In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
YouTube doesn't rely on fair use at all. It relies on the DMCA safe harbor provisions and very aggressive take-down policies. Mostly, individual infringers are too small/numerous for the IP owners to bust 100%. Lots do get taken down.
BTW, putting "I don't own this content" on your video is not a defense. It's a flag saying "I'm committing willful infringement, come demonetize me!"
You're invoking blatant infringement while I was talking about the people who engage in commentary, satire, criticism, etc. while crediting the original authors. This comprises a lot of content on YouTube. They do add considerable value to the content they use (else YouTube would have crashed and burned long ago). I don't think they'd appreciate being painted as filthy infringers, even if they might be in a pendantic sense.
In practice, invoking the takedown practice on a popular channel or video will get you a lot of pushback, possibly even death threats, so there are also external deterrents to using that avenue.
It's best to think of laws not as laws of physics, but as weapons to be used with discretion.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I'd just not see anything illegal about that
Ah, I see, your definition of "law" must be different than the definition used by every other human being.
Given that the people here think that you can be subject to the terms of an agreement that you weren't shown and didn't agree to, I might agree.
My argument is, by default, you don't automatically have rights to use software you simply downloaded from the internet which lacks a license agreement.
Yes, you do. Private use is fair use.
Interesting, you contradict yourself again. So if I use it to produce movies and other commercial purposes it is illegal? Because you literally said not more than an hour ago that it wasn't.
I didn't say that it was illegal. Please quote the part where I said it was illegal
You specifically distinguished private use as fair use. But my toy story example from above is not private use.
Please look up 'confirming the conclusion'.
Alright, then why is arguing that "private use" is "fair use" in the first place if you are trying to assert that there is no copyright violation to even defend? Fair use isn't even relevant in your argument, because to you, ANY use of software without a license agreement isn't even under fair use, it's just "use".
-
@The_Quiet_One See above where I retracted that.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I'd just not see anything illegal about that
Ah, I see, your definition of "law" must be different than the definition used by every other human being.
Given that the people here think that you can be subject to the terms of an agreement that you weren't shown and didn't agree to, I might agree.
My argument is, by default, you don't automatically have rights to use software you simply downloaded from the internet which lacks a license agreement.
Yes, you do. Private use is fair use.
No. It's not. Not at all. http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Copyright_Law/Fair_Use/Four.php
In determining whether or not a particular use is fair, the law states that at least four factors should be taken into should be taken into consideration:
The purpose and character of the use
The nature of the work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole
The effect of the use on the market or potential market for the original work
Is the use fair?
If you want to use a work for an educational purpose, does this mean the use is fair? No, not always.
The fair use analysis must consider all four factors and an educational use may not be fair, particularly if the use adversely impacts the market for the original work.
Fair use is a case-by-case basis. I have yet to see any court treat "private use" as anything other than an admission of infringement. Satire? Transformative work? Education? Those contribute positively to the first factor. "I didn't want to pay for it" == worse penalties (willful infringement).
Fine. Point retracted. But unless you have agreed otherwise, you still retain the right to do whatever the fuck you want to with the files on your computer.
Nope. Not if their copyright belongs to someone else.
No. That is simply not the case. Copyright deals with copying. Not using.
? No. Use, distribution, reproduction. Those are the rights controlled by copyright.
Straight from copyright.gov:
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
I see no 'used'.
Is reproducing, distribution, performing, etc. NOT a form of using?
Yes, but I am talking about using as a whole which is not forbidden.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
More specifically, when talking about software, using == copying. Copies are made into memory from the original format.
I'm pretty sure this specific reasoning has been ruled wrong. Intermediate copies in operational memory don't count as copies for the purposes of copyright laws. That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
-
I decided to go and actually read Section 17 itself. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
2 important things:
I must retract the idea that fair use ==> infringement. Here's the relevant text:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.Second, here's the definition of the exclusive rights granted under USC 17:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly
by means of a digital audio transmission.And the exception in 17.117 for computer programs:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the
owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the
computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—Any
exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this
section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from
which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer
of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only
with the authorization of the copyright owner.
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.—Notwithstanding the provisions
of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to
make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is
made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an
authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or
repair of that machine, if—
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately
after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary
for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not
accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation
of the machine.
(d) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order
to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes
to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
(2) the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of
working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those
specifications authorized for that machine.For reference, here is the DMCA safe harbor provisions: USC 17.512(c)
except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief,
for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a
user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated
by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity
using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or
circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously
to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing
activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and
ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph
(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the
material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing
activity.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
Transferring data as service is a better description of what you're doing. I guess in a sense you are using software that's hosted on Google's servers (client side code notwithstanding), but you don't have that on your own physical device, and as such it falls more under a ToS agreement rather than a EULA.
That said, Google Chrome, Google Earth, and other Google software you download does come with a license agreement.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
There's such a thing as implicit license. https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html
A commonly discussed scenario where implied licenses are destined to play a major role is on the World Wide Web. When a Web page is viewed in a Web browser, the page is downloaded through the Internet and placed on the user's screen. It is clear that a copy of the Web page is being made by the user. It is also clear that the Web page is protected against unauthorized copying by copyright law. But it would not make sense to allow the author of a Web page to sue a user who viewed her page, since the author intended that the page be viewed by others when she placed it on the World Wide Web. Rather, attorneys argue, courts should find that the Web page author has given end users an implied license to download and view the Web page. The extent of this implied license is unclear, and may someday be defined by the courts. (emphasis added)
Also relevant:
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
On the surface, it certainly seems elastic to the point of being unenforceable and useless. But it looks like @Benjamin-Hall 's courageous dive into the depths of copyright law has yielded a few exemptions that would make the situation workable.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
Three felonies a day. Good thing we're not in Europe.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
On the surface, it certainly seems elastic to the point of being unenforceable and useless. But it looks like @Benjamin-Hall 's courageous dive into the depths of copyright law has yielded a few exemptions that would make the situation workable.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
Three felonies a day. Good thing we're not in Europe.
Oddly enough, USC 17 isn't that badly written, once you assemble all the pieces. Most of the length of it is stuff that applies only in particular circumstances (like radio transmissions of songs).
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
More specifically, when talking about software, using == copying. Copies are made into memory from the original format.
I'm pretty sure this specific reasoning has been ruled wrong. Intermediate copies in operational memory don't count as copies for the purposes of copyright laws. That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Oddly enough, USC 17 isn't that badly written, once you assemble all the pieces.
It's by far the worst legal act I've ever read. Granted, it's the first time I'm reading American law.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Oddly enough, USC 17 isn't that badly written, once you assemble all the pieces.
It's by far the worst legal act I've ever read. Granted, it's the first time I'm reading American law.
Grab some Pepto and try out the ACA.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Oddly enough, USC 17 isn't that badly written, once you assemble all the pieces.
It's by far the worst legal act I've ever read. Granted, it's the first time I'm reading American law.
It's wordy, but once it's all assembled you can basically seek the relevant section from the index.
If it's not assembled and you have to read the individual pieces...good luck with that.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
Or, it's also possible given the legal text posted above you that regular use of a program is not copyright infringement.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
No, but I have it on good authority. By "good authority," I mean a collection of cynical Facebook commenters speculating on a BSA Sponsored Post. You can't go wrong listening to the vox populi throwing shade at a Sponsored Post, can you?
I mean...dumber things have happened. Look at this thread, for instance.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar You're kidding me, right? They were copying the programs and distributing copyrighted software. Way outside the scope of what I was talking about, because that's illegal to do without a license. Try again.
Erm...how is it not exactly the same thing?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I'd just not see anything illegal about that
Ah, I see, your definition of "law" must be different than the definition used by every other human being.
Given that the people here think that you can be subject to the terms of an agreement that you weren't shown and didn't agree to, I might agree.
My argument is, by default, you don't automatically have rights to use software you simply downloaded from the internet which lacks a license agreement.
Yes, you do. Private use is fair use.
No. It's not. Not at all. http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Copyright_Law/Fair_Use/Four.php
In determining whether or not a particular use is fair, the law states that at least four factors should be taken into should be taken into consideration:
The purpose and character of the use
The nature of the work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole
The effect of the use on the market or potential market for the original work
Is the use fair?
If you want to use a work for an educational purpose, does this mean the use is fair? No, not always.
The fair use analysis must consider all four factors and an educational use may not be fair, particularly if the use adversely impacts the market for the original work.
Fair use is a case-by-case basis. I have yet to see any court treat "private use" as anything other than an admission of infringement. Satire? Transformative work? Education? Those contribute positively to the first factor. "I didn't want to pay for it" == worse penalties (willful infringement).
Fine. Point retracted. But unless you have agreed otherwise, you still retain the right to do whatever the fuck you want to with the files on your computer.
Nope. Not if their copyright belongs to someone else.
No. That is simply not the case. Copyright deals with copying, distributing, and in certain cases publicly displaying. Not using.
How the fuck do you think they got on your computer? Magic pixie dust? If they're on your computer, they're a copy.
-
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The law does not do magic words.
Well, to a non-lawyer those words do usually form arcane incantations...
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
Or, it's also possible given the legal text posted above you that regular use of a program is not copyright infringement.
Here's the General Counsel of Harvard's opinion: https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use
Copyright is the lawful right of an author, artist, composer or other creator to control the use of his or her work by others. Generally speaking, a copyrighted work may not be duplicated, disseminated, or appropriated by others without the creator's permission. The public display or performance of copyrighted works is similarly restricted.
There are exceptions to this rule—notably the fair use doctrine discussed in the following Section—but generally the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement, and may subject the infringer to civil and criminal penalties under federal law.
From later on (regarding electronic works):
Nonetheless, certain principles endure. The first and most important is that there is copyright law in cyberspace. A work that is available electronically—even if it is available only electronically—is as eligible for copyright protection as a work in any other medium. Thus, the fact that you can download text or graphics does not mean that the material is not copyrighted. And the ability to download a copyrighted work does not mean that you are free to disseminate that work to others, either electronically or in hard copy.
Those who put their work on the Internet and wish to control its use should use the copyright designation, just as they would do in print or any other medium.
You should abide by the following principles when you access a database or other electronic source of information from your own computer.
You are free to read, watch or listen to any material to which you have authorized access, even if it is copyrighted. (In some cases you may have to pay a fee to do this.)
Because downloading material to your own computer necessarily makes an electronic copy of it, and because printing what you've downloaded makes another copy, a copyright owner is entitled to prohibit downloading and printing.
Remember that the site owner is not necessarily the copyright holder of the site's content. A site owner may hold the copyright to some materials but not others, or to none of it. Requests for permission should be directed to the copyright holder, not necessarily the website owner.
Look for a copyright notice on the material. The notice may be on the opening screen, a home page, an "About this Program" screen, or at the beginning or end of individual items (such as an article or a graphic) within the database.
If you are in a commercial database that charges a fee for searching material, and also permits you to download or print the material through mouse or key-stroke commands, you may assume that the copyright owner has authorized the operator of the database to allow users to download and print. You may pay an additional fee for this privilege. Multiple copies for classroom use may require additional fees.t this relies on not only the text but on how that text has been interpreted by Federal Courts.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
So anyone who types something into Google and hits Enter is in violation of the law, since they have not had the opportunity to agree to a license? Or anyone who connects to a random webserver for that matter? Those actions seem to me like "using software."
I think websites work differently from locally installed software w.r.t. copyright, but IANAL. It might be also there's some implied license in having your program available online on a website you own, but here too IANAL.
To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if half the humanity was found in violation of copyright. And I don't mean carelessly sharing and captioning memes.
Or, it's also possible given the legal text posted above you that regular use of a program is not copyright infringement.
Not that you have ever come close to citing anything that supports your position.
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The law does not do magic words.
Well, to a non-lawyer those words do usually form arcane incantations...
Yes, but it's the content that matters most. If you try to claim that specific phrasing insulates you from the plain and obvious meaning of a law or contract, you better have darn good lawyers and a bullet-proof case. Judges are not compilers--they can look at the purpose and context and tell you to pay up even if what you're doing is technically inside the boundaries by a clever reading. Especially on relatively settled things like "is it infringing to download something for personal use" (Spoiler: Yes. Absolutely, unless you have a license.)
-
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Oddly enough, USC 17 isn't that badly written, once you assemble all the pieces.
It's by far the worst legal act I've ever read. Granted, it's the first time I'm reading American law.
Grab some Pepto and try out the ACA.
Are you trying to kill him?!?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
Prove it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra I shall wait for someone to sue me, and then post results.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
The defendant better hope the judge didn't go to Harvard, then.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
On what grounds? What legal authority can you cite? I'd trust the chief lawyer of Harvard and his legal department over some random college student.
And you hit the button to save a copy onto a machine you controlled. Your action was the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made. There's a copy on the server, and there's another copy on your machine once you download something. Both are infringing if the distributor didn't have the distribution rights.
-
@The_Quiet_One Or that he doesn't understand computing.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
On what grounds? What legal authority can you cite? I'd trust the chief lawyer of Harvard and his legal department over some random college student.
And you hit the button to save a copy onto a machine you controlled. Your action was the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made.
No, the server's automated download service is the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made.
There's a copy on the server, and there's another copy on your machine once you download something. Both are infringing if the distributor didn't have the distribution rights.
Whether the copy is infringing is not the issue if I didn't make the copy.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One Or that he doesn't understand computing.
Your argument about "receiving a copy" is about as asinine as "I didn't hit the guy, his face hit my fist."
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
you merely receive the copy
**mind blown** OMG!! I have a copy!
Wait. Or do I have a copy of a copy? Or is it the original? Fuck if I know - they all have the same hash... (closes eyes) I have a copy of a copy!!! I'm LEGAL!!!
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
The defendant better hope the judge didn't go to
Harvardany law school, then.I think that's what you meant.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
On what grounds? What legal authority can you cite? I'd trust the chief lawyer of Harvard and his legal department over some random college student.
And you hit the button to save a copy onto a machine you controlled. Your action was the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made.
No, the server's automated download service is the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made.
There's a copy on the server, and there's another copy on your machine once you download something. Both are infringing if the distributor didn't have the distribution rights.
Whether the copy is infringing is not the issue if I didn't make the copy.
Still no legal authority here. Put up or shut up.
And you're trying to split hairs that won't fly. You, a person, pushed a button with the intent to create a copy on your machine. By doing so, you also triggered Bunches of copies on the intermediate machines. Those are protected as ephemeral copies, yours is not. You knowingly infringed by making a copy. Any argument to the contrary is pure delusion. Both uploader and downloader infringe.
Remember that liability is not conserved--there can be many people 100% at fault. And anyone knowingly hosting infringing material can't claim safe harbor, so there are 3 violations for things like pirate Bay. You, the uploader, and the service.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
No, the server's automated download service is the direct and proximate cause of that copy being made.
Um. Every file I've downloaded involved me selecting the button on the web page and pressing "GIMME!"
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
The defendant better hope the judge didn't go to
Harvardany law school, then.I think that's what you meant.
inb4 Well, I chose Harvard specifically because @pie_flavor disagrees with an official interpretation by Harvard Law School, and believes a judge will actually agree with him and not his Ivy League alma mater.
But, yes, to quote @pie_flavor you're "confirming the conclusion."
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
inb4
(looks at category) Oops. I thought we were in ...
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
inb4
(looks at category) Oops. I thought we were in ...
I'm going to bed soon. I'm pretty sure when I wake up, this'll be Jeff'd.
-
@The_Quiet_One And you'll be 1000 posts behind...
-
@dcon Yeah, and at that point I'll probably just lose interest and find more TiA posts to add to Poe Or Noe.
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
you merely receive the copy
**mind blown** OMG!! I have a copy!
Wait. Or do I have a copy of a copy? Or is it the original? Fuck if I know - they all have the same hash... (closes eyes) I have a copy of a copy!!! I'm LEGAL!!!
As far as copyright is concerned, original is a copy too.
Fun fact: in Poland, legit video game copies are called "originals".
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
Hmm, I vote we call him Ajit from now on. He'll love it.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
there are 3 violations for things like pirate Bay. You, the uploader, and the service.
You've never used TPB, have you?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
there are 3 violations for things like pirate Bay. You, the uploader, and the service.
You've never used TPB, have you?
If your argument is "there are multiple uploaders, therefore none of them are guilty", I have some bad news for you.
-
@ben_lubar Good news: it isn't.
-
@dcon Yes, and then the server elects to send you that file.
-
@ben_lubar said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
there are 3 violations for things like pirate Bay. You, the uploader, and the service.
You've never used TPB, have you?
If your argument is "there are multiple uploaders, therefore none of them are guilty", I have some bad news for you.
For real, I don't know why you guys bother, you're not going to bring a psuedo objectivist weenie like this around to living in an actual shared society. He got his, or at least thinks he got his, and that's all that matters.