• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Major Copyright Judgement

Belz... said:
What else would I consider it to be ?

Yes. You own the CD, but not the music.
Click to expand...
You need to check the licensing. You may not, for example (and again, dependent on jurisdiction) play the music to a large paying audience, without a license.

Belz... said:
You wouldn't. At this point you would be a criminal, specifically because you didn't own it.
Click to expand...
Most jurisdictions would not consider it a criminal matter.

Belz... said:
Personally, I don't think you should have to pay twice for this. The copying of stuff you've purchased for your own use doesn't really infringe on my rights as an artist, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The tragedy is that the artist is way down on the list of people to whom any of this is relevant.
 
bigtim said:
So does trading in used games... in fact it costs legitimate developers FAR MORE money than piracy. The numbers for piracy is all guess work... you can get hard $ on how much used game sales generate.
Click to expand...

Indeed - That's always confused the hell out of me. How can you have high street shops (including national or even multi-national chains) selling second-hand (or ex-rental) games, films and music when the copyright notice clearly states that you can't do that?

This obviously costs sales of new ones as you're not going to buy a new one if you've managed to buy it second-hand - especially with the lack of wear and tear on modern media (CD vs vinyl or tape and DVD vs VHS).

This seems worse than downloading. The artist, label still don't get the money and at least with downloading there is some evidence of try before you buy activity (some people still like to get the physical media, covers etc if they like something enough).
 
Belz... said:
Indeed. It's not illegal unless said friend makes a copy of the CD.
Click to expand...

I think that's wrong. Certainly is for DVDs anyway as the copyright warning clearly states it must not be lent. You also can't have friends around to watch it....

And that's not bizarro world as one poster claimed, that is what the copright notice says. I think there has been some later interpretations that attempt to set a limit on how many people you can have around before it's considered a public broadcast. Oh and many electronic stores infringe this copyright when they have DVDs playing 'to the public' to show off their TVs.
 
CatInTheBag said:
It depends on the jurisdiction. Joyriding in the UK, for example, is not prosecuted as theft, but as taking without consent. It is not theft, because there is no intention to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

I believe this is exactly what criminal conversion is, which is sometimes considered to be a kind of theft(informal). The informal/shorthand usage of theft covers many things, however, copyright infringement is not one of them.
 
CatInTheBag said:
You need to check the licensing. You may not, for example (and again, dependent on jurisdiction) play the music to a large paying audience, without a license.
Click to expand...

No, but I'm pretty sure you can lend it to a friend.

The tragedy is that the artist is way down on the list of people to whom any of this is relevant.
Click to expand...

If I were the artist I'd be pretty pissed that somebody is using my property without paying me for it.
 
Wildy said:
The RIAA said in 2007 that ripping cds onto your computer was illegal.

I'm glad I live in Australia in this case.
Click to expand...

This is a fine example, then, of how copyright laws have been taken too far.

I fully understand why an artist would want to be paid for the CD, but why you can't rip the tunes onto your iPod, for instance, is hard to understand. You've already paid for the music and you're not making copies for other people, just yourself (which could be useful, if the CD were destroyed, for instance).
 
Belz... said:
If I were the artist I'd be pretty pissed that somebody is using my property without paying me for it.
Click to expand...

Intellectual property, you meant to say. Using intellectual property for which you own the copyright, without paying you for a license to do so. This is what we are dealing with here, a violation of copyright.

This term perpetuates the misunderstanding on display in this thread; the idea that copyright infringement is "theft". All too often IP is equivocated with physical, or personal property. Apologies if you weren't deliberately equivocating between the two.
 
Belz... said:
You have a cite for this ? "Public showing" isn't having a friend or two over. That's private showing.
Click to expand...

Nope. If I get a chance I'll do some searching. My understanding is based on reading the actual copyright notice and some trade articles and blogs from some years ago. I'm more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

AFAIR, the typical copyright notice says you must not 'lend, copy, re-sell, diffuse...' which is where I got the 'lend to a friend bit' being illegal from. It makes as much sense as banning down/uploading as anyone who borrows it is less likely to buy it for themselves.

In terms of having friends over, I thought I recalled a legal discussion on a bit that went something like 'broadcast in public or in private' which led to an interpretation that came to some numbers (my vague memory says 9 - 10) that would be deemed acceptable. A stupidly strict interpretation of the copyright notice I once saw on a VHS tape would mean only the actual purchaser could watch it and members of his family would have to buy their own copies!

As per some earlier discussion, I believe it was once deemed illegal to copy a legally bought record, CD, DVD even for your own 'backup' purposes but wasn't there a recent interpretation ruling that concluded that that was acceptable 'fair use'. The actual notice still clearly says you can't do it though and I thought the RIAA had specifically said that having a license in one format did permit you to utilise the music (or whatever) in another format?

Interestingly, if I'm right that you can make copies for your own use, then what's the difference between converting your vinyl to CD / mp3 (a purpose for which the technology is specifically sold in eg PC World - although all you really need is a straight through cable to your soundcard input slot) and downloading the MP3s someone else has ripped? I believe one would be ok and the other still illegal and yet the only difference is the latter is slightly easier.

Part of the bizarre mess that is copyright of virtual media. I suspect we all, at least occasionally, breach copyright without realising it (lending to friends etc*) it's just that those breaches aren't chased by the authorities like downloading is.

*Isn't there some rule that if you record broadcast TV you must destroy the recording in 3 months or is that just an urban myth?
 
The way I understood it regarding DVDs was that you were allowed to show them to your friends at your house, but you aren't allowed to make money off of it.
 
Wildy said:
The way I understood it regarding DVDs was that you were allowed to show them to your friends at your house, but you aren't allowed to make money off of it.
Click to expand...


Which I've also seen stated but it's far from clear.

I've had a look at: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ukcs/docs/edupack.pdf

which says:
It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the
consent of the copyright owner:
i. Copy the work.
ii. Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
iii. Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.

but exempts:
​
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
iii. Criticism and news reporting.
iv. Incidental inclusion.
v. Copies and lending by librarians.

amongst other things (like making a backup - but only for computer programs) under 'fair dealing'.

I guess it depends whether 'friends' count as 'the public' in terms of the lending to friends question but I would guess they would.

Wikipedia suggests the standard copyright warning is what publishers would like the law to be and that:

'" If you have bought this DVD retail, then you have the right to sell or exchange it as you wish. You may not rent it for direct or indirect commercial advantage, nor lend it through an establishment accessible to the public. You may watch it in any location such as in aircraft, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships. But you may not copy, edit, exhibit, publicly perform, diffuse or broadcast its entire contents without the copyright holder's permission, and you may do so in part only if you benefit from other protections afforded by law, such as fair use or free speech. "

would be more accurate than the usual:

" Warning: The copyright proprietor has licensed the programme (including, without limitation, its soundtrack) contained in this video cassette or Digital Versatile Disc for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor. Any unauthorized copying, editing, exhibition, renting, hiring, exchanging, lending, public performances, diffusion and/or broadcast, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Any such action establishes liability for a civil action and may give rise to criminal prosecution."​

Anyway. Out of time now, so I'll leave to others to debate.

​
 
Yoink said:
By the way, Avalon, is "identity theft" theft?
Click to expand...
Actually, no. While commonly called "identity theft" the laws used to prosecute it are all for fraud.

Now, using the fraudulent identity to take money from someone's bank account is theft, but the crime of "identity theft" is actually fraud.
 
CatInTheBag said:
Identity theft is a concept, as opposed to a crime. The crime would probably be fraud, or some other form of misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

Identity theft is a crime, punishible in court. In many states it is covered by statutes that include the phrase "identity theft" in the title and text of the relevant statute. You are simply wrong. Here, educate yourself a little.

Seems to knock a pretty gaping hole in that whole "it can't be theft unless I remove something physical from your possession" argument, doesn't it?
 
WildCat said:
Actually, no. While commonly called "identity theft" the laws used to prosecute it are all for fraud.

Now, using the fraudulent identity to take money from someone's bank account is theft, but the crime of "identity theft" is actually fraud.
Click to expand...

So its all about semantics again?
 
Yoink said:
Identity theft is a crime, punishible in court. In many states it is covered by statutes that include the phrase "identity theft" in the title and text of the relevant statute. You are simply wrong. Here, educate yourself a little.

Seems to knock a pretty gaping hole in that whole "it can't be theft unless I remove something physical from your possession" argument, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yoink said:
Oh look, someone else who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
So it's dependent on jurisdiction? No surprises there then. I believe that was pointed out a few times.

In this regard, however, it is a deception, as opposed to depriving someone of something.
 
Last edited:
CatInTheBag said:
There's an irony in an artist being upset with someone appreciating their art.
Click to expand...


Oh right. You appreciate it so much that you think it would sully your appreciation to actually, you know, pay for it.

Hey, isn't it ironic that the supermarket gets upset if I "appreciate" their products so much I decide I don't want to pay for them, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom