Is this legal?

[Nienna]

you have violated federal copywright and trademark laws...will you be caught...not likely...small potatos...however you just went public with your ethical misnomer...I'm truly amazed when I see posts like this...most in here get on the bandwagon of conservative values...then admit to fudging on basic law and principle...heck do what feels good...then criticize others for being the messenger of bad news! Nothing personal here mom...i'm just really upset with some others in here who come across as if they are so righteous then accept anything they feel is just a "little cheating" kinda like most on taxes!

Archie, I am not the one doing this. I know a couple different people who are doing this, and I just wondered about it. I would not personally know HOW to do this; I'm not very "technosavvy." Even if I did know how, I promise, I wouldn't do this anyway, because I feel that it's probably wrong.

However, I do mess up on other things. I fully admit this.

 

[archangel]

Archie, I am not the one doing this. I know a couple different people who are doing this, and I just wondered about it. I would not personally know HOW to do this; I'm not very "technosavvy." Even if I did know how, I promise, I wouldn't do this anyway, because I feel that it's probably wrong.

However, I do mess up on other things. I fully admit this.

You just presented a scenario in the second person...and I answered as a second person as experience dictated...no harm no foul!

 

[manu1959]

making unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials is a violation of copyright laws as it deprives the originatar economic benifit of thier efforts and allows you to obtain something for free.

 

[MissileMan]

making unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials is a violation of copyright laws as it deprives the originatar economic benifit of thier efforts and allows you to obtain something for free.

In this case though, the copyright holder is not being deprived any economic benefit. That is the standard for whether an infringement has taken place isn't it?

 

[manu1959]

In this case though, the copyright holder is not being deprived any economic benefit. That is the standard for whether an infringement has taken place isn't it?

if you got it for free and it is copyrighted you have broken the law and deprived the holder of economic benifit for what they have created.

if you wrote a book....i checked it out...made a dozen copies and gave them to my family and friends i would imagine you may be upset and i broke the law

 

[MissileMan]

if you got it for free and it is copyrighted you have broken the law and deprived the holder of economic benifit for what they have created.

if you wrote a book....i checked it out...made a dozen copies and gave them to my family and friends i would imagine you may be upset and i broke the law

The movie was made legally available for free by the public library. There is no economic benefit to be had by the holder of the copyright. Anyone who wants to can go sign it out and watch it for free. The production of a copy, for personal use only, under those circumstances poses no infringement IMO.

 

[manu1959]

The movie was made legally available for free by the public library. There is no economic benefit to be had by the holder of the copyright. Anyone who wants to can go sign it out and watch it for free. The production of a copy, for personal use only, under those circumstances poses no infringement IMO.

making a copy of copyrighted material without the approval of the holder deprives the holder of the economic benifit to which the are entitled....spin however you like but you are breaking the law

 

[Hobbit]

The problem I have currently si not how the copyright law is being applied, but how it is being changed. Now, I'm not a 'right the power' and 'death to the corporations' person, I'm a traditionalist, and the traditional laws have been changed to benefit only large corporations, while some provisions are in the guise of helping the little guy.

The founding fathers recognized the need for those who produced creative works to be able to profit from them in order to give them incentive to make creative works. However, they also recognized the need for a large public domain of creative works to benefit all of society. As such, the original copyright law gave the creator exclusive copying rights (copyrights) for seven years. During that time, only the original artist could grant permission to copy, and usually negotiated for a cut of the earnings. After those seven years, they could apply for a seven year extension, making a maximum of 14 years. The copyright was also non-transferable.

This was fine, but not ideal, for the companies that did the reproducing. They wanted to copyright, and thus further control over the artist. Eventually, the lobby got the bill passed. Copyrights were transferable. Well, now there had to be more laws in place to govern how corporate copyrights worked, and they wanted them as long as possible, and in order to keep from looking like bad guys, the congress made corporate and private copyrights the same length. By 1923, it was 95 years, 81 years longer than the original maximum. Going higher than that would seem a little rediculous, as it was far past the age most people lived. Then, we had the descendants of the artists step forward and demand a piece of the pie. It was the same old, lazy, idiotic entitlement attitude that tells everybody that they should get things they didn't earn.

In 1977, when a new copyright law was written to clarify a few things, the duration was also changed. Now, the copyright extends to 70 years after the death of the artist, and since it was made less than 95 years after 1923, no American copyright made in or after 1923 has expired. If this copyright law had always been in effect, the works of H.G. Wells wouldn't enter the public domain until 2013. We likely won't live long enough to see the Beatles in the public domain. Now, here's the worst part. When an artist is in preliminaries with a company, they get a young, idealistic employee to go in with the sole purpose of signing some 'harmless' document that gets them in the door. This document forbids them from negotiating or signing with anyone else. Now, the company has them by the balls and won't sign them until they'll sign away their copyright. That's why Michael Jackson owns the copyrights on the Beatles. He bought them at an auction from a record company, and he'll continue to hold them until he decides to sell or 70 years after the last Beatle dies. If the Paul and Ringo died in a car wreck today, Hey Jude wouldn't be public domain until I was 93.

But wait, there's more. Now, the corporate big wigs have ensured their sole right to profit from created works for the entire life of the artist +70 years. Now, they work on enforcement. In comes the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, one of the most despicable legacies of Bill Clinton. The bill was rushed through congress and passed into law with no media attention, whatsoever (BTW, nearly every major news outlet is owned by a conglomerate that is or owns a record company). This law was designed in congress to keep the growing digital age from effectively negating copyright law. However, it essentially gave all control over any media to the company that made it. One provision was that it was illegal to bypass copy protection (to crack down on cable black boxes). First off, copying for your own use was still considered fair use. However, copying of any kind was made illegal as long as there was copy protecting in place. Unlimited copying was also allowed for educational or public use; however, creating any technology capable of bypassing copyright technology was made illegal, making that proviso moot. When the law was made, the corporations promised not to abuse this bill, but there has yet to be a legitimate use of it.

Soon, many companies tied unskippable commercials, along with an FBI and INTERPOL warning long enough to read it three times, to their copy protection, and sue anyone making it skippable. They also added region encoding to kill the private export market (many people like to buy games and movies online from places like Japan before they're released in the U.S.), and tied it to their copy protection. So far, the only use of the DMCA other than killing these very legitimate activities has been DirecTV's attempt to extort money from users of the new Bluetooth technology. Basically, some Bluetooth devices can be hacked to allow you to decrypt a DirecTV signal without one of their decryption cards, so they started mailing people with Bluetooth, saying they wouldn't sue if given $3000.

Okay, I've run on too long, but I think the current state of copyright laws is an abomination of the founding fathers' vision, third only to income tax and the size of the government.

 

[Nienna]

Good rant, Hobbit.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

where did I accuse her of saying' she' did this? I just answered her question from a technical point of view...she posed the question in the second person..and I answered it in the same!

...however you just went public with your ethical misnomer...I'm truly amazed when I see posts like this...most in here get on the bandwagon of conservative values...then admit to fudging on basic law and principle...heck do what feels good...

That must have been part of your technical answer, right? Lecturing people about values? Keep backpeddling, you troll.

Oh, and I know you're not big on practical (or even correct) definitions and what not, but look up what misnomer means. Kthnxbye

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Artists don't have to transfer copyrights to anyone. In the field of music they do because they want the "star experience", i.e. heavy heavy promotion. Stars are created by advertising money. If artists want to become stars, it's their own fault.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Artists don't have to transfer copyrights to anyone. In the field of music they do because they want the "star experience", i.e. heavy heavy promotion. Stars are created by advertising money. If artists want to become stars, it's their own fault.

Huh?