How Long Can You Go Without Infringing On Copyright?
from the not-long-one-imagines... dept
A couple years ago, we wrote about a research paper looking at how often you infringe on copyrights in an average day to show just how ridiculous copyright law has become. Now, riffing on a recent post we did about how people take different views of copyright depending on whether they're making use of others' content or having their own content repurposed, one of our commenters has written up a blog post for Dvorak.org, discussing how hard it is to not infringe on copyrights, noting that the original system was not built for a digital world:As copyright was originally enacted, it was next to impossible to accidentally infringe. In the good old days in order to infringe on a copyright you had to physically publish a song or a book without permission by printing it onto paper via a printing press. There was no other way to copy or infringe on a song or a book and there was no such thing as a performance right protected by copyright.Indeed. It's interesting to note that some have compared copyright to speeding, but it's true that people are probably "infringing" a lot more often than they speed... and lots of people speed quite a bit.
Nowadays we infringe copyrights numerous times throughout the day without even thinking about it. Watching an unauthorized SNL clip on YouTube. Playing the radio in the background at work where customers can hear. Loaning a copy of your Finding Nemo DVD to play at your kids' daycare. Downloading clip art to use in a personal scrapbook. Scanning your own wedding photos. Forwarding a funny photograph to a friend. Loaning a co-worker some software. Etc., etc., etc...
Copyright laws are so utterly pervasive in our lives that we simply cannot reasonably function without at least some innocent infringement. I personally think it'd be easier to avoid jaywalking and speeding than it would be to avoid infringing. So my question to you guys and gals, how long do you think you could last without infringing a copyright?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accidental infringement, copyright, infringement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Uh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long?
Since a performance is more than 2 people then I can probably last another 5min before I turn on the music. Since a performance is anything larger than 52" than once I get home and turn on the projector I'm out.
Am I the only one who gets a blank screen when I click on the last link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greasy Infringers...
Innocently infringing is like trying to catch a greased pig--while skydiving!! (you; not the pig--though I guess if you don't catch the pig there'll be a big mess...) You wouldn't skydive for greasy pigs; Don't Infringe!
Even Innocently!!
If you find yourself humming a popular song--hold your breath until it stops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greasy Infringers...
You wouldn't slap an incarcirated nun, so don't infringe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greasy Infringers...
Or did you mean incarcerated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Greasy Infringers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Greasy Infringers...
No that would be carcinogenic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawsuit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawsuit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawsuit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who cares
Ok, I'll take your tongue-in-cheek post at it's face value. If you couldn't download, you're probably not one of the ones who will go out and buy lots of music. You'd probably just listen to the radio and watch TV for free. Free is your style.
I have a bunch of songs in my posession that were pirated of of the sneakernet. I don't even listen to them, because lots of music isn't my style.
The point is that a troll like you clearly hasn't understood ANYTHING on this site if you think you're going to get any traction out of an argument as simplistic as yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crap! I just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WARNING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I simply don't get it, honestly.
When Obama sent over the gift to France, I could literally hear all the "protectors" bones snapping as their muscles tensed up.
In addition, seeing how the DoJ is now filled with lawyers who "defend" this system, how far must we go before it's officially declared obsolete?
I'm still amazed patents must be filed, but copyright is automatically given instantly. Hell, even this reply is copyright (but you're free to use it). It makes no sense.
Mike made a remark about how the information on Techdirt is free for the taking, but he often neglects the comments, which are not Techdirt's to give away. They're copyright by the authors.
What really ticks me off are the businesses out there who "data mine" forums to get feedback but pay absolutely nothing for "stealing" (yes, I know - hush up) the data.
I doubt I'll ever see copyright abolished in my lifetime. In fact, I see things getting worse, rather than better. The article hits the nail on the head with the digital remark.
Hell, even quoting a reply in a forum is copyright infringement.
There's nothing we can do to change the system. When the "common peasants" are up against the "money makers", laws will never change as they should.
© 2009 R. Miles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I simply don't get it, honestly.
> © 2009 R. Miles
Sorry, but the license text "but you're free to use it" is too vague to be legally enforceable.
Do you mean Mike can use it, or anyone reading your reply?
Do you mean the entire reply or just the part before (or after) you declared the license?
Can I use it for any purpose, commercial, non commercial, in political or religious contexts etc.?
If I incorporate your reply into a derivative work can I distribute it and do I need to do this under equivalent license terms?
So, sorry but unless you are prepared to clarify these points, perhaps by releasing your reply under a CC license or equivalent, then I'm afraid it would probably be better if we refrained from using your work.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I simply don't get it, honestly.
Yes they are BUT by posting here you are giving Techdirt a Compilation Copyright on the full contents although the individual comments remain the property of the poster. Use of the text of the comment (aside from quoting it here in a reply) requires identifying the Site and the Poster (or use of the URL from the footer of the comment).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can go forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should put it in a new light..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have been warned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does calling someone a spelling nazi invoke Godwin's law?
Accidentally spelling out DISNEY would, at best, be a trademark infringement.
How long can I go without infringing copyright? I'm not even going to try. I use adblockplus so I guess I was infringing someone's 'right to force advertising on me' as soon as I fired up the browser. Or perhaps when I woke up to the radio this morning. If having ebooks read out by TTS is rights-infringing, I'm sure someone could argue by the similar logic that using a timer to turn the radio on in the morning is also rights-infringing. Somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny that the above quote comes from someone who was a massive supporter of copyright laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, I own the DVD and am making a legal backup (yes you can do that, RIAA!). I use the backup and keep the original locked in a safe place. When (not if) the kids mess it up I just burn another one. I'm out $0.09 instead of $24.99 for a replacement. I do that with my music as well. I rip the CD and listen to it on my iPod and iPhone.
Did I violate copyright? The movie industry says I am, RIAA says I am, but the law says I am not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daily
They cannot stop, legislate or block the ability to share.
"Sharing is Caring"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Better to make your own copy than to take someone else's original away from them.
...rather than create something new.
Create your own new copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music Copyright
Almost everything is copyrighted, as the act of creation qualifies it for copyright protection. The comment you wrote is copyrighted.
What you really want is to find artists who choose not to enforce their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what next?!?!?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they do care about are the real issues, the ones you talk around, the ones you say are actually helping the ones trying to ban it. Quite a few people (and most of the people who post here) don't care about the law, don't care about breaking the law and just download content. I think they are wrong, they think they are right.
I can tell you this though, because of this attitude, the content will not improve as much. That is my opinion, obviously Techdirt disagrees, but look at the state of music. Look at the state of movies. Who do you think is right? Do you think movies are better today than they were in the past? Do you think music today is better than it was in the past?
I would say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hello Shill,
That's a bunch of bull. Record company execs have characterized personal copying as "stealing" and Real is currently being sued over a product that allowed individuals to make personal copies of movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you forgetting about the rights to fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I figured this out 30 years ago but have just recently used arithmetic to make a NEW SONG which SOUNDS LIKE the one that first inspired me to develop the means of synthesizing that song USING ARITHMETIC. If you heard the song from 1979 before then you would be very reminded of it by the new song. The lyrics are different but the voice is the same. The melody is different but the instrument sounds are the same. The synthesizer tech is easy enough to use by non-musicians but has no OS. I am waiting to see if various automatic music identification systems think that the new synthesized song is the same as the old one because it is SUPPOSED to sound very similar. I'll put it online if it passes the mysterious "legal" test. It's called "Electric Permutation" by "Champernowne Constant".
I also can make graphics and text files which look ordinary but sound like familiar songs, even exactly like them, if renamed as sound files. But at the moment I'm not trying to piss off the music police, just anticipating the results of testing the NEW SONG for "likely infringement" of the old one. If it isn't recognized, soon we may be free to easily make the music with the sounds we like to hear.
Here's how it works.
Imagine this is 4 megabytes of silence.
0000
Then all possible songs would be in this list:
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1110
1111
And nobody could ever make up a new one.
Now that's how the C C number works, except it's just one number that has all these in it. There's none missing between 0000 and 1111. Actually there are a huge number of them that sound exactly the same. But in reality 4 megabytes is just one number (with 32 million ones and zeros in it), but that's OK because what I discovered after hearing that song in 1979 was that you can count really fast if you count differently than adding 1, and you can hear and look for good sounds. Anything that fits in memory is computable so why download it? Later I discovered you don't even need any memory to hold the music, you don't need a copy to play it, just simple arithmetic software that "plays" numbers like 0.123...
Tag: 04551 12345
Tag: "zero point one two three all 4 free"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]