>Not exactly. Americans can buy generic Beethoven >CDs or generic kids' music CDs because musical >works published pre-1923 are not subject to U.S. >copyright.
I doubt there is any recordings from before 1923 sold on CDs today, so that is irellevant. Although the music itself no longer has copyright, meaning anyone can play, record and sell it, each such recording or performance is itself protected by copyright (not sure about the time in US; in Europe it is typically 50 years).
>Follow the logic: > >I can rip my own CD for backup.
Yes, appearantly. This is allowed if the copyright law says you can make copies for personal use for example. In US I would say this goes under the "Fair Use".
>A ripped CD (being digital) is identical, no >matter who does it.
Well, it can end up quite different depending on what program is used, the compression rate and so on, but lets assume it indeed IS identical copies we talk about.
>What if I don't have the knowledge to rip a CD, >so I download someone else's rip?? I end up with >the same data either way.
The thing is not really what you end up with, but what you do. Copyright is about doing things, like creating a copy, distributing copies or making copies available to the public.
Typically, in almost any country, the one uploading, that is, making copies available for others, is commiting copyright infringement since he is making copies available to the public, something that is an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
The one downloading can is the one making a copy, is that legal or not? Seems to depends on countries and how they have defined their variants of fair use or limits on the exclusive rights for copying. In some countries, it is OK to download if the copy created is for personal use only. Then it ok (regardless of if the copy is identical or not or, indeed, even if you own or not an original. In other countries, it is not allowed to make such copies for personal use UNLESS the original from which that copy is made is "lawfully made available". Since in a typical download case over the internet, the original you download is made available in an unlawfull way, such a copying is not OK. I would assume the US "fair use" would consider this to be more or less the situation and hence illegal. The fact that you happens to own an original yourself or not is completely irellevant from a copyright point of view. It is the act of copying (or making available to the public) that can be copyright infringement or not.
>Therefore, it may be legal to download a rip (if >you own the CD).
It may, or may not, as shown above. It has nothing to do with if it is OK to rip yourself. In general, I would say that if it is not legal to rip, it is probably not ok to download either. But if it is ok to rip, you really can't say much about it being legal or not to download.
>Therefore, the **aa's need to PROVE I don't >already have a song/movie before they can sue >me. Otherwise, if I DO have an original, I have >the right to have the backup.
They would sue you for making copies (or making it available), not for possession. If you happen to own the original or not is completely irellevant.
>On the evil side, getting on the conspiration >mood, it would also allow the FBI or the gov to >diffund pseudo-dissident bait documents and then >check and track anyone who reads it, anywhere he >reads it.
Cool, write up some documents on terrorism and other crimes and catch every terrorist and criminal in the world....
>My point is that, if you are the recipient of an >infinging copy, whether or not you can make >copies of it is irrelevant.
This is a point you have introduced later in the discussion, initially, and what replied to, was your general claim that to simply HAVE or USE (in any sense that is not en exclusive right of the copyright holder), required permision. This was regardless of if the copy was infringing or not to start with. You claimed that one simply needed a license for software (period) in one of your initial posts.
>That can obviously be interpreted a number of >ways, but in my view, and the view of others it >means if you are in possession of an MP3 rip of >a CD, or a DivX reencode of a DVD that somebody >made in order to distribute on the internet, >then you are guilty of a crime.
Appearantly canadian courts are not in agreement since coping, including downloading for private use is legal. Hence such a copy is NOT an infringing copy since the act of such copying, for private use, is in itself not an infringing act.
>That's just it, though. You don't own the bits >of Windows XP, you license them from Microsoft.
Actually, as far as I can see, copies of windows is sold, and bought, in shops.
As a terminology and language question, how can one "license" an object? And what do that mean? Isn't license basically a permision for an act, to do something. I can see that one license the ability to reproduce a game for example, giving you permision to create new copies. There the license is for the action of copying or creating something new. You get a license to drive cars, it is the permision to drive. It is not a license to the car. So how do one license "bits"???
>P2P is basically publishing. Why should you be >allowed to publish my stuff, if I hold the >copyright?
You are not allowed, as pointed out allready, copyright laws make it illegal. What you seem to want to do is make any tool possible that allow such an illegal activity also illegal, right?
>These rights go away with time when the copyright >expires.
So how do you propose people share those works that no longer have copyright?????
The tool has nothing to do with legal or illegal activities. It can be used for both and really have no idea of which is the case.
>I look foreward to the day when I can go into a >shop and choose whatever o/s I want, or none at >all, without having to pay a tax to a private >company.
It is quite possible today depending on to whom you go for your computer. There are many stores and companies that allow you to not only pick software/os freely (any or none) just as you can pick hardware components freely as well. One can even get it less expensive if one do the assemling of the hardware oneself. For the software one also get a lower cost if one install whatever one decide to buy oneself. Of course, not all companies do so.
Well, have an option for your customer to pick a media player for you to install. You may offer it as a list. Perhaps other media manufactures can make good deals with offers on top of their players and so on. It is not like YOU are forbidden to give customers a choice and install various programs, players and other services they might want.
>It sure does, if in order to use it, you have to >make copies.
Of course, who have claimed otherwise. Again, that was not your initial point though, you calimed just HAVING it required permision and that ANY use also did.
Oordinary use does normally not rquire any copying however. And since you appearantly don't even read any copyright laws despite liking to claim what they say, yes, they do allow making copies of for example computer programs needed to run it without permision, that is an exception to the copyright holders right to copy. Such copying does not need permision. Just like copies for private use doesn't (in Canada and many other countries). Again, this is something I also explained before.
Now, if you have something NEW to say or at least want to back up what you have allready claimed (that simply having or reading a book or listening to a CD) then feel free to do so, otherwise I think there is no point talking more, especially since you appearantly have not even rad a copyright law, or even understood it.
>We have a security policy that is roughly 50 >pages....
>and basicly in there it says that they can >remove access to whatever they want whenever >they want, and they can tell you want you cant >and cant do at any time.
You need *50* pages to say that? I would say half a page would be enough. It could just say, "you have no rights, we can do anything we want, if needed we just change this text".
>Because there are no lies. You are just being >foolish.
You wrote (among other things):
"No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed."
When in fact as I showed, I have been writing the opposite.
>You seem to have a problem with the words >"license", and "use". Other than semantics, you >don't even have an argument at all.
Use to me means reading a book, listeing to a CD, looking at a film, running a computer program. No idea what else you seem to have thought I mean by it since I have written that many times. What do YOU mean?
What I am saying is that USE doesn't require the permision of the copyright holder since it is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. You state the contrary so I have asked you to quote or point to the copyright law supporting you view. So far the only thing you have found was about copying which is different and there we agree. So please find anything about using in copyright law.
What you quoted now, is first of all not the law. Second, the "fair use" and license (as in any countries law), is about things that would OTHERWISE be copyright infringement. It is cases when an act, such as copying, or distribution would have been a copyright infringement but in some cases is not. The apply to the original exclusinve rights that is copying, distribution and making it available to the public.
For example, one type of fair use is to quote something in a context. You pick out part of a text and use it in your own text to make some point. That would of course be copyright infringement since you copy and then distribute and make it availavle to others. However, the Fair Use would say that it is OK under certain circumstances (that the quote is a part of the text for example). That has nothing to do with using in the sense people use normally.
The very short snipet you quoted, talks only about such exceptions to infringing acitivites, copying and making it available to the public that would normally not be allowed but are exceptions. It doesn't talk about normal use at all, nor does it explain copyright and exclusive rights of the copyright holder either. Try finding the full copyright law, try to understand how it works and then we can talk again.
Re:You guys don't own the music you are buying
on
iTunes DRM Hole Closed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>You guys don't own the music you are buying
That doesn't make any sense. Buying means that you transfer ownership (in compensation for money usually). This is fairly well regulated though (consumer)sale laws. It is in fact a form of contract done in the shop were you exchange money and a product, and as a result, also the ownership is changed (see applicable sales law).
Hence if you buy (or sell) there IS a change of ownership and you own it, or you would not have bought it to start with.
>You are (and always have) bought a license to >use a copy, and the rights you have on how you >can use that copy are limited.
The only limitation would be the copyright law.
>You do not have, for example, distribution >rights.
Yes, correct, since that is regulated by the copyright law. You usually do have redsitribution rights though since the distribution right would typically only apply for the first distribution, then it is consumed. In US copyright law I believe this goes under the "first sale doctrine".
>You do, however, have your fair use rights,
Again, this is covered through copyright laws. The "fair use" or similar concepts in other countries copyright laws is generally limitations in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. That is, they are only almost exclusive and in some cases you can do those acts without permision.
>So all this bitching and whining about how YOU >can't do what YOU want with YOUR music is drek. >When you go produce your own music, then it's >really YOUR music to do with what you want, and >you can philanthropically hand it out on a web >at your own expense all you want.
Since they sell copies of the music to you, you indeed can do what you want, except for what copyright law (and other laws) restrict. That is it. No need to produce your own music. If someone producing music doesn't like the concept of others owning copies of their music, the solution is simple, don't make copies and sell them to others. Keep them all for your self.
Why have you not responded to the lies you posted regarding what I said? You feel it is OK to spit out lies and then simply ignore it?
>Yes. You cannot *have* the work if the copyright >had to be infringed to get it.
Of course you can, possession is not infringement. It is the actual acts of copying, distribution and such that is infringement. Simply possessing something is not infringement. Even USING a copy that was created in an infringing way, is in itself not a copyright infringement. Lets say someone copy a book and sells it to me (that would be copyright infringement in most countries). Me reading that book is not a copyright infringement. I am not doing anything illegal reading it.
So having, poessing and using a copy of a work has no relation to the copyright at all. There is no requirement for a permision ot have, posess or use them either. That is why I pointed that out in your initial post since you indicated it is needed.
If you want to discuss further, please point out any relevant law to copyright that regulate possession, use, or having it as a right the copyright holder have and control and that requires you to have a prmision for that. Otherwise you are just puting out ideas, thoughts, dreams or believes that you might have that are not true.
As pointed out (and even quoted by someone else just below), copyright deasl with copying, distribution and public performance/display. That is it. feel free to discuss those since those action alone are copyright infringement. Any other activity you do (for example reading, listening), really has nothing to do with copyright. Alos note that the distribution right typically eqpires after the first distribution, so that even redistriubtion is not a copyright issue after that.
Please point out were I have said any of those things? I have been talking about USING things, or simply HAVING things, since that is what you wrote.
Lets look at each post (in summary). My initial post was about "being allowed to give" and you claiming that person needed a license. I asked if it was a license to copy (since in some countries even copying is in some cases NOT an infringement even without a permission).
You reply that it is about a license to have it: "No. A license to have it in the first place." You further says: "If you are allowed to copy it after that isn't the issue."
So clearly we (including me) are not talking about copying. So I have no idea were you have found I said anything about copying as you imply in your previous message. Please tell me.
Moving on it the posts, I point out you don't need to have a license to "have" something and ask why.
You reply for the same reason needing one for software "For the same reason that you need a license with software.". Again, I point out there is no such need to have it (look I am never talking about copying, that was covered in my very first post and you never replied to that part).
I reply stating that use has basically nothing to do with copyright. I ask you to point out were USE is an exclusive right to copyright holder. I state you can do anything with the copy you have except for the things exclusive to the copyright holder, and even mention making copies IS such a thing:
"But copyright have nothing to do with USE. If you own something, regardless of if there is copyright or not, as said above, you can do pretty much anything (with exception of for example copying)."
How can you from such things claim to me: "No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed."?????
You further goes on to quote the copyright law about COPYING. Again, I answer that it is not about copying, but about using and having (Please go back and read your first posts to me). I say to you, that indeed, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies (see paragraph 8 above which is a quote of one of my posts).
So, can you point out were you get the idea that:
>No, you have been saying that you have the right >to copy anything that has ever been composed. You >have the right to copy anything that you have >acquired legally. If you acquire the work from >someone who doesn't have authority to give it to >you, you can't claim any right to copy it. You >shouldn't have it to begin with, you had to >infringe on the copyright to get it.
And can we return to the original issue, that you claimed that one need a permission or license to even have or use a copy of a copyrighted work?
Yes, what you just quoted says that the copyright holder has the sole right to make new copies!!! Doh! That is what I have been saying all the time. It ONLY copvers the act of making new copies, nothing else. Of course, there are a few other things the copyright holder gets to sole right to, as I have said, it includes distributing such copies, making a public performance and so on.
What I am talking about is using it. For exmaple, reading a book, listening to a music CD or running a computer program. That is NOT something the copyright holder has the sole right to do, yet you continue to claim so (quoting you can't copying, that I know and have been stating).
Similary, just possessing or having a copy of a work is again NOT something the copyright holde has the sole right to (yet you claimed so typing before:
>No. A license to have it in the first place.
Again, that is NOT something copyright laws requires yo uto have (and no quoting that you can't copy something is completely irellevant since we are discussing having, owning, possessing,reading,running,whatever else.
>So, I can just walk into a bookstore, pick up a >book and walk out without paying for it and not >break the law?
Lets see, we are talking about copyright laws here. So yes, you can do that without you commiting any copyright infringement. There are of course OTHER laws that prevent such a behaviour, but that has nothing to do with copyright laws.
>In those situations where the author has given >you permission to access his copyrighted material >without any further restrictions beyond those >established by copyright, you have the right to >use it.
You don't need any permission ot access a work (or use it), check the copyright law, there is nothing about access (in DMCA and similar laws, there is a new added right to put in access control though and basically deal about circumventing such protections).
So yes, you can use a copy of a work that has copyright on it without any permission needed. Go read any copyright law you want. Copyright basically deals with copying, distribution, public performance and similar thing, not about use.
>You have no automatic right to use >copyrighted material for any purpose.
So this is not true. You may look at it from the other way arround. What PREVENTS you from using something? Copyright law most definately does not prevent you from using it (as mentioned above, so read the copyright law). Copyright law does not say you need a permision to use. It says you need one if you want to make copies of it though).
With your example of stealing from a shop, that is regulated by normla property laws, which say that you can't take something from someone. That has nothing to do with copyright laws at all.
>b) By default distribution and reproduction are >exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Even if >you legally download it (signing no license at >all), none of those rights have been given to >you.
Not entierly correct. The distribution is a one time (or first time) excluive right only. After the first initial sale, or give away or whatever distribution the copyright holder decides to use, that right is lost and further redistribution is allowed. That is why we have second hand shops selling books, CDs and so on.
You still can't make additional copies though, but then, you can download more than once should you want.
>For the same reason that you need a license with >software.
You don't!
>You don't have the right to someone else's >copyrighted works unless you have a license to >use them.
What makes you think that? (And what do you mean by "the right to someone else's copyrighted work?). Could you for example point to a copyright law that says you need a license to USE a work you don't hold the copyright to? Could you point to a copyright law that gives USE as an exclusive right to the copyright holder? I would assume no. If you read the copyright laws (of your country or any other country), you will see that copyright regulate, and give as exclusive rights to the copyright holder only a specific few things. They include copying, distribution,, public performance and similar related things. That is it!!!! Nothing about use.
Your "right to some else's work" simply doesn't work out, it seems to imply you mean that you have NO right whatsoeever which is simply not true. You can do anything you want with them except the few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to do (and even then, there are exceptions so that you can do some of it under some circumstances anyway).
>Toasters and chewing gum have nothing to do with >copyright. Books do.
But copyright have nothing to do with USE. If you own something, regardless of if there is copyright or not, as said above, you can do pretty much anything (with exception of for example copying).
You might want to try looking at the actual copyrigth laws to find out more. That will also most likely mean you will find that (just to prevent you from arguing about it in relation to computer software) that you ARE allowed to make such copies of it that is needed for using it, like copying it to the computers RAM memory, or installing it to the hard disc to run from there and so on.
Why on earth would you need a license to HAVE it? And what do that have to do with copyright? Possession is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Possession, just as use is not regulated by copyright. So you don't need a licnese to have it any more than you need a license to have a book, a toaster or a chewing gum.
>Well, it would if the company were to sell it to >you on those terms.
To be completely correct, USE, is not covered at all by copyright (with the exception of countries that has DMCA like laws that added access as a right to the copyright holder, usually it is about corcumventing access protection though, not direct use). As such, ordinary USE can not be copyright infringement. And thus, you don't need any permision, license or any EULA to use something.
>How did you get that recording? Was the person >who gave it to you allowed to do so?
Ehh, are we talking about someone giving away something or about someone copyring something? Quite different situations and trivial to see the difference. Lets cover both to be on the safe side.
If someone gives away something, copyright will often not apply. Usually the right do distribute work with copyright is a right that, although belonging to the copyright holder, is in most countries copyright laws consumed after the first sale (or distribution). In US for example, this goes under the "first sale doctrine" I believe. After that, anyone is free to give away, sell or whatever the copy of the work freely without the need of any permision from the copyright holder. Some exceptions might exist in regard to renting the work. Perhaps other exceptions exist as well.
In this case I believe we were talking about COPYING though, not giving away something. Here there are two different things to look at. The one making the work available to the public and the one making a copy of it. None, one or both of those works might be a copyright infringement. I would say that in most countries, the one making it available, the uploader, is commiting a copyright infringement. However, the one doing the copy, that is the downloader is in many countries not doing something illegal since the copy is for private or personal use (assuming it is and it is not for comercial use for example). That is then NOT an infringement. Many countries that allow such a copying, that is, has a restriction on the exculsive right for the copyright holder to make copies, often have some sort of leavy on for example blank CDs to comensate for such legal copying. I believe that is the case in Canada although I am not aware of the details since I am not Canadian myself.
>You still need to have a license for the >recording before you copied it.
You mean a license to make copies? Again, in the case of Canada, that is not needed for copying for personal/private use (according to my understanding). Can't see any other need for licenses either so it is really an irellevant point.
>Of course P2P is legal. Stealing copyrighted >works is not.
Actually, stealing is illegal, period. What you steal is irellevant, it is illegal to steal non copyrighted work as well. It is illegal to steal anything that can't even have copyright too.
> and someone violating the terms under which a CD >is released by (for example) Sony?
and
>IMNSHO, respect for the >licensing terms of copyright holders should cut >both ways, however much that may hurt.
I might miss something what "terms" are you refering to? The only "terms" I can think of is copyright laws and normal (consumer)sale laws. That is about it. You usually have to follow laws.
Not following the GPL license which is a licnse you can agree to if you want to, for example use the ode of the program, extend it, change it and then reproduce and spread to others. Since that would normally be a copyright violation, you need to get permision, or license to do so, which is what the GPL do. Similary, if you want to take the music on a CD (from Sony for example) and change it, reproduce it and spread those copies, you need to get permision from Sony. That is the largest difference I see.
Obviously one can argue against copyright from a point of view that one doesn't like the laws as they are, which I believe many here do. One can also dislike the way large media companies tries to twost, add and extend copyright laws constantly to give them more and more rights and put more and more restrictions on general consumers. In addition they loby quite heavily for legal sanctions and procedures not in existance in other areas or other product creators, often wanting to put themselves into a sort of police/court like position.
Slashdot Mirror
>Not exactly. Americans can buy generic Beethoven
>CDs or generic kids' music CDs because musical
>works published pre-1923 are not subject to U.S.
>copyright.
I doubt there is any recordings from before 1923 sold on CDs today, so that is irellevant. Although the music itself no longer has copyright, meaning anyone can play, record and sell it, each such recording or performance is itself protected by copyright (not sure about the time in US; in Europe it is typically 50 years).
>Follow the logic:
>
>I can rip my own CD for backup.
Yes, appearantly. This is allowed if the copyright law says you can make copies for personal use for example. In US I would say this goes under the "Fair Use".
>A ripped CD (being digital) is identical, no
>matter who does it.
Well, it can end up quite different depending on what program is used, the compression rate and so on, but lets assume it indeed IS identical copies we talk about.
>What if I don't have the knowledge to rip a CD,
>so I download someone else's rip?? I end up with
>the same data either way.
The thing is not really what you end up with, but what you do. Copyright is about doing things, like creating a copy, distributing copies or making copies available to the public.
Typically, in almost any country, the one uploading, that is, making copies available for others, is commiting copyright infringement since he is making copies available to the public, something that is an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
The one downloading can is the one making a copy, is that legal or not? Seems to depends on countries and how they have defined their variants of fair use or limits on the exclusive rights for copying. In some countries, it is OK to download if the copy created is for personal use only. Then it ok (regardless of if the copy is identical or not or, indeed, even if you own or not an original. In other countries, it is not allowed to make such copies for personal use UNLESS the original from which that copy is made is "lawfully made available". Since in a typical download case over the internet, the original you download is made available in an unlawfull way, such a copying is not OK. I would assume the US "fair use" would consider this to be more or less the situation and hence illegal. The fact that you happens to own an original yourself or not is completely irellevant from a copyright point of view. It is the act of copying (or making available to the public) that can be copyright infringement or not.
>Therefore, it may be legal to download a rip (if
>you own the CD).
It may, or may not, as shown above. It has nothing to do with if it is OK to rip yourself. In general, I would say that if it is not legal to rip, it is probably not ok to download either. But if it is ok to rip, you really can't say much about it being legal or not to download.
>Therefore, the **aa's need to PROVE I don't
>already have a song/movie before they can sue
>me. Otherwise, if I DO have an original, I have
>the right to have the backup.
They would sue you for making copies (or making it available), not for possession. If you happen to own the original or not is completely irellevant.
>On the evil side, getting on the conspiration
>mood, it would also allow the FBI or the gov to
>diffund pseudo-dissident bait documents and then
>check and track anyone who reads it, anywhere he
>reads it.
Cool, write up some documents on terrorism and other crimes and catch every terrorist and criminal in the world....
>My point is that, if you are the recipient of an
>infinging copy, whether or not you can make
>copies of it is irrelevant.
This is a point you have introduced later in the discussion, initially, and what replied to, was your general claim that to simply HAVE or USE (in any sense that is not en exclusive right of the copyright holder), required permision. This was regardless of if the copy was infringing or not to start with. You claimed that one simply needed a license for software (period) in one of your initial posts.
>That can obviously be interpreted a number of
>ways, but in my view, and the view of others it
>means if you are in possession of an MP3 rip of
>a CD, or a DivX reencode of a DVD that somebody
>made in order to distribute on the internet,
>then you are guilty of a crime.
Appearantly canadian courts are not in agreement since coping, including downloading for private use is legal. Hence such a copy is NOT an infringing copy since the act of such copying, for private use, is in itself not an infringing act.
>That's just it, though. You don't own the bits
>of Windows XP, you license them from Microsoft.
Actually, as far as I can see, copies of windows is sold, and bought, in shops.
As a terminology and language question, how can one "license" an object? And what do that mean? Isn't license basically a permision for an act, to do something. I can see that one license the ability to reproduce a game for example, giving you permision to create new copies. There the license is for the action of copying or creating something new. You get a license to drive cars, it is the permision to drive. It is not a license to the car. So how do one license "bits"???
>P2P is basically publishing. Why should you be
>allowed to publish my stuff, if I hold the
>copyright?
You are not allowed, as pointed out allready, copyright laws make it illegal. What you seem to want to do is make any tool possible that allow such an illegal activity also illegal, right?
>These rights go away with time when the copyright
>expires.
So how do you propose people share those works that no longer have copyright?????
The tool has nothing to do with legal or illegal activities. It can be used for both and really have no idea of which is the case.
>I look foreward to the day when I can go into a
>shop and choose whatever o/s I want, or none at
>all, without having to pay a tax to a private
>company.
It is quite possible today depending on to whom you go for your computer. There are many stores and companies that allow you to not only pick software/os freely (any or none) just as you can pick hardware components freely as well. One can even get it less expensive if one do the assemling of the hardware oneself. For the software one also get a lower cost if one install whatever one decide to buy oneself. Of course, not all companies do so.
Well, have an option for your customer to pick a media player for you to install. You may offer it as a list. Perhaps other media manufactures can make good deals with offers on top of their players and so on. It is not like YOU are forbidden to give customers a choice and install various programs, players and other services they might want.
>It sure does, if in order to use it, you have to
>make copies.
Of course, who have claimed otherwise. Again, that was not your initial point though, you calimed just HAVING it required permision and that ANY use also did.
Oordinary use does normally not rquire any copying however. And since you appearantly don't even read any copyright laws despite liking to claim what they say, yes, they do allow making copies of for example computer programs needed to run it without permision, that is an exception to the copyright holders right to copy. Such copying does not need permision. Just like copies for private use doesn't (in Canada and many other countries). Again, this is something I also explained before.
Now, if you have something NEW to say or at least want to back up what you have allready claimed (that simply having or reading a book or listening to a CD) then feel free to do so, otherwise I think there is no point talking more, especially since you appearantly have not even rad a copyright law, or even understood it.
>We have a security policy that is roughly 50
>pages....
>and basicly in there it says that they can
>remove access to whatever they want whenever
>they want, and they can tell you want you cant
>and cant do at any time.
You need *50* pages to say that? I would say half a page would be enough. It could just say, "you have no rights, we can do anything we want, if needed we just change this text".
>Because there are no lies. You are just being
>foolish.
You wrote (among other things):
"No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed."
When in fact as I showed, I have been writing the opposite.
>You seem to have a problem with the words
>"license", and "use". Other than semantics, you
>don't even have an argument at all.
Use to me means reading a book, listeing to a CD, looking at a film, running a computer program. No idea what else you seem to have thought I mean by it since I have written that many times. What do YOU mean?
What I am saying is that USE doesn't require the permision of the copyright holder since it is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. You state the contrary so I have asked you to quote or point to the copyright law supporting you view. So far the only thing you have found was about copying which is different and there we agree. So please find anything about using in copyright law.
What you quoted now, is first of all not the law. Second, the "fair use" and license (as in any countries law), is about things that would OTHERWISE be copyright infringement. It is cases when an act, such as copying, or distribution would have been a copyright infringement but in some cases is not. The apply to the original exclusinve rights that is copying, distribution and making it available to the public.
For example, one type of fair use is to quote something in a context. You pick out part of a text and use it in your own text to make some point. That would of course be copyright infringement since you copy and then distribute and make it availavle to others. However, the Fair Use would say that it is OK under certain circumstances (that the quote is a part of the text for example). That has nothing to do with using in the sense people use normally.
The very short snipet you quoted, talks only about such exceptions to infringing acitivites, copying and making it available to the public that would normally not be allowed but are exceptions. It doesn't talk about normal use at all, nor does it explain copyright and exclusive rights of the copyright holder either. Try finding the full copyright law, try to understand how it works and then we can talk again.
>You guys don't own the music you are buying
That doesn't make any sense. Buying means that you transfer ownership (in compensation for money usually). This is fairly well regulated though (consumer)sale laws. It is in fact a form of contract done in the shop were you exchange money and a product, and as a result, also the ownership is changed (see applicable sales law).
Hence if you buy (or sell) there IS a change of ownership and you own it, or you would not have bought it to start with.
>You are (and always have) bought a license to
>use a copy, and the rights you have on how you
>can use that copy are limited.
The only limitation would be the copyright law.
>You do not have, for example, distribution
>rights.
Yes, correct, since that is regulated by the copyright law. You usually do have redsitribution rights though since the distribution right would typically only apply for the first distribution, then it is consumed. In US copyright law I believe this goes under the "first sale doctrine".
>You do, however, have your fair use rights,
Again, this is covered through copyright laws. The "fair use" or similar concepts in other countries copyright laws is generally limitations in the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. That is, they are only almost exclusive and in some cases you can do those acts without permision.
>So all this bitching and whining about how YOU
>can't do what YOU want with YOUR music is drek.
>When you go produce your own music, then it's
>really YOUR music to do with what you want, and
>you can philanthropically hand it out on a web
>at your own expense all you want.
Since they sell copies of the music to you, you indeed can do what you want, except for what copyright law (and other laws) restrict. That is it. No need to produce your own music. If someone producing music doesn't like the concept of others owning copies of their music, the solution is simple, don't make copies and sell them to others. Keep them all for your self.
Perhpas they later decided to terminate the agreement. After all, it is not like it is something eternal.
Why have you not responded to the lies you posted regarding what I said? You feel it is OK to spit out lies and then simply ignore it?
>Yes. You cannot *have* the work if the copyright
>had to be infringed to get it.
Of course you can, possession is not infringement. It is the actual acts of copying, distribution and such that is infringement. Simply possessing something is not infringement. Even USING a copy that was created in an infringing way, is in itself not a copyright infringement. Lets say someone copy a book and sells it to me (that would be copyright infringement in most countries). Me reading that book is not a copyright infringement. I am not doing anything illegal reading it.
So having, poessing and using a copy of a work has no relation to the copyright at all. There is no requirement for a permision ot have, posess or use them either. That is why I pointed that out in your initial post since you indicated it is needed.
If you want to discuss further, please point out any relevant law to copyright that regulate possession, use, or having it as a right the copyright holder have and control and that requires you to have a prmision for that. Otherwise you are just puting out ideas, thoughts, dreams or believes that you might have that are not true.
As pointed out (and even quoted by someone else just below), copyright deasl with copying, distribution and public performance/display. That is it. feel free to discuss those since those action alone are copyright infringement. Any other activity you do (for example reading, listening), really has nothing to do with copyright. Alos note that the distribution right typically eqpires after the first distribution, so that even redistriubtion is not a copyright issue after that.
Please point out were I have said any of those things? I have been talking about USING things, or simply HAVING things, since that is what you wrote.
Lets look at each post (in summary). My initial post was about "being allowed to give" and you claiming that person needed a license. I asked if it was a license to copy (since in some countries even copying is in some cases NOT an infringement even without a permission).
You reply that it is about a license to have it: "No. A license to have it in the first place." You further says: "If you are allowed to copy it after that isn't the issue."
So clearly we (including me) are not talking about copying. So I have no idea were you have found I said anything about copying as you imply in your previous message. Please tell me.
Moving on it the posts, I point out you don't need to have a license to "have" something and ask why.
You reply for the same reason needing one for software "For the same reason that you need a license with software.". Again, I point out there is no such need to have it (look I am never talking about copying, that was covered in my very first post and you never replied to that part).
I reply stating that use has basically nothing to do with copyright. I ask you to point out were USE is an exclusive right to copyright holder. I state you can do anything with the copy you have except for the things exclusive to the copyright holder, and even mention making copies IS such a thing:
"But copyright have nothing to do with USE. If you own something, regardless of if there is copyright or not, as said above, you can do pretty much anything (with exception of for example copying)."
How can you from such things claim to me:
"No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed."?????
You further goes on to quote the copyright law about COPYING. Again, I answer that it is not about copying, but about using and having (Please go back and read your first posts to me). I say to you, that indeed, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies (see paragraph 8 above which is a quote of one of my posts).
So, can you point out were you get the idea that:
>No, you have been saying that you have the right
>to copy anything that has ever been composed. You
>have the right to copy anything that you have
>acquired legally. If you acquire the work from
>someone who doesn't have authority to give it to
>you, you can't claim any right to copy it. You
>shouldn't have it to begin with, you had to
>infringe on the copyright to get it.
And can we return to the original issue, that you claimed that one need a permission or license to even have or use a copy of a copyrighted work?
Huh????
Yes, what you just quoted says that the copyright holder has the sole right to make new copies!!! Doh! That is what I have been saying all the time. It ONLY copvers the act of making new copies, nothing else. Of course, there are a few other things the copyright holder gets to sole right to, as I have said, it includes distributing such copies, making a public performance and so on.
What I am talking about is using it. For exmaple, reading a book, listening to a music CD or running a computer program. That is NOT something the copyright holder has the sole right to do, yet you continue to claim so (quoting you can't copying, that I know and have been stating).
Similary, just possessing or having a copy of a work is again NOT something the copyright holde has the sole right to (yet you claimed so typing before:
>No. A license to have it in the first place.
Again, that is NOT something copyright laws requires yo uto have (and no quoting that you can't copy something is completely irellevant since we are discussing having, owning, possessing,reading,running,whatever else.
>So, I can just walk into a bookstore, pick up a
>book and walk out without paying for it and not
>break the law?
Lets see, we are talking about copyright laws here. So yes, you can do that without you commiting any copyright infringement. There are of course OTHER laws that prevent such a behaviour, but that has nothing to do with copyright laws.
>In those situations where the author has given
>you permission to access his copyrighted material
>without any further restrictions beyond those
>established by copyright, you have the right to
>use it.
You don't need any permission ot access a work (or use it), check the copyright law, there is nothing about access (in DMCA and similar laws, there is a new added right to put in access control though and basically deal about circumventing such protections).
So yes, you can use a copy of a work that has copyright on it without any permission needed. Go read any copyright law you want. Copyright basically deals with copying, distribution, public performance and similar thing, not about use.
>You have no automatic right to use
>copyrighted material for any purpose.
So this is not true. You may look at it from the other way arround. What PREVENTS you from using something? Copyright law most definately does not prevent you from using it (as mentioned above, so read the copyright law). Copyright law does not say you need a permision to use. It says you need one if you want to make copies of it though).
With your example of stealing from a shop, that is regulated by normla property laws, which say that you can't take something from someone. That has nothing to do with copyright laws at all.
On the scale they appaearnly did, it turns into a criminal case, I would say.
>b) By default distribution and reproduction are
>exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Even if
>you legally download it (signing no license at
>all), none of those rights have been given to
>you.
Not entierly correct. The distribution is a one time (or first time) excluive right only. After the first initial sale, or give away or whatever distribution the copyright holder decides to use, that right is lost and further redistribution is allowed. That is why we have second hand shops selling books, CDs and so on.
You still can't make additional copies though, but then, you can download more than once should you want.
>For the same reason that you need a license with
>software.
You don't!
>You don't have the right to someone else's
>copyrighted works unless you have a license to
>use them.
What makes you think that? (And what do you mean by "the right to someone else's copyrighted work?). Could you for example point to a copyright law that says you need a license to USE a work you don't hold the copyright to? Could you point to a copyright law that gives USE as an exclusive right to the copyright holder? I would assume no. If you read the copyright laws (of your country or any other country), you will see that copyright regulate, and give as exclusive rights to the copyright holder only a specific few things. They include copying, distribution,, public performance and similar related things. That is it!!!! Nothing about use.
Your "right to some else's work" simply doesn't work out, it seems to imply you mean that you have NO right whatsoeever which is simply not true. You can do anything you want with them except the few things that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to do (and even then, there are exceptions so that you can do some of it under some circumstances anyway).
>Toasters and chewing gum have nothing to do with
>copyright. Books do.
But copyright have nothing to do with USE. If you own something, regardless of if there is copyright or not, as said above, you can do pretty much anything (with exception of for example copying).
You might want to try looking at the actual copyrigth laws to find out more. That will also most likely mean you will find that (just to prevent you from arguing about it in relation to computer software) that you ARE allowed to make such copies of it that is needed for using it, like copying it to the computers RAM memory, or installing it to the hard disc to run from there and so on.
>No. A license to have it in the first place.
Why on earth would you need a license to HAVE it? And what do that have to do with copyright? Possession is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Possession, just as use is not regulated by copyright. So you don't need a licnese to have it any more than you need a license to have a book, a toaster or a chewing gum.
>Well, it would if the company were to sell it to
>you on those terms.
To be completely correct, USE, is not covered at all by copyright (with the exception of countries that has DMCA like laws that added access as a right to the copyright holder, usually it is about corcumventing access protection though, not direct use). As such, ordinary USE can not be copyright infringement. And thus, you don't need any permision, license or any EULA to use something.
>How did you get that recording? Was the person
>who gave it to you allowed to do so?
Ehh, are we talking about someone giving away something or about someone copyring something? Quite different situations and trivial to see the difference. Lets cover both to be on the safe side.
If someone gives away something, copyright will often not apply. Usually the right do distribute work with copyright is a right that, although belonging to the copyright holder, is in most countries copyright laws consumed after the first sale (or distribution). In US for example, this goes under the "first sale doctrine" I believe. After that, anyone is free to give away, sell or whatever the copy of the work freely without the need of any permision from the copyright holder. Some exceptions might exist in regard to renting the work. Perhaps other exceptions exist as well.
In this case I believe we were talking about COPYING though, not giving away something. Here there are two different things to look at. The one making the work available to the public and the one making a copy of it. None, one or both of those works might be a copyright infringement. I would say that in most countries, the one making it available, the uploader, is commiting a copyright infringement. However, the one doing the copy, that is the downloader is in many countries not doing something illegal since the copy is for private or personal use (assuming it is and it is not for comercial use for example). That is then NOT an infringement. Many countries that allow such a copying, that is, has a restriction on the exculsive right for the copyright holder to make copies, often have some sort of leavy on for example blank CDs to comensate for such legal copying. I believe that is the case in Canada although I am not aware of the details since I am not Canadian myself.
>You still need to have a license for the
>recording before you copied it.
You mean a license to make copies? Again, in the case of Canada, that is not needed for copying for personal/private use (according to my understanding). Can't see any other need for licenses either so it is really an irellevant point.
>Of course P2P is legal. Stealing copyrighted
>works is not.
Actually, stealing is illegal, period. What you steal is irellevant, it is illegal to steal non copyrighted work as well. It is illegal to steal anything that can't even have copyright too.
> and someone violating the terms under which a CD
>is released by (for example) Sony?
and
>IMNSHO, respect for the
>licensing terms of copyright holders should cut
>both ways, however much that may hurt.
I might miss something what "terms" are you refering to? The only "terms" I can think of is copyright laws and normal (consumer)sale laws. That is about it. You usually have to follow laws.
Not following the GPL license which is a licnse you can agree to if you want to, for example use the ode of the program, extend it, change it and then reproduce and spread to others. Since that would normally be a copyright violation, you need to get permision, or license to do so, which is what the GPL do. Similary, if you want to take the music on a CD (from Sony for example) and change it, reproduce it and spread those copies, you need to get permision from Sony. That is the largest difference I see.
Obviously one can argue against copyright from a point of view that one doesn't like the laws as they are, which I believe many here do. One can also dislike the way large media companies tries to twost, add and extend copyright laws constantly to give them more and more rights and put more and more restrictions on general consumers. In addition they loby quite heavily for legal sanctions and procedures not in existance in other areas or other product creators, often wanting to put themselves into a sort of police/court like position.