Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Find everything you need for the Galaxy S5 and discuss it in our S5 forum!
Have you seen that OnePlus One's awesome camera?? The forum is over here!

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Speed Daemon

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old December 31st, 2012, 12:47 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default Copyright Laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
The only reason they were able to shutdown Mega Upload is because they had servers on US soil, and the site in general violated the horrible copyright laws that we have in place.
Due tell . . . what is so wrong with the copyright laws? These sites were shut down largely due to the vast amount of illegal materials you can find scattered about and among the truly small amount of legal stuff. These sites exist primarily to provide content some people do not want to pay for.

And I am not saying these sites do not serve a purpose. I am saying these sites exist primarily for distributing illegal materials.

I can DL almost every current movie, TV show, game and song if so inclined. This I know you know. It is stealing, plain and simple. Just like a certain app for iOS that makes it effortless to find and DL applications. That is stealing as well.

So what do you think makes the copyright laws so terrible and more to the point, how would you change them? Would you want it legal to download G.I. Joe 2 or the latest hot game for free? Should fees be paid for downloading? Should creators just accept that their crap will be made available for free and the government should stay out of it?

Can I enter your property and take your lawn furniture or the cash I find in your car?

Give me a few ideas . . . I’ll listen.

Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 31st, 2012, 04:08 PM   #2 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,067
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Well mostly what I disagree with when it comes to the copyright laws in the US is the penalties, they far outweigh the crime. And secondly its the money hungry corporations that get the money from copyright infringement not always the ones who "deserve" the the stipend.
And there is such a small chance that anyone hasn't ever broken one of these laws.. have you ever shared your music with one of your friends? like burning a mix cd for someone? Thats illegal by the current copyright laws, it is illegal distribution of copyright material. Something so simple that I would guess close to every body has done once or more in their life, why isn't there cases against those? why is it only internet downloaded material that gets you in trouble? There is no line.. Thats whats messed up with the laws that are in place with copyright.
And its my opinion that government should stay out of a lot of things and let the people work out things for themselves.
pbf98 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012, 05:05 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
Well mostly what I disagree with when it comes to the copyright laws in the US is the penalties, they far outweigh the crime. And secondly its the money hungry corporations that get the money from copyright infringement not always the ones who "deserve" the the stipend.
And there is such a small chance that anyone hasn't ever broken one of these laws.. have you ever shared your music with one of your friends? like burning a mix cd for someone? Thats illegal by the current copyright laws, it is illegal distribution of copyright material. Something so simple that I would guess close to every body has done once or more in their life, why isn't there cases against those? why is it only internet downloaded material that gets you in trouble? There is no line.. Thats whats messed up with the laws that are in place with copyright.
And its my opinion that government should stay out of a lot of things and let the people work out things for themselves.
I am a writer. One day, I will write a book and hopefully, I will make some money. Hopefully, it will be the next Harry Potter and I can collect huge advances, movie deals, sell the world-wide rights, serial rights, merchandising rights, paperback rights and make more than just a few hundred million dollars.
The book I write will be mine. I will own it. I will decide who will profit from my book. Writing books takes time and failure is more likely than not. Many writers do not do well and a few do extremely well. When we have a success, the last thing we will tolerate is a thief.
You likely work for a living. You likely earn some money. You have the right to do with your cash as you see fit. I do not have any right to take your money and if I do, I should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. And that includes some serious penalties.
Suppose you write a book and I got my hands on a copy and I posted it to a dozen torrent sites where a few hundred thousand copies were downloaded. Would you think this acceptable or what? From your post, I’ll assume you would not have a problem with my activity. The reality is, you would be pissed and likely want my head.
I will be represented by people like lawyers and managers or one manager and perhaps one lawyer. I will have an agent. A greedy one that tries to get me a bigger advance and a better deal. You want your representatives fighting for a few dollars more. A real company will publish my book(s) and the company wants to make as much as possible. Do not call it greed, call it business as usual. All of these people have vested interests in seeing that my epic tomb succeeds.
You have zero rights and no dog in the fight.
These "money hungry corporations" you speak of are not evil. Any more than your company is money hungry and I'll assume you forgot to add greedy, so I will. Or evil for that matter. Lots of people are working hard towards the writer’s success and these are the folks who you want to steal from. Sure, corporations are involved and most certainly, they want to see a profit. They/we/I do not want our hard work freely handed out to anyone and everyone with an Internet connection.
By the way, your beef should be, in part, with our founding fathers because they came up with this crazy little thing called ‘Article I, Section 8, Clause 8’ of the United States Constitution. Did you know this? Not sure if you were aware of something we like to call the Copyright Clause. "The Copyright Clause empowers the United States Congress to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So if you dislike the system, understand that it is not just a silly little and inconvenient law. It is part of our founding documents and the founders thought it was important to protect certain rights. Apparently, you think there is some right to pass around other people’s property. When you steal from an artist, you are doing just that, stealing. We creators create products just like the company you work for creates products.
A book can take years to create and nobody has any right to steal it. We are not talking about mix tapes; we are talking about wholesale distribution of someone's property to perhaps hundreds of thousands of people and the creator sees no money. Some people often argue that by freely distributing an artist’s work, the artist will profit from the promotion, so no harm done.
OK, if I steal from your company, heck, it does them no harm, just good because of all of that free promotion.
A mix tape given to a friend is not the same thing at all. It is just one excuse people that do not want to pay for something to use in a vain effort to prove a pointless point. And my friend, making as much money as possible and protecting one of our few legitimate rights is not greed or bad. It is how it must be or creators stop creating.
I suggest you read the Constitution, the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Think about what you think is OK before you start calling those corporations evil.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2012, 10:36 PM   #4 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
nickdalzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 3,223
 
Device(s): Nexus 10, Nexus 7, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 3's
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 89
Thanked 547 Times in 434 Posts
Default

technically according to US copyright laws, it's illegal to show a movie in your house to people too. even copying TV shows with a VCR is technically against the law. giving an old VHS copy of Star Trek, without making money, is still considered a violation against CBS/Paramount. this is where it goes too far. i can understand stealing something and say, selling your VHS collection and making a profit, as this is piracy. but really, giving an old movie to someone, please!

taking paid work or selling someone's work for free, or taking a paid application without a valid license, sure. but sharing movies, video, come on!

however one thing that always escaped me, how is it that i can't make a mix tape of some hip-hop songs without getting busted by the RIAA, but some talentless imbecile can take some nice popular 1980s hit, let's say Alphaville's Forever Young, and butcher it into a rap song, and yet no one is punished?
__________________
Device(s):
Samsung Galaxy S4 **NEW** (GS3 screen finally shattered)
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 7.0 (non-rooted, stock)
Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (obsolete, slow, rooted)
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition
nickdalzell is offline  
Last edited by nickdalzell; December 31st, 2012 at 10:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 01:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default Copyright Laws

I think in this online world we live in, we need to discuss Copyright Laws.

So let’s hear it . . . Need changes? They are unfair? You like them? You absolutely hate them? Go for it.

Leave patents and Apple out of it unless relevant.

Here is what I think. Creators need protection and if some illegal sites are closed, good for Uncle Sam. I have strong views many will likely hate.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 02:24 PM   #6 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
nickdalzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 3,223
 
Device(s): Nexus 10, Nexus 7, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 3's
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 89
Thanked 547 Times in 434 Posts
Default

I do not see my post or your reply as you mentioned in the other thread?
nickdalzell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 02:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell View Post
technically according to US copyright laws, it's illegal to show a movie in your house to people too. even copying TV shows with a VCR is technically against the law. giving an old VHS copy of Star Trek, without making money, is still considered a violation against CBS/Paramount. this is where it goes too far. i can understand stealing something and say, selling your VHS collection and making a profit, as this is piracy. but really, giving an old movie to someone, please!

taking paid work or selling someone's work for free, or taking a paid application without a valid license, sure. but sharing movies, video, come on! however one thing that always escaped me, how is it that i can't make a mix tape of some hip-hop songs without getting busted by the RIAA, but some talentless imbecile can take some nice popular 1980s hit, let's say Alphaville's Forever Young, and butcher it into a rap song, and yet no one is punished?
As for Alphaville, tough to answer. I believe SCOTUS determined parodies are acceptable but you are not talking about that. You are likely not allowed to use the music in most cases unless you have written permission, but there are the rules governing 'Derivative Works.' Weird Al avoids lots of suits and he uses the music but that is allowed by law.

I know the courts have ruled in favor of people using copyrighted materials in collages. There is something called “the First-Sale Doctrine” which limits certain rights of the copyright owner.
First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is the Berne Convention that can come into play and my guess is most people here have never heard of the BC until now. Then there are rules in the DMCA that could be relevant or not. If it is illegal, perhaps no action has been brought.

There is the "Fair Use" provisions, but many people do not know anything about that and they simply use it to claim some non-existent right using Fair Use as the reason. You see it on YT where complete works are posted illegally, citing Fair Use as the reason.

Star Trek: sorry, but no. “The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. “

This is why someone can sell Disney characters on the clothing she sells on eBay without caring what Disney thinks; it is why Disney has been kicked to the curb.

So apparently, Disney is wrong and you can give away the digital copy or the entire package. Or they sue and because they have more money, they win. And if they win, they fail on appeal. Perhaps by opening the package you agree to terms that are not stated on the package and because you do not agree, BB only gives you store credit even though the TOS says you can return the disk set for a refund. Or perhaps their TOS is upheld by the federal judge. Or Disney’s case is tossed out. Or Disney does not really care either way.

I know it is legal to give away software; that is to say, transfer it to another person. That is (was?) covered in Microsoft's EULA. But that was then and I do not know if MS now allows this. I do know MS had a right to tell you what kind of projects you could use their clip art for. The line in their EULA mentioned you were not allowed to use their clip art for projects they considered offensive.

See the problem with that? I saw another problem: some of the clip art in the MS collection also existed on a set of CDs I bought which were royalty free. The problem I saw with that collection was the line about if you discover something that is owned by someone else, do not use the art in a commercial project.

I know Disney does not allow you to transfer ownership but that might not be up to them because of First Use Doctrine. As I recall, as far as MS and their software is concerned, you must also delete the files from your HDD and you cannot retain a copy. Give everything and keep nothing.

The law is complex to be sure and some people make claims that are just silly. Some laws defy logic. For example, i know of a power tool manufacturer that had things removed from eBay because the company said they own the right to use the color yellow in auctions.
I know you can sell clothing with Disney characters and despite the lawsuits, the federal court judge kicked Disney in the bum.

This is a very complex issue to be sure.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Last edited by Bob Maxey; January 1st, 2013 at 02:48 PM. Reason: improved formatting
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
- Crazy peacock person -
 
MoodyBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: echo $HOME; California
Posts: 2,793
 
Device(s): Kindle Fire HD 8.9" (rooted), Motorola Atrix 2, Motorola Atrix 4G (retired), Motorola Bravo (retired
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 930
Thanked 1,370 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I think in this online world we live in, we need to discuss Copyright Laws.

So let’s hear it . . . Need changes? They are unfair? You like them? You absolutely hate them? Go for it.

Leave patents and Apple out of it unless relevant.

Here is what I think. Creators need protection and if some illegal sites are closed, good for Uncle Sam. I have strong views many will likely hate.
Because of the nature of my web sites, I have to be very careful about not infringing on anyone else's copyrights/trademarks, but I also have to watch that my copyrights are not being infringed upon. I've been at both ends, and in all cases I was very glad we have the copyright laws we have!

Regarding media such as movies, music, TV shows, I'm all for protecting the rights of the people who created them. I don't believe in, and have never participated in, illegally sharing/downloading/uploading media.

Do I believe DVRing things is bad, illegal, immoral, etc.? No, not at all. After all, I'm paying DirecTV for its programming, and if they're okay with letting me DVR that programming, who am I to object? But would I sell or share something I recorded? Absolutely not.
MoodyBlues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:10 PM   #9 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
nickdalzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 3,223
 
Device(s): Nexus 10, Nexus 7, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 3's
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 89
Thanked 547 Times in 434 Posts
Default

Most DVRs are rented via your cable or satellite provider (DirecTV and Time Warner to name a couple) or have a subscription service (TiVo) and they can and will delete content as they see fit. Unlike a VCR, DVR titles are not exactly permanent. Some DVRs won't even play back recorded content without being connected to the provider who issues the device and/or service, aka most Time Warner DVR devices won't play back recorded movies without being connected to Time Warner Cable, at least my mother's box doesn't.

What about the popular theme lately involving taking songs from dead artists and sampling them or turning them into rap hits, or remaking them? Aka the remake of John Lennon's hit so this is Christmas? Is being dead akin to surrendering all rights to created work? If so, why does this not affect the distribution rights of paintings by Leonardo DaVinci?
nickdalzell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell View Post
I do not see my post or your reply as you mentioned in the other thread?
It is there.

Bob
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:29 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell View Post
Most DVRs are rented via your cable or satellite provider (DirecTV and Time Warner to name a couple) or have a subscription service (TiVo) and they can and will delete content as they see fit. Unlike a VCR, DVR titles are not exactly permanent. Some DVRs won't even play back recorded content without being connected to the provider who issues the device and/or service, aka most Time Warner DVR devices won't play back recorded movies without being connected to Time Warner Cable, at least my mother's box doesn't.

What about the popular theme lately involving taking songs from dead artists and sampling them or turning them into rap hits, or remaking them? Aka the remake of John Lennon's hit so this is Christmas? Is being dead akin to surrendering all rights to created work? If so, why does this not affect the distribution rights of paintings by Leonardo DaVinci?
I think they likely cut deals with IP owners who decide what can be done with the content. An owner can do almost anything he or she wants with his or her work. I am sure some stars decide before they die who gets what.

The use of old material is tricky. It really depends on who owns the rights to the material. Lots of dead stars have agents. Mary Monroe and Elvis come to mind. Just because you die, you do not always mean that you have lost your rights.

Not sure who owns the rights to DaVinci's works. Because I do not know, I really cannot say. Many odd things happen these days. I can tell you that finding out if someone owns this or that can be very difficult.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:33 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell View Post
technically according to US copyright laws, it's illegal to show a movie in your house to people too. even copying TV shows with a VCR is technically against the law. giving an old VHS copy of Star Trek, without making money, is still considered a violation against CBS/Paramount. this is where it goes too far. i can understand stealing something and say, selling your VHS collection and making a profit, as this is piracy. but really, giving an old movie to someone, please!

taking paid work or selling someone's work for free, or taking a paid application without a valid license, sure. but sharing movies, video, come on!

however one thing that always escaped me, how is it that i can't make a mix tape of some hip-hop songs without getting busted by the RIAA, but some talentless imbecile can take some nice popular 1980s hit, let's say Alphaville's Forever Young, and butcher it into a rap song, and yet no one is punished?
See post #7
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 03:53 PM   #13 (permalink)
- Crazy peacock person -
 
MoodyBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: echo $HOME; California
Posts: 2,793
 
Device(s): Kindle Fire HD 8.9" (rooted), Motorola Atrix 2, Motorola Atrix 4G (retired), Motorola Bravo (retired
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 930
Thanked 1,370 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
The use of old material is tricky. It really depends on who owns the rights to the material. Lots of dead stars have agents. Mary Monroe and Elvis come to mind. Just because you die, you do not always mean that you have lost your rights.
I saw something recently, although I can't recall what show it was, that profiled "the most successful agent in Hollywood" (I'm paraphrasing), whose clients are ALL dead. They include Marilyn Monroe, Steve McQueen and Albert Einstein. Apparently, representing dead celebrities is BIG business!
MoodyBlues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 04:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoodyBlues View Post
I saw something recently, although I can't recall what show it was, that profiled "the most successful agent in Hollywood" (I'm paraphrasing), whose clients are ALL dead. They include Marilyn Monroe, Steve McQueen and Albert Einstein. Apparently, representing dead celebrities is BIG business!
I saw the same program.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 04:22 PM   #15 (permalink)
- Crazy peacock person -
 
MoodyBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: echo $HOME; California
Posts: 2,793
 
Device(s): Kindle Fire HD 8.9" (rooted), Motorola Atrix 2, Motorola Atrix 4G (retired), Motorola Bravo (retired
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 930
Thanked 1,370 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I saw the same program.
Do you recall what it was? I'm thinking perhaps Taboo.
MoodyBlues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 04:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

What will happen down the road?

Part of me thinks what will disappear is the toleration.

I just cannot help but think eventually, Google and YouTube and the other big players will decide to crack down on illegal materials. Not like we have seen in the past, but routinely, daily, hourly.

Not sure if this means anything, but the web can be hard to monetize. OK, some make lots of money, but I think they think more is always better. Montgomery burns says, “I’ll trade it all, for just a little more.” Does Burns run one of these vast sites in secret?

Google has its market; MS has its market and Apple has its market. These giants need something to sell and it takes lots of money to run their operations. Perhaps these assorted markets means they want to tie us to one place for content. With iOS, we have only one place to go for stuff. Unless you JB, that is. When you JB, you have a new “market” and you can DL otherwise paid apps. I do not see Apple letting this stand.

Apparently FaceBook wants to release a phone. Will there be a FB market?

I see potential profits making it hard to find the free stuff so many people DL. They have asked us not to break the law, so perhaps the next step is huge fines and no more Mr. Nice Guy.

Am I up in the air or is something terrible afoot.

Too much money to be made online and too much material owned by others finding a ready group of people unwilling to pay, leading to huge lawsuits and wholesale take down orders. Perhaps YT will start going after everyone who dares to post something they do not have a right to post. All Google needs to do is tell you that they will cancel your Gmail account. So what happens if a corporate user of Gmail is without an email account because some emp0loyee breaks the rules?

I do see laws along with big fines arriving. I also see an Internet tax arriving. Just too much cash out there to ignore. My theory is, all you need to do is take a few thousand people to court. Make people too darn scared to DL anything.

I am sure the lawyers will get involved. It is said there are more lawyers in school than are practicing law. They need to eat and they will likely start chewing on some people.

So tell me where I am wrong.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Last edited by Bob Maxey; January 1st, 2013 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 04:33 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoodyBlues View Post
Do you recall what it was? I'm thinking perhaps Taboo.
I think it was 20/20 or some such program. I am not familiar with Taboo.I think it is better to break them than watch them.

I did find this: Agents Of The Dead - Forbes.com
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 04:43 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
Well mostly what I disagree with when it comes to the copyright laws in the US is the penalties, they far outweigh the crime.


OK, let's explore. What should the penalties be?

If you can find your way to agree that perhaps stealing three songs is a minor offence and it should be treated as such, consider that in some cases, If you commit crimes three times, in some states you can get 25 years.

Do we impose a fine? How much? If the fine is 100.00 every time you are caught, that is fine by me.

A hundred dollar fine for the complete Beatles or Stones box set is a small price to pay.

Seriously . . . if you think the fines and/or penalties are too much, tell me what is fair.

Would you support a civil suit by the owner and keep the feds out of it? Some say this is acceptable.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:00 PM   #19 (permalink)
- Crazy peacock person -
 
MoodyBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: echo $HOME; California
Posts: 2,793
 
Device(s): Kindle Fire HD 8.9" (rooted), Motorola Atrix 2, Motorola Atrix 4G (retired), Motorola Bravo (retired
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 930
Thanked 1,370 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I think it was 20/20 or some such program. I am not familiar with Taboo.I think it is better to break them than watch them.
Gotcha. But, no, the show I saw wouldn't have been 20/20; I can't even recall the last time I watched that. Taboo is great in a sometimes-creepy-sometimes-freaky sort of way. They spotlight a different topic in each episode, such as people who live on the fringes of society for whatever reason, or people who've had extreme body modifications done, or nontraditional marriages [like two husbands and one wife]. It's on National Geographic Channel.
MoodyBlues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:05 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

The "Poor Man's Copyright" . . . now there is a battle starter.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:07 PM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

How would you folks change the copyright law? Does it need it or is it fine just as it is?

Perhaps replace it with a 'Creative Commons' style affair?
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:13 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

From The US Copyright Office:

"How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?"

"Copyright law does not protect sightings."

I guess my Big Foot sightings can be used by anyone.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:17 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Did you know . . .

Mailing something to yourself and leaving it unopened (the idea being that the postmark will prove when you created something) is a useless exercise?

Did you know that titles and names cannot be protected?

Did you know things are afforded some kinds of protection as soon as it is created, but you will be prevented from seeking certain kinds of damages if you do not properly register your copyright?
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 05:28 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Root a tablet and go to jail

Here is another one I saw comming:

New DMCA Excemptions Announced: Rooting Phones Remains Legal, No to Tablets

Not sure if it is true or the article is accurate but I do know it probably is so ignore the first pat of this paragraph. Past reads indicate the problem: it was never legal to JB the iPad because it a) did not exist at the time and b) it was not specifically mentioned in the last LOC decision.

Apparently, this was said:

“Current Librarian James H. Billington just handed down the newest set of exemptions, and it’s a mixed bag for mobile mavens; you’ll still be able to jailbreak your phone going forward, but you won’t be able to unlock it carte blanche beyond January of next year — and don’t even think about cracking your iPad.

The Librarian refused to exempt tablets from the DMCA due to the shifty definition of a slate; you and I might know one when you see one, but Hadley argues that isn’t good enough in the eyes of the law. “For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a ‘tablet,’ as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer,” he wrote.

Current Librarian James H. Billington just handed down the newest set of exemptions, and it’s a mixed bag for mobile mavens; you’ll still be able to jailbreak your phone going forward, but you won’t be able to unlock it carte blanche beyond January of next year — and don’t even think about cracking your iPad.

The Librarian refused to exempt tablets from the DMCA due to the shifty definition of a slate; you and I might know one when you see one, but Hadley argues that isn’t good enough in the eyes of the law. “For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a ‘tablet,’ as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer,” he wrote.

This applies to this discussion because Apple lost several arguments when they argued theit POV. They said it will mean: the ability to steal apps and violate IP.

Comments anyone?.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 07:48 PM   #25 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
nickdalzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 3,223
 
Device(s): Nexus 10, Nexus 7, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 3's
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 89
Thanked 547 Times in 434 Posts
Default

What abouts pre-rooted Android tablets? Who gets indicted for that?
nickdalzell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 09:52 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell View Post
What abouts pre-rooted Android tablets? Who gets indicted for that?

No idea. Must wait and see I suppose.

Actually, who is doing the rooting? If it is the mfg, then nobody.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 10:43 PM   #27 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
nickdalzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 3,223
 
Device(s): Nexus 10, Nexus 7, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 3's
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 89
Thanked 547 Times in 434 Posts
Default

But if its discovered after the customer has turned the device on, wouldn't it fall under the same thing as receiving stolen property?
nickdalzell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:41 PM   #28 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 44,070
 
Device(s): LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 41,718
Thanked 54,860 Times in 21,882 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Root a tablet and go to jail

Here is another one I saw comming:

New DMCA Excemptions Announced: Rooting Phones Remains Legal, No to Tablets

Not sure if it is true or the article is accurate but I do know it probably is so ignore the first pat of this paragraph. Past reads indicate the problem: it was never legal to JB the iPad because it a) did not exist at the time and b) it was not specifically mentioned in the last LOC decision.

Apparently, this was said:

“Current Librarian James H. Billington just handed down the newest set of exemptions, and it’s a mixed bag for mobile mavens; you’ll still be able to jailbreak your phone going forward, but you won’t be able to unlock it carte blanche beyond January of next year — and don’t even think about cracking your iPad.

The Librarian refused to exempt tablets from the DMCA due to the shifty definition of a slate; you and I might know one when you see one, but Hadley argues that isn’t good enough in the eyes of the law. “For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a ‘tablet,’ as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer,” he wrote.

Current Librarian James H. Billington just handed down the newest set of exemptions, and it’s a mixed bag for mobile mavens; you’ll still be able to jailbreak your phone going forward, but you won’t be able to unlock it carte blanche beyond January of next year — and don’t even think about cracking your iPad.

The Librarian refused to exempt tablets from the DMCA due to the shifty definition of a slate; you and I might know one when you see one, but Hadley argues that isn’t good enough in the eyes of the law. “For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a ‘tablet,’ as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer,” he wrote.

This applies to this discussion because Apple lost several arguments when they argued theit POV. They said it will mean: the ability to steal apps and violate IP.

Comments anyone?.
That started with an Ars Technica article that has been thoroughly debunked as a complete misreading of the ruling.

Undeterred, the blogosphere continues to regurgitate it for shock value and because of the belief that it's okay to pass off article re-writes as journalism.

It's not illegal to root tablets, that's not what the ruling said, and our rooting forums will follow the law, not the blogosphere.

Nothing to see there, thank you.

PS - I just checked your link and what was their source? Ars Technica. Saw it a mile off before checking.
__________________
|

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.

Links: Site Rules / Guidelines -and- Zero Tolerance Policy (All Members Read)


For right-on help, the Thanks button is on the right of the post.
For anything out in left field, the /!\ report button is to the left.

Remember, it's our forums and we're all in this together - so let's keep it cool!

Shoot the breeze at the best new gun forum!
EarlyMon is offline  
Last edited by EarlyMon; January 1st, 2013 at 11:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 2nd, 2013)
Old January 2nd, 2013, 10:56 PM   #29 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon View Post
That started with an Ars Technica article that has been thoroughly debunked as a complete misreading of the ruling.
As long as the software that gives root, Linux, is "copylefted" by the GPL license, the owner of *any* device it's installed on will always have the right to root.
MoodyBlues likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (January 2nd, 2013)
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.