View Single Post
Old 09-18-2001, 10:15 AM  
UnseenWorld
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,279
Amputate wrote:

"Napster was in fact NOT publishing anything. When you go to download an mp3 or wav file, even through Napster, you are connecting directly to another users system where the file resides. Napster simply made that connection possible. The actual file never existed on Napster's hardware. The same as Bearshare and other Gnutella protocal programs."

I notice that while that was Napster's argument, the courts weren't buying. I think most people laugh up their sleeve at that argument.

"And by making that mp3 of your favorite Boxcar Willie tune and connecting to one of those programs, that is enough to constitute 'offering it to the public.'"

True. At that point, the private individual is breaking the law. That goes beyond personal use.

"Thank you for being so quick to point out my sheer ignorance in the matter. As I have said in the past, I do not claim to be an expert in the field. And I don't think I need to study copyright laws for seven years before I'm 'authorized' to say what's on my mind."

When you use quotes that imply I used a term, you might want to cite the whole passage. I never used any expression indicating or stating you needed to be 'authorized' to express ignorant views.

"You still failed to address a number of things I cited."

I'm not obliged to answer every single point someone raises anymore than you are obliged to inform yourself before writing. But, let's see...

"What about copying your setup programs for all that wonderful software?"

Backups, to my understanding are allowed (under the law, despite what the terms of use sent with them might lead you to believe), as long as they are just that, and not for handing out as free software to other people.

"What about emailing a story to someone? Is that not offering it to the public?"

Depends. There is a concept of "implied publication" which would cover a lot of that. If the story were from a public part of the NY Post site, you're probably not violating anyone's copyright. If you sent them material from a part of the site they collect money for entering, you're in a totally different area. Certainly, lifting the page and putting it up in toto, even on a non-profit site, would probably be going too far.

"What about posting an mpeg on this board?"

I would probably try to find the copyright holder.

"Or a funny snipet off the radio about felching? Those are okay?"

Your point being that there are gray areas? What conclusion do you draw from that? Once again, it depends. If you are passing along a story you heard on the radio to someone in a face to face situation, that's one thing. If you put it up on a site and publish it, that is something else entirely, and then the rules of fair use are applied. Unfortunately, unless it's a very obvious case, a judge will probably end up deciding.

"What is my argument? Simple. People are getting awfully high up on the copyright horse and using the copyright law to single out and target people of their choosing."

Yes, it's a regular fuckin' witch hunt, isn't it? People with the purest of motives, like the guy who runs http://www.astroxxx.com being sullied by the likes of me and Gem. At least now you can say you have seen The True Face of Evil!

"Is that how laws work now? If you're going to take on the job of copyright police and condemn & enforce copyright violation, then condemn them all."

I hereby condemn them all!!! (write that down: I condemn ALL copyright violation).

"That means the 40 year old mom that's sending pictures through the email system to her bingo pals too."

Pictures her son took of his kid or a picture some poor shmoe is trying to make a buck off of? Fair use may or may not apply.

Now it is really YOU who have ignored my central point from the beginning, which was not to dwell on whether or not it was legal, but whether it was ethical or good manners to use someone else's PROPERTY without their authorization. It's your turn to comment on that now.

Why would a story or a photograph or a song be any different than more standard examples of property (lawn mowers, cars, diamond rings)?

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World
UnseenWorld is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote