SomeGuys makes some interesting arguments and Im glad to see people posting well-positioned, thoughtful retorts
SomeGuy said:
False. Unauthorized copying that is done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" is a crime.
So, are you saying the putting 3 illegal copies of Windows XP on 3 generic white box machines would be an accident?
Allowing 1000s of people access to your MP3s via a bit torrent would be a simple oversight?
Or making 2 copies of Photoshop for your buddies in art class was an act of God?
I do agree that the intent of the statute is likely to prosecute those who intentionally sell bootlegs. And I do concede to your point on that matter. However, 17 USC 506 specifically reads financial gain, not charging a fee. Its not a stretch to say that circumventing the licensing fees listed above, could be considered a financial gain, thus making those simple copies a crime. (Copyright law is ENTIRELY subjective. And its one few areas of law that the power is weighted entirely on one partys behalf the copyright owner)
I also agree that the FBI kicking in the door while mom is in the kitchen making brownies and Jr. is upstairs downloading a copy of COD4 is a bit much. ;)
SomeGuy said:
Unauthorized copying for certain usages is covered under Fair use.
This is a common, and dangerous misconception of 17 USC 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
There is a very, very limited allowance under the law for use certain works, without permission from the copyright holder, pursuant Fair Use. Basically, Fair Use allows a reproduction of anothers work for criticism, parody, comment, news, scholarship, and/or research. (And so that youre aware, loading software on a computer RARELY falls into any of those categories.)
There are four primary considerations when determining Fair Use.
-The commercial or nonprofit educational nature of the use
-The nature of the original copyrighted work
-The amount of the original copyrighted work used
-The effect of the use on the market
In most cases, a user of another's copyrighted material must prove Fair Use, not simply claim it.
Example... A school could not load 500 computers with Windows XP, and claim "Fair Use." They would have to prove that the loads were for scholarship in direct relation to the software (as in scholarship of the software itself)... and most importantly they would have to justify the COMPLETE USE OF 500 COPIES... and further prove that the use of those 500 copies had no impact on the market... (Which would be impossible... given that the retail value of 500 XP copies is approximately $150,000.)
The intent of Fair Use was not to give people software for free..
The intent of Fair Use is to allow for parody and criticism of other people's work.
SomeGuy said:
"Again, false. There are plenty of other incentives to create content..."
Respectfully, you are wrong, for several reasons.
A. There is nothing that says an author HAS to charge a user. They merely have the right to charge, if they so choose. I agree that there are several business models that would allow for free use of copyrighted material. That's not the point. The point is that the law is designed to allow an author to choose ANY business model he or she wishes to engage.
B. We live in a capitalistic society. Our financial and economic systems are based on the idea that if one does work and/or provides a product or service, that entity deserves to be compensated. Period. For better, or worse... that's the nature of how we do things in this country and virtually all other democratic societies.
Excellent arguments on your part. Great discussion points.
Almost Anonymous said:
"Would it be considered childish for me to call you a corporate IP shill?"
Um.. well.. Yes. Considering the fact that I am the chief executive of a group that works to protect clients from the actions of the BSA and SIIA. That statement is also irrelevant, misinformed, pointless and apparently posted out of anger, for some unknown reason.
Almost Anonymous said:
"I've got one phrase for you, shill:
Death plus seventy years."
I honestly have no idea what that means. I'm assuming you were trying to "look cool" by quoting the term of duration for copyrightable works that were created in the US on or after January 1, 1978, granting them sovereign rights of protection for a period equal to the life of the author, plus seventy years. A term of statutory protection that is also recognized by Sweden, Great Britain, Russia, Ireland and approximately 30 other countries.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my original post, the original article or any other post in this string.
But... aside from completely being misguided with your feeble attempt at an insult... and completely misquoting the phrase "life plus seventy..." ...well done. Ya got me.
Yes, the BSA, SIIA, RIAA and MPAA sometimes use heavy-handed tactics when pursuing their respective agendas (my group deals with their tactics everyday)...
Yes, the video is a bit... um... odd.
And no, I'm not exactly sure how these videos will do anything, other make people discuss how odd the videos are..
A. The RIAA, BSA, MPAA and SIIA are not government agencies, and have absolutely NO authority to "handcuff" anyone, including your children.
These groups are classified as "trade organizations." And, just as the name implies, they are group solely dedicated to serving the best of their respective industry clientele.
In short, trade organizations fight for their members, the same way lawyers fight for their clients. Itâs not about whatâs fair, right or wrong. Their fighting to improve their members hold & control, on trade & commerce.
B. There is a key message that is getting lost with these ridiculous videos, and those that (for whatever reason) think piracy is âok.â
Unauthorized copying of software, music and movies⊠is a crime. Period.
It doesnât matter if you agree, or disagree. Itâs the law. And if you disagree with the law⊠petition to have it changed. Breaking it doesnât change anything and exposes you and your family to tremendous personal liability.
I would ask people to think about what youâre asking for before you ârally the troopsâ and head off to WashingtonâŠ
Asking for unauthorized copying to be âlegal,â is basically asking software companies, record labels and the motion picture industry to spend millions of dollars creating something⊠that you get to enjoy⊠for free.
Itâs not going to happen.
Letâs say hypothetically, youâre successful⊠and you make it so that EVERYTHING can be copied⊠for free.. no restrictions⊠no consequences.
Those groups will simply stop spending millions to create software, music and movies.
When you remove profitability, you remove incentive. Period.
C. âBut G.C. Youâre stupid. There is no incentive for Linux programmers to create software, but they do. An what about software apps like Firefox ?â
Linux is great. I work extensively with various issues and projects that incorporate Linux, Unix and freeware apps like Firefox. And I am both a fan and advocate for free softwareâŠ
However, there are two key issues to think about hereâŠ
1. Linux is completely free. Windows is very NOT free. Yet the Windows operating system is utilized 1000 times more, than Linux. Why is that? On the same token.. but IE and Firefox are âfree,â and Firefox is decisively giving IE a run for its money.. Why is that? (There are many reasons for scenarios⊠way to many to discuss here⊠but, seriously think about those points and draw your own conclusions.)
2. Free software is not license-free software. Itâs still protected by copyright law. Itâs still controlled with a license.
The law is written such that authors have the right to control HOW they distribute their work⊠it says virtually nothing about them getting paid.
If an author CHOOSES to get paid, they can.
If an author CHOOSES to give their software, music or movie away for free, then can do that too.
The law protects the authorâs freedom of choice⊠period.
The message that should be presented, without insulting peoplesâ intelligence with horrible rap lyrics, is as follows:
For some unknown reason⊠when a group becomes successful and generates a profit from a solid business model⊠a large group of people think itâs ok to âscrew them over⊠because they can afford it.â
Virtually NO ONE would ever say that it would be ok to copy/steal/pirate the work of an individual that spent hours, months or years creating music or software in his basement, while trying to pay his rent and feed his family.
Yet⊠when that individual is successful⊠and makes money⊠and grows⊠adding to our economy⊠employing people⊠paying taxes⊠and presenting a product that millions of people enjoy and use daily⊠many opinions shift 180 degrees to âScrew âem⊠Iâm not paying for that crap.â
Why? Why is success bad? Why is building a company, employing 1000âs people, paying taxes and improving our society with software, music and movies somehow âevilâ when done on a mass scale?
NowâŠ
There will be many of you that call me names⊠say mean things⊠and generally act like children rather than discussing the issue with a mature, pertinent argument.
And before you anonymously post childish commentsâŠ
... Adressing "SomeGuy's" Comments
SomeGuy said:
False. Unauthorized copying that is done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" is a crime.
So, are you saying the putting 3 illegal copies of Windows XP on 3 generic white box machines would be an accident?
Allowing 1000s of people access to your MP3s via a bit torrent would be a simple oversight?
Or making 2 copies of Photoshop for your buddies in art class was an act of God?
I do agree that the intent of the statute is likely to prosecute those who intentionally sell bootlegs. And I do concede to your point on that matter. However, 17 USC 506 specifically reads financial gain, not charging a fee. Its not a stretch to say that circumventing the licensing fees listed above, could be considered a financial gain, thus making those simple copies a crime. (Copyright law is ENTIRELY subjective. And its one few areas of law that the power is weighted entirely on one partys behalf the copyright owner)
I also agree that the FBI kicking in the door while mom is in the kitchen making brownies and Jr. is upstairs downloading a copy of COD4 is a bit much. ;)
SomeGuy said:
Unauthorized copying for certain usages is covered under Fair use.
This is a common, and dangerous misconception of 17 USC 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
There is a very, very limited allowance under the law for use certain works, without permission from the copyright holder, pursuant Fair Use. Basically, Fair Use allows a reproduction of anothers work for criticism, parody, comment, news, scholarship, and/or research. (And so that youre aware, loading software on a computer RARELY falls into any of those categories.)
There are four primary considerations when determining Fair Use.
-The commercial or nonprofit educational nature of the use
-The nature of the original copyrighted work
-The amount of the original copyrighted work used
-The effect of the use on the market
In most cases, a user of another's copyrighted material must prove Fair Use, not simply claim it.
Example... A school could not load 500 computers with Windows XP, and claim "Fair Use." They would have to prove that the loads were for scholarship in direct relation to the software (as in scholarship of the software itself)... and most importantly they would have to justify the COMPLETE USE OF 500 COPIES... and further prove that the use of those 500 copies had no impact on the market... (Which would be impossible... given that the retail value of 500 XP copies is approximately $150,000.)
The intent of Fair Use was not to give people software for free..
The intent of Fair Use is to allow for parody and criticism of other people's work.
SomeGuy said:
"Again, false. There are plenty of other incentives to create content..."
Respectfully, you are wrong, for several reasons.
A. There is nothing that says an author HAS to charge a user. They merely have the right to charge, if they so choose. I agree that there are several business models that would allow for free use of copyrighted material. That's not the point. The point is that the law is designed to allow an author to choose ANY business model he or she wishes to engage.
B. We live in a capitalistic society. Our financial and economic systems are based on the idea that if one does work and/or provides a product or service, that entity deserves to be compensated. Period. For better, or worse... that's the nature of how we do things in this country and virtually all other democratic societies.
Excellent arguments on your part. Great discussion points.
G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
Sadien.com
Re: Re: Stop.. and think... before posting childish comments...
"Would it be considered childish for me to call you a corporate IP shill?"
Um.. well.. Yes. Considering the fact that I am the chief executive of a group that works to protect clients from the actions of the BSA and SIIA. That statement is also irrelevant, misinformed, pointless and apparently posted out of anger, for some unknown reason.
Almost Anonymous said:
"I've got one phrase for you, shill:
Death plus seventy years."
I honestly have no idea what that means. I'm assuming you were trying to "look cool" by quoting the term of duration for copyrightable works that were created in the US on or after January 1, 1978, granting them sovereign rights of protection for a period equal to the life of the author, plus seventy years. A term of statutory protection that is also recognized by Sweden, Great Britain, Russia, Ireland and approximately 30 other countries.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my original post, the original article or any other post in this string.
But... aside from completely being misguided with your feeble attempt at an insult... and completely misquoting the phrase "life plus seventy..." ...well done. Ya got me.
G.C. Hutson
Re: Stop.. and think... before posting childish comments...
G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
www.Sadien.com
Stop.. and think... before posting childish comments...
Yes, the video is a bit... um... odd.
And no, I'm not exactly sure how these videos will do anything, other make people discuss how odd the videos are..
But..
Let's address some misconceptions here and try to discuss this issue like adults, without condescending cliché rap videos in the background...
A. The RIAA, BSA, MPAA and SIIA are not government agencies, and have absolutely NO authority to "handcuff" anyone, including your children.
These groups are classified as "trade organizations." And, just as the name implies, they are group solely dedicated to serving the best of their respective industry clientele.
In short, trade organizations fight for their members, the same way lawyers fight for their clients. Itâs not about whatâs fair, right or wrong. Their fighting to improve their members hold & control, on trade & commerce.
B. There is a key message that is getting lost with these ridiculous videos, and those that (for whatever reason) think piracy is âok.â
Unauthorized copying of software, music and movies⊠is a crime. Period.
It doesnât matter if you agree, or disagree. Itâs the law. And if you disagree with the law⊠petition to have it changed. Breaking it doesnât change anything and exposes you and your family to tremendous personal liability.
I would ask people to think about what youâre asking for before you ârally the troopsâ and head off to WashingtonâŠ
Asking for unauthorized copying to be âlegal,â is basically asking software companies, record labels and the motion picture industry to spend millions of dollars creating something⊠that you get to enjoy⊠for free.
Itâs not going to happen.
Letâs say hypothetically, youâre successful⊠and you make it so that EVERYTHING can be copied⊠for free.. no restrictions⊠no consequences.
Those groups will simply stop spending millions to create software, music and movies.
When you remove profitability, you remove incentive. Period.
C. âBut G.C. Youâre stupid. There is no incentive for Linux programmers to create software, but they do. An what about software apps like Firefox ?â
Linux is great. I work extensively with various issues and projects that incorporate Linux, Unix and freeware apps like Firefox. And I am both a fan and advocate for free softwareâŠ
However, there are two key issues to think about hereâŠ
1. Linux is completely free. Windows is very NOT free. Yet the Windows operating system is utilized 1000 times more, than Linux. Why is that? On the same token.. but IE and Firefox are âfree,â and Firefox is decisively giving IE a run for its money.. Why is that? (There are many reasons for scenarios⊠way to many to discuss here⊠but, seriously think about those points and draw your own conclusions.)
2. Free software is not license-free software. Itâs still protected by copyright law. Itâs still controlled with a license.
The law is written such that authors have the right to control HOW they distribute their work⊠it says virtually nothing about them getting paid.
If an author CHOOSES to get paid, they can.
If an author CHOOSES to give their software, music or movie away for free, then can do that too.
The law protects the authorâs freedom of choice⊠period.
The message that should be presented, without insulting peoplesâ intelligence with horrible rap lyrics, is as follows:
For some unknown reason⊠when a group becomes successful and generates a profit from a solid business model⊠a large group of people think itâs ok to âscrew them over⊠because they can afford it.â
Virtually NO ONE would ever say that it would be ok to copy/steal/pirate the work of an individual that spent hours, months or years creating music or software in his basement, while trying to pay his rent and feed his family.
Yet⊠when that individual is successful⊠and makes money⊠and grows⊠adding to our economy⊠employing people⊠paying taxes⊠and presenting a product that millions of people enjoy and use daily⊠many opinions shift 180 degrees to âScrew âem⊠Iâm not paying for that crap.â
Why? Why is success bad? Why is building a company, employing 1000âs people, paying taxes and improving our society with software, music and movies somehow âevilâ when done on a mass scale?
NowâŠ
There will be many of you that call me names⊠say mean things⊠and generally act like children rather than discussing the issue with a mature, pertinent argument.
And before you anonymously post childish commentsâŠ
Take a second to ponder why trade groups treat you like children, with silly, insulting, cliché rap videos.
G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
www.Sadien.com
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sadien, Inc. (Sadien.com).
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt