Authors rights
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
4,340 Posts
It means you can't even play it loud enough for people other than you to hear it as well. Same with VHS and DVD films: "Home Use Only."
I'd send some cops round to your house, but they're too busy with real crimes.
I'd send some cops round to your house, but they're too busy with real crimes.
Yeah, you can't lend it to anyone. It IS real crime!!!
By the way, cops won't go because copyright owners have to pursue the infringers themselves...
I think some softwares even limit the number of times you can install, even if you erased the past installation (like when your computer dies). Or maybe it's talking about installing on to multiple machines...
By the way, cops won't go because copyright owners have to pursue the infringers themselves...
I think some softwares even limit the number of times you can install, even if you erased the past installation (like when your computer dies). Or maybe it's talking about installing on to multiple machines...
Yeah, but law does not say listening to loud copyrighted music would be copyright infringement as the loudness level has never been defined. Law even allows to make one back-up copy of any sort of copyrighted material (at least in my country), but you may never give, lend or sell it to anyone.
Purchasing a "piece" of legal copyrighted material you buy not only the actual data you will use, but also a licence that allows you to do it. Without the latter one, you would use the material illegally.
Where can I find more information about end-user rights using multimedia production? Recently I had a harsh discussion on this topic, but the conversation reached a dead-end as any of us was not aware of the actual juridical situation.
As mentioned before, leagal copyrighted material contains a lincence. You cannot duplicate the licence, although it is possible to make a copy of the licence object. The copy may NOT be used as such, unless you pay for another licence, that's pretty clear. But what is it actually allowed to do with the original? May I sell it including the licence? Well, eBay.com and Amazon.com allows to do that, so should I understand it is legal?
Concidering the fact that it was me who bought the audio CD I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, it means that I am the only person who can touch, listen, even look at the object??? What about my houshold (my children, wife, brothers, sisters)? Each of them must purchase another licence in order to listen to the recording? If so, how do I prevent the "illegal" listening to the CD? How is the "home-use" defined?
I guess, the only way to make everything correctly is not to buy anything if you don't want to infringe the law. But there should be a solution. These things should be at least mentioned somewhere. Please! Anyone! Help! I'm confused!
Purchasing a "piece" of legal copyrighted material you buy not only the actual data you will use, but also a licence that allows you to do it. Without the latter one, you would use the material illegally.
Where can I find more information about end-user rights using multimedia production? Recently I had a harsh discussion on this topic, but the conversation reached a dead-end as any of us was not aware of the actual juridical situation.
As mentioned before, leagal copyrighted material contains a lincence. You cannot duplicate the licence, although it is possible to make a copy of the licence object. The copy may NOT be used as such, unless you pay for another licence, that's pretty clear. But what is it actually allowed to do with the original? May I sell it including the licence? Well, eBay.com and Amazon.com allows to do that, so should I understand it is legal?
Concidering the fact that it was me who bought the audio CD I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, it means that I am the only person who can touch, listen, even look at the object??? What about my houshold (my children, wife, brothers, sisters)? Each of them must purchase another licence in order to listen to the recording? If so, how do I prevent the "illegal" listening to the CD? How is the "home-use" defined?
I guess, the only way to make everything correctly is not to buy anything if you don't want to infringe the law. But there should be a solution. These things should be at least mentioned somewhere. Please! Anyone! Help! I'm confused!
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
If you hadn't noticed, the other members were being a bit sarcastic. The general opinion around here is that the RIAA should be targeted by terrorists.
The whole copyright thing has been blown way out of proportion just so that a dying industry can stay alive, allowing entertainment companies to basically take away the rights of both artists and consumers for the sole reason of profit.
I wouldn't be too concerned with what is legal/illegal because nowadays big companies have been taking the law into their own hands and even influencing Congress for their sole gain. Rather, I would be concerned with what you yourself find moral and right.
The whole copyright thing has been blown way out of proportion just so that a dying industry can stay alive, allowing entertainment companies to basically take away the rights of both artists and consumers for the sole reason of profit.
I wouldn't be too concerned with what is legal/illegal because nowadays big companies have been taking the law into their own hands and even influencing Congress for their sole gain. Rather, I would be concerned with what you yourself find moral and right.
Copyright laws have reached a point where they're simply ridiculous. Intelectual property laws suck big time, for most of the time. This crap about not lending your audio CD to anyone is the epitome of it...
Take a look at this article, called Against Intellectual Property . It may look a bit like propaganda, but it's right for most of the part.
Take a look at this article, called Against Intellectual Property . It may look a bit like propaganda, but it's right for most of the part.
I skipped some parts, hope they are not important 
But making intellectual property not able to be owned will probably be worse... like the author said, who has the ability to produce goods at lower costs?
Although it is ridiculous how much consumers have to pay for stuff like medicine. I know lots of money went into researching drugs, but it still doesn't make sense to charge tens of thousands times the production price :???:
But making intellectual property not able to be owned will probably be worse... like the author said, who has the ability to produce goods at lower costs?
Although it is ridiculous how much consumers have to pay for stuff like medicine. I know lots of money went into researching drugs, but it still doesn't make sense to charge tens of thousands times the production price :???:
Joined
·
17,202 Posts
Like they'll ever sue you for lending a cd to your brotherEvaldas said:
They should be happy for you lending it instead of giving him a backup
Joined
·
4,340 Posts
Intellectual property and software patents... *shudders* the bane of my Professional Issues in Computing classes. Seriously, software patents are 100% certifyable bull****. Thank god Europe at least has some common sense.Boltzmann said:
As for CD copyrights, the newest Iron Maiden CD took a different strategy. Instead of shouting at you, it asked for you just to respect the artist's work and if you like it, pay for it. Lol, and i loved the effectiveness of the Copy Protection found on a lot of CDs (over a veeeeeeery short period of time). I guess they never heard of DAC. :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Joined
·
17,202 Posts
Europe has more sense? I did some research on my own and I found out that I'm not even allowed to backup software or music when the creator has done effort to prevent you from copying the source disc.industrian said:
So if I buy a new CD, and it's copy protected, they can sue me for having illegal MP3's on my HD.
Next problem: How to check if a cd is protected when the ripping software bypasses the protection by default
Joined
·
4,340 Posts
Yeah. Screw that though. Next thing The Man is gonna be telling us is that we don't actually OWN the software/music we purchased and have physically, but that we're only borrowing it.Cid Highwind said:Europe has more sense? I did some research on my own and I found out that I'm not even allowed to backup software or music when the creator has done effort to prevent you from copying the source disc.
So if I buy a new CD, and it's copy protected, they can sue me for having illegal MP3's on my HD.
Next problem: How to check if a cd is protected when the ripping software bypasses the protection by default
And i was refering to Europe not allowing software patents.
Cid Highwind, may I please ask to share with us these results of your little research?
Where is it officially stated (in a governmental act or smth) that you MAY NOT lend or borrow an intellectual product? What punishment is applied to a person that commits such a crime?
The more I go deeper into that, the more I understand such a threat on CD covers is the same the case of an old lady who shakes her finger at a couple of "adolescent free-thinkers" that kiss each other in a public place. It is forbidden (at least in my country) to spread pornography, but the above mentioned activity could not be classified as such.
Besides, if I am allowed to sell my legally purchased CD, you will never prove I commit a crime giving it for free. So if it is impossible to apply an article of a criminal code neither practically, nor THEORICALLY (!!!), why then bother shaking that damn finger at someone?
As I understand, you didn't quite catch my point. I was talking about theory, but not the farcicality that these copyright laws bring. The most ridiculous thing in the essence of these laws is not their presence, as you claim, but their incongruity with each other.
And I dissagree with the article Against the intellectual property. The argument that this type of property aggravates inequality is ridiculous: it is actually the material property that creates the precipice between the rich and the poor. You mean we all should refuse the material property because of that? Bearing in mind the fact that the welfare is inherited, communism was born. As history has already proved, such a system rotted. So why should we tolerate the absence of intellectual property?
Although limits must be drawn. That's what interests me.
Where is it officially stated (in a governmental act or smth) that you MAY NOT lend or borrow an intellectual product? What punishment is applied to a person that commits such a crime?
The more I go deeper into that, the more I understand such a threat on CD covers is the same the case of an old lady who shakes her finger at a couple of "adolescent free-thinkers" that kiss each other in a public place. It is forbidden (at least in my country) to spread pornography, but the above mentioned activity could not be classified as such.
Besides, if I am allowed to sell my legally purchased CD, you will never prove I commit a crime giving it for free. So if it is impossible to apply an article of a criminal code neither practically, nor THEORICALLY (!!!), why then bother shaking that damn finger at someone?
As I understand, you didn't quite catch my point. I was talking about theory, but not the farcicality that these copyright laws bring. The most ridiculous thing in the essence of these laws is not their presence, as you claim, but their incongruity with each other.
And I dissagree with the article Against the intellectual property. The argument that this type of property aggravates inequality is ridiculous: it is actually the material property that creates the precipice between the rich and the poor. You mean we all should refuse the material property because of that? Bearing in mind the fact that the welfare is inherited, communism was born. As history has already proved, such a system rotted. So why should we tolerate the absence of intellectual property?
Although limits must be drawn. That's what interests me.
Please indicate me the article in the criminal code that does not allow to sell legally purchased records. What about Amazon.com and eBay.com? These giant companies should definitely have already been sued for that!And I was younger (SNES and Genesis time
Is it a question or an affirmation?
"We all should be sued for kissing in public places in USA," I could state in the same way as you do. Will such a proposition be correct? I will repeat my previously asked question: which article of the criminal code does not allow to do that?
"We all should be sued for kissing in public places in USA," I could state in the same way as you do. Will such a proposition be correct? I will repeat my previously asked question: which article of the criminal code does not allow to do that?
Material property is quite different from intellectual property. I agree with laws to protect the former, and mostly disagree with laws to protect the later.Evaldas said:
If I steal your car, you’ll lose it. No longer you’ll be able to use it. If I copy your audio CD, you won’t lose anything. You’ll be able to listen to your music as usual. Material property creates the rich/poor inequalities, and intellectual property laws exacerbate it, without adding anything to society. Most True Lawyers (i.e. academic lawyers, when they’re not defending a client; when they get a client they become the devil incarnate) will agree with me on this issue. There’s extensive literature on this subject (check out the link I provided; they’ve footnotes with full bibliographical rerefences).
And the nasty thing is: the people who actually work to generate content (i.e. artists, software developers, engineers) are the ones who get less money. The rich get control over the content, and make a lot more out of it than the actual developers. And keep in mind that the rich who are controlling the copyrights never generated any useful content.
There are other issues as well… for instance:
BTW, quoting from that article:Against Intelectual Property said:
So maybe I shouldn't even be talking about intellectual property at all...
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
