I am sorry if you aren't very good at deal with the social norms of the board. If you want to be part of a discussion, using those norms helps keep your comments in line with other similar comments, and makes it easier for people to have a full discussion.
What you are doing is the equivalent of mumbling to yourself in the corner, rather than joining a group of people having a discussion. Someone might walk by you and make a comment, but by choosing not to follow a simple process (reply to this comment) your interesting thoughts and ideas end up in the digital version of the corner of the room.
I suspect if you learned that simple skill, you would have to be less shrill in your comments and you would more likely get answered. Then instead of four letter words and nasty attacks, you could actually have a discussion.
One day, maybe you will master the skill. That day hasn't come yet.
Steven, it is pretty much morally wrong to steal. However, our society (western in general) has ended up with a system that is "shades of moral wrong", done I think to appease those who would steal a little, but not a lot. Call it the "little white lie" of thievery.
Once you get into copyright (as you can see on this site) plenty of people have moral standards that are different. You get plenty of people thinking that fair use should be expanded to cover everything including torrents (a sort of backup or try before you buy system!).
If you are copying the chairs for your own use, made from your own hands and your own materials (aka, you suffered material costs and effort to make the copies), I don't think anyone is going to come get you. In purely technical terms you may be violating copyright, but it isn't like anyone knows (or cares). I would think of this as fair use for your own talents.
However, once you start giving them away to friends, you cross a line. For my mind, you cross a line to where you are no longer satisfying you own needs, but now actually competing against the original chair company. If your friends were going to buy 4 kitchen chairs of a copyrighted design, but instead you reproduce 4 chairs for them at a signficantly lower price, you have entered a space where your replication is causing harm (real or potential).
As always, note I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV. Your example is complex (and would drive lawyers nutty) because there are a number of complex issues at work, such as the materials you used, actual effort expended, intent, if you were actually successful in duplicating the product, etc. It's why digital music and video are much easier cases, because there is no questions about the amount of effort to make the copies (little) or the lack of accuracy in the duplication (digital copies are perfect), nor is there any issue about the speed that those copies can be made (tons per day).
It isn't entirely simple, and your example would likely make for an interesting court case.
because you are unable to find the "reply to this comment" button, it is very unlikely anyone in the discussion above will answer you. So rather than calling us all lazy fucks, can you learn how to do that?
You need to use some more capital letters too. That really adds to your ranting.
My point is only that when you are dealing with wood, and constructing something by hand and crafting it, you are not getting perfect copies. When you copy a DVD, you get a perfect digital copy. Even the best woodworkers in the world cannot product absolutely perfect replicas by hand (they use templates, computerized routers, and other tools to try to replicate as close as possible, but still there are small variations on every piece).
No, you would not need a "perfect" copy to infringe on a copyright, that wasn't the point, only that in dealing with REAL crafting of a copy, you are very unlikely to make a perfect copy to start with.
Perfection has nothing to do with copyright, not was I trying to imply that it would, only pointing out that he wouldn't be able to make an exact copy without the original tooling.
RD, first, can you please learn how to use the "reply to this comment" button so we can follow what the heck you are on about?
Now, as for your question in the other thread, it has already been asked an answered elsewhere (in a thread you posted in as well).
The Canadian numbers vary greatly. One survey has them at about 20%, because the question was phrased one way (asking who had downloaded something in the last 30 days). Another study (from the ISPs, I think it was) showed 40% or so. Both of those studies are available via various techdirt posts, and I suspect you would find them and many more on Mr Geist's site as well.
The real issue that you (and your anonymous friend) missed is that I am not refering to GOVERNMENT numbers, just surveys that are out there. One UK survey had file infringing at 10%, which even Mike admits is probably way low. It all depends on the question asked, and the group surveyed.
Now, as for your cursing and name calling, can you please keep that for your momma? I don't need it. Calling me a lazy fuck and then being too much of a lazy fuck yourself to click the "reply to this comment" button is just classic.
First off, if you want to make anything for yourself and for your own use, I doubt anyone will come after you for it. After all, you have made it entirely from your own materials. No matter how good of a craftsman you are, it is unlikely that you would make a perfect copy.
Second, the "giving the copy" question would depend in part on the chair you copied. Is it a unique design, perhaps ever patent or something along those lines? Are you representing your copy as an original? Did you replicate things like logos, names, or other markings that would suggest that this is something it is not?
I don't think scale is an issue. You could make a million for a million friends, provided you aren't infringing on anyone's patent design or trademarks.
Again, I am not a laywer (and I don't play one on TV), but these seem to be the answers I have seen from others at other times.
I didn't see your questions. Sorry. Would you care to point them out? I don't scan every thread like crazy looking for your comments (even though I do love your unmedicated rantings).
So please, if you want an answer, point out the questions. There have been 30+ threads here this week, I can't be scanning all of them just to satisfy you.
Word of mouth doesn't give you unlimited and unfettered access to the product(s).
Example, I can write a story about my car (GTI, I love it!). I can even take pictures of my car and use it to illustrate why I love my car, and why I think that everyone should enjoy a 2 liter turbo motor. I wouldn't recommend getting black, as it is hard to keep clean.
However, I don't get to go to the dealer and borrow cars to show off to people.
You don't get to use copyright material just because you are saying nice things about the copyright owner. That is their choice, not yours. Nobody is stopping you from saying nice things, but you cannot use their products without permission (or without paying, I bought my car, I can take pictures of it, although I might have to hide the company logos if I used it to sell something else).
actually yes. I would expect that the person who produced the original image might consider legal action, and I did so know that those who do parody work often do have to explain themselves in a court of law.
I also considered the size of the image, it's use, and the clear indications of parody that exist when the modified image is used as a very small icon next to "the anti-mike".
I also considered the humor factor. Clearly, if someone involved with Mike Masnick sued for copyright violation, it would potentially be one of the most awkward moments in Techdirt history, with Mike either having to side with me on the issue of fair use, or support a photographer against his personal beliefs.
No matter what happened, it would be a win.
So yes, in answer to your question, parody would be a defense under fair use, where I would first have to admit to violating copyright in the strictest sense, as I am using someone else image. You see how the two step process works?
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Rebuttal x2
To quote, "HAHAHAHAHA!"
learn the basics before you try to go off on people.
On the post: UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
partially discussed in this thread:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0028137983.shtml
(search the page for "albini").
So once again, someone is trying to quote me out of context and twist my words. How quaint.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal
What you are doing is the equivalent of mumbling to yourself in the corner, rather than joining a group of people having a discussion. Someone might walk by you and make a comment, but by choosing not to follow a simple process (reply to this comment) your interesting thoughts and ideas end up in the digital version of the corner of the room.
I suspect if you learned that simple skill, you would have to be less shrill in your comments and you would more likely get answered. Then instead of four letter words and nasty attacks, you could actually have a discussion.
One day, maybe you will master the skill. That day hasn't come yet.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: Bull, more garbage from TAM
... and I would again, troll.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringing Or Not?
Once you get into copyright (as you can see on this site) plenty of people have moral standards that are different. You get plenty of people thinking that fair use should be expanded to cover everything including torrents (a sort of backup or try before you buy system!).
If you are copying the chairs for your own use, made from your own hands and your own materials (aka, you suffered material costs and effort to make the copies), I don't think anyone is going to come get you. In purely technical terms you may be violating copyright, but it isn't like anyone knows (or cares). I would think of this as fair use for your own talents.
However, once you start giving them away to friends, you cross a line. For my mind, you cross a line to where you are no longer satisfying you own needs, but now actually competing against the original chair company. If your friends were going to buy 4 kitchen chairs of a copyrighted design, but instead you reproduce 4 chairs for them at a signficantly lower price, you have entered a space where your replication is causing harm (real or potential).
As always, note I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV. Your example is complex (and would drive lawyers nutty) because there are a number of complex issues at work, such as the materials you used, actual effort expended, intent, if you were actually successful in duplicating the product, etc. It's why digital music and video are much easier cases, because there is no questions about the amount of effort to make the copies (little) or the lack of accuracy in the duplication (digital copies are perfect), nor is there any issue about the speed that those copies can be made (tons per day).
It isn't entirely simple, and your example would likely make for an interesting court case.
On the post: UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
Re: How much did the songs cost
Sorry, but as a troll, you generally fail.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Rebuttal
You need to use some more capital letters too. That really adds to your ranting.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Infringing Or Not?
No, you would not need a "perfect" copy to infringe on a copyright, that wasn't the point, only that in dealing with REAL crafting of a copy, you are very unlikely to make a perfect copy to start with.
Perfection has nothing to do with copyright, not was I trying to imply that it would, only pointing out that he wouldn't be able to make an exact copy without the original tooling.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Bull, more garbage from TAM
Now, as for your question in the other thread, it has already been asked an answered elsewhere (in a thread you posted in as well).
The Canadian numbers vary greatly. One survey has them at about 20%, because the question was phrased one way (asking who had downloaded something in the last 30 days). Another study (from the ISPs, I think it was) showed 40% or so. Both of those studies are available via various techdirt posts, and I suspect you would find them and many more on Mr Geist's site as well.
The real issue that you (and your anonymous friend) missed is that I am not refering to GOVERNMENT numbers, just surveys that are out there. One UK survey had file infringing at 10%, which even Mike admits is probably way low. It all depends on the question asked, and the group surveyed.
Now, as for your cursing and name calling, can you please keep that for your momma? I don't need it. Calling me a lazy fuck and then being too much of a lazy fuck yourself to click the "reply to this comment" button is just classic.
Take your meds and calm down.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: No, its not
First off, if you want to make anything for yourself and for your own use, I doubt anyone will come after you for it. After all, you have made it entirely from your own materials. No matter how good of a craftsman you are, it is unlikely that you would make a perfect copy.
Second, the "giving the copy" question would depend in part on the chair you copied. Is it a unique design, perhaps ever patent or something along those lines? Are you representing your copy as an original? Did you replicate things like logos, names, or other markings that would suggest that this is something it is not?
I don't think scale is an issue. You could make a million for a million friends, provided you aren't infringing on anyone's patent design or trademarks.
Again, I am not a laywer (and I don't play one on TV), but these seem to be the answers I have seen from others at other times.
On the post: This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: No, its not
I didn't see your questions. Sorry. Would you care to point them out? I don't scan every thread like crazy looking for your comments (even though I do love your unmedicated rantings).
So please, if you want an answer, point out the questions. There have been 30+ threads here this week, I can't be scanning all of them just to satisfy you.
On the post: Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?
Re: Re:
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't attack anyone, I am just pointing out that someone is trying to troll. Okay?
On the post: Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?
On the post: USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'
Re: Re:
On the post: USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re:
Example, I can write a story about my car (GTI, I love it!). I can even take pictures of my car and use it to illustrate why I love my car, and why I think that everyone should enjoy a 2 liter turbo motor. I wouldn't recommend getting black, as it is hard to keep clean.
However, I don't get to go to the dealer and borrow cars to show off to people.
You don't get to use copyright material just because you are saying nice things about the copyright owner. That is their choice, not yours. Nobody is stopping you from saying nice things, but you cannot use their products without permission (or without paying, I bought my car, I can take pictures of it, although I might have to hide the company logos if I used it to sell something else).
On the post: Australian Court Says Men At Work's 'Down Under' Infringes On Folk Song; Only Took Decades To Notice
Re:
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
I also considered the size of the image, it's use, and the clear indications of parody that exist when the modified image is used as a very small icon next to "the anti-mike".
I also considered the humor factor. Clearly, if someone involved with Mike Masnick sued for copyright violation, it would potentially be one of the most awkward moments in Techdirt history, with Mike either having to side with me on the issue of fair use, or support a photographer against his personal beliefs.
No matter what happened, it would be a win.
So yes, in answer to your question, parody would be a defense under fair use, where I would first have to admit to violating copyright in the strictest sense, as I am using someone else image. You see how the two step process works?
Next >>