History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedCopyright Laws

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Copyright Laws
    Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 00:27
Recently I've been looking into copyright law and believe I have found some variety of unintended loophole in US copyright law.

From Chapter 1 section 108: Reproduction of Libraries and Archives.

Quote
108 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Reproduction by libraries and archives³⁹
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions
of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives,
or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce
no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in
subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the
conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct
or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or
with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research
in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright
that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the
provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be
protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord
that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.


So as I understand this law if I create a "copy" of a work of intellectual property and make it available for the public, with no financial gain for myself, and recognize the proper creator of the work and make note that such works may be copyrighted, then I am effectively a "library" since in section 101: Definitions the document fails to state a definition of what constitutes a library, other than what is defined in section 108.

So therefore if I produce exactly one copy of say an mp3 file and make this file available to the public. (i.e. I don't deny the file from anyone.) Then I am acting as a "library" and I don't have to follow normal copyright laws.

Even though section 101 doesn't define library it does define publicly so lets look at it.

Quote
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where
a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its
social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at
the same time or at different times.


So therefore my "library" could be posted online "publicy" so that I could "distrubute" say a Metallica mp3 via download.

Also this makes p2p file sharing legal since it is just thousands of separate "libraries" making copies available to the public.

Or am I missing something?


Source: Copyright Law of the United States.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 03:45
May I ask how can you make money of it?LOL
By creating something like Napster?
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 18:48
you are probably missing other intricate laws that deal with Music and its ownership.

You are also probably missing two other things...

Libraries and the need it being more than just publically sharing something.

Chapter 10 that deals with Digital media formats.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 00:36
It still sucks though. What incentive is there for an artist, writer, or other form of 'creator' to produce anything worthwhile when they're not going to get paid for it? Yes, yes, I know the whole 'artist's soul drives them to create' argument, but as an aspiring writer myself, I deal with this everyday. I mean, honestly, why spend a lifetime honing a craft only to die in poverty, since once the first copy hits print, it's freely available to every schmuck on the planet with an internet connection?
Personally, I think the internet is contributing the demise of worthwhile art... feel free to disagree, of course.
Cheers.
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 00:50
I disagree. I think it is contributing to the demise of elitist views in art possibly. There is a lot of terrible stuff out there but who is to say what or to whom this art is worthwile?
 
People are still making money out of art and throughout the ages artists have died in poverty after spending years honing their craft. I don't think the internet has made that a new problem.
 
There will always be ways to make money through art maybe the interent is in the middle of a transitory period in which art is becoming more widely and freely available. Don't worry, someone will soon realise and stop the leak of free stuff!
 
I for one will always pay for good works.....if it keeps my fav artists creating.
 
I find the internet a boon to discovering new artists of every genre and then going on from there and collecting their work (be it books, audio etc)
 
But then I am not an aspiring writer! lol
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 00:58
I think you've addressed part of the conundrum that faces artists... Only a select, worthwhile, loyal, noble few will be willing to pay for art. The rest will download it instantaneously, revel in it's glory for a few short seconds, and then click the next link.


Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 17:32
What are yo utalking about Brian? Stealing peoples work is illegal. The Copyright laws stop books from being available on the internet freely.

You cannot just place peoples intellectual property on the Internet and allow others to use it/copy it etc. Thats against the law and taking this slight bit of that law out of context does not make it legal.

Most peoples property is protected from use on the internet and many people do get paid for legal downloads and legal use of material on the Internet.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 20:24
Quote

Libraries and the need it being more than just publically sharing something.

Chapter 10 that deals with Digital media formats.


The first quote lists what a library needs to be, by the definition of the law. If all of those pre-requisites are met in any form then it is a library.

Chapter 10 is irrelevant since it specifically states that Libraries are exempt from all of the other laws if they follow the stipulations of the law (only one extra copy).

I'm not a lawyer but I was under the assumption when laws are created anything not explicitly stated in them is open to interpretation and thus is not "technically illegal" until shown to be.

Also don't let the RIIC lawsuits prove a precedent since in none of those cases the distributors attempted to defend themselves as a "library".


Quote
What are yo utalking about Brian? Stealing peoples work is illegal. The Copyright laws stop books from being available on the internet freely.


Making a copy of something isn't "stealing" anything. If you wrote a book and I borrowed it, wrote it word for word and then gave you back the book, I didn't steal anything. Or heck, if I bought that same book and copied it and then gave my copy to someone, the owner still has the original.

Quote
You cannot just place peoples intellectual property on the Internet and allow others to use it/copy it etc. Thats against the law and taking this slight bit of that law out of context does not make it legal.


That's debateable. Let's say my friend e-mails me a hilarious original joke. Do I need his permission to put it on the internet. Under copyright laws the joke is his "intellectual property." Your telling me it would be illegal if I posted this joke on the forum without his explicit approval?

Quote
I think you've addressed part of the conundrum that faces artists... Only a select, worthwhile, loyal, noble few will be willing to pay for art. The rest will download it instantaneously, revel in it's glory for a few short seconds, and then click the next link.


I feel that artists should not have to rely on their own devises to make money. Since it will be the agent, the publisher, the distributor who will make the most money off of your work, and you will get pennies on the dollar. Artists shouldn't rely on art as their sole means of income, since art exists outside of the capitalist system. Rather artists should receive patronage and grants in order to continue their craft that they have dedicated years to.

Also it is completely irrelevant that your work is put online "legally" or "illegally" since even if it is illegal people will still do it. People would not copy your work if they didn't like it. Perhaps people have limited funds and cannot afford the 12 dollars for your cd or the 8 dollars for your book or even the hundreds of dollars for your painting. Your saying that you wouldn't want these people to enjoy the work you put so much effort into. Of course there are a select group of people who will just take and take without giving anything back to you. But I think these people are fewer than you think, since if someone has a good product you will support it.

Anyway I find copyright enforcement to be assinine at best and vindictive at worst, it is one of the last bastions of elitism that punishes people for being unable to afford something, and keeps them uneducated by means of denying them information. Also the penalties for copyright violations are ridiculous. I can steal someone's car and if caught will pay less than 10,000 dollars for the violation + the cost of the car if it's irrevocably damaged. But if I download songs that equal the cost of said car, then I will be sued for millions of dollars even though the artist has lost nothing on my copying of songs.

Also I would like to state that I am an aspiring writer as well and feel that copyrights should only indicate that no one else can claim my work as their own. I would be fine if I made no money off of my work as long as others read it and enjoyed it, since writing to me will never be a full-time job. If someone only creates art for profit then it's hardly art at all.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 20:36
Originally posted by JanusRook JanusRook wrote:



Making a copy of something isn't "stealing" anything. If you wrote a book and I borrowed it, wrote it word for word and then gave you back the book, I didn't steal anything. Or heck, if I bought that same book and copied it and then gave my copy to someone, the owner still has the original.


Well in the UK and Europe, copyright Law stipulates how much you can copy based upon Library copies.

You can make as many copies as you want of a book you 'own', but if you distribute them then that infringes copyright, because it is owned by the author (or publisher).

So I'm pretty sure in US Law, this is also illegal. You cannot freely give out copies of other peoples work.

Quote
That's debateable. Let's say my friend e-mails me a hilarious original joke. Do I need his permission to put it on the internet. Under copyright laws the joke is his "intellectual property." Your telling me it would be illegal if I posted this joke on the forum without his explicit approval?


In the case of non copyrightable material, fine. If someone recopies a printed book or a publishable book, you would be stealing their intellectual property and are liable to be sued.

Quote
The first quote lists what a library needs to be, by the definition of the law. If all of those pre-requisites are met in any form then it is a library.

Chapter 10 is irrelevant since it specifically states that Libraries are exempt from all of the other laws if they follow the stipulations of the law (only one extra copy).

I'm not a lawyer but I was under the assumption when laws are created anything not explicitly stated in them is open to interpretation and thus is not "technically illegal" until shown to be.

Also don't let the RIIC lawsuits prove a precedent since in none of those cases the distributors attempted to defend themselves as a "library".


This i disagree with. You will find that it is covered in the Law. You just aren't a lawyer.

As for other lawsuits, i think its a bit silly to believe that someone wouldn't have tried this previously as a defence before hand. Or for this to have not been published widely elsewhere, and to find itself ammened.




Edited by Ovidius - 20-Mar-2007 at 20:37
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 21:16
Quote
In the case of non copyrightable material, fine.


You do understand that under US laws there is no such thing as non copyrighted material correct. In fact even this post of mine is protected under US copyright, since it covers all intellectual property from the moment "the pen leaves the paper".

Quote
This i disagree with. You will find that it is covered in the Law. You just aren't a lawyer.


So using the law at hand prove to me what I'm missing, relevant quotes as I have done in my first post, instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

Quote

As for other lawsuits, i think its a bit silly to believe that someone wouldn't have tried this previously as a defence before hand. Or for this to have not been published widely elsewhere, and to find itself ammened.


If it was amended it would appear in the law, since it is the governments website.

Quote
So I'm pretty sure in US Law, this is also illegal. You cannot freely give out copies of other peoples work.


But you can give out one copy. And then another library can give out another and then another library can give out one more copy, ad nauseum.

Quote
....or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy....

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.