Jyst because the "Star" gets the greater media attention does *not* mean no-one else was involved. His mansion doesn't feed to labor behind the scenes.
I'm actually suprised that some POP3 clients haven't incorporated this view. I never really liked email much. Pain in the ass to organize and keep track of. Along comes Google with this innovative way of organizing everything and *gasp* all of the sudden email becomes useful to me.:)
It's all a matter of what one *does* in email. I've never really used it for 1-off communications, so the conversation thing works. Folks who don't generally reply or *get* replies would probably rather sort via some other criteria. (Which they can do, BTW, simply by setting their account up for POP3 access and using their favorite POP3 client.)
To each their own, and amazingly, GMail does it all.
It's not the copyright protections that elevate them. It's society. The copyright protections intent is simply make it so that they can, for a time, have control of and profit from their works.
Allowing someone else to sell convert, or make copies *is* legal. If you have permission. Circiut City never got that permission.
Again, I think Copyright is a good idea, but it does need to be limited. They should only be granted these protections for a specific time and it should not be transferrable, or saleable.
I think we agree for the most part. Those that create need some method to profit from, retain control of, and hopefully gain incentive to continue creating. One should *not* be allowed to create one thing and profit from it alone for the rest of their lives. I think on these basic principles we agree.
The details...well. That's where the devil resides, eh?
They are denying themselves the income by not providing such a version. As I said, if it were available and reasonably priced I would buy it. But it isn't, which leaves me two options -- rip it from DVD myself, or use the services of a company like CC.
You have a 3rd option: Leave it alone and do without. Just because the author has not seen fit to release it for that device does *not* entitle someone else to do it for them, nor does it entitle *anyone* to a copy or version that will work on that device.
It's called self control. The ability to constrain ones-self to the limitations of law, ethics, and morality. Just because you want it doesn't make it right.
Perhaps the author does not *want* it available on a certain device. Is it not the author's right to determine, for a time at least, what is or is not done with their works?
Fair Use protects you and me, not Circuit City. Which is why I keep bringing it up.
Fair Use interpretations protect personal use only marginally, it does not give commercial entities any rights whatsoever to alter or distribute copyrighted material.
They are given consent to distribute licensed copies only. The copy they make while you sit there is unlicensed.
It's not inherently illegal when done in your house. It's an interpretation of Fair Use. Privacy doesn't enter into it.
According to fair use you are entitled to make a backup copy onto another medium (VHS to DVD for example).
Show me where it states that. Fair use is an interpretation of certain exclusions stated in Copyright Law. So far, they've been loosely interpreted to allow backups and format shifts done and used personally. They have never been, nor were ever meant to be interpreted as carte-blanche permission for *anyone* to convert it to *any* format without permission.
In fact, "personal use" is not even mentioned.
As to going to someone's house and doing it? Dunno. That's too grey for my blood. I'd hesitatingly say it'd be fine, but... you got me on that one. I'd almost say to draw the line, if it were up to me, at someone else doing it for profit. They're performing a function the copyright holder has the only right to permit commercially.
Renting them equipment is the same as them doing it themselves, though. That one was easy.;)
1.) You missed the point entirely. If they *were* able to sell your *working* software to others on another format, you'd be pissed, would you not? They just denied you any sales you might have had in that format.
2.) Seriously... How are they going to enhance an iPod movie? Still,. CC is denying them any income they may have derived from selling such a version.
Yeah, Copyright terms ain't perfect. It needs to be shortened. It needs to be non-transfereable. I don't disagree that there's a better way to do it, but I still believe the copyright owners of 'Inside Man' (current DVD release used purely as an example) should have those rights for a bit longer yet.;)
I do not see how they should be granted a monopoly to profit from mere transformations of already-legally-purchased works to new formats.
You don't believe they should have any say in how their works are used, displayed, or transformed?
Circuit City doing this is denying the copyright holder's right to make money by releasing a version in this format. Most of the folks who already got it from CC are *not* going to buy it again just to get it official.
If CC ported your software to AIX before you got a chance to, would any of those folks who bought it from CC buy it from you once you completed your port?
Likely not. You just lost income. Feel good about it?
It's a bad analogy as software requires updates, patches, and support, which movies do not, but you get the idea.
Fair use applies to the consumer, but *not* through a commercial entity.
They *do* end up with a new format.
CC *is* distributing an unlicensed finished product. You can call it a service, a copy, whatever, they give you a version you did not have prior to handing them over the dough.
Those customers are allowed to make personal copies, but they are *not* allowed to purchase unlicensed copies no matter how many copies they own.
CC is selling unlicensed 'copies'. Plain and simple. They can call it whatever they want. They can even call it against the law. They'd be right.
Under the Copyright Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Notice it mentions *nothing* concerning 'personal use'. Any references to it made in current case law is made via interpretation, mainly based on what it *doesn't* say.
For instance, the very first point: Commercial nature, non-profit, or educational use. It doesn't specify Personal use, but neither does it deny it. It has been taken, in many cases to allow for it.......but it doesn't state it. It's all up to interpretation.
Copyright Law itself grants those rights *only* to the copyright holder, and no-one else.
Also, that first line also denounces the very thing Circuit City is doing, as it *does* specify 'Commercial nature'. In this case, CC strikes out on points 1 and 3, and to a certain theoretical degree, 4.
They're in boatloads of trouble. I cannot believe their lawyers actually OK'd this.
Fair use simply doesn't apply to commercial entities, and they *are* selling you a finished product that was not licensed or permitted by the copyright holder. They call it a service, but money and a finished product are transferred.
I cannot say for sure how a judge will rule, but based on the law and how many other judges have read and ruled it, I'm pretty confident in my opinion that Circuit City is toast.
[i]Just because Circuit City derives profit doesn't mean they are skimming from the authors of the copyrighted works,[/i]
But it *does*.
Say the owner wants to set this service up. Being the sole owner of the *right* to distribute his/her works, it would be at their discretion.
The fact that CC has already done so, without so much as a 'How do you do?' basically comes across as complete and total disrespect for the author's rights.
Now if the owner wanted to do so, there would be however many custoemrs that CC has already done this for that *won't* be going to the owner for the service.
Yes, it's a monopoly, but it's granted for a specific period of time to creators and innovators as incentive to do such things. Without it, or in the face of mass disrespect of it, there *is* no incentive. (Yes, personal satisfaction, but that doesn't get you manufacturing facilities, production houses and pressing plants.)
It comes down to a question of how deeply considered your ethics are. It gets more complicated the deeper you go because it affects more people, but when it comes right down to it, if you wrote a song, performed, produced, and distributed it, you'd probably want sole discretion over what was done with it for a certain period of time.
I believe that desire is justified. Some folks do not. I guess that is all it *really* comes down to. Which are you?
Fair Use marginally protects you when you do it for your own use. It does no such thing for a company like Circuit City. They must have permission from the copyright holder, or they are breaking the law.
Circuit City is making money hand over fist by ripping your DVD and selling the end-result back to you. (you can word that last part any number of ways, but they are selling you a finished product, even if they only call it a service). Copyright grants *only* the owner of that copyright the rights to distribute or transform the media.
I suspect that service you speak of is either operating outside of the USA, or is no longer in operation having received a C&D from the RIAA.;)
Too bad it doesn't apply to making it a *commercial* endeavor.
That case dealt with the owner doing it themselves.
Though it's apparently the worlds best kept secret (judging from the posts around here), there is a HUGE legal divide between *personal* and *commercial* use.
The courts may have ruled it Fair-Use in regards to personal format shifting, but Fair-Use does not apply to commercial services. Hell, it *barely* applies to personal use (only by interpretation).
These laws were put in place for the protection of those who create and innovate, regardless of certain organizations that would abuse it's intent in order to corner markets, set prices, and enforce their double-dipping profiteering.
The **IA's, and the judges that side with them are unethical. The laws, when applied according to their intent, are not. Unfortunately, certain judges can be blinded as to the intent of a law and tricked into ruling purely based on sensationalism.
I had thought that by quoting those laws, this would have become clear to you.
Apparently that sensationalism blinds more than just judges...
Under the Copyright Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
See anything in there about *your* personal rights?
No?
Go figure.
That said, while it may be quasi-legal for *you* (due only to lack of scale) to tranform a CD or movie you own for backup purposes, it is *not* legal for a commercial entity to do so, especially when it is *not* for backup purposes. It is the *sole* and *explicit* right of the copyright holder and *no-one* else without consent.
Slashdot Mirror
Great!
True short-sighted thinking at work.
Jyst because the "Star" gets the greater media attention does *not* mean no-one else was involved. His mansion doesn't feed to labor behind the scenes.
Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it *is* theft.
Stealing is depriving someone else of that product.
Theft is simply taking that which you do not own and which you have not been given permission to posess.
Copyright infringement=Theft.
Copyright infringement!=Stealing
Capiche?
Tell that to the folks that wrote this one.
. htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red
Language evolves...
Who'da thunk it.
So (Less wrong=OK)?
Cool!
Hey, I'm not raping or killing anyone. Must be perfectly fine. Sweet!
Not being on any mailing lists, I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.
Will definately have to look at opera again though. If only for it's email client if they're still using the same basic principles.
POP3.
Problem solved.
See how nice they are?
I'm actually suprised that some POP3 clients haven't incorporated this view. I never really liked email much. Pain in the ass to organize and keep track of. Along comes Google with this innovative way of organizing everything and *gasp* all of the sudden email becomes useful to me. :)
It's all a matter of what one *does* in email. I've never really used it for 1-off communications, so the conversation thing works. Folks who don't generally reply or *get* replies would probably rather sort via some other criteria. (Which they can do, BTW, simply by setting their account up for POP3 access and using their favorite POP3 client.)
To each their own, and amazingly, GMail does it all.
You associate Jack Thompson with The Princess Bride??!?!?
Boo!!!!
Boo!!!!
Right!
Absolutely!
Not here.
Nope.
Never.
So, can I have her address and phone number, now?
Who's Bridgete, and why are you talking about her gap on a public forum?
;)
Have you no class?
It's not the copyright protections that elevate them. It's society. The copyright protections intent is simply make it so that they can, for a time, have control of and profit from their works.
Allowing someone else to sell convert, or make copies *is* legal. If you have permission. Circiut City never got that permission.
Again, I think Copyright is a good idea, but it does need to be limited. They should only be granted these protections for a specific time and it should not be transferrable, or saleable.
I think we agree for the most part. Those that create need some method to profit from, retain control of, and hopefully gain incentive to continue creating. One should *not* be allowed to create one thing and profit from it alone for the rest of their lives. I think on these basic principles we agree.
The details...well. That's where the devil resides, eh?
Actually, it's not. I am as suprised as you.
They are denying themselves the income by not providing such a version. As I said, if it were available and reasonably priced I would buy it. But it isn't, which leaves me two options -- rip it from DVD myself, or use the services of a company like CC.
You have a 3rd option: Leave it alone and do without. Just because the author has not seen fit to release it for that device does *not* entitle someone else to do it for them, nor does it entitle *anyone* to a copy or version that will work on that device.
It's called self control. The ability to constrain ones-self to the limitations of law, ethics, and morality. Just because you want it doesn't make it right.
Perhaps the author does not *want* it available on a certain device. Is it not the author's right to determine, for a time at least, what is or is not done with their works?
Fair Use protects you and me, not Circuit City. Which is why I keep bringing it up.
Fair Use interpretations protect personal use only marginally, it does not give commercial entities any rights whatsoever to alter or distribute copyrighted material.
They are given consent to distribute licensed copies only. The copy they make while you sit there is unlicensed.
And yes, your solution would probably work.
It's not inherently illegal when done in your house. It's an interpretation of Fair Use. Privacy doesn't enter into it.
... you got me on that one. I'd almost say to draw the line, if it were up to me, at someone else doing it for profit. They're performing a function the copyright holder has the only right to permit commercially.
;)
According to fair use you are entitled to make a backup copy onto another medium (VHS to DVD for example).
Show me where it states that. Fair use is an interpretation of certain exclusions stated in Copyright Law. So far, they've been loosely interpreted to allow backups and format shifts done and used personally. They have never been, nor were ever meant to be interpreted as carte-blanche permission for *anyone* to convert it to *any* format without permission.
In fact, "personal use" is not even mentioned.
As to going to someone's house and doing it? Dunno. That's too grey for my blood. I'd hesitatingly say it'd be fine, but
Renting them equipment is the same as them doing it themselves, though. That one was easy.
2 things here:
;)
1.) You missed the point entirely. If they *were* able to sell your *working* software to others on another format, you'd be pissed, would you not? They just denied you any sales you might have had in that format.
2.) Seriously... How are they going to enhance an iPod movie? Still,. CC is denying them any income they may have derived from selling such a version.
Yeah, Copyright terms ain't perfect. It needs to be shortened. It needs to be non-transfereable. I don't disagree that there's a better way to do it, but I still believe the copyright owners of 'Inside Man' (current DVD release used purely as an example) should have those rights for a bit longer yet.
I do not see how they should be granted a monopoly to profit from mere transformations of already-legally-purchased works to new formats.
You don't believe they should have any say in how their works are used, displayed, or transformed?
Circuit City doing this is denying the copyright holder's right to make money by releasing a version in this format. Most of the folks who already got it from CC are *not* going to buy it again just to get it official.
If CC ported your software to AIX before you got a chance to, would any of those folks who bought it from CC buy it from you once you completed your port?
Likely not. You just lost income. Feel good about it?
It's a bad analogy as software requires updates, patches, and support, which movies do not, but you get the idea.
It does unless it is done at your house.
But this isn't a backup. It's a version created for use on device the original was not intended to work on.
Last time and then I'm outta here:
Fair use applies to the consumer, but *not* through a commercial entity.
They *do* end up with a new format.
CC *is* distributing an unlicensed finished product. You can call it a service, a copy, whatever, they give you a version you did not have prior to handing them over the dough.
Those customers are allowed to make personal copies, but they are *not* allowed to purchase unlicensed copies no matter how many copies they own.
CC is selling unlicensed 'copies'. Plain and simple. They can call it whatever they want. They can even call it against the law. They'd be right.
Have you read the articles on Fair Use?
...but it doesn't state it. It's all up to interpretation.
Just in case:
Under the Copyright Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Notice it mentions *nothing* concerning 'personal use'. Any references to it made in current case law is made via interpretation, mainly based on what it *doesn't* say.
For instance, the very first point: Commercial nature, non-profit, or educational use. It doesn't specify Personal use, but neither does it deny it. It has been taken, in many cases to allow for it....
Copyright Law itself grants those rights *only* to the copyright holder, and no-one else.
Also, that first line also denounces the very thing Circuit City is doing, as it *does* specify 'Commercial nature'. In this case, CC strikes out on points 1 and 3, and to a certain theoretical degree, 4.
They're in boatloads of trouble. I cannot believe their lawyers actually OK'd this.
Fair use simply doesn't apply to commercial entities, and they *are* selling you a finished product that was not licensed or permitted by the copyright holder. They call it a service, but money and a finished product are transferred.
I cannot say for sure how a judge will rule, but based on the law and how many other judges have read and ruled it, I'm pretty confident in my opinion that Circuit City is toast.
[i]Just because Circuit City derives profit doesn't mean they are skimming from the authors of the copyrighted works,[/i]
But it *does*.
Say the owner wants to set this service up. Being the sole owner of the *right* to distribute his/her works, it would be at their discretion.
The fact that CC has already done so, without so much as a 'How do you do?' basically comes across as complete and total disrespect for the author's rights.
Now if the owner wanted to do so, there would be however many custoemrs that CC has already done this for that *won't* be going to the owner for the service.
Yes, it's a monopoly, but it's granted for a specific period of time to creators and innovators as incentive to do such things. Without it, or in the face of mass disrespect of it, there *is* no incentive. (Yes, personal satisfaction, but that doesn't get you manufacturing facilities, production houses and pressing plants.)
It comes down to a question of how deeply considered your ethics are. It gets more complicated the deeper you go because it affects more people, but when it comes right down to it, if you wrote a song, performed, produced, and distributed it, you'd probably want sole discretion over what was done with it for a certain period of time.
I believe that desire is justified. Some folks do not. I guess that is all it *really* comes down to. Which are you?
Fair Use marginally protects you when you do it for your own use. It does no such thing for a company like Circuit City. They must have permission from the copyright holder, or they are breaking the law.
;)
Circuit City is making money hand over fist by ripping your DVD and selling the end-result back to you. (you can word that last part any number of ways, but they are selling you a finished product, even if they only call it a service). Copyright grants *only* the owner of that copyright the rights to distribute or transform the media.
I suspect that service you speak of is either operating outside of the USA, or is no longer in operation having received a C&D from the RIAA.
That's great!
Too bad it doesn't apply to making it a *commercial* endeavor.
That case dealt with the owner doing it themselves.
Though it's apparently the worlds best kept secret (judging from the posts around here), there is a HUGE legal divide between *personal* and *commercial* use.
The courts may have ruled it Fair-Use in regards to personal format shifting, but Fair-Use does not apply to commercial services. Hell, it *barely* applies to personal use (only by interpretation).
These laws were put in place for the protection of those who create and innovate, regardless of certain organizations that would abuse it's intent in order to corner markets, set prices, and enforce their double-dipping profiteering.
The **IA's, and the judges that side with them are unethical. The laws, when applied according to their intent, are not. Unfortunately, certain judges can be blinded as to the intent of a law and tricked into ruling purely based on sensationalism.
I had thought that by quoting those laws, this would have become clear to you.
Apparently that sensationalism blinds more than just judges...
Fair use indicates *nothing* of the sort.
Under the Copyright Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
See anything in there about *your* personal rights?
No?
Go figure.
That said, while it may be quasi-legal for *you* (due only to lack of scale) to tranform a CD or movie you own for backup purposes, it is *not* legal for a commercial entity to do so, especially when it is *not* for backup purposes. It is the *sole* and *explicit* right of the copyright holder and *no-one* else without consent.