Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta
The Bar Room => The BS-Wrestling Pit => Topic started by: Calach Pfeffer on October 05, 2009, 11:13:11 PM
-
I just now confused myself. I was wondering what I would answer if I ever took a polygraph test and one question was, "Have you ever broken the law?" Well, I've downloaded and watched movies, downloaded and listened to music, downloaded and read books, and downloaded and used cracked software. I've purchased pirated stuff too. Have I broken the law?
I confused myself by assuming that to break copyright you have to use the copyrighted stuff of someone else in something you claim for the purposes of being paid by others as totally your own work. In other words, you break copyright if you use other people's material to get reward for yourself. That seemed suitably naively moral. But I suspect it's not what the actual legal argument consists of.
Do you break copyright if you make personal use of other people's work? How about if you make use of other people's breaches of copyright, like when they copy a movie and make it freely available?
Maybe I shouldn't take any polygraphs just yet.
-
bibibibibi Confusing is right! Using other people's work for your own gain is obviously breaking the law. Using other people's work for your own pleasure and amusement? According to the music industry, that is also breaking the law. Buying pirated DVDs could be aiding and abetting! Takes a lot of fun outta life, don't it!
-
I don't know Jack about your movies, but I have copied many pages of books, written by sundry and various authors, on innumerable topics.
I do not believe that I have breached any copyrights in so doing. I used said pages for the benefit and enlightenment of my students (whom I did NOT charge) and I made no money from the process....private, instructional use ONLY. Not public dissemination and/or profit.
If you read the fine print on most copyright texts, I think that you may be OK, so long as you do not show/share with the public, nor make any money from it/them.
***edit*** I always make sure to include a copy of the Title & Copyright pages (with Author and Publication info).
-
I think the strict legality of it (which was the question) does depend upon where in the world you are and/or where the work was published. I know the Australian copyright law in copying text is very specific in terms of what can be legally copied for "educational purposes" which is part of what many of us are dealing with. It doesn't depend upon whether or not you are using it for profit. It does include provision for books being out of print.
-
downloading copied movies and music is breaking the law, not sure about books
re: have you ever broken the law, everyone has broken the law in some way or another
-
Australian copyright law states that you may use 10% of editorial material without breaching copyright. This includes for educational purposes. Anything over 10% is breaking the law, because your students should be buying the book or journal if more of it is required.
I have broken the law - just check out my DVD/CD collection. kkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkk
-
Actually, yes you are breaking the law.
For example,
I used said pages for the benefit and enlightenment of my students (whom I did NOT charge) and I made no money from the process
You have deprived the auther of royalties by NOT purchasing the items. I'm not trying to be anal, but if you were the artist behind a work that you do to garner income, then you will go broke fast if all your stuff is being pirated. If you do it for pleasure, different story
-
Found this chart that breaks down the copyright and fair use guidelines for teachers in the US.
http://www.mediafestival.org/copyrightchart.html (http://www.mediafestival.org/copyrightchart.html)
-
Well, I know if I'm listening to music or watching a movie or using software and I didn't pay for any of it, then morally speaking I'm cheating someone. (The only part of Marxist theory that ever made any sense to me was the idea if alienated labour.) But what I guess I was wondering is what connection there is between that moral idea and actual copyright law. I suppose there must be some.
Shirley, some change is coming in common notions of labour and copyright. Or maybe there isn't. See, I was always cheap as a computer user, always preferring shareware and freeware to super duper commercial progs. These days it seems sort of natural to search torrent sites before going out and buying something these days. Or maybe it's just convenient.
I'z a lawbreaker.
-
Copying for educational use was formerly ok in the USA. Then in the 1990's new regs came in and university copy centers had to get "copyright clearance" for anything comprising more than a certain percentage of a specific work.
As for songs and movies, think about it this way. If I buy a book and sell or even give you a copy of the book (and you know it's pirated), we are both breaking the law. As the copy-er, I'd be up on worse charges. This is similar to you buying merchandise from someone you know is a thief.
Dig through enough laws and you'll find at least one that you've broken. Personally, I'm wanted for felonious jaywalking on 3 continents. ahahahahah
-
As the copy-er, I'd be up on worse charges. This is similar to you buying merchandise from someone you know is a thief.
In Oz, you generally get a more severe fine for BUYING the stolen goods - without a market there would be no theft!!
-
It all depends on interpretation of the law....and who is applying it.
In the case of Sweden - 'passing through' isn't a crime.
Now, if we want to get into 'who' is the criminal - now that's a whole different ball of wax.
WHO is the criminal?
Those who would fleece our pockets of every nickel and dime that they could, to serve Mammon (aka, their own greedy mouths).......or those who believe in the Freedom of information, the dissemination of information, and the freedom of the right to respect that?
The WWW is 'free' - for now.
Yeah, we could argue for hours about movie rights, copyright, etc. etc........
An example: Top Canadian Band - Barenaked Ladies - giving their music, virtually free of charge - oh, and distribute as you will.....
Metallica - for all their posturing....dead?.........pretty much.
i-tunes - right......really???..........
Suggest you all log onto some decent torrent sites and check out the latest anti-copyright movies...........oh, by the way - they're FREE!
-
When you buy an orange are you paying for the orange or are you paying for the effort of growing and picking the orange? Both?
If the effort of someone else growing/doing/making something you enjoy has some value to you, you pay for it. Otherwise just take the polygraph. (They're not that accurate anyway.)
The law and moral of the law are quite clear.
-
As the copy-er, I'd be up on worse charges. This is similar to you buying merchandise from someone you know is a thief.
In Oz, you generally get a more severe fine for BUYING the stolen goods - without a market there would be no theft!!
Might be interesting to see what happened to the typical levels of theft when that was implemented.
-
Well, I know if I'm listening to music or watching a movie or using software and I didn't pay for any of it, then morally speaking I'm cheating someone.
Not necessarily.
Much good software is free. If you insist on using Microsoft products without paying, that's a form of theft (please, don't say 'piracy'; there are no ships involved), but you can switch to Linux.
There are also lots of situations where you can listen to music or watch a movie without paying. Broadcast is the most obvious one, though the broadcaster has to pay.
Also, copyrights expire.
But what I guess I was wondering is what connection there is between that moral idea and actual copyright law. I suppose there must be some.
Plenty.
One principle, though, that is built into all copyright law is what US law calls "fair use". Things like quoting a work for comment or criticism, creating a parody of it, etc. are legal. That principle is just as basic as the notion of the creator having rights.
In some countries, things like photocopying a newspaper story for classroom use are considered fair use. In others they may not be.
In the US, there was a case with the TV and movie companies claiming "time shifting", recording something to watch later, violated their copyrights. In another, the record companies objected to "space shifting", such as people making cassette copies of records to listen to in the car. Both were fought all the way to the Supreme Court,and the media companies lost both. Those are perfectly legal fair use, at least in the US.
-
downloading copied movies and music is breaking the law, not sure about books
re: have you ever broken the law, everyone has broken the law in some way or another
it's just as against the laW, except for books over 50 years old
-
And who amongst us (Brits only here, please!) didn't surreptitiously listen to Radio Caroline?? (and avidly record the Top 40 on Sunday evenings!!) Under the covers? Awaiting the knock on the door?
'Allo, 'Allo?
Keep the 'net and the WWW "free".......especially from Elton John!
Remember............'first, they burned books!'......
ababababab
-
Well, I am a published writer and photographer and I believe in copyright. First, I place much of my work on-line with the intent that others will read and enjoy (if possible). I don't expect them to copy it and use it without permission. It's important to know and approve the use of one's creative efforts. I'd hate to have my stuff used (misused) to promote ideals or values that are antithical to mine. It isn't only about the money. And yes, I have made some money from my efforts. Making some money doesn't make me the enemy either. It was simply a fact that there was a market and I was lucky enough to make a few dollars.
Do I break copyright laws as they stand? Yes I do as a teacher. Yes I do as a consumer. But, I don't do so with the intent of defrauding the authors, the musicians, the actors. I doubt that there is any one who would emerge as innocent. That said, I reiterate, copyright is important.
-
I too have written some books - minor ESL stuff. The royalties have been pathetically low and the publishers have turned down subsequent offers of material on the grounds that the bottom has fallen out of the ESL publishing market, especially for supplementary materials.
Now, I don't think my books themselves are much pirated - they're not at all well known. But the general principal these days is that teachers expect to get stuff for free (pirated or otherwise) off the internet. So as an author, my livelihood has been damaged.
And yet, I download pirated music, computer programs and books from the internet all the time, so I really can't complain when I lose out myself.
P.S. The vast majority of bands have such rotten recording contracts that even before widespread downloading, they made little or nothing from CD sales, yet prices of CDs were very high, especially in Europe.
-
Well, I am a published writer and photographer and I believe in copyright. First, I place much of my work on-line with the intent that others will read and enjoy (if possible). I don't expect them to copy it and use it without permission. It's important to know and approve the use of one's creative efforts. I'd hate to have my stuff used (misused) to promote ideals or values that are antithical to mine. It isn't only about the money. And yes, I have made some money from my efforts. Making some money doesn't make me the enemy either. It was simply a fact that there was a market and I was lucky enough to make a few dollars.
I'm also a published and publishing photographer/writer. There have been a few changes to International and American copyright law as it pertains to photography and text. Though in principle a work is copyrighted as soon as the photo is made, the ability to collect on unauthorized use of your photo has become more difficult. If the work has not been formally and legally copyrighted before publication (this includes the internet)awards are drastically reduced by the court. This is largely because it is more difficult to claim ownership after the image has been published. Periodicals (both online and print)often carry an ISSN number (International Standardized Serial Number) which helps to identify the specific issue. This was once all that was needed to prove ownership rights if credit was given to the author/photographer in that specific issue. It is now suggested that writer and photographer alike copyright his work before publishing it. Most times, a news publication is granted automatic rights upon publication because it follows up its publication with a formal application/submission for copyright.
If you put a picture online, don't expect to be able to have an easy time collecting usage fees unless it's backed up with proof of formally obtained copyright (e.g. Library of Congress registration).
-
Back in the mid-1990s I wrote, and had published,
a non-fiction historical narrative. Copyright laws here in Australia are quite strict.
Numerous times over the years I've come across large chunks of text from
my book, in the books and magazines written by others on the
same subject. (sometimes I'm cited,
sometimes not).
But I've never cared a rats-a about this. Consider it as a sort of a compliment!