No, any public presentation.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only if you are profiting.
Fuck Israel
Yes, IP rights are certainly erroding, aren't they?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then the legal system is wrong, just as it is when it allows eminent domain to occur for something as frivolous as a sports arena. We've steadily allowed property rights to erode over the past two centuries. It doesn't make it right just because they ruled that way.
Oh wait...
SenorToenails wrote:
Uhhhh, that's not true at all.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's always been indefinite. Simply need to pay a maintenance fee for the patent/copyright every five years (possibly three, fuzzy memory on the subject).
It was originally 14 years and if the author survived, they could pay for another 14 and that was it.
Look it up, copyright act of 1790.
Edit:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … m_Bell.gif
honestly it's frustrating and almost pantomime to see adults 'debating' legal matters here by trading their uninformed opinions. how exactly are any of you 'debating' the issue by having an exchange of opinions on something you know nothing about? it's like getting two rednecks to have an argument over evolution and abortion. cursory knowledge, galt, cursory knowledge... read a wikipedia page and save yourself the hassle of saying "well then the entire legal system is WRONG, in my opinion" every two pages and looking like a clown.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Pretty sure the law here says that you're free to play publicly as long as you aren't profiting from it. Cover bands are prosecuted every so often but only when they receive pay from whatever bar they are playing in. If I were to play a Metallica song in a park there is no crime committed because I'm not making a penny.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, any public presentation.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only if you are profiting.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you can't copyright a riff. metallica tried to set the precedent of copyrighting a chord that was 'characteristic' of their music. it was rightly thrown out for being ridiculous: key-words in most legal processes are reasonable and foreseeable. there's nothing reasonable about trying to claim copyright infringement for somebody playing a single chord out of a dozen permutations on the fret-board. private interests cannot 'own' creative license over stuff that is rightfully public domain.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
hey john im still interested in how i was "wrong" about judges making law, and how furthermore senortoenails was making a critical error by referring to "court decisions because they're always wrong"...
really curious!The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[11] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[12] and general search warrants.[13]
As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[14] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[15]
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Bzzzzzzzzzzzz...Uzique wrote:
hey john im still interested in how i was "wrong" about judges making law, and how furthermore senortoenails was making a critical error by referring to "court decisions because they're always wrong"...really curious!The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[11] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[12] and general search warrants.[13]
As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[14] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[15]
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
ah, right. so you were wrong, then. and senortoenails point stands: it is copyright, by judicial precedent, not theft.
nevermind! maybe next time!
nevermind! maybe next time!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Aha! I found the proper term for what I was trying to say. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Consumption by one person does not prevent consumption by another. Digital music is just information, and is thus, non-rivalrous.
You have reading comprehension issues child. You pick out whatever it is you want, focus on it, and ignore whatever else is typed out.Uzique wrote:
ah, right. so you were wrong, then. and senortoenails point stands: it is copyright, by judicial precedent, not theft.
nevermind! maybe next time!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what a coincidence! we all found the same forum!JohnG@lt wrote:
You have reading comprehension issues child. You pick out whatever it is you want, focus on it, and ignore whatever else is typed out.Uzique wrote:
ah, right. so you were wrong, then. and senortoenails point stands: it is copyright, by judicial precedent, not theft.
nevermind! maybe next time!
Such as lending out a book. Ok, I can somewhat see that. I mean we do have public libraries...SenorToenails wrote:
Aha! I found the proper term for what I was trying to say. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Consumption by one person does not prevent consumption by another. Digital music is just information, and is thus, non-rivalrous.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm restarting.
Individuals who pirate probably download many CDs worth of music and sample familiar bands, as well as new bands. If they like the music enough, they buy legitimate hard copies. This is my assumption for "Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music". How else do you explain it?
This does not make it right. Theft is theft, however, if I had rights to the IP I would not pursue legal or civil action on regular users who pirate music for personal enjoyment. It is counter-productive, according to the article. In fact it increases exposure, because file sharing is free. Imagine that, free advertisement.
Pirate at your own risk though. Your risk of catching Trojans is very high while using torrents.
Individuals who pirate probably download many CDs worth of music and sample familiar bands, as well as new bands. If they like the music enough, they buy legitimate hard copies. This is my assumption for "Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music". How else do you explain it?
This does not make it right. Theft is theft, however, if I had rights to the IP I would not pursue legal or civil action on regular users who pirate music for personal enjoyment. It is counter-productive, according to the article. In fact it increases exposure, because file sharing is free. Imagine that, free advertisement.
Pirate at your own risk though. Your risk of catching Trojans is very high while using torrents.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-09-09 20:14:58)
child? i'm your junior but seemingly know a whole lot more about your own nation's legal system than you do.
child? you just resorted to "lalala can't hear you!" tactics when i called out your plain-wrong assertion that "judges do not make law".
now im taking it out of context? kindly go back a page and spare yourself the humiliation, JG.
child? you just resorted to "lalala can't hear you!" tactics when i called out your plain-wrong assertion that "judges do not make law".
now im taking it out of context? kindly go back a page and spare yourself the humiliation, JG.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Profit is irrelevant.JohnG@lt wrote:
Pretty sure the law here says that you're free to play publicly as long as you aren't profiting from it. Cover bands are prosecuted every so often but only when they receive pay from whatever bar they are playing in. If I were to play a Metallica song in a park there is no crime committed because I'm not making a penny.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, any public presentation.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only if you are profiting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performanc … ganisationPROs have been criticized for charging non-profit organizations for their use of copyrighted music in situations where the non-profit organization was not earning money from the use. ASCAP, for example, was eventually forced in the face of public opinion to abandon its attempts to charge the Girl Scouts of the USA for singing campfire songs. ASCAP's and SESAC's policy of charging non-commercial educational (NCE) radio stations for playing copyrighted music has also been criticised, especially by college radio stations across the U.S., which rely entirely on student and listener support for funding and have difficulty affording the extra fees.
PROs are often criticized for stretching the definition of "public performance." Until relatively recently in the U.S., playing copyrighted music in restaurants did not involve legal issues if the media was legally purchased. PROs now demand royalties for such use.
If you want to play a CD in a park technically you need to request permission and pay a royalty, however stupid that may be.
Fuck Israel
I wasn't aware that they had gone that far. I've always been under the impression that a profit motive was necessary for prosecution. The more you know...Dilbert_X wrote:
Profit is irrelevant.JohnG@lt wrote:
Pretty sure the law here says that you're free to play publicly as long as you aren't profiting from it. Cover bands are prosecuted every so often but only when they receive pay from whatever bar they are playing in. If I were to play a Metallica song in a park there is no crime committed because I'm not making a penny.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, any public presentation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performanc … ganisationPROs have been criticized for charging non-profit organizations for their use of copyrighted music in situations where the non-profit organization was not earning money from the use. ASCAP, for example, was eventually forced in the face of public opinion to abandon its attempts to charge the Girl Scouts of the USA for singing campfire songs. ASCAP's and SESAC's policy of charging non-commercial educational (NCE) radio stations for playing copyrighted music has also been criticised, especially by college radio stations across the U.S., which rely entirely on student and listener support for funding and have difficulty affording the extra fees.
PROs are often criticized for stretching the definition of "public performance." Until relatively recently in the U.S., playing copyrighted music in restaurants did not involve legal issues if the media was legally purchased. PROs now demand royalties for such use.
If you want to play a CD in a park technically you need to request permission and pay a royalty, however stupid that may be.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They operate on the first sale doctrine I think, which is different from this. Information can be copied easily which takes it into a different realm than that of physical goods. Limiting access to digital goods is the whole point of DRM.JohnG@lt wrote:
Such as lending out a book. Ok, I can somewhat see that. I mean we do have public libraries...SenorToenails wrote:
Aha! I found the proper term for what I was trying to say. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Consumption by one person does not prevent consumption by another. Digital music is just information, and is thus, non-rivalrous.
You've totally omitted statute law.Uzique wrote:
child? i'm your junior but seemingly know a whole lot more about your own nation's legal system than you do..
Fuck Israel
please explain to me how the chances of catching a trojan is very high when torrenting? i have used a private torrent tracker for 7-8 years, have over 200Gb of music seeding from that tracker... and every single torrent has been a straight-clean folder full of .mp3/FLAC files, .cue files and .jpeg artworks. where does a trojan get into the mix? i'm not sure you understand how most people 'obtain' their material...Phrozenbot wrote:
Pirate at your own risk though. You're risk of catching Trojans is very high while using torrents.
also it is NOT theft. it is copyright infringement. classified as so by many digital law statutes, in many nations. if you really want to understand the (ulterior) logic behind this classification, look beyond the obvious legal machinery of stare decisis and judicial interpretation, and consider the motivations of the suers and prosecution. they want to secure as much compensation for 'damages' as possible. theft is a CRIMINAL offence; it normally carries small fines and/or custodial sentences. metallica don't want to get some 16 year old sent for 6 months community service or a 6 month spell at a youth detention centre- they want their bucks back. they also want to claim pecuniary renumeration for all the other 'potential' losses from other fellow downloaders. copyright infringement is a CIVIL TORT offence; it normally operates on the core principles of all civil-law, those being compensation and redressing of the balance of justice. thus, a prosecution can estimate the 'total losses' to a much higher degree, and the sentencing guidelines for the judge (specified either by earlier judicial precedent or set out as a min/max limit by legislation) are far more financially oriented. thus, getting sued in a civil court proceeding for 'copyright infringement' can net you $250,000 bucks for 25 mp3's. it really is that insane if the prosecution does a good job, and if the defendant has more aggravating factors than mitigating factors. compare a $250,000 court settlement (all expenses covered by defence) to a 6-month custodial sentence in criminal courts.
... does it make sense now? piracy is 'copyright infringement': it suits the law, it suits the judges, it suits the lawyers, and it suits the bands/record industry. the only people it doesn't suit are the poor defendants that get picked out at random by these big litigating record authorities and made an example of-- and subsequently buried beneath hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of dollars of debt.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
But everyone could sing the very same song aloud right?
That is why I think copyright laws are too stringent. It is almost an ego trip to pursue someone over infringement or w/e at any small chance legally possible. Such power.
That is why I think copyright laws are too stringent. It is almost an ego trip to pursue someone over infringement or w/e at any small chance legally possible. Such power.
Its always been the case, enforcement goes up and down.JohnG@lt wrote:
I wasn't aware that they had gone that far. I've always been under the impression that a profit motive was necessary for prosecution. The more you know...
For example a loophole is broadcasts from space are not covered, so a hardware chain in the UK routes its muzak through satellite radio and thus avoids PRS royalties
Fuck Israel
No, that would be a perfomance.Phrozenbot wrote:
But everyone could sing the very same song aloud right?
Legally ASCAP are in the right, but have chosen not to enforce in the face of public pressure.ASCAP, for example, was eventually forced in the face of public opinion to abandon its attempts to charge the Girl Scouts of the USA for singing campfire songs.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-09 20:24:52)
Fuck Israel
The NET act changed quite a bit regarding the profit motive for infringement and distribution also.JohnG@lt wrote:
I wasn't aware that they had gone that far. I've always been under the impression that a profit motive was necessary for prosecution. The more you know...
There is a dollar value threshold though, and it takes quite a bit to go over that. I think it was designed to take down groups like Drink or Die.
theft is specified in statute law under offences against the property act... and it DOES NOT cover digital piracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
You've totally omitted statute law.Uzique wrote:
child? i'm your junior but seemingly know a whole lot more about your own nation's legal system than you do..
hence me referring to 'digital bills' and other more up to date legislation (OAPA dates back to 1861).
judicial precedent and case-law can over-ride statute if it meets a series of criteria and is within judicial right for that particular court/scenario.
im recalling all of this from memory but i can get you exact principles/concepts/cases if you do so wish.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-09 20:25:52)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Maybe not today, it might do next week, thats the thing about statute law.Uzique wrote:
theft is specified in statute law under offences against the property act... and it DOES NOT cover digital piracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
You've totally omitted statute law.Uzique wrote:
child? i'm your junior but seemingly know a whole lot more about your own nation's legal system than you do..
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-09 20:26:07)
Fuck Israel