of the CD, you are >licensed to listen to that music,
LIcenses are contracts, there is no additional contract when you buy a typical CD in stores, even if there was some, why would you ever need a license to LISTEN to a CD? You can do that without any license at all. Listening to a CD is not a right exclusive to the copyright holder hence, it has a gain nothing to do with copyright. You need to learn more about copyright. I provide you with a link below, make sure you read also chapter 1, 101 Definitions, which defines for example copying. 106 in same chpater lists the rights of the copyright holder, that is it. Only for those things do you need any permision from the copyright holder.
In addition you need to study other laws, like contract laws. You write:
>But it's still an agreement that you've entered >under copyright law.
You enter contracts according to contract law, copyright laws are not about contracts. There are no special agreements due to copyright entered by buying, or otherwise aquiring works were there is copyright. You ONLY need permision, thorugh contracts or licenses or whatever you want to call it if you want to perfrom any of the exclusive rights the copyright holder has. Normal use of a music CD, book and so on do not require that.
>That is, each song available for download is >being downloaded by thousands of people,
Depends a lot on how long you share it (and how many other works you share). Assume you just share a single song, apply typical transfer rates and see how long it takes to share the song, say 3000 times. That is quite some time! Assume you have 3000 songs in you shared folder, in the same time, you can still only share the same ammount of copies.
>Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you >differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a >P2P network where you become an uploader (of >specific chunks) the moment you start >downloading?
To see if someone uploads something, or rather, what it actually is, you have to download it, hence they have to download it to know it was the actual work (and not just a fake someone, perhaps themselves has put out there). By doing that, they would themselves have to start uploading, right? If they can avoid uploading and just download, so can anyone else they see download, so they can still not know if that person also upload as well.
Slashdot Mirror
>People who are running emulated servers can use
>hacked clients to fly to any area they please.
Why would you ever need a server for that? You allready have the full map on your own computer. Instead of using the normal client to show it, there is at least one program that simply access the map and graphics files directly and allow you to travell arround anywere in the world that you want, you don't need to connect to anywere.
>Wonder what this law say regarding downloading
>material you already own?
It doesn't make such distinctions. What it says is that it is illegal to make copies from, for example the internet, if the "original" (the one put available on the internet) has not been put there with the concent of the copyright holder. Although I don't recall the exact wording, I would say that it would thus technically not be allowed to copy your own work if it is from a copy put on the net without your own permision. I think it is still allowed though since if you are the copyright holder, your copying would not be an infringing action anyway since you are the copyright holder. Although it seems like a possible bizare loophole.
So? That is not illegal in itself to do. For example, a friend of mine just came over and borrowed a book to read. According to you, he aquired "value" without any compensation to the copyright holder. Still, he did nothing ilegal (nor did anyone else).
> it's all skill based, so having a higher level
>doesn't really help that much.
So what is the point of having levels at all then?
>We're talking about the monetary loss to a
>company as a result of someone using a piece of
>software they haven't paid for.
What "loss"? At the most it is a missed income. That is certainly not a "loss". How do that "loss" end up in the companies budget for example. I would assume they list monetary losses there. What if gather 1 million people (none of whom even have a computer) all making a copy and using it, have that now created an even larger loss? So large so that the company suddenly is bancrupt?
Besides, I frequently use software I have not payed for, for example, earlier today I used my girlfriends copy of Word to write something. After that I used some software that was available for download by the creators. Later today I will play this game I got for free from a friend who was so tired of it he decided to give it to me instead of throwing it away.
>To deprive someone of that money by not paying
>for something IS theft.
So, have you ever heared of anyone filing for a "theft" in such a case? Am I stealing when someone gave me a book they no longer wanted? What about if I made a copy of a music CD that my brother bought (which is perfectly legal were I live), since I did not pay, it seems to be theft in some way, despite that I use something I created (a copy of something). Next you will claim I steal when I make this chair that looks the same as one I saw at a friends home. After all, I sit in it despite not paying anything for it. No matter how you look at it, "depriving" someone of money they fell they should have got is not theft, nor illegal in itself. The laws typically have very clear definitions and regulation on when something is theft and when something is for example copyright infringement. That would turn an action illegal. I am not arguing that in your example people do something legal or not, but the reason you give is completely wrong.
>You can argue until you are blue in the face
>about how a piece of software is not a real
>tangible thing, but a copy of a piece of
>software with a licence is a (legally) a 'thing'
>which can be sold. To take (or make) a copy of
>said 'thing' without paying is 'theft', and the
>value of the loss is the current market price
>of 'thing'. (In this context)
There is a VERY big difference between "taking" and "making" (regardless of if what you make is a copy of something or not). FOr example, you can "take" my chair (which would most likely be theft) or you can "make" a chair (identical for example of it) which would NOT be theft.
For some things, where there is copyright involved, the creation of something new that is identical (or very similar), typically called copying, can be copyright infringement, this can apply to a book or a computer program for example. That is different from actually taking a specific allready existing copy of it (which would be theft). In the latter case the theft is commited towards whoever owned that copy (which probably is not the copyright holder), while the creation of a new copy, is a copyrigh infringement versus the copyright holder, and mostly have no affect on the one who owns the original you copy (typically not the copyright holder). Learn the differences between such cases.
There usually no way to actually "take" something without commiting theft. There are howeever many cases where you can copy something, and not commiting copyright infringement (and hence not haing commited anything illegal). Weather you payed or not is in that case totally irellevant. Thus, using "have you payed for it?" as any sort of indicatio of if something is illegal or not is bogus. To then extent it to be called "theft" since you like to define theft as "not paying" is even more bogus since your first step of logic was false.
>If you are running a program you haven't paid
>for it copyright infringement,
Tell me what country that has copyright laws that says RUNNING a software is infringement? In most it is not.At a minimum they requirement can be that you have at least in some way got in a legal way. That does not nessecarilly mean you have payed anything. Payment is not an issue for determining if something is copyright infringement.
>Why do they censor these words? Why the
>governement does that?
Because they found out that as long as they add "to combat terrorism", they can get away doing anything....
>... that will
>make it illegal to hack or break into the
>digital locks often used to prevent the copying
>of movies and software...
How more precisely is the law worded? Is it ineede "prevent the copying"? Or is it like for example in US were it is more "prevent the access"? Huge difference. Because many of those protection schemes out there are not about copying at all but about accessing the content. You can usually copy it perfectly (for example if it is encrypted) yet have problem acceessing it. If it is "prevent copying", such encryption for example is not covered.
>Dishonor is worthless if it doesnt apply to PCs.
And your proposed system works how? SPecifically so that there is no easy ways to abuse such a system. For example, low level players just standing/running arround together with high level ones (not initiating or even making any attacks to prevent systems were such a thing removes the dishonorable part). Should area effect spells not be usable there? Should you have to carefully look so your cursor is not on that level 20 player who just jumped out amogn the level 50 you was fighting? Should using low level chars as shields be the way to do it then?
>The terms that you are suggesting are actually
>quite similar to the terms that the movie
>industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI
>warning at the beginning of a movie explains
>that you are not allowed to show your copy at a
>public event.
You do realise that this is simply a statement of what the copyright law says, right? No need for a contract or agreement of any sort. By default you are not allowed to make such public event of a work upnder copyright. It would apply even if there was no such warning shown.
>And the inability to resell your license to
>someone else is core to many corporate software
>contracts.
What license? What contract? When I buy a movie, I make no contract nor is there any need for a license (UNLESS I want to show it in public). If I do get a license for showing it in public, then yes, most likely I can't resell it. It is a matter of what contract I make with the copyright holder. For more information of such things, check chapter 2 of the copyright law.
>Software, OTOH, is never sold in its entirety.
o de17/usc_sup_01_17.html
What makes you think so?
>The law recognizes that it is not a physical
>thing that can be taken away,
What makes you think so? According to 101 in chapter one of US copyright law it says:
""Copies" are material objects,"
No idea what you mean with "that can be taken away"
> and that copies
>can be made with impunity.
Yes, that is the nature of all work that is covered by copyright (and most everything else as well). That has nothing to do with if copies can be sold or not, they most certianly can.
>As a result, all software is licensed.
Since the intial statements are false, the "as a result" is not nessecarilly true. In fact, enter a typical software shop and you will see they sell a lot of things, including software. Besdies, what would you need a license for? You mentioned copying. A typical software purchases is not interested in creating new copies of the software, for which you would need a license. Most will just need that very copy only for which there is no need for a liences. In case you want to read the citation above yourself, and perhaps other parts of the copyright law, here is a link:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc
>All I addressed was that copyright law allows a
>copyright holder to control the distribution of
>his works. That means that he has the right to
>not give it to you if you do not wish to agree
>to his terms.
No, this does not follow. You are confusing use with distribution, two completely different things. Use has nothing to do with copyright since it does not regulate use. Nor does it regulate HOW you distribute. It only gives distribution as a right to the copyright holder. Typically this right is consumed though, so that it only applies for the first case of distribution of individual copies, after that, there is typically no control of the (re)distribution. Some exceptions exists, like rental still not being allowed even after first distribution. The above is the reason why you usually see for examample used book stores. The copyright holder has no control over that.
As for adding extra conditions to a sale, sure, that is fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with copyright though. That can be done when you sell a chair as well. You may as well argue that someone selling a chair can control the use of it and forbid certain ways and persons to sit in it. Still, that does not affect for example anyone else since no one else had agreed to it. In addition, such extra contratcs in relation to a sale is usually goverened by (consumer) sales laws, which in many countries severly restricts what is allowed and not allowed to add as such contracts.
An interesting note is also that such ectra contratcs regulating the sale (not use!!) of course must be done at the time of the sale. As far as I know, this is typically not done.
So no, just because you can control distribution, you can't control use. And copyright laws has really nothing to do about it, it just sale that the act of initial distribution is a right for the copyright holder. Anything in regard to HOW the distribution is done, is controled by completely other laws.
>Technically, you paid for the physical tangible
>machine, and that is yours.
Are you sure? Just wait until computer manufacturer starts claiming they still own it and you only got a licnese to use the computer....
>Wouldent this be covered under Derivative Works
>as the author "derives" the finished product
>from a copyrighted work?
Derivative works actually is a bit different in different countries. In many countries the author of a derivative work gets the copyright to it (and not the origial copyright holder) although the use of such derivative work is restricted to that of the original work. Exactly what is covered and considered as a derivative work varies and I believe that in the US, the scope is larger than in many other countries.
>You know that is what is meant by 'stealing'
>don't be a f'ing tool.
So if you mean something else, why not instead write that instea? That way there is no possibility for missunderstanding or error.
There is allready one good reply to this, just want to add a few things.
>When you buy a book, you're not buying the
>author's conceptual work.
You are buying a copy of it.
>Rather, you're buying
>the medium made available by the publisher, as
>well as a publisher's license to use that medium
>to enjoy the author's conceptual work.
Why are people tossing out this rubish all the time? There is no need for licenses at all. Here is a link to the US copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Go read it. Find the "rights" of the copyright holder, reading and other normal uses is NOT among them. There are basically just a few rights, listed in chapter 1, 106. That is all, there is nothing else. None of the things you liste in your first numbered list is among that. There is no right to enjoy and no right for compensation,
From your second list, the first point is true. The seoncd is not covered. The copyright holder can only control the first distribution, not any redistribution after that. This typically goes under various names in different countries. In US I believe it is the first sale doctrine. Finally, the last two about revenue streams, is not in the copyright law at all, try to find them if you want.
Also read chapter 1, 101 and go to "copies"
> You are
>not purchasing the ability to redistribute or rebroadcast the author's conceptual work.
Who has ever claimed that. This IS one of the cases of copyright infringement. Nothing is "stealing" anything when distibuting new copies though.
>No, you are violating the author's right to
>determine how his conceptual work is copied and
>distrubted.
Some don't understand irony obviously. This is exactly what I am trying to tell you, it is is a copyright infringement, were you do something only the copyright holder is normally allowed to do. It is not about TAKING but about CREATING a copy.
>Any what if I do use Nintendo's actual artwork?
>That would be copyright infringement, which is
>drastically different than using the term
>"copyright infringement" to denote the act of the
>unauthorized copying and distribution of an
>entire piece of work.
No, it is both copyright infringement. Go read the laws and you will see it.
>From dictionary.com:
What are you doing reading a dictionary? You nead to read the laws and see what they call theft and what they call copyright infringement.
Lets see what you have to say though:
>Steal: To take (the property of another) without
>right or permission.
>
>Property: Something tangible or intangible to
>which its owner has legal title: properties such
>as copyrights and trademarks.
Wow, are you saying someone is actually TAKING the copyright from someone else when they copy? So if I copy the new star wars movie, I now hold the copyright to it? Does it work with Windows too? Does that mean Microsoft no longer have the copyright to it? Cool.
More seriously, you do realise that copying is actually a creating something new, right? Creating a copy. That new copy, happens to be yours. You did not "take" it from anyone. You did commit copyright infringement for doing the act of copying though, but you never took anything at all from anyone.
>What happens when somebody does something more
>serious than steal music, are they just going to
>look the law enforcement trying to get
>information and shrug?
Don't know, what do the post office do when the police calls and wants to know what was written in letters they delivered, they need it for this murder case?
>I'm making a stand about polluting SUVs by
>stealing this Escalade and driving it to work
>every day.
And how would that affect the pollution if you as oposed to someone else drives it? How do you make any stand in regard to pollution?
Wonderfull business plan, just sue the whole population and then let them all sort it out among themselves!!!! I mean the guilty is supposedly among them for sure!
Just because you share a household does not mean you are automatically all jointly responsible for the others action, can be sued in group or treated as one and the same for legal/illegal purposes.
>No, you own the media that you bought that music
o de17/usc_sup_01_17.html
>on, but not that music itself.
Of course I did, I bought *a copy* of the music. Don't confuse holding (owning) the copyright to a work and owning copies of the work. They are two different and unrelated things. I assume you mean that I don't hold the copyright to the music but that is very dufferent from owning copies of the music. Whan a work (intangible) is fixated (in whatever form), there is a material copy created of the work, in this case a CD with a copy of thw music fixated onto it, that is what is sold in the shop and what you own.
>Along with your purchase of the CD, you are
>licensed to listen to that music,
LIcenses are contracts, there is no additional contract when you buy a typical CD in stores, even if there was some, why would you ever need a license to LISTEN to a CD? You can do that without any license at all. Listening to a CD is not a right exclusive to the copyright holder hence, it has a gain nothing to do with copyright. You need to learn more about copyright. I provide you with a link below, make sure you read also chapter 1, 101 Definitions, which defines for example copying. 106 in same chpater lists the rights of the copyright holder, that is it. Only for those things do you need any permision from the copyright holder.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc
In addition you need to study other laws, like contract laws. You write:
>But it's still an agreement that you've entered
>under copyright law.
You enter contracts according to contract law, copyright laws are not about contracts. There are no special agreements due to copyright entered by buying, or otherwise aquiring works were there is copyright. You ONLY need permision, thorugh contracts or licenses or whatever you want to call it if you want to perfrom any of the exclusive rights the copyright holder has. Normal use of a music CD, book and so on do not require that.
>First, you NEVER own music.
Of course you do, what gave you the impression you don't? At least when you buy it first.
> For example,
>don't "own" the music on your CD collection.
Since I have bought all the CDs in my collection, yes I own those copies of the music.
>You're merely licensing.
Not sure about you, but I buy my music. WHat on earth would I need a license for on top of that (or instead of that)?
>That is, each song available for download is
>being downloaded by thousands of people,
Depends a lot on how long you share it (and how many other works you share). Assume you just share a single song, apply typical transfer rates and see how long it takes to share the song, say 3000 times. That is quite some time! Assume you have 3000 songs in you shared folder, in the same time, you can still only share the same ammount of copies.
>Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you
>differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a
>P2P network where you become an uploader (of
>specific chunks) the moment you start
>downloading?
To see if someone uploads something, or rather, what it actually is, you have to download it, hence they have to download it to know it was the actual work (and not just a fake someone, perhaps themselves has put out there). By doing that, they would themselves have to start uploading, right? If they can avoid uploading and just download, so can anyone else they see download, so they can still not know if that person also upload as well.