Re: Re:Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch.
MIKE :
"Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch."
ME : Truly the most bizarre thing you have ever written.
Sums up you Pirate logic in one brief sentence..
If a law is passed to make something ILLEGAL , clearly the majority of the "Body Politic" of our "Democratic Republic" , does not hold it is a "positive activity".
It is clearly an "activity" that should be illegal -- as cyber-Piracy is.
Re: Re: Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
so Pirate s: HOW does copyright law "oppress you ?"
Re: Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
the steal my music w/o paying me what is legally due.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
Please review our privacy policy.
Skin this site.
Last Modified: 30 Jan 2010
-------------------------------------
( ME: the website is educational,, EVERYONE WHO POSTS HERE SHOULD READ IT)
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
But very glad you pointed out the system "flaw",,, I am sure some in Congress understand this flaw, and want to "fairly" "correct it" , to better "help" and "protect" all "parties" involved.
But any "correction" still has to been within the "constitutional framework" of the copyright clause.
Please do not take this above as a "criticism" of you SL. It is not. I think you are Great. I love reading every sentence you write. :)
Re: Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
YOU : You're right, Techno, it is about power..
ME : you bey I am right on that point
YOU :But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens.
ME: there is a fundental problem with you sentance, that shows you have never studies , Law, ppolitical theiry or Civil Liberties at a College level.
Ms. Welch , 'you keep creating dogmas out of you own warped mind'. That is THE definition of intellectual dishonestly
YOU : Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright.
ME : Again really wrong.
The CONSTITUTION grants me as an Artist copyrights. While humans wrote the constution , the constution is what is known as a "living documet" --- as its "power" stems from itself. All the Government does is "Enforce" the Constution's "power". ( Pol-sci 101)
Other citizens , Artists or Not ,, are bound to follow that law-- as long as it is law,
YOU : It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
"Explain how some people won in court after some rapper took 3 accords from a song, changed the tempo and tone that was nothing like the original but he still lost the case.
First off, i'd like to thank mike for anonymous ability. People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.
First off, i'd like to thank mike for anonymous ability.
+++People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.++
ME : You are wrong.
People break "laws" and "social norms "MORE if granted "anonymous ability."
----------------------
----------------------------
( Exception : " anonymous ability." is good for journalistic sources, in instances of "whistle blowing.")
===================================
Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?
• How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
• How can I find out who owns a copyright?
• I found someone infringing a copyrighted work that I registered. Can the Copyright Office help me stop this?
• How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
• How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
• How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
• Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
• Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
• Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
• I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to...
• Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty...
• Can a school show a movie without obtaining permission from the copyright owner?
• My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Q:Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
A: Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#website
Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?
How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct a search of its records or you may search yourself. See the next question for more details.
How can I find out who owns a copyright?
We can provide you with the information available in our records. A search of registrations, renewals, and recorded transfers of ownership made before 1978 requires a manual search of our files. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). There is no fee if you conduct a search in person at the Copyright Office. Copyright registrations made and documents recorded from 1978 to date are available for searching online. For further information, see Circular 22, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 23, Copyright Card Catalog and the Online File.
How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
The Copyright Office will not honor a request for a copy of someone else's protected work without written authorization from the copyright owner or from his or her designated agent, unless the work is involved in litigation. In the latter case, a litigation statement is required. A certificate of registration for any registered work can be obtained for a fee of $35. Circular 6, Access to and Copies of Copyright Records and Deposit, provides additional information.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.
Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.
Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
No, we neither compile nor maintain such a list. A search of our records, however, may reveal whether a particular work has fallen into the public domain. We will conduct a search of our records by the title of a work, an author's name, or a claimant's name. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). You may also search the records in person without paying a fee.
I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to obtain permission?
With few exceptions, the Library of Congress does not own copyright in the materials in its collections and does not grant or deny permission to use the content mounted on its website. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item from the Library’s collections and for securing any necessary permissions rests with persons desiring to use the item. To the greatest extent possible, the Library attempts to provide any known rights information about its collections. Such information can be found in the “Copyright and Other Restrictions” statements on each American Memory online collection homepage. If the image is not part of the American Memory collections, contact the Library custodial division to which the image is credited. Bibliographic records and finding aids available in each custodial division include information that may assist in assessing the copyright status. Search our catalogs through the Library's Online Catalog. To access information from the Library’s reading rooms, go to Research Centers.
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Arguing "copyright laws" with you Mike, is like arguing with a "Holocaust Denier".
No matter what "Fact and History" says, you deny it,, and/or twist it with "Pirate-Pretzel-Logic."
--------------------------------------
Do you also say President Obama was NOT born in the USA? Probably you do, Mike. ( Just a guess.)
"Soon after that, he established the Jazz Composers Guild, a cooperative organization intended to create bargaining power with club owners and build greater media visibility. Mr. Dixon played hardball: he argued for a collective strike on playing in jazz clubs and hoped for the support of John Coltrane, the wave floating most boats of the “new thing.” The strike never happened, and the Guild fractured within a year. "
"In the late 1950s, he was raising a family and working during the day as a secretary at the United Nations. By 1959 he was booking the new music into West Village cafes, including the Phase 2 and Le Figaro. Thus began a long-running role as bootstrap activist and outspoken critic of nearly all the systems of jazz: how it is presented, taught, promoted, recorded and written about. "
---------------------
Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz
By BEN RATLIFF
Published: June 19, 2010
Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
SL : "you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably ---[ me; not "probably", but "FOR SURE" ]---- no one will bother you."
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
artists prior to the 20th century found all kinds of ways to be profitable
Vincent Van Gough , Edger Alan Poe , and Stephen Forster ,, all died basically broke and homeless
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re:Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch.
"Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch."
ME : Truly the most bizarre thing you have ever written.
Sums up you Pirate logic in one brief sentence..
If a law is passed to make something ILLEGAL , clearly the majority of the "Body Politic" of our "Democratic Republic" , does not hold it is a "positive activity".
It is clearly an "activity" that should be illegal -- as cyber-Piracy is.
On the post: Evidence Suggests RIAA Labels Behind 'Grassroots Citizen's Group' Supporting Canadian DMCA
Re: Re: Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
On the post: Evidence Suggests RIAA Labels Behind 'Grassroots Citizen's Group' Supporting Canadian DMCA
Re: Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Web site designed and maintained by Steve Mount.
© 1995-2010 by Steve Mount. All rights reserved.
Please review our privacy policy.
Skin this site.
Last Modified: 30 Jan 2010
-------------------------------------
( ME: the website is educational,, EVERYONE WHO POSTS HERE SHOULD READ IT)
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: they're just flat-out ignoring the law./// The Amendment Process
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
But it is the only system we have , now.
But very glad you pointed out the system "flaw",,, I am sure some in Congress understand this flaw, and want to "fairly" "correct it" , to better "help" and "protect" all "parties" involved.
But any "correction" still has to been within the "constitutional framework" of the copyright clause.
Please do not take this above as a "criticism" of you SL. It is not. I think you are Great. I love reading every sentence you write. :)
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
people disagree with you because you say crazy, illogical things
ME : SL is a very smart person, She has both "grades" and "resume" to back her up. You Rose,, would not know "logic" if it bit you.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
shows that you have never studied , "Law", "Political Theory" or "Civil Liberties" at a "College level".
corrected
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
ME : you bey I am right on that point
YOU :But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens.
ME: there is a fundental problem with you sentance, that shows you have never studies , Law, ppolitical theiry or Civil Liberties at a College level.
Ms. Welch , 'you keep creating dogmas out of you own warped mind'. That is THE definition of intellectual dishonestly
YOU : Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright.
ME : Again really wrong.
The CONSTITUTION grants me as an Artist copyrights. While humans wrote the constution , the constution is what is known as a "living documet" --- as its "power" stems from itself. All the Government does is "Enforce" the Constution's "power". ( Pol-sci 101)
Other citizens , Artists or Not ,, are bound to follow that law-- as long as it is law,
YOU : It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
Me : "Natural right" = "Property Rights" =" Intelectual Property"= "Copyright"
Did you ever read John Locke -- and take test and write a paper -- and get all "A" s ???
ME by ME :
"How Voltaire and Samuel Johnson Deal with
John Locke’s Emotional Problems."
http://tilliebaum.blogspot.com/2002/05/how-voltaire-and-samuel-johnson-deal_03.html
end========================
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
"Explain how some people won in court after some rapper took 3 accords from a song, changed the tempo and tone that was nothing like the original but he still lost the case.
--------------------------------------------
You :
dont like mike trick you into a discussion about "sampling" when the article is about "jazz musicians".
Me: Mike "mis-understands" both, either way.
=========================
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
First off, i'd like to thank mike for anonymous ability. People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.
+++People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.++
ME : You are wrong.
People break "laws" and "social norms "MORE if granted "anonymous ability."
----------------------
----------------------------
( Exception : " anonymous ability." is good for journalistic sources, in instances of "whistle blowing.")
===================================
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Not really surprising......
Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?
• How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
• How can I find out who owns a copyright?
• I found someone infringing a copyrighted work that I registered. Can the Copyright Office help me stop this?
• How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
• How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
• How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
• Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
• Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
• Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
• I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to...
• Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty...
• Can a school show a movie without obtaining permission from the copyright owner?
• My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
How and what is she pirating? Not really surprising....People are losing respect for copyright at a very fast rate...
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
" Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact."
Q:Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
A: Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#website
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct a search of its records or you may search yourself. See the next question for more details.
How can I find out who owns a copyright?
We can provide you with the information available in our records. A search of registrations, renewals, and recorded transfers of ownership made before 1978 requires a manual search of our files. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). There is no fee if you conduct a search in person at the Copyright Office. Copyright registrations made and documents recorded from 1978 to date are available for searching online. For further information, see Circular 22, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 23, Copyright Card Catalog and the Online File.
How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
The Copyright Office will not honor a request for a copy of someone else's protected work without written authorization from the copyright owner or from his or her designated agent, unless the work is involved in litigation. In the latter case, a litigation statement is required. A certificate of registration for any registered work can be obtained for a fee of $35. Circular 6, Access to and Copies of Copyright Records and Deposit, provides additional information.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.
Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.
Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
No, we neither compile nor maintain such a list. A search of our records, however, may reveal whether a particular work has fallen into the public domain. We will conduct a search of our records by the title of a work, an author's name, or a claimant's name. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). You may also search the records in person without paying a fee.
I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to obtain permission?
With few exceptions, the Library of Congress does not own copyright in the materials in its collections and does not grant or deny permission to use the content mounted on its website. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item from the Library’s collections and for securing any necessary permissions rests with persons desiring to use the item. To the greatest extent possible, the Library attempts to provide any known rights information about its collections. Such information can be found in the “Copyright and Other Restrictions” statements on each American Memory online collection homepage. If the image is not part of the American Memory collections, contact the Library custodial division to which the image is credited. Bibliographic records and finding aids available in each custodial division include information that may assist in assessing the copyright status. Search our catalogs through the Library's Online Catalog. To access information from the Library’s reading rooms, go to Research Centers.
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
MIKE :"The economics of that do not make much sense."
For Artists, is is not about $$$ .
It is about the Art , making it & performing /displaying it.
99.% of Artists are not rich form their Art.
As long as you Mike , keep harping on economics as the CORE of the copyright debate, you look silly.
Artist Control of Artist's Art: That is all copyright is .
( see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ . read it.)
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
MIKE: Am I missing something?
Arguing "copyright laws" with you Mike, is like arguing with a "Holocaust Denier".
No matter what "Fact and History" says, you deny it,, and/or twist it with "Pirate-Pretzel-Logic."
--------------------------------------
Do you also say President Obama was NOT born in the USA? Probably you do, Mike. ( Just a guess.)
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: There's a law against killing jazz! //Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz By BEN RATLIFF Published: June 19, 2010
"Soon after that, he established the Jazz Composers Guild, a cooperative organization intended to create bargaining power with club owners and build greater media visibility. Mr. Dixon played hardball: he argued for a collective strike on playing in jazz clubs and hoped for the support of John Coltrane, the wave floating most boats of the “new thing.” The strike never happened, and the Guild fractured within a year. "
"In the late 1950s, he was raising a family and working during the day as a secretary at the United Nations. By 1959 he was booking the new music into West Village cafes, including the Phase 2 and Le Figaro. Thus began a long-running role as bootstrap activist and outspoken critic of nearly all the systems of jazz: how it is presented, taught, promoted, recorded and written about. "
---------------------
Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz
By BEN RATLIFF
Published: June 19, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/arts/music/20dixon.html?ref=obituaries
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
Me : Exactly .
(It is a Musician Culture Thing.)
Next >>