I beliueve it comes down to: Who can do more damage to income/reputation? You, or a Corporate entity?
I believe the answer to that question is why the laws are the way they are.
Copyright was, after all, originally designed as a protection. Of course, organizations such as the RIAA would like to think it was written so they could corner markets, set prices, and enforce a double-dip profiteering ring.
Copyright, and it's intentions, are not all that bad. It's organizations like the RIAA who would abuse the intent of such protections that make this such a heated issue.
You and CC are *not* the same. You are a personal entity. CC is a commercial entity. The laws apply differently to each. As a personal entity, you are not as restricted in what you can do with media. No-one's going to sue you for copying a CD to your iPod.
As a commercial entity, it *is* illegal for CC to sell you a derivative product. (Even if they are taking *your* copy and simply doing what *you* could have done at home).
Why? Because their a business. Copyright forbids them from modifying copyrighted material. Period. Whether it's theirs, or yours.
Not being an ass, but I'm not following the logic:
How does paying CC to copy the movie for you not equal them selling you the movie in another format? Yes, you own the original, but you end up with a 'new' unlicensed (and now unprotected) version, and money has changed hands.
Again, I'm not trying to be an ass, perhaps I am missing something here, but I just am not seeing it.
I'd apologize for misreading (or stopping at McDonald's) you post, but since you left no room for such things with your vituperative reply, I guess it's not necessary.
But do go ahead and feel free to wish Death upon me. I'll rip his nipples off.
You're right. I'm hung up on money. Funny that. As stated in my original comment, that *is* actually my entire issue witht his. I believe CC would actually have a chance if they *didn't* charge for it.
The distinction between you doing it for yourself and a commercial entity doing it for you for profit is pretty big when it comes to copyright.
This is about CC changing someone else's copyrighted material and selling it *back* to the consumer.
I love how you guys always take it, make some lame-ass analogy, and try to use it to support your faulty logic. If you cannot argue the topic we're discussing, you find something else to argue about and call it the same thing.
Bait and switch. It's a damn good trolling technique, but it doesn't fly in a serious debate.
These are rights solely granted to the copyright holder unless consent is given. Regardless of money.
Having trouble with your reading comprehension?
To take another tack on this, if you're still having trouble, explain where you get the idea that it is *not* illegal?
I suppose I can come up with *one* instance (Selling it to someone else for more than you paid for it), but then again, you have the copyright holders consent to resell it.;) Resale is allowed under copyright unless specifically forbidden.
While making photocopy of a book for personal "backup" purposes would be legal, transforming it for someone else for purposes other than a "backup" and for profit would not be.
You are talking, it seems, about making a backup copy for personal use. (By definition, a backup is something for use in case the original fails)
I am talking about the act of a commercial entity profiting off of anothers works by transforming it for another use than it was originally intended. (Viewing it on an iPod, vs. a TV screen)
If were to do it ourselves, while it may be worng in the eyes of the DMCA, I see no moral basis for it to be a Bad Thing(TM).
A commercial entity doing it for profit, however, is not only illegal under tested copyright laws, it's morally questionable since they are depriving the copyright owner of selling future copies formatted for that media. (and they *would* likely reformat it. 16:9, even 4:3 looks shit on an iPod.)
If you are not mistaken, please procide proof. I have never seen a case where it was upheld.
As copyright states, it is the copyright owners sole right to transform his works. Transcoding from one format to another is transformative, hence...it's illegal to sell scuh services or works.
(It may be legal to do it in the privacy of your own home since the DMCA has yet to be tested, but copyright itself has been tested *many* times over)
CC is not backing it up, they're transferring it to another dmedium so you can use it on another device.
As for software on cars...if it's copyrighted? You can make all the backups you want. Just like you can with any other software. Just don't do it for anyone else for profit.
There is nothing wrong when *you* do it. For *backup* purposes. Not for use in another device. *that* is transformative. That is illegal.
It is *illegal* to transform *any* copyrighted work and resell it. It *is* legal to sell the original.
The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below.
* the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
* the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
* the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
* the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.
The rights are not without limit, however, as they are specifically limited by "fair use" and several other specific limitations set forth in the Copyright Act
Here's the clincher:
a derivative work is
a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
What CC is doing is creating a derivative. Which, as stated above, is the *sole* and *exclusive* right of the copyright holder.
Also, regarding fair use::
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.
Make special note of item #1. Note, it does *not* make any mention regarding 'personal' use.
So, in your world, if I form a band, make music, and sell it, it's perfectly allright for some jackass to come in, copy my CD, and sell it without my permission?
Because I won't let him *do* that, I'm a monopoly?
Wow.
How *does* a band or artist or actor make money in your world? Or should they all just starve?
Slashdot Mirror
I beliueve it comes down to: Who can do more damage to income/reputation? You, or a Corporate entity?
I believe the answer to that question is why the laws are the way they are.
Copyright was, after all, originally designed as a protection. Of course, organizations such as the RIAA would like to think it was written so they could corner markets, set prices, and enforce a double-dip profiteering ring.
Copyright, and it's intentions, are not all that bad. It's organizations like the RIAA who would abuse the intent of such protections that make this such a heated issue.
Before I answer that, let me explain something:
You and CC are *not* the same. You are a personal entity. CC is a commercial entity. The laws apply differently to each. As a personal entity, you are not as restricted in what you can do with media. No-one's going to sue you for copying a CD to your iPod.
As a commercial entity, it *is* illegal for CC to sell you a derivative product. (Even if they are taking *your* copy and simply doing what *you* could have done at home).
Why? Because their a business. Copyright forbids them from modifying copyrighted material. Period. Whether it's theirs, or yours.
I don't get it.
Not being an ass, but I'm not following the logic:
How does paying CC to copy the movie for you not equal them selling you the movie in another format? Yes, you own the original, but you end up with a 'new' unlicensed (and now unprotected) version, and money has changed hands.
Again, I'm not trying to be an ass, perhaps I am missing something here, but I just am not seeing it.
Oh, that's rich.
I'd apologize for misreading (or stopping at McDonald's) you post, but since you left no room for such things with your vituperative reply, I guess it's not necessary.
But do go ahead and feel free to wish Death upon me. I'll rip his nipples off.
Dude,
One more time...
If you do it yourself, FINE.
If you start a company and profit from doing it for others? NOT FINE. (Unless you strike an agreement with the copyright holders.)
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Personal transformation? Good
Commercial transformation? Bad.
Get it? Got it?
Good.
You're right. I'm hung up on money. Funny that. As stated in my original comment, that *is* actually my entire issue witht his. I believe CC would actually have a chance if they *didn't* charge for it.
The distinction between you doing it for yourself and a commercial entity doing it for you for profit is pretty big when it comes to copyright.
*sigh*
When using 'clips' and/or photocopies for research? Perfectly legal. The whole work? Not so much.
Can you debate the topic at hand, or must you divert it to satisfy your lack of understanding?
We're not talking about books.
We're talking about movies.
There *is* a difference, ya know.
WTH?
Why are we suddenly arguing about McDonalds?
This is about CC changing someone else's copyrighted material and selling it *back* to the consumer.
I love how you guys always take it, make some lame-ass analogy, and try to use it to support your faulty logic. If you cannot argue the topic we're discussing, you find something else to argue about and call it the same thing.
Bait and switch. It's a damn good trolling technique, but it doesn't fly in a serious debate.
How?
You didn't transform it. You aren't selling a derivative work.
Resale is allowed unless specifically forbidden.
This, however, is *not* what we are talking about.
We're talking about CC altering it and selling the results back to the customer.
Reeread my original reply.
;) Resale is allowed under copyright unless specifically forbidden.
Which part does *not* answer your question?
Distributing it, transforming it, etc...
*anyone*.
These are rights solely granted to the copyright holder unless consent is given. Regardless of money.
Having trouble with your reading comprehension?
To take another tack on this, if you're still having trouble, explain where you get the idea that it is *not* illegal?
I suppose I can come up with *one* instance (Selling it to someone else for more than you paid for it), but then again, you have the copyright holders consent to resell it.
WinAMP pro is personal. You're doing it on your computer, on your drive.
CC is a commercial entity doing it in their store.
Do you see the difference?
Same service, perhaps. It's the distinction between personal and commercial that make it illegal.
Technically? No.
Ethically? I have no problem with *you* doing it. I *do* have a problem with CC doing it *for* you for *profit*.
Do you see?
Having CC do it for you for $$.
As I said in my original comment (Which has spawned me several foes.. how cool)
Therein lies the propblem..
If they didn't charge for it, it'd probably be fine.
Have you ever read the copyright laws?
Do you *know* what you're talking about?
Apparently not.
While making photocopy of a book for personal "backup" purposes would be legal, transforming it for someone else for purposes other than a "backup" and for profit would not be.
Do you see?
lmao...
But you're not CC, ripping a customers CD and selling back to them the MP3s, are you?
There seems to be a disconnect concerning the difference in rights granted under fair use / copyright to personal vs. commercial entities.
Apparently we're talking about different things:
You are talking, it seems, about making a backup copy for personal use. (By definition, a backup is something for use in case the original fails)
I am talking about the act of a commercial entity profiting off of anothers works by transforming it for another use than it was originally intended. (Viewing it on an iPod, vs. a TV screen)
If were to do it ourselves, while it may be worng in the eyes of the DMCA, I see no moral basis for it to be a Bad Thing(TM).
A commercial entity doing it for profit, however, is not only illegal under tested copyright laws, it's morally questionable since they are depriving the copyright owner of selling future copies formatted for that media. (and they *would* likely reformat it. 16:9, even 4:3 looks shit on an iPod.)
No, it doesn't
In your example, you are making a backup for personal use.
In CC's actions, they are a commercial entity making a tranformative derivative of the original for use in another device.
The two could not *be* more different
Do you see?
If you are not mistaken, please procide proof. I have never seen a case where it was upheld.
As copyright states, it is the copyright owners sole right to transform his works. Transcoding from one format to another is transformative, hence...it's illegal to sell scuh services or works.
(It may be legal to do it in the privacy of your own home since the DMCA has yet to be tested, but copyright itself has been tested *many* times over)
Nope.
Never did. Read my reply to his.
For a backup, it's fine. But were *not* talking about backups here. We're talking about transforming something for use on another device.
BIG difference.
I posted the copyright law regarding this below. I strongly suggest ya'll read it. Again, if you've read it before.
And we're also not talking about backups, are we?
CC is not backing it up, they're transferring it to another dmedium so you can use it on another device.
As for software on cars...if it's copyrighted? You can make all the backups you want. Just like you can with any other software. Just don't do it for anyone else for profit.
NYC-212 :D
There is nothing wrong when *you* do it. For *backup* purposes. Not for use in another device. *that* is transformative. That is illegal.
It is *illegal* to transform *any* copyrighted work and resell it. It *is* legal to sell the original.
The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below.
* the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
* the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
* the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
* the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.
The rights are not without limit, however, as they are specifically limited by "fair use" and several other specific limitations set forth in the Copyright Act
Here's the clincher:
a derivative work is
a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
What CC is doing is creating a derivative. Which, as stated above, is the *sole* and *exclusive* right of the copyright holder.
Also, regarding fair use::
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.
Make special note of item #1. Note, it does *not* make any mention regarding 'personal' use.
But we're notalking about backups here... ...are we?
We're talking about CC copying a movie and transferring it to another medium for use on another device.
You *can* see the difference here, right?
It's not a backup. It's a copy made for another device.
Stop.
We're not taliking about cars.
We're talking about movies.
If you cannot make your point using the medium we are discussing, that's your problem, not mine.
Or do we *really* have to explain to you the difference between owning something and licensing it for personal use?
Do we also have to explain the diffrence between a backup and creating a copy for uses not available with the original?
So, in your world, if I form a band, make music, and sell it, it's perfectly allright for some jackass to come in, copy my CD, and sell it without my permission?
Because I won't let him *do* that, I'm a monopoly?
Wow.
How *does* a band or artist or actor make money in your world? Or should they all just starve?