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.:
Going back to my Autodesk example, suppose you have a teenage (or college age) aspiring game developer and/or artist. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to work with 3DS Max, Maya, et al., you'd be shelling out 4 grand. Even if they wanted to buy it, I don't know many people that age who have that kind of coin lying around. It's especially egregious given that most consumer software is in the $X0-$X00 range.
And guess what? They acknowledged the issue by offering a student license, as you implied. However, if someone, say, downloaded a copy without paying and profited from it by using it to make the next Toy Story or whatever, you and @pie_flavor would still see nothing wrong with that.
-
@boomzilla 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.:
I'm still not quite sure of what their purpose as an organization/lobby is.
Uh...seems pretty obvious. It's to get money out of companies trying to leverage their @pie_flavor software licenses for the software that is put out by the companies who fund them.
I was just going for the angle that's frequently advocated here, by yourself and others, to ignore an organization's stated goals and to pay attention to what they actually accomplish.
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
and the informants blacklist themselves from the industry in the process.
Which industry?
The one they were working in. And possibly others. I see the conversation playing out like this:
Have you ever been fired from a job?
Yes, actually. The last place I worked at was using some questionable software. Some of it was even unlicensed! So I sicced the BSA on their asses in hopes they'd pay me some sweet cash. Well, their check still has yet to come, and the old place fired me not long after. Say, you're not running any unlicensed software, are you?
Thanks for your time. We'll let you know if we have any positions available.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla 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.:
I'm still not quite sure of what their purpose as an organization/lobby is.
Uh...seems pretty obvious. It's to get money out of companies trying to leverage their @pie_flavor software licenses for the software that is put out by the companies who fund them.
I was just going for the angle that's frequently advocated here, by yourself and others, to ignore an organization's stated goals and to pay attention to what they actually accomplish.
So was I.
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
and the informants blacklist themselves from the industry in the process.
Which industry?
The one they were working in. And possibly others. I see the conversation playing out like this:
Have you actually seen it, though?
Have you ever been fired from a job?
Yes, actually. The last place I worked at was using some questionable software. Some of it was even unlicensed! So I sicced the BSA on their asses in hopes they'd pay me some sweet cash. Well, their check still has yet to come, and the old place fired me not long after. Say, you're not running any unlicensed software, are you?
Thanks for your time. We'll let you know if we have any positions available.Was the George Costanza?
-
@Tsaukpaetra How?
-
@The_Quiet_One 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.:
Going back to my Autodesk example, suppose you have a teenage (or college age) aspiring game developer and/or artist. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to work with 3DS Max, Maya, et al., you'd be shelling out 4 grand. Even if they wanted to buy it, I don't know many people that age who have that kind of coin lying around. It's especially egregious given that most consumer software is in the $X0-$X00 range.
And guess what? They acknowledged the issue by offering a student license, as you implied. However, if someone, say, downloaded a copy without paying and profited from it by using it to make the next Toy Story or whatever, you and @pie_flavor would still see nothing wrong with that.
I'd see something wrong with that; I'd just not see anything illegal about that. Not everything morally wrong has to be illegal.
-
@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.
-
@The_Quiet_One 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.:
And guess what? They acknowledged the issue by offering a student license, as you implied.Took 'em long enough. At least Microsoft caught on at least a decade earlier by offering Visual Studio for "free." I'm old enough to remember when even a C compiler was prohibitively expensive for a kid.
However, if someone, say, downloaded a copy without paying and profited from it by using it to make the next Toy Story or whatever, you and @pie_flavor would still see nothing wrong with that.
You know that I'd see nothing wrong with it? Can you teach me how to use these telepathic skills? I would like to try them on the ladies. Except for Anita, of course, because I know enough about her to know better than to peer into her mind.
-
@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.
-
@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.
So why do you think you have the right to use the software if you know you don't have that right?
-
@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.
I wonder if I, a non-lawyer, could find a court case that says that is EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW SAYS with a single Wikipedia search for "EULA".
Yep, turns out I can.
-
@ben_lubar He won't acknowledge that, because it doesn't say that the people who purchased from Harmony did anything wrong... Unless it does - I've only just started reading it.
-
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar He won't acknowledge that, because it doesn't say that the people who purchased from Harmony did anything wrong... Unless it does - I've only just started reading it.
I'm pretty sure that purchasing stolen goods with the knowledge that they were stolen is a crime in a different part of the law.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Have you actually seen it, though?
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?
Speaking of which, that reminds me that I need to go comment on a Sponsored Post about "affordable" townhomes in the upper $500's about how my affordable townhome costs half as much as the properties they're trying to sell to idiots who must really like being able to walk to the Metro (and then sit in a tunnel for an hour because something down the line broke).
Was the George Costanza?
That would require a Norwood-sanctioned emoji, wouldn't it?
-
@ben_lubar Right, but it's also the only part he cares about and disputes.
-
@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 pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
In this hypothetical world where people knew more about this, publishers would start cracking down more on websites linking to file sharing websites hosting illegal content. I'm not saying there's absolutely no liability; I'm just saying it doesn't rest with the downloader. DMCA takedown notices were created for a reason.
Copyright liability rests with both uploader and downloader. It's only the service provider that has safe harbor. Remember, copyright controls all use and distribution. And it inheres with the creation of the work, and the default is all rights reserved, not all rights extended.
Unless you have a valid license, you may not use a copyright-protected work in any way. While you may claim "fair use", that's simply saying "yes, I infringed but you can't penalize me because <X, Y, and Z>." You still violated their copyright.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Unless you have a valid license, you may not use a copyright-protected work in any way. While you may claim "fair use", that's simply saying "yes, I infringed but you can't penalize me because <X, Y, and Z>." You still violated their copyright.
TIL that even fair use is copyright infringement.
-
@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.
-
@Groaner 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.:
Unless you have a valid license, you may not use a copyright-protected work in any way. While you may claim "fair use", that's simply saying "yes, I infringed but you can't penalize me because <X, Y, and Z>." You still violated their copyright.
TIL that even fair use is copyright infringement.
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
-
@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.
-
@ben_lubar said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@ben_lubar He won't acknowledge that, because it doesn't say that the people who purchased from Harmony did anything wrong... Unless it does - I've only just started reading it.
I'm pretty sure that purchasing stolen goods with the knowledge that they were stolen is a crime in a different part of the law.
Property != IP and they obey different sets of laws.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
You still violated their copyright.
Congratulations, have a pendant. When I say 'copyright infringement', let it be henceforth known that I am intentionally excluding fair use.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
-
@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.
-
@Benjamin-Hall 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.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Unless you have a valid license, you may not use a copyright-protected work in any way. While you may claim "fair use", that's simply saying "yes, I infringed but you can't penalize me because <X, Y, and Z>." You still violated their copyright.
TIL that even fair use is copyright infringement.
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I don't recall saying anything about eye-closing.
-
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
Why call it an infringement if it's within the boundaries of legal behavior and thus protected?
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Fair use is a shield as long as you're adhering to the guidelines.
Seems like a mostly pendantic distinction and a gray area large enough to fit an elephant.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
What about them? Are you trying to make a point?
-
@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).
-
@Groaner 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.:
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
Why call it an infringement if it's within the boundaries of legal behavior and thus protected?
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Fair use is a shield as long as you're adhering to the guidelines.
Seems like a mostly pendantic distinction and a gray area large enough to fit an elephant.No. There are no guidelines. There are a fuzzy set of considerations that may exempt you from punishment. You're still guilty as sin, the law has just said that since meeing these guidelines doesn't do considerable damage and it's worth it, you aren't punished.
-
@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.:
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
What about them? Are you trying to make a point?
I'm asking if you were. You sort of responded to something with them.
-
One other thing about fair use:
As an affirmative defense, you have to prove that you qualify. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove that you don't qualify. Thus, it's not a bar to prosecution or something that can be asserted at the earliest stages (like in a motion to dismiss). It can only be asserted after discovery, during the defense phase of the trial and is decided by the trier of fact (judge or jury). It's also notoriously squishy, with no firm guidelines.
Also, as a factual matter, good luck getting it overturned on appeal unless the trier of fact went way off the rails.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@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.:
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
What about them? Are you trying to make a point?
I'm asking if you were. You sort of responded to something with them.
I "sort of" responded? Okay, well then I must be sort of making a point. Somehow? Are you Gribnitting me?
-
@Benjamin-Hall 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.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
Why call it an infringement if it's within the boundaries of legal behavior and thus protected?
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Fair use is a shield as long as you're adhering to the guidelines.
Seems like a mostly pendantic distinction and a gray area large enough to fit an elephant.No. There are no guidelines. There are a fuzzy set of considerations that may exempt you from punishment. You're still guilty as sin, the law has just said that since meeing these guidelines doesn't do considerable damage and it's worth it, you aren't punished.
As I said, a gray area big enough to fit an elephant. You're making it sound like most of YouTube shouldn't exist, and yet it thrives in defiance.
-
@Groaner 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
Why call it an infringement if it's within the boundaries of legal behavior and thus protected?
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Fair use is a shield as long as you're adhering to the guidelines.
Seems like a mostly pendantic distinction and a gray area large enough to fit an elephant.No. There are no guidelines. There are a fuzzy set of considerations that may exempt you from punishment. You're still guilty as sin, the law has just said that since meeing these guidelines doesn't do considerable damage and it's worth it, you aren't punished.
As I said, a gray area big enough to fit an elephant. You're making it sound like most of YouTube shouldn't exist, and yet it thrives in defiance.
See also: Daddy finger song.
-
@Groaner 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
It's an affirmative defense against punishment. It's "infringes, but fair use, so no penalty." Copyright is absolute.
Why call it an infringement if it's within the boundaries of legal behavior and thus protected?
It's also a strict liability offense (like child porn). You can get zapped even if you don't know you're infringing. So pie's "close your eyes" routine is absolutely crap from a legal perspective. It's pure gold-fringe territory.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Fair use is a shield as long as you're adhering to the guidelines.
Seems like a mostly pendantic distinction and a gray area large enough to fit an elephant.No. There are no guidelines. There are a fuzzy set of considerations that may exempt you from punishment. You're still guilty as sin, the law has just said that since meeing these guidelines doesn't do considerable damage and it's worth it, you aren't punished.
As I said, a gray area big enough to fit an elephant. You're making it sound like most of YouTube shouldn't exist, and yet it thrives in defiance.
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!"
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.:
@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.:
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
What about them? Are you trying to make a point?
I'm asking if you were. You sort of responded to something with them.
I "sort of" responded? Okay, well then I must be sort of making a point. Somehow? Are you Gribnitting me?
So what you are saying is that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Glad we could clear that up.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
it was illegal.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@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.:
@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.:
@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.:
@Tsaukpaetra How?
How what? Oh that's right, you have no eyes. Um, better look into assistive technology...
You just said a company name. What about them?
What about them? Are you trying to make a point?
I'm asking if you were. You sort of responded to something with them.
I "sort of" responded? Okay, well then I must be sort of making a point. Somehow? Are you Gribnitting me?
So what you are saying is that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
What topic? The has been surreal in this thread...
-
@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'.
-
@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'.
-
@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?
-
@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?
Legally, no. But I'm not sure if @pie_flavor talks about law this very second or not.
Edit: I see he cites a website that contains a brief introduction. So no, he doesn't talk about the law here, which makes you correct.
-
@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'.
Try reading the actual statute. It's pretty darn clear about what it covers, in lots of legal words. Remember, if you think you've found a clever loophole based on tricky wording, a judge will take one look and smack that down. The law does not do magic words.
More specifically, when talking about software, using == copying. Copies are made into memory from the original format.
Note that the first-sale doctrine (which lets you resell a physical copy you legally own) does not cover software, because you never legally own the software in the first place. You own a license to use that software. And that license specifically denies redistribution. This is black-letter law, incredibly well settled.
The default is "no one can use, no one can reproduce, no one can distribute." Unless you have a license (or a particular automatic license process applies, such as radio performances of songs, which involve pro-rata license payments), you may not use a copyrighted work. Period.