Actually that came up a while ago if your interested in exploring a tangent. A women in Perth alleged she was raped by a US sailor on a ship which was in port in Perth. The US government tried to sneak the guy out of the country so he wouldn't face an Australian court of over the incident with the flimsy excuse that they could try him in a US court. As for your example No actually I don't and the reason why should be obvious, look at murder for example. Your proposition APPEARS to be reasonable till you look deeper, the first is obvious. If a murder who commits murder in Australia is tried in the US they face a different penalty than they would in Australia (no Death Penalty because we believe its immoral). The second is what is murder? Lets say we FINALLY pass the voluntary euthanasia laws that most of the country EXCEPT the religious nuts and Tony Rabbit want passed. Then someone acting under those laws who kills someone hasn't committed murder but under US law they have. Basically there are very good reasons why YOUR laws don't apply here, we cant vote for or against the positions who support\ oppose them. There for we have no ability to influence them. In the case we are discussing, does "fair use" have the EXACT same meaning it does under Australian law? For instance its not a crime to copy 10% of a book for academic purposes, is that the case in the US?
Do you think we should ban all VCRs (DVD recorders now), bet you have TIVO don't you Edit to add: I was just watching the "copy write" declaration on the start of a DVD I own and do you realise that according to that when we were in the scouts and we used to have DVD and pizza nights that was "illegal". That't how precious these DVD distributors are, supposedly your stealing the DVD which YOU bought if you show it on an oil rig, sports team, social club, etc etc
correct, and this is the important part, as long as only you listen to it. as soon as you let someone that wasn't at the concert listen to the recording it becomes theft.
What I find amusing (no, I don't) is the amount of misinformation being spread about SOPA. http://www.examiner.com/business-in-toronto/everyone-needs-to-calm-down-about-sopa And so no, it won't even affect a foreign web site where someone occasionally posts something they shouldn't. The law is quite clear, it deals with foreign sites that meet the SAME requirements for seizure as they would for the same actions in the US: But it actually goes further to avoid impact to ISP providers like YouTube that allow users to upload data and aren't in the position to monitor every upload real time for content: So here is the paragraph 1 mentioned: The site has to be: (1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- (Then it defines what it means to be DEDICATED TO THEFT of US Property: An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if-- (A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and (B) either-- (i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates-- (I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code; (II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or (III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; And those two sections show that most of what you've been reading about what SOPA would do are just BS. It is targeted to Foreign sites that are DEDICATED TO THEFT of US Property.
my question is, why doesn't this apply to books and magazines? i'm sure we all have read a book then passed it along to others. why do music and movies enjoy the law while books and magazines are exempt from it?
Why? Copies made for your personal use are not an infringement. If you charge admission, then yes. If you just show it to your friends, nope. It's really not hard to understand, sharing is permitted, profiting from making copies or distribution of the content is not.
err, no actually thats not what it says at all. Might be what you WANT it to say but its not what it actually says.
You can give or sell your CD or DVD to anyone. You can even share it with anyone and not infringe on Copywrite. You can't make a COPY and give that to anyone though. But even on this forum, you can't copy/paste an entire article from a magazine into the forum as that does infringe on their copywrite. Fair use, allows us to put a short piece of an article inline, but we also have to link to the actual article.
No, it's been decided in the courts. Copies made for personal use are permissible. http://www.best-dvd-burning-software-reviews.com/dvd-copyright-protection.asp
actually you can't. buying a movie, then giving it to someone else that didn't pay for it is theft. buying a movie, then showing it to your class at school is also theft. the same applies to ANY public showing of privately purchased movies or music that is still under copyright.
Some game producers *cough cough* EA wankers *cough* are even trying to destroy the second hand trade in games by using single use codes for important parts of the game. It has nothing to do with protecting copywrite and everything to do with stopping people from giving away or selling the game once people are finished playing it. BTW they aren't just wankers for that, they also stop running servers for games in some cases less than a year after the game came out (especially considering the fact we have to wait almost an extra half a year for some games to come out and pay twice as much)
So you are saying that everyone who gave movies as presents last Christmas were thieves? Who knew? Ah, NO, giving a movie/cd/book that you paid for as a gift is not infringing. Actually use of a work in teaching is allowed under our "fair use" doctrine. Showing a work at during lunch, as a form of entertainment, would not be considered using it for teaching though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Yeah, the key word is TO THE PUBLIC. Showing to your friends and not charging admission is a private affair, not open to the public and thus not infringing. Again, for routine dealing with other's copyrighted material this is all pretty easy.
interesting point. my first thought would be yes, it's infringement. but not necessarily. if you didn't open the package then no, it wouldn't be. if you purchased a movie and never opened it then yes, you could give it to anybody. i'm not sure if the courts would concur.
No, having looked at it doesn't change the fact that you can still give it away as a gift. Indeed, you can even sell it. Heck, you can sell it at a profit and you still aren't infringing. http://movies.half.ebay.com/ Or go to any Blockbusters (assuming they still have stores in your area) and you can buy used DVDs, usually for $5 to $8 each. Well then simply find a court case where they did.
check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law unfortunately i am no lawyer and therefor am unable to come up with the proper search terms for what i seek.
From my reading, at least, this does kinda seem to be the attitude of one (or perhaps two) people in this thread. I think most people are contending that matters relating to "intellectual property" are somewhat "complicated," to say the least. And they've always been, the internet only adds layers to the "complication." I think the larger popularity is relatively recent, but I've been playing them, hosting them, and going to them since the early 90's--and I suspect they were around for sometime prior at least. It seems likely that they emerged as a "phenomenon"--as opposed to rather an anomaly, I guess--in the early 80's, along with independent labels in the U.S. It also depends upon one's definition of a "house." For a significant part of my life I've lived in warehouse, mill buildings, and the like, and a lot of these places really blur the lines between house, performance space, work space, and basically every other function which one could conceivably perform indoors. In Europe, house shows are really peculiar, to put it mildly. The attitude of treating artists and performers as professionals is so ingrained within European culture such that house shows present a "problem" of sorts: you perform in someone's home (whatever that happens to be), then you're fed in a restaurant (or, someone else's home), and then you're put up in a hotel--maybe, or perhaps someone else's home, which they've abandoned for the duration! And then you're handed this wad of cash and you're wondering where all this money came from as it's like ten times the amount that was taken at the door. Agreed. One time I recorded a cover and after discussing things with my label, we decided to go about things properly--more as an experiment of sorts than anything. Not surprisingly, doing it "properly" entailed paying some third party--the Harry Fox Agency, of course-- for mechanical royalties, and of course, not contacting the artist. So Robert Wyatt got nothing, and the HFA got a good chunk of, well, mostly my labels cash (because I somehow manage to get out of paying for most things). I did actually contact Robert Wyatt, 'cuz that whole thing really annoyed me.
Seek all you want, you won't find a case where someone showed a movie they bought to their friends in a private setting was ruled as infringing on the copyright.
Here’s what I don’t get. :shrug: I love that Gnarls Barkley song "crazy", which I added to a video. It was flagged for copyright violations and the song was removed. My first thought was WTF? I paid for it, and YouTube clearly linked the song to iTunes, which I assumed would increase sales. Most of the record companies have deals with YouTube to link to iTunes or Amazon in order to purchase their songs, but WMG wasn’t satisfied with this solution. I’ve watched many videos, loved the background music, and went straight to iTunes to purchase it, but apparently it’s all about the “ads on ads”. KillJoyKlown linked the War Horse movie trailer. I hardly ever go to the theater, but because he linked the trailer and it looked good, I went...AND paid $14.75 for two small bottles of water and a small coke. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Universal: Don’t Link to Us Doesn't Universal have to pay to show their trailers on TV or in theaters? Doesn’t it make more sense to promote the trailer instead of worrying about the ad banners? Can you see the Honda Corporation informing sciforums that they need to remove this link because linking to it is a copyright infringement? Honda Accord Commercial
Yes for TV, don't think they have to for the theaters though, the theaters only run trailers for movies that they are going to show. Not necessarily. Universal wants people to get to the trailers that they produce via their Web Site. So called "deep linking" goes around that requirement. But it costs Universal money to host and stream those video trailers. A site that deep links to Universals Video Streaming gets value of showing the video but none of the cost of hosting or streaming it. If Universal's business model is to generate revenue from people clicking through their their Web Site to pay for hosting the trailers, then deep linking can sink that business model. Consider for a moment that you go to all this trouble to produce professional Secular Sanity Videos and you pay for the web design and the servers and bandwidth and the royalties of the embedded music, and your method of getting revenue to pay for all of that is banner ads and click through ads which you strategically place in your site. Then someone with another cheaply made, but flashy site, deep links to your Videos. So people go to his site, click through his ads, and eventually use his deep link to see your video, and then return to his site, and he is cleaning up because you are paying the cost for producing, hosting, streaming and even the royalties on the music and getting zip.shit back.
