Ok. You are absolutely right, and I am wrong. I had thought there was at least a little bit of sanity left in copyright law and I was wrong about that too. I did some research on the Seinfeld case your mentioned, and I am floored. I am absolutely astounded that the power of copyright holders has been extended that far. I have now amended my brain to include the fact that it is illegal to even write a trivia question about the content in a work that is still under copyright. Book reports and movie reviews are also illegal. Wow. (Before you go telling me those are fair use, keep in mind, fair use can only be decided by a judge, and the works are infringing until you are sued and successfully use fair use as your defense.)
For those wanting more information about the case he was talking about, Ken Jennings has a good analysis here and here.
The subject painting this as containing "factual information" is wrong
I'm not sure you understand the word factual. No one is arguing that Harry Potter is not fiction. However, there is in fact a book series featuring a character called Harry Potter. It is a fact that in this book he attends a school called Hogwarts. It is a fact that in the book Harry Potter battles a villain named Voldemort. This analysis can be repeated for all of the details concerning the novels. If I did continue and started to name other characters, other places, explained how they were connected and what place they have in Harry Potterland, at which point has my post become infringing?
To clarify, in the article, the testimony was from a defence witness. I didn't mean to imply that Best Buy was suing a good customer, but that the RIAA was.
During his cross-examination of Geek Squad member Ryan Maki, Toder was able to use Best Buy's sales history of Toder to show that she was an avid music fan that bought a lot of music from the store, both before and after February 2005. "Best Buy's records show that she bought hundreds of CDs before February 2005, did she not?" asked Toder.
"There are quite a few CDs and DVDs purchased," replied Maki. "She's a good customer."
Way to drop the legal hammer on one of your best customers.
Why wouldn't the receipt, which you have from the purchase of the DVD, be enough to prove ownership? There are some good arguments against this but this isn't one.
I don't know about you, but it can often be months before I watch the DVD I purchased. Likelyhood of still having the receipt after several months: none. Also, are we going to have to start including a receipt in the box if we give someone a DVD as a gift?
I oppose copyright. It needs to go away. I would have absolutely no problem with a sensible copyright with clearly defined limits. That kind of copyright could actually do a lot of good. Giving an incentive to authors and artists to publish their works and release them to the public domain after a short period of time seems like a fair trade.
The problem is, we already had that. The original term of 14 years with the option of extending for another 14 was more than fair. That copyright was pushed and extended and expanded to near limitless proportions. We gave them an inch; they took a mile. I'd be all for copyright if I thought reform was possible. I don't think it is. It seems that it has come down to an all-or-nothing situation. Copyright is just too high a price to pay for the debatable incentive it provides.
An expensive initial cost does not make the end product inherently more valuable, so yes, I rightfully ignore it. If your business model is based around spending $150 million to create something that I can turn around and duplicate for 5 you might want to rethink it.
I haven't broken any law until a court finds that I have. Well that's great logic! I'll just apply that to my music/movie/tv show downloading:). I think it can be shown fairly conclusively that it is possible to break the law without being convicted of it. Speeding is speeding even if you don't get caught, and copyright infringement is is still breaking copyright even if you don't get sued.
Going back to the great^n grandparent post, it is nigh impossible to live a normal life copyright-infringement-free. It is trivial to break and enforcement is relatively non-existent. I see infringement all the time and almost no one cares. The only type people even notice is media copying and most people I talk to about it don't care. For myself I know enough not have any respect at all for the whole intellectual property set of laws. I think you got it right in the above quote.
Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.
You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.
Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.
How do you figure that? No copy, no infringement. It's not difficult, even in a world of DMCA, EUCD and the like. You might not like that situation, but it's hard to argue that you didn't know you were in it.Have you ever:
Forwarded an email without first obtaining permission from the author?
Sang Happy Birthday in public or in the workplace?
Quoted from someone's post without permission?
Backed up your hard drive?
Forwarded text from an interesting article without permission?
If you answered yes to these and any other of a multitude of things that people do everyday without a second thought, then you are a copyright infringer. Thief! Pirate!
You used the words orifice and fecklessness in your post. I guess you are looking to vocabulary to give your words credibility rather than using wit and/or reasoning. I'd respond to the arguments in your post, but you have none.
And it wasn't a parable, it was a quote. The character I was quoting was using a metaphor. If you are going to attempt to sound pretentious, you should at least get your terminology right. And saying "international criminals who mean you harm" is too wordy. Just say terrorist.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Re-reading my post, it does sound harsh. Sorry.
I misconstrued your statement as one equivicating stealing with copyright infringement.
More info on the Happy Birthday copyright issue here.
but offering a copy of a CD, even to someone who disagrees with any form of copyright infringement, is considered okay.
Because it is ok. Seriously, I don't think you have any idea how easy it is to violate copyright. For example, I copied a portion of your post. I didn't have permission. You own the copyright. I just infringed your copyright in a very distinct form. So did you when you quoted the post above you. "But it's fair use!" you say. Hogwash. It can only be fair use once a judge has ruled it fair use. Until then, it is infringement. Would it be likely to be ruled fair use? Probably, but it's still infringement unless a court gets involved.
Example #2: Just this last week, I was with two different groups of adults who thought nothing of absolutely, and brazenly, violating a copyright owned by Time Warner. We sang "Happy Birthday to You" in public. Once was at a family gathering in a park. The other time was at my place of employment! Shocker! What a hideous group of dirty, theiving, pirates! Once again, only a judge can determine fair use.
So get off your high "I don't steal music" horse. In the eyes of the law, both the examples I used are copyright infringement. It's people like you who have very little understanding of copyright who think that the comparison of stealing physical property with copyright infringement is valid, or even close. But when you understand how easy it is to violate copyright, it all becomes a meaningless jumble. Stop picking and choosing what forms of infringement are "ok" and either condemn all infringement, or none of it.
Why not dam it? You get a source of electricity and even more storage of water in an area that can't get enough of it. They have the holes started for the foundation and for the diversion tunnels.
You're right! It's a great idea! Thanks for bringing it up so I can start voicing my support to my congressmen.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably both. I guess the real question is if the ggparent cares if his copyright was just violated.
Ok. You are absolutely right, and I am wrong. I had thought there was at least a little bit of sanity left in copyright law and I was wrong about that too. I did some research on the Seinfeld case your mentioned, and I am floored. I am absolutely astounded that the power of copyright holders has been extended that far. I have now amended my brain to include the fact that it is illegal to even write a trivia question about the content in a work that is still under copyright. Book reports and movie reviews are also illegal. Wow. (Before you go telling me those are fair use, keep in mind, fair use can only be decided by a judge, and the works are infringing until you are sued and successfully use fair use as your defense.)
For those wanting more information about the case he was talking about, Ken Jennings has a good analysis here and here.
Sigh. Google
I'd mod you up to 11 if I could.
You're right. Someone advertising your products for free and buying a whole lot of it themselves is not a good customer. They're a great one.
To clarify, in the article, the testimony was from a defence witness. I didn't mean to imply that Best Buy was suing a good customer, but that the RIAA was.
I oppose copyright. It needs to go away. I would have absolutely no problem with a sensible copyright with clearly defined limits. That kind of copyright could actually do a lot of good. Giving an incentive to authors and artists to publish their works and release them to the public domain after a short period of time seems like a fair trade.
The problem is, we already had that. The original term of 14 years with the option of extending for another 14 was more than fair. That copyright was pushed and extended and expanded to near limitless proportions. We gave them an inch; they took a mile. I'd be all for copyright if I thought reform was possible. I don't think it is. It seems that it has come down to an all-or-nothing situation. Copyright is just too high a price to pay for the debatable incentive it provides.
Wow. That is not an acronym I want associated with my hard drive.
An expensive initial cost does not make the end product inherently more valuable, so yes, I rightfully ignore it. If your business model is based around spending $150 million to create something that I can turn around and duplicate for 5 you might want to rethink it.
BTW, any metaphors comparing made-up, fictional, so-called intellectual property to real, defendable, actual property will fail. Every time.
I haven't broken any law until a court finds that I have. Well that's great logic! I'll just apply that to my music/movie/tv show downloading :). I think it can be shown fairly conclusively that it is possible to break the law without being convicted of it. Speeding is speeding even if you don't get caught, and copyright infringement is is still breaking copyright even if you don't get sued.
Going back to the great^n grandparent post, it is nigh impossible to live a normal life copyright-infringement-free. It is trivial to break and enforcement is relatively non-existent. I see infringement all the time and almost no one cares. The only type people even notice is media copying and most people I talk to about it don't care. For myself I know enough not have any respect at all for the whole intellectual property set of laws. I think you got it right in the above quote.
Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.
You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.
Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.
How do you figure that? No copy, no infringement. It's not difficult, even in a world of DMCA, EUCD and the like. You might not like that situation, but it's hard to argue that you didn't know you were in it.Have you ever:
Forwarded an email without first obtaining permission from the author?
Sang Happy Birthday in public or in the workplace?
Quoted from someone's post without permission?
Backed up your hard drive?
Forwarded text from an interesting article without permission?
If you answered yes to these and any other of a multitude of things that people do everyday without a second thought, then you are a copyright infringer. Thief! Pirate!
You used the words orifice and fecklessness in your post. I guess you are looking to vocabulary to give your words credibility rather than using wit and/or reasoning. I'd respond to the arguments in your post, but you have none.
And it wasn't a parable, it was a quote. The character I was quoting was using a metaphor. If you are going to attempt to sound pretentious, you should at least get your terminology right. And saying "international criminals who mean you harm" is too wordy. Just say terrorist.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Re-reading my post, it does sound harsh. Sorry. I misconstrued your statement as one equivicating stealing with copyright infringement. More info on the Happy Birthday copyright issue here.
but offering a copy of a CD, even to someone who disagrees with any form of copyright infringement, is considered okay.
Because it is ok. Seriously, I don't think you have any idea how easy it is to violate copyright. For example, I copied a portion of your post. I didn't have permission. You own the copyright. I just infringed your copyright in a very distinct form. So did you when you quoted the post above you. "But it's fair use!" you say. Hogwash. It can only be fair use once a judge has ruled it fair use. Until then, it is infringement. Would it be likely to be ruled fair use? Probably, but it's still infringement unless a court gets involved.
Example #2: Just this last week, I was with two different groups of adults who thought nothing of absolutely, and brazenly, violating a copyright owned by Time Warner. We sang "Happy Birthday to You" in public. Once was at a family gathering in a park. The other time was at my place of employment! Shocker! What a hideous group of dirty, theiving, pirates! Once again, only a judge can determine fair use.
So get off your high "I don't steal music" horse. In the eyes of the law, both the examples I used are copyright infringement. It's people like you who have very little understanding of copyright who think that the comparison of stealing physical property with copyright infringement is valid, or even close. But when you understand how easy it is to violate copyright, it all becomes a meaningless jumble. Stop picking and choosing what forms of infringement are "ok" and either condemn all infringement, or none of it.
That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.
that's because shows like this are made as much for law enforcement propaganda as they are for entertainment.
If that's true, then it's backfiring.
I appreciate the list. I actually had missed a couple. :)
Why not dam it? You get a source of electricity and even more storage of water in an area that can't get enough of it. They have the holes started for the foundation and for the diversion tunnels.
You're right! It's a great idea! Thanks for bringing it up so I can start voicing my support to my congressmen.