If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   RIAA CEO, in a thoughtful op-ed on SOPA opponents, fairly points out that they were probably all criminals   (nytimes.com) divider line 585
    More: Asinine, SOPA, RIAA, Wikipedia, peer-to-peer networks, black outs, Napster, creative work, Motion Picture Association of America  
•       •       •

16750 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2012 at 9:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



585 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-08 01:25:57 PM

Theaetetus: "Personal enjoyment" is not "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." And no, "research" does not include "researching whether I'd personally enjoy it."


You've read that section, I'm sure. It lists those as examples of fair use, and not as an explicit description of what fair use is. Beyond that, it only says that the "purpose and character of the use" (among other things) would be taken into consideration in determining whether the use is fair. And given the other kinds of things that pass for fair use, including those specifically mentioned in the section, I'm having a hard time seeing how an instance of non-commercial personal use only would be anything other than fair use.
 
2012-02-08 01:26:48 PM

libranoelrose: I had to do a seminar.

Is there anyone in here still arguing for SOPA/PIPA, or defending this douche's OPED?



I think we are down to arguing over the definition of 'steal' and the legal rights held exclusively by copyright holders.
 
2012-02-08 01:27:26 PM
Biological Ali:


maxheck: Your argument seems to be along the lines of "since I didn't ask you to bring lunch in to work today, I'm absolved of responsibility if I eat yours out of the company fridge."

Actually, it's more like you preparing a lunch hoping to sell it (despite nobody having specifically asked you to make it), somebody else taking a look at that lunch and preparing a similar one for himself, and you then expecting that person to pay you for... some reason.


No, your argument was that there was no contract therefore you can do what you want with someone's intellectual property, and now you're trying to go back to the "nothing of value was taken" dodge.

You cannot create something identical to the latest movie or hit song or software package from scratch. If you could, you wouldn't be going out and obtaining a copy of someone else's work and it wouldn't be a copyright issue.

But you can't, so you copy someone else's efforts. You want the benefits of other's work but you don't like the terms.
 
2012-02-08 01:27:43 PM
I had a special on HBO last year. If you watched it on HBO that's fine. Thanks for the payday.

If you ripped it and made it available on the web you are a criminal.


Hypothetically lets say I do not have HBO. I hear, from friends at work, that your special was really good and I should check it out. Obviously having no other means to view it, I go online and find a torrent. I download your special, albeit illegally. However, after watching your special I decide my friends were right, this is really good. Because I am so impressed by your work, I decide to go to HBO's website and buy the DVD.

My illegal download, has yielded you a payday you otherwise would not have had.

Now don't take this out of context. As I'm not saying everybody does this. But there are those of us, like myself, who appreciate quality. Who want quality work to thrive, and have made many many purchases after downloading something illegally at first.

What would your thought, as the artist, be on that?
 
2012-02-08 01:28:12 PM

libranoelrose: I had to do a seminar.

Is there anyone in here still arguing for SOPA/PIPA, or defending this douche's OPED?



Nah, all that's left are the people justifying theft and accusing those who disagree of supporting SOPA/PIPA.

Do me a favor, btw, can you point out the posters in this thread who support SOPA/PIPA?
 
2012-02-08 01:28:44 PM

SkunkWerks: ...a movie adaptation of the board game.


I saw the preview of that during the Superbowl. I liked it better when Rhianna was Will Smith and it was called "Independence Day."
 
2012-02-08 01:29:53 PM

maxheck: And if the author hadn't specifically signed over certain rights, then he could just go to some other publisher, give it away, refuse to have it ever published again, or whatever.


Which raises the issue with the publishing industry, there's been nowhere to go where an author can have a publisher publish a book and then if they have a situation where the book is out of print and the author sees a demand and the publisher doesn't want to print any more copies, the author can just go to another publisher. Publishers should act like nothing more than middlemen who get a book printed, promote it and take a cut of the sales. But that's not how they act.
 
2012-02-08 01:30:41 PM

T.M.S.: I had a special on HBO last year. If you watched it on HBO that's fine. Thanks for the payday.

If you ripped it and made it available on the web you are a criminal.



See, that I would agree with. Criminal is better than thief because it is true.
 
2012-02-08 01:30:59 PM

ReapTheChaos: If that's what makes you feel better as you steal shiat, keep telling yourself that.


???

I don't steal. I don't have to. I have Netflix.

Whatever, newbie shill. You've got less than 60-days on this site to date, so go on and keep pretending you're not a sock puppet (or troll alt).
 
2012-02-08 01:31:42 PM

downtownkid: Nah, all that's left are the people justifying theft and accusing those who disagree of supporting SOPA/PIPA.


I notice you have nothing to do say on the issue of publishers, record labels and movie studios screwing content creators out of money.
 
2012-02-08 01:32:34 PM
Early in the last century, the automobile was a disruptive technology which displaced the horse breeders, stables and impacted everyone from farmers to policemen. The way the "piracy" problem is being looked at and approached by both politicians and by impacted parties (RIAA et al) is much the same as an avowed horseman who had never seen a car being put in charge of traffic regulation. The intent of their actions is to fetter and slow the advance of technology rather than embrace it with innovative business models, to nurse along the corpse of Big Music in the face of a world quickly moving beyond their monopolies.

It's short-sightedness to think that their 100 year old business model is sustainable. In absolute terms the average internet artist of today has infinitely greater access to more people than a music promoter 20 years ago, cheaper and easier access to more powerful video and audio editing tools than the most well equipped studio in the 80's... a conglomerate organization whose leaders deem their own customers thieves while giving little respect to the artists who create their product can be viewed only as an increasingly anachronistic holdover from the monopolistic entertainment era we have emerged from, a tottering member of the old guard wistfully reminiscing about lost profits and harrumphing the young from their long-overgrown and dilapidated lawns. It will be the artists that hammer home the last coffin-nail for this ill-conceived organization.
 
2012-02-08 01:33:15 PM

mr.doctor: bmwericus:

Personally, I don't pirate, assuming that you don't count making mix tapes from LP's and CD's that I own. Now with the iPod, I just don't need to do that anymore.


If you are breaking a DRM that is on the LP's or CD, they use to be able to get you on that, since you are infringing on profits on the "artist". That was stated you can as long as it is not copyright infringing. With that in mind RIAA would think you are still a thief for not buying two copies of that album.


Would have no idea - I put a CD in computer and it asks me if i want to import to iTunes - is that breaking DRM - and most of my music I DID buy twice, once on LP and a second time on CD, so, I feel morally comfortable with my position, regardless of the position of the RIAA - and the mix tapes were for personal use.

Hell, it's sure not MY fault that the hardware manufacturers keep making the hardware obsolete, with the implicit approval of the RIAA - remember MIB? "This is gonna replace the CD - which means I'm gonna have to buy the White Album...AGAIN."

RIAA wants to charge you royalties per play, I'm sure.
 
2012-02-08 01:36:55 PM
FARK confuses me. 99.5% of this site is bleeding heart Liberal. Do you want larger government or not? Most of the posts in this thread sound like the overreactions heard when the Patriot Act was introduced. "The Govt is going to listen to all my conversations, next thing you know, foot soldiers are breaking down your door maaan." The only reason you give a fark about SOPA and PIPA is because you want your free shiat. This has nothing to do with your rights and whatever other nonsense most of you are spouting off. You want your free music, movies, games, streaming content and feel that you are entitled to it. Fark the poor bastards that created it, they should enjoy working for less. For people that hold themselves up as highly educated and knowledgeable, FARK sure is a reactionary bunch.
 
2012-02-08 01:37:02 PM

fracto73: I think we are down to arguing over the definition of 'steal' and the legal rights held exclusively by copyright holders.


That's about what it looked like to me from this last page.

downtownkid: Do me a favor, btw, can you point out the posters in this thread who support SOPA/PIPA?


Bomb Head Dipshiat.
 
2012-02-08 01:39:03 PM

broktune: t. Fark the poor bastards that created it,


Record labels are very good at doing that. There have been labels that have done nothing but that, just read up on the history of Chess Records.
 
2012-02-08 01:39:12 PM

libranoelrose: Bomb Head Dipshiat.


And maybe broktune.

That shiat he/she just spouted was so retarded I will never read another post by him/her again.
 
2012-02-08 01:41:53 PM

T.M.S.: So in other words, if YOU can't afford something stealing it is OK.


Hmmmm *clicks on profile*

So, did you pay the owners of those 25 links you submitted here on FARK for the bandwidth you took from them? After all, bandwidth ain't free.

And, I noticed the two pictures of records you have on your profile. They have a great big old COPYRIGHT RESERVED slogan printed right on them. So, did you get express, written consent from the RIAA and Virgin Records before you copied their images and posted them in a public place?

Thought not.

/Fine line, ain't it?
//We'll wait here while you turn yourself in.
///Or you can get off of your high horse.
////Whichever.
 
2012-02-08 01:42:06 PM

maxheck: But you can't, so you copy someone else's efforts. You want the benefits of other's work but you don't like the terms.


Look. Here's what you started out with:

You should consult with a lawyer on that, and then tell him you're going to stiff him on his consultation fee because nothing physical was taken from him.


...after which I merely explained to you the differences, legal and otherwise, between your example and the discussion at hand. Differences that, mind you, even the RIAA CEO and other staunch opponents of piracy would acknowledge if pressed. Similarly for the terrible lunch analogy you followed up with.

I'm not terribly concerned with whatever else you seem to be talking about here. Pointing out the badness of your analogies is the extent of my interactions with you.
 
2012-02-08 01:42:16 PM
It's probably been mentioned already but if the RIAA wants to fix it's record sales, put out something worth buying in the first place!
 
2012-02-08 01:42:18 PM
In all fairness now:
piracy is, in fact, stealing


Just because "everyone's doing it" or "the content is readily accessible" doesn't make it legal or OK.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate here but I'm right.

/stopped pirating anything when I became a content creator
 
2012-02-08 01:42:47 PM
WhyteRaven74:

maxheck: And if the author hadn't specifically signed over certain rights, then he could just go to some other publisher, give it away, refuse to have it ever published again, or whatever.

Which raises the issue with the publishing industry, there's been nowhere to go where an author can have a publisher publish a book and then if they have a situation where the book is out of print and the author sees a demand and the publisher doesn't want to print any more copies, the author can just go to another publisher. Publishers should act like nothing more than middlemen who get a book printed, promote it and take a cut of the sales. But that's not how they act.


Well, there's bad actors in every industry... Some authors do put clauses in their contracts that allow all rights to revert to them if nothing is done with their work for a certain period of time. That really depends more on how savvy the author is when they go to sign the contract with the publisher.

I know what you mean though, since I and a few friends are always scouting out-of-print books for each other.`

/ and if anyone knows where to get a copy of "The Ghost in The Swing" for less than $200....
 
2012-02-08 01:46:07 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: In all fairness now:
piracy is, in fact, stealing

Just because "everyone's doing it" or "the content is readily accessible" doesn't make it legal or OK.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate here but I'm right.

/stopped pirating anything when I became a content creator



Just because it is illegal and not ok doesn't mean it is stealing. There are other laws on the books.
 
2012-02-08 01:48:03 PM
Biological Ali:

I'm not terribly concerned with whatever else you seem to be talking about here. Pointing out the badness of your analogies is the extent of my interactions with you.

Ah. Got it... Good day, and may you never create anything in your life.
 
2012-02-08 01:48:13 PM

Biological Ali: You've read that section, I'm sure. It lists those as examples of fair use, and not as an explicit description of what fair use is. Beyond that, it only says that the "purpose and character of the use" (among other things) would be taken into consideration in determining whether the use is fair. And given the other kinds of things that pass for fair use, including those specifically mentioned in the section, I'm having a hard time seeing how an instance of non-commercial personal use only would be anything other than fair use.


Really? I have a hard time seeing as how it would ever be considered as fair use. Let's go through the factors individually:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


Well, it's not for nonprofit educational purposes, nor research, criticism, news reporting, teaching, comment, or scholarship. It's for "personal enjoyment", which is the same use as intended for the work commercially.
Additionally, "avoiding paying for something" is a commercial nature.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

Far as I know, we're talking about movies, music, computer applications, etc. Not, say, images of public news events that might be more reasonably argued for fair use.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Again, far as I know, we're talking about complete copies of movies, music and programs, and not screenshots or 30 second clips that may be considered fair use for commentary or criticism.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is the one that we can argue day and night about, but even aside from that, the first three factors don't look good for "personal enjoyment".
 
2012-02-08 01:48:21 PM
"Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works."

Cary Sherman knows this is a fact because he is the master of disinformation. He is also the highest paid lobbyist in the country.

ReapTheChaos: Well it's true, if you're downloading movies/music/software without paying for it you're a criminal. Try as best you can to justify why you do it, you're stealing just as if you went to the store and shoplifted the DVD/CD.


Wrong. Downloading is NOT theft. It does not even qualify as copyright infringement. Even the victims of the RIAA lawsuits were not sued for downloading, they were sued for the re-distribution, which IS copyright infringement.

Steal a DVD from a store and the store no longer has that physical piece of property. I have allowed more than a half-million downloads of music from my website (music which I own the sound recording rights to) and I still possess each and every recording. Nothing was stolen.
 
2012-02-08 01:51:38 PM

MacWizard: Downloading is NOT theft. It does not even qualify as copyright infringement. Even the victims of the RIAA lawsuits were not sued for downloading, they were sued for the re-distribution, which IS copyright infringement.


I think we've already covered this one. It most certainly is copyright infringement, even if it's almost impossible to prove. Saying "you won't get caught" is different from saying "downloading does not qualify as copyright infringement."
 
2012-02-08 01:52:06 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [hothardware.com image 595x323]
Cary H. Sherman. President of the RIAA and author of TFA. He is also a copyright lawyer, and the newest poster boy for greed.

/Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Sherman.
//Time to adapt to the coming changes, or get the fark out of the way.


He's the poster boy for something, that's for sure. Nice comb-over there, skippy. Been to the dentist lately?
 
2012-02-08 01:52:59 PM

fracto73: Reverend Monkeypants: In all fairness now:
piracy is, in fact, stealing

Just because "everyone's doing it" or "the content is readily accessible" doesn't make it legal or OK.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate here but I'm right.

/stopped pirating anything when I became a content creator


Just because it is illegal and not ok doesn't mean it is stealing. There are other laws on the books.


What this guy said.

Theft/stealing tends to imply a physical good that was taken without purchase. Piracy, on the other hand, is a form of copyright infringement. Unlawful, and free, distribution of goods without the consent of the copyright holder.

I mean if you recorded the super bowl, and started tossing around DVDs to your friends and showing it without the expressed written consent of the National Football League, did you just steal it? Nope, you did infringe on their copyright though. Same principle.

Hence why the laws needs to be updated to reflect current technology. While it is, in a sense, theft. It is not, in a legal sense, theft.

/Not saying it's right, just saying if you're going to argue about it's legality lets just clear up the definitions here.
 
2012-02-08 01:54:30 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: /stopped pirating anything when I became a content creator


But until then, it was okey-dokey.

There may be reasons I am disinclined to trust statements coming from you that begin with "in all fairness", I'm just not certain I can put my finger on it...
 
2012-02-08 01:55:16 PM

Strategeryz0r: Hence why the laws needs to be updated to reflect current technology.


The laws describe exactly what you said - giving DVDs of the Super Bowl to your friends is not theft, it's infringement. Maybe colloquial language needs to be updated, but the law seems to be fine in that regard.
 
2012-02-08 01:55:23 PM

Theaetetus: Well, it's not for nonprofit educational purposes, nor research, criticism, news reporting, teaching, comment, or scholarship. It's for "personal enjoyment", which is the same use as intended for the work commercially.


Which, of course, is entirely different from whether the work was being used commercially by the individual.

Additionally, "avoiding paying for something" is a commercial nature.


If that's true, then lending a book to a friend would be just as much an infringement.

Do you have any examples of such use actually being found to not be fair use, or are you just making a "it could possibly maybe happen" argument?
 
2012-02-08 01:58:30 PM

Strategeryz0r:

What would your thought, as the artist, be on that?


My thought is when you called me an Idiot I had had enough of you.

Please don't bother responding to anything I post. I will do you the same for you.
 
2012-02-08 01:59:26 PM

Theaetetus: Strategeryz0r: Hence why the laws needs to be updated to reflect current technology.

The laws describe exactly what you said - giving DVDs of the Super Bowl to your friends is not theft, it's infringement. Maybe colloquial language needs to be updated, but the law seems to be fine in that regard.


That would be why I said it is theft in a sense(you are taking potential profits from a business by illegally obtaining an item), but in a legal sense it is currently not.

Frankly, the laws should be updated to allow for both definitions. Distribution is one thing, as you're facilitating. Simply downloading it is taking away a potential sale through the illegal procurement of a good or service, and could be defined as the digital equivalent of theft.
 
2012-02-08 02:01:02 PM

ReapTheChaos: brianbankerus: ReapTheChaos: Well it's true, if you're downloading movies/music/software without paying for it you're a criminal. Try as best you can to justify why you do it, you're stealing just as if you went to the store and shoplifted the DVD/CD.

Shill, shill, shill. I know it's a job and all, but as long as you keep repeating these completely nonsensical talking points, you have no soul.

SOPA/PIPA would have made it impossible to buy aftermarket car parts.

And while physical media sales have dropped, digital sales have become a massive multi-billion dollar business. The industry isn't hurting, and it isn't trying to push legislation. It;s the MPAA/RIAA that's doing it and only because of greed.

If that's what makes you feel better as you steal shiat, keep telling yourself that.


Here's an infographic on what we are talking about. This is about the industry constantly fighting new technology saying it will be their doom.

This isn't about defending the thieves, this is about embracing technology and stating that historically it will mean MORE money for them in the long run.
 
2012-02-08 02:02:52 PM

ReapTheChaos: Well it's true, if you're downloading movies/music/software without paying for it you're a criminal. Try as best you can to justify why you do it, you're stealing just as if you went to the store and shoplifted the DVD/CD.


0/10. Really bad trolling there.
 
2012-02-08 02:04:51 PM

T.M.S.: Strategeryz0r:

What would your thought, as the artist, be on that?

My thought is when you called me an Idiot I had had enough of you.

Please don't bother responding to anything I post. I will do you the same for you.


Well, to be fair, you were kind of being one. i mean I had to post the same point 3 times, and have others point out that you were missing the argument entirely, before you actually got it. And I still don't think you do.

Regardless it's a fair question, with no personal attacks tied to it. Would you prefer if I get somebody else to ask it? Or is dodging a legitimate question your response?

Someone else in the thread, re-post my question. Re-word as you see fit.

/responds to whatever he damn well pleases.
 
2012-02-08 02:06:10 PM

GriffXX: This isn't about defending the thieves, this is about embracing technology and stating that historically it will mean MORE money for them in the long run.


But, the internet is not a big truck you can just dump stuff on!
 
2012-02-08 02:07:43 PM

FightDirector: OK, I work in the threatre and film inustry. I just wrapped on my (admittedly tiny) portion of Joss Weadon's Avengers. I have a financial interest in not seeing my work pirated and redistributed without getting paid for it. I completely see where T.M.S. is coming from.


I think it is quite safe to say that anyone who is willing to experience an action/special effects blockbuster in the format of a blurry, pixelated, desaturated, muffled mess was not particularly interested in paying money to go see it in the theater in the first place. I download a fair share of movies, and the overwhelming majority of them are ones I would not have ever even considered paying for. The movies I *want* to see, I want to see in the theater. The remainder are movies I missed seeing in the theater, and do not feel like inexplicably waiting 6 months for them to be released for home viewing. THIS, is one of those aspects of the industry where the studio's own moneygrubbing policies are actually failing to meet consumer needs and leading to loss of revenue.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason why digital copies cannot be made available for purchase or rental immediately after the initial box office run is complete. Well, there is a reason, and that reason is greedy people making deals with greedy people at the expense of the consumer. Meaning person B is still showing a the film in his theater, and is worried that a few bucks might slip out of his sweaty palms if someone can watch it in their home. And person C is worried that if someone buys a barebones digital copy, 6 months later they might not want to pay three times as much for a bunch of DVD extras that few average consumers are truly interested in watching. And person D is worried that people who buy or rent a barebones digital copy won't then come to their videostore which is somehow still in business. And in the process of all this sweaty-palmed deal-making, the consumer decided he didn't want to wait 6 months, and downloaded it on bittorrent.

And in the end, their attempts to make money from this process has actually caused the exact opposite to happen. The old model of 'release a movie and then 6 months later release it to home consumption' simply cannot work in the digital age, and the more they try to keep it alive, the more the industry will suffer losses. A new model must be implemented that is better suited to the technological age we find ourselves in, which meets the needs of the consumer. And until the industry gets off it's ass and revamps the business model, lashing out at their own customers is only going to drive those customers more and more towards the piracy industry.
 
2012-02-08 02:08:26 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: "Indeed, it's hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree. "

Flame away, but the guy's right.

And, honestly, smitty's misleading headline kind of proves the guy's point, too.

I am not going to sit here and defend every possible slippery slope implication of the bills. But, you know what, on balance, I actually agree with this guy. As I said, flame away, accuse me of being a paid astroturfer, and so forth, but really his basic point is correct. the idea that SOPA/PIPA would destroy the internet makes about as much sense as the notion that speed limits should be entirely banned because they might prevent a pregnant woman from getting to the hospital on time.


Except that the RIAA\MIAA\anyone who can license a patent troll have been known to abuse their power. If they were known for fairness, well, your critique might hold weight. As it is, the RIAA\MIAA pose severe threats to their own industries. I'm a writer, and I'm well aware of the power of storytelling in shaping culture. I find the fact that our cultural norms could be so heavily abused and controlled disturbing, to say the least.
 
2012-02-08 02:09:51 PM

Theaetetus: MacWizard: Downloading is NOT theft. It does not even qualify as copyright infringement. Even the victims of the RIAA lawsuits were not sued for downloading, they were sued for the re-distribution, which IS copyright infringement.

I think we've already covered this one. It most certainly is copyright infringement, even if it's almost impossible to prove. Saying "you won't get caught" is different from saying "downloading does not qualify as copyright infringement."


I didn't say it wasn't copyright infringement because "you won't get caught." Copyright infringement involves distribution of copyrighted material. Downloading is not distribution. Downloading is NOT copyright infringement, but making those songs available for downloading is.

If you play copyrighted music in a nightclub that has not paid their ASCAP/BMI licenses, then either the musicians or the club (or both) can be fined for copyright violations. But the audience is not going to be fined for "receiving" the copyrighted work.

If the police intervene while you are buying a pirated CD or DVD (or a knockoff designer purse) from a street vendor, it's the vendor who will be arrested, not the buyer.
 
2012-02-08 02:09:53 PM

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Well, it's not for nonprofit educational purposes, nor research, criticism, news reporting, teaching, comment, or scholarship. It's for "personal enjoyment", which is the same use as intended for the work commercially.

Which, of course, is entirely different from whether the work was being used commercially by the individual.


But that's not what the statute says. It doesn't say "whether the use was for commercial gain". Instead, this factor assesses whether "the new work 'merely supersedes the objects' of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is 'transformative.'" Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500, 114 S. Ct. 1164 (1995) (quoting Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (D.Mass. 1841)). ". . .The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell, supra, 510 U.S. at 579."

Additionally, "avoiding paying for something" is a commercial nature.

If that's true, then lending a book to a friend would be just as much an infringement.


Photocopying the book for a friend would be. Lending the book is exempt because of the first sale doctrine, not because of fair use.

Do you have any examples of such use actually being found to not be fair use, or are you just making a "it could possibly maybe happen" argument?

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
, 464 U.S. 417 at 452 ("even copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have").
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter., 471 U.S. 539 at 562. (the relevant inquiry "is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.")
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 at 584 ("the mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any more than the commercial character of a use bars a finding of fairness")
Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 1983) ("a finding of a nonprofit educational purpose does not automatically compel a finding of fair use").

And there's dozens more. So, yeah.
 
2012-02-08 02:10:40 PM
Saborlas, in a thoughtful op-ed on SOPA proponents, fairly points out that they were probably all scumbags.
 
2012-02-08 02:11:59 PM

SkunkWerks: GriffXX: This isn't about defending the thieves, this is about embracing technology and stating that historically it will mean MORE money for them in the long run.

But, the internet is not a big truck you can just dump stuff on!


Yes it is. That's what BGP means. Big Geeky Pickup.
 
2012-02-08 02:13:03 PM

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Well, it's not for nonprofit educational purposes, nor research, criticism, news reporting, teaching, comment, or scholarship. It's for "personal enjoyment", which is the same use as intended for the work commercially.

Which, of course, is entirely different from whether the work was being used commercially by the individual.


Oh, and also:
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 921-922 (the proper focus of the commercial/non-commercial inquiry is "on the use of the copyrighted material," not on the profit or not-for-profit status of the user.)
 
2012-02-08 02:13:24 PM

mjones73: It's probably been mentioned already but if the RIAA wants to fix it's record sales, put out something worth buying in the first place!


But that has nothing to do with it.

There has been a great deal of whining here that stealing is fine because of the poor quality of the product to begin with.

If you don't like it don't BUY it.

An aesthetic judgement is no excuse to take something that is not yours.
 
2012-02-08 02:14:07 PM

Strategeryz0r: I had a special on HBO last year. If you watched it on HBO that's fine. Thanks for the payday.

If you ripped it and made it available on the web you are a criminal.

Hypothetically lets say I do not have HBO. I hear, from friends at work, that your special was really good and I should check it out. Obviously having no other means to view it, I go online and find a torrent. I download your special, albeit illegally. However, after watching your special I decide my friends were right, this is really good. Because I am so impressed by your work, I decide to go to HBO's website and buy the DVD.

My illegal download, has yielded you a payday you otherwise would not have had.

Now don't take this out of context. As I'm not saying everybody does this. But there are those of us, like myself, who appreciate quality. Who want quality work to thrive, and have made many many purchases after downloading something illegally at first.

What would your thought, as the artist, be on that?



Sonce he doesn't want to answer and it is a good question I'll give it a go. If you can buy the DVD then you had other methods available to view it than pirating. On the other side, some quality work suffers from under exposure and the wide distribution that pirating provides can build a fan base that will go on to make an artist successful. It would eb interesting to see a study done about where the break even point for exposure would be.

The only study I know of regarding the possible benefits of piracy was with anime, it would be interesting to me to see how it effects something that already has a large fan base. It seems to me that there would be diminishing returns on the amount of content that got distributed that way, especially for a known artist.
 
2012-02-08 02:15:54 PM

GriffXX: SkunkWerks: GriffXX: This isn't about defending the thieves, this is about embracing technology and stating that historically it will mean MORE money for them in the long run.

But, the internet is not a big truck you can just dump stuff on!

Yes it is. That's what BGP means. Big Geeky Pickup.


That describes nothing that is tube or tube-like... let alone has massive amounts of material in it.
 
2012-02-08 02:16:17 PM

Theaetetus: And there's dozens more. So, yeah.


All those seem to say is that noncommercial personal use would not automatically result in a fair-use exemption (depending, presumably, on the other relevant considerations), and not that that aspect of the use was an infringement in and of itself. Seems like quite a difference to me.
 
2012-02-08 02:20:56 PM
Yes, finally the RIAA (pops)will get those hardened criminals (pops).
 
2012-02-08 02:21:06 PM

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: And there's dozens more. So, yeah.

All those seem to say is that noncommercial personal use would not automatically result in a fair-use exemption (depending, presumably, on the other relevant considerations), and not that that aspect of the use was an infringement in and of itself. Seems like quite a difference to me.



I don't think this argument will work. You might be able to convince someone who already agreed with you that it is fair use, but it doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of fair use. If I were on a jury I would side with him on this one.
 
Displayed 50 of 585 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report