ARSE!

VinaBlue said:

My car isn't available for sale, yet you could steal it.

IceNine said:

Er, no.

I'm interested in copyright law.

langebleu said:

I'm also interested to learn that you do not steal, and wonder what permission you received to copy and publish HARRISON BERGERON
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.?

http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=55579

IceNine said:

How about i copy it and you keep the original. Would that be ok?

langebleu said:

I would suggest that it falls under the "fair use" category, as it was not used for profit and it was properly cited.


The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. The law lists the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted "fair use," rather than an infringement of the copyright:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

• the nature of the copyrighted work;

• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


...
[This message was edited Sun Jul 20 16:40:44 PDT 2003 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

That's not a fair example Ice. Let's say the type of car wasn't available anymore and someone was making replicas and handing them out. I'm talking about things that are out of print. Yes, if I go to someone's house and decide their Madhouse cd should be mine, THAT is stealing. It's not stealing if I ask for a burned copy.

IceNine said:

All in all, your case looks fragile.

BOO

HISS

I'm still going to keep on downloading music. As the majority of the "thieves" are going to do I suspect.

VinaBlue said:

Yes it is!!!

Madhouse's '8' and '16' are no longer in print, but they still remain works which are copyrighted. That means that, in general, regardless of whether the items are still available or not, legally you should obtain the copyright owner's permission to copy the original music.

Returning to the car analogy, if a specific type of car is no longer being made, then anyone making replicas would first of all have to ensure they are not breaching property and related rights (e.g. copyrights, registered trademarks, patents) over the original before making and selling or giving away replicas, which would include obtaining any necessary permissions.

.
[This message was edited Mon Jul 21 1:00:57 PDT 2003 by langebleu]

so is someone also coming after us for all our "recorded VHS tapes and recorded cassette tapes " we have?

Christopher said:

You better watch out! I know where you keep all your Spice Girls, Fiona Apple, and Hanson videos taped off of MTV.

Christopher said:

I can't imagine so.

langebleu said:

[/sarcasm]

Natsume said:

you know whats funny is i thought you wrote "orgasm"

langebleu said:

I understand the basic law of copyrighting things, but I think it's silly to be so anal (not you, the law) about something that isn't even for sale anymore! If an artist isn't going to make something available anymore, why would they want to punish me for wanting to enjoy their music?

Mind you, I write music and when I release my cd, I'd much rather have people buy it than copy it because I worked hard on the damn thing. I don't condone sharing tons of files that are available for sale, but then again I copy cds from friends because I can't afford to buy them. Mp3s aren't the best quality anyway. Copying music and movies has gone on for a long time and this filesharing thing is just on an astronomical scale. So that's fine, get the people who are making it real easy to download full albums.

Damnit, it's too early to think about this shit. I see both sides of the story, because I am a composer and a consumer.

Cyrus said:

VinaBlue said:

I have mixed feelings about out-of-print work... that is a tough one. The artist really isn't losing any cash there, so it is a bit of a tough call. I am only really against mp3 "trading" in that it costs the artist sales and I would like them to actually be paid for their work.

IceNine said:

There is an interesting analogy with scientific articles. Authors of such are obliged to turn the copyrights of their work (the paper in question) over to the scientific journal publishing the piece. Nowadays there is an increasing trend to be seen that articles of about two years old become public domain (i.e. full text available on the web).

Maybe this can also help music-artists. Contract your music to copyright the works for say 5 years. Music industry is then obliged to pursue copyright breakers during that period.

Makes sense ?

I could care less if you ask me.

Paisley said:

Why don't you ask a few thousand questions about it?

Christopher said:

get yo mind outta the gutter, boy!

what's Downloading?

Haven't you all heard of the 'smash and grab' method?