Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-27-2014 7:10 PM
58 online now:
dwise1, GDR, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (5 members, 53 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,186 Year: 28,027/28,606 Month: 3,084/2,244 Week: 488/710 Day: 64/134 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   SOPA/PIPA and 'Intellectual Property'
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 147 of 303 (650208)
01-28-2012 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
01-28-2012 6:20 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
The burden is not on me. The burden is on someone, like you, who believes that it's reasonable to use the courts to force someone to pay you money because they moved their body in a certain way.

Since I don't hold the opinon that such a use is reasonable, I'll take it that your point is without substance. Perhaps you should ask me my impression instead of assigning me positions and then attacking them.

In my opinion, the law suit is meritless, with Beyonce's usage, even if she did actually copy the material, being excused under 17 USC 107.

One thing to note about copyright protection that differs from patent protetion is that independent recreation is NOT infringement under copyright law. A plaintiff would have to show that not only was the Beyonce's material identical in some way protected by copyright law, but that Beyonce copied the material from the plaintiff as oppposed to anywhere else. Further, Beyonce could defend by showing that the plaintiff's material was not original, or that her copying was de minimis, or excused under fair use.

Perhaps we can return to you showing why copyright law from 200 years ago is unfair?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2012 6:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2012 6:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 153 of 303 (650215)
01-28-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
01-28-2012 6:35 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
Bullshit. Are you, or are you not, defending a system under which choreography can be copyrighted?

1. I cited the provision. I did not comment on it.
2. The provision does not allow liability simply from moving your body in a certain way. The law suit you linked to is not supported. What is protected is copying a substantially portion of someone else's choreography from a tangible medium such as a video without permission. Independently inventing similar moves is not protected. Watching someone do a move live and then repeating it is not protected.
3. I am not the defender of all things status quo.
4. I note that you have not commented on my presentation on the limits of modern day copyright law.

But let's say that I did approve of law suits like the one against Beyonce, the one in particular that I've indicated is not supported under the law.

My position on choreography is immaterial. None of it has the least bit of relevance to your position on whether MGM should be able to apply copyright to movies or whether you should be able to upload them to the internet. You can tar me as any kind of statist that you'd like. But the result does not provide any support for your position.

Copyright law 200 years ago, and I think you talked about the validity historical provisions, would give decade long protection to movies. Such protection is not a new and modern position. Nobody here is defending anything new and modern, so it is inappropriate to defend your position by complainining about SOPA and PIPA.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2012 6:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 10:21 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 154 of 303 (650216)
01-28-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jon
01-28-2012 7:07 PM


Re: When Fair Use isn't Fair
The current laws allow companies to manufacture and sell intentionally defective products to consumers that actually prevent their fair and legal use of physical property that they have legally purchased.

I believe the DMCA is unfair for at least these reasons. You'll get no argument from me about any of that.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 01-28-2012 7:07 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 155 of 303 (650217)
01-28-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by crashfrog
01-28-2012 6:32 PM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
It's not whether I believe it, it's whether the courts do. And the blame lies with a system that treats a copyright holder's absurd assertions as reasonable on their face.

A reasonable position. I suppose that you are going to point me to a court case now.

I shouldn't have to avoid anything

You don't have the right to do a public performance, copy or distribute a substantial part of Tolkien's book. If you don't do that, most likely you will be just fine. If some court case says something different then I don't agree with that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2012 6:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 10:23 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 156 of 303 (650218)
01-28-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
01-28-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
NoNukes writes:

Further, copyright law does not prevent you from describing movie scenes orally.

crashfrog writes:

To the contrary - people can be (and have been) sued for their performances of a movie scene or song when those were not authorized by the original rights holders.

Would that be something identical to or different from describing a movie scene orally. Because it sure sounds different.

With respect to performing a movie, I've acknowledged that a public performance is one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights.

None of which has anything to do with your copying of videos and uploading them to the internet, which is actually what we are talking about.

I've noticed that you are not spending any amount of time debating about the points I've actually addressed. Instead your argument seems to be that if you can discredit any provision of copyright, then you can assign to me the task of defending that provision and then avoid providing your own justification. I'm not particularly interested in a discussion where you get to make up my side of the debate. You could have that discussion by yourself.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2012 6:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 10:27 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 170 of 303 (650284)
01-29-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
01-29-2012 10:27 AM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
Who gives a shit what you approve of, Nukes? You're not the arbiter of where copyright law is "rightfully" applied. Some blame has to be laid at the feet of the system that makes these abuses possible; all the more so when the system, apparently, views these abuses as "working as intended."

No, I'm not a final arbiter. It happens that I do know patent and copyright law considerably better than do you, as a result of having practiced in those areas. It's certainly legitimate for you not to take me word for anything I post. That's why I backed up my position by posting the statutes in question and discussing the issues that were necessary to establish copyright infringement based on the actual law.

My opinion is based on what I know of the statutory and case law. It is not based on looking at what law suits are filed because baseless law suits are filed all of the time and in every area of law. Your position is akin to saying that if some tort liability suits are groundless, then we should remove the ability to sue for any and all torts.

In this case, there is no evidence that the judicial system has approved the law suit against Beyonce. A law suit was filed, and the filing was reported most likely because the defendant is famous and the plaintiff wanted publicity. That's all we've got so far. No judge has made any ruling as to whether the law suit has merit, and the suit may well be dismissed the first time a judge gets around to looking at it.

It depends on the fidelity of the description, now doesn't it? And whether or not it's a "performance in public" depends on how many people choose to listen to me.

An oral description of a visual movie scene would never infringe on the actual scene. On the other hand, a reciting of the dialog word for word, or as best you can remember might constitute infringement if performed in public.

But again, so what? Even if we removed liability for public performances, and choreography, and software from the statutes, and even if we reverted to copyright law of 200 years ago, downloading copyrighted movies from the internet would still being infringing. And the duration of copyright back then was between 14 and 28 years.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 10:27 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 7:19 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 171 of 303 (650285)
01-29-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by crashfrog
01-29-2012 10:13 AM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
Not only can I not legally talk about your car, you can't legally talk about your car. It's shape, it's design, the function of its parts - that's all copyrighted material that belongs not to you, but to the car company.

That's complete nonsense. Nothing in copyright law prevents me from describing my car. I am prevented from distributing a description of my car authored by you unless I have your permission, but nothing keeps me from creating and distributing my own.

In fact, copyright protects the expression and not the factual content of text. And copyright does not protect function of your car at all (See 17 USC 102b, reproduced below).

quote:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

It is perfectly legit to obtain a copy of someone's description of a car, strip away the facts from the creative expression and to use those facts to write your own manual.

The above "clean room" process is used frequently to write clones of existing software. There can be no doubt that it works.

I do not doubt that some industry does exert some control over the details of how to repair cars. But it cannot using copyright law in the manner you say, because copyright law does not prevent you from describing things, explaining how things work, or duplicating the function of objects.

There are problems with copyright, and I believe your point regarding your inability to create a work set in Hobbit land, or whatever it is called is a legitimate complaint. Most of the rest of the stuff you've said about the extent of copyright law has been completely wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 10:13 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 176 of 303 (650295)
01-29-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
01-29-2012 7:23 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
Ok, that's a different question than you asked, though. The way you get your $40 million is by convincing enough people that the existence of your movie is worth $40 million dollars. For instance, you could convince 4.5 million people to each buy a $9 ticket. Or 2.25 million people to each buy two such tickets. And so on.

You are making this harder than it needs be. All you really have to do is convince a few people with capital that enough people will buy tickets to make the venture worthwhile. You don't actually have to convince movie goers until it is time to actually pony up the money for a ticket.

Of course I think that Tangle's problem regarding how you are going to get the money from theaters has not been addressed. Why wouldn't theater managers simply download the movie free instead of paying MGM any kind of fee. That way they could keep the profits to themselves. I don't see high budget movies getting made unless this problem is solved.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 7:23 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2012 9:54 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 177 of 303 (650304)
01-29-2012 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
01-29-2012 7:19 PM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
And you keep ignoring the point that it's only as a result of Beyonce's wealth that the suit is even going to get before a judge where it can be dismissed.

I haven't ignored anything. You just mentioned it and I'll deal with the issue now.

Law suits can be dismissed at the pleading stage for very little expense. I'd also note that poor people don't get choreography law suits levied against them.

Copyright law is no different from any other area of law in this respect. Million dollar law suits have been filed against dry cleaners for losing a single pair of pants. Sometimes those suits don't get dismissed and the dry cleaner has to incur some legal costs. The blame for the filing of spurious law suits lies squarely on the litigants. There is no screening process for law suits other than asking the judge to dismiss the law suit.

As so many regular citizens have been forced to settle with the RIAA.

I don't see how this makes your case.

Are you suggesting that most of the suits filed by the RIAA were without legal merit? Yes, there were a few suits against moms and grandmas when their grandchildren were actually the people using Limewire, Napster, or whatever, but the overwhelming majority of those law suits appeared to accurately finger infringers.

And accordingly, the overwhelming majority of those suits were not going to get dismissed for being meritless because the suits accurately targeted copyright infringers. Some people got off because the process for serving them with the complaint was faulty, but only a few people ever managed to escape liability due to actually not having done the uploading/downloading of copyright protected music that they were accused of.

I'm not aware of any significant number of people being wrongly accused of downloading movies. Do you know differently?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2012 7:19 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2012 10:00 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


(2)
Message 210 of 303 (650470)
01-31-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
01-31-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Language
I don't like the use of "download" as a proxy for "violating copyright", because it implies a world where it's somehow morally wrong to transfer media digitally.

I don't think this kind of language twisting is necessary. Yes it is true that words like piracy are unnecessarily inflammatory and loaded. Those words don't belong in this discussion.

But regardless of how you feel about the morality of downloading, or drug usage, or speeding, I don't think there is any question that those things are contrary to the legislatively enacted statutes as interpreted by the courts.

Downloading movies alone would not constitute hypocrisy in my view. Perhaps if you also railed against other acts simply on the basis that they are against existing law then we could see a double standard. But most people don't claim to never break the law in any circumstance.

There are at least some laws that a moral person MUST disobey, and there are other laws on the books for which the breaking law has no moral implications whatsoever. There are still others for which concern moral issues involved in breaking the law are not universally shared by all.

But there is no need to pretend that you are not violating, infringing, or breaking the law when you take willful actions to do just that, while knowing full well what the laws are. Why not just man up about what you do.

That said, I've encountered many people whose justification for downloading reeks and drips with hypocrisy. Essentially nobody downloaded LW17 from megaupload in order to "stick it to the man" or because "information wants to be free" or because the music industry abuses artists. They did so because it was convenient or because they wouldn't or couldn't pay the 19.95.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2012 8:54 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 212 of 303 (650478)
01-31-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
01-30-2012 10:00 AM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
I think it's well-known that the RIAA is offering settlements that don't have legal merit; when they come to you and say "here's all the violations of the DMCA you're guilty of, here's the criminal and civil penalties you could face in court;

It is not well known the suits have no legal merit. There are indeed criminal penalties for dowloading a relatively small numbers of a copyright protected work. See link to 17 USC 506

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

There are also substantial statutory civil penalties for downloading a single copyright protected work, and the RIAA has been successful in getting relatively large awards in court.

See Statutory damages at the same link.

You might well believe that such laws are inappropriate, but given that they are on the books, the RIAA is completely justified in pointing out the possible damages if they have to sue, damages which might well include the RIAA's lawyer fees.

And for about the third time, downloading mp3s does not involve violating the DMCA. There is no technological protection on CDs so ripping a CD to upload a music track does not violate the DMCA. Instead, downloading an mp3 violates the provisions of 17 USC 106 that involve the copying and/or distribution of copyrighted works.

I ask that you support your statement to the contrary. But I fully expected that you will instead insist that I defend that we even have a system of copyright laws at all.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2012 10:00 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2012 4:30 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 213 of 303 (650482)
01-31-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by crashfrog
01-30-2012 9:54 AM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
Why would people who want to patronize artists patronize a theater that doesn't patronize artists? And why would people who don't want to patronize artists pay for a ticket at all?

Seriously, crashfrog. Surely you can come up with some reasons why people go to the movies that don't involve putting food on the table for artists. My daughter goes to the movies with her buddies because she thinks the movie is cool, hip, funny, etc., and because it's fun to do so. I sincerely doubt that she gives much thought to the fact that some portion of the ticket price goes to supporting Angelina Jolie in the life style of which she is accustomed.

I go to the movies on rare occasions, and grumble about the cost of everything, and refuse to go again until my wife gives me the "you never take me anywhere" speech. I don't go to patronize anyone. I go for the entertainment.

Movie theater operators operate because they make money hand over fist selling junk food at inflated prices and some money on ticket sales. They don't care why you come to the movies, as long as you come.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2012 9:54 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2012 4:32 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 215 of 303 (650485)
01-31-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Jon
01-30-2012 7:06 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
Then these cool things came out, kind of like 8-tracks, only not as sucky, called 'cassette tapes'. They could be used to record things from a record and disseminate the music to a wide audience. Anyone who had that technology was somewhat in control of the dissemination of that music.

Yes, and those analog copies did not allow infinite distribution, because after a couple of generations the audio copies were unusable. If fact, under the Audio Home Recording Act, it is completely legal to make personal use analog copies of music.

It is only digital copying that has made any difference whatsoever.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Jon, posted 01-30-2012 7:06 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 225 of 303 (650551)
01-31-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
01-31-2012 4:30 PM


Re: Problems with the current copyright model
Right. And as you dishonestly omitted by again quoting me out of context, the point is that the RIAA doesn't have the power they claim to immunize you from criminal prosecution.

I did not dishonestly do anything. Your accusations of dishonesty and lying whenever we disagree have become quite routine. I suppose they are part of your charm.

No the RIAA does not have any such power, but without even looking, I suspect we will find that the RIAA cease and settle letters don't promise immunity or anything else that they cannot deliver.

Generally speaking, though, there are plenty of examples of the feds pursuing federal charges for criminal copyright infringement upon request from copyright holders like Apple, Adobe, and the RIAA. Yet I am not aware of a single case where a settling defendant has been prosecuted by the feds. Are you?

And of course you do not dispute that the possibility of having to pay huge damage awards is very real. It's small wonder that people who actually have uploaded music, and by and large only uploaders have been sued, have settled. They are facing a very real prospect of being found liable for amounts that dwarf the offered settlements.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2012 4:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2012 11:33 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5639
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 226 of 303 (650555)
01-31-2012 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by crashfrog
01-31-2012 4:32 PM


Re: Great logo, shame about the cause
But again, in a world where you're under no obligation to support an artist's work unless you enjoy it, why would anyone pay for a movie unless they wanted to support the artist? Why wouldn't you just go to the free theaters, if patronizing an artist was meaningless to you?

In such a world, there would be no obligation to pay for the movie even if you did enjoy it. I, in particular, would never, ever decide to pay Mel Gibson a single penny regardless of how good his movie is.

I think the number of people who would pay extra money to make sure the artists got their cut, when there is no stigma attached with going to the cheaper theater would be exceedingly small and possibly zero. I thought you were trying to convince me otherwise.

Your description does sound a bit like the world Lennon sings about in "Imagine" though.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2012 4:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2012 11:31 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014