Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
There is no such thing as unfairly using them? nonsense !!
When the GOP in the 2008 elections, un-fairly used Springstein songs,, Bruce told then to stop , or he'll sue. They stopped.
George Harrison, 'This Song',, one of the earliest , and still one of the best rock videos ever. And relative to this disscusion.
Remember:
* chords , you cannot copyright,
*melody you can copyright ,, but here was the dispute -- George's "My sweet Lord" vs. "He's so fine" - - as it can get fuzzy , there are only 8 notes in any key , "oh Darling Stand by ME,, Do-Ra-ME, Standy by Me, Do-ra me".
* But Lyrics , always clear when plagiarism occurs or not !!
Everybody take a break and enjoy ,
, and play it LOUD
( And if you like , go out and buy the CD and the Songbook --LEGALLY)
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
most artist are,, esp drummers.
that is why Artist have lawyers , who while also insane, at least know law.
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.
Can you explain why ? I am not a techie, but would like to better understand your point.
Please explain in {polite} layman terms, w/o using bad or insulting words
THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.
"THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon."
and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.
and this is fine, but if the buyer ***gives*** me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.
IF he had GIVEN you a copy , so you do not have to buy it , that is illegal. With one on one personal transaction , while illegal , it is not realistic to enforce it on small case by case instances.
However if the "giving" become , organized and of a larger scale, call the lawyers
A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers
Created by ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so – an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.
We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
Wrong , while he does not not own the medium, the CD , or physical book, the ARTIST (or their estate) still -- and always will --control ANY use or re-sale of the art as long as the copyright is in force.
[Which should be forever and a day !! AND in any or all universes ,parallel or otherwise that currently or ever have been in existence :)]
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
When the GOP in the 2008 elections, un-fairly used Springstein songs,, Bruce told then to stop , or he'll sue. They stopped.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal
And if for or against , please explain why you are for or against , in layman terms, too
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,* chords , you cannot copyright,
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
a little music from George Harrison,,,,
George Harrison, 'This Song',, one of the earliest , and still one of the best rock videos ever. And relative to this disscusion.
Remember:
* chords , you cannot copyright,
*melody you can copyright ,, but here was the dispute -- George's "My sweet Lord" vs. "He's so fine" - - as it can get fuzzy , there are only 8 notes in any key , "oh Darling Stand by ME,, Do-Ra-ME, Standy by Me, Do-ra me".
* But Lyrics , always clear when plagiarism occurs or not !!
Everybody take a break and enjoy ,
, and play it LOUD
( And if you like , go out and buy the CD and the Songbook --LEGALLY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
that is why Artist have lawyers , who while also insane, at least know law.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re:parody // Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
rights are more natural and inalienable
that is natural
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
Why and how is it false?
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.
Please explain in {polite} layman terms, w/o using bad or insulting words
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.
Will never happen.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
DRM is used to circumvent fair use. DRM should be illegal.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
er , I mean ,, it is !!!
( "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it. )
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
Copyrights laws , simply formalize all legal rights.
Artists rights are natural and inalienable rights--- with or without law.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.
IF he had GIVEN you a copy , so you do not have to buy it , that is illegal. With one on one personal transaction , while illegal , it is not realistic to enforce it on small case by case instances.
However if the "giving" become , organized and of a larger scale, call the lawyers
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re:It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.
Cases of 'fair or unfair use' -- if in dispute--- are for courts of law to determine.
And it is CopyRIGHT. The is no such thing as ungranted copy-privileges.
Any granted privileges of use , are at the sole discretion of the Artist
see:http://www.ascap.com/press/2008/0417_billofrights.aspx
A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers
Created by ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so – an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.
We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
[Which should be forever and a day !! AND in any or all universes ,parallel or otherwise that currently or ever have been in existence :)]
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
Next >>