1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

Copyright Laws

Last Updated:

  1. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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

  2. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    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.
  3. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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
  4. nickdalzell

    nickdalzell Well-Known Member Contributor

    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?
  5. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

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

    So let
  6. nickdalzell

    nickdalzell Well-Known Member Contributor

    I do not see my post or your reply as you mentioned in the other thread?
  7. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. MoodyBlues

    MoodyBlues - Crazy peacock person -

  9. nickdalzell

    nickdalzell Well-Known Member Contributor

    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?
  10. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    It is there.

  11. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    See post #7
  13. MoodyBlues

    MoodyBlues - Crazy peacock person -

    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!
  14. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I saw the same program.
  15. MoodyBlues

    MoodyBlues - Crazy peacock person -

    Do you recall what it was? I'm thinking perhaps Taboo.
  16. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.:D

    I did find this: Agents Of The Dead - Forbes.com
  18. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. MoodyBlues

    MoodyBlues - Crazy peacock person -

    Gotcha. :eek: 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.
  20. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    The "Poor Man's Copyright" . . . now there is a battle starter.
  21. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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?
  22. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.
  23. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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?
  24. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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?.
  25. nickdalzell

    nickdalzell Well-Known Member Contributor

    What abouts pre-rooted Android tablets? Who gets indicted for that?

Share This Page