Authors rights

Evaldas · February 19th, 2005, 18:49

Recently I bought an audio CD where I saw an inscription that states:

„Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited”

You mean I may not lend it even to my own brother????

industrian · February 19th, 2005, 19:30

It means you can't even play it loud enough for people other than you to hear it as well. Same with VHS and DVD films: "Home Use Only."

I'd send some cops round to your house, but they're too busy with real crimes.

WindHydra · February 19th, 2005, 20:27

Yeah, you can't lend it to anyone. It IS real crime!!!
By the way, cops won't go because copyright owners have to pursue the infringers themselves...
I think some softwares even limit the number of times you can install, even if you erased the past installation (like when your computer dies). Or maybe it's talking about installing on to multiple machines...

__________________

Hydrobiosis.com :bounce:

We ran like the wind, under the cerulean skies...

Last edited by WindHydra; February 19th, 2005 at 20:34..

Evaldas · February 19th, 2005, 20:47

Yeah, but law does not say listening to loud copyrighted music would be copyright infringement as the loudness level has never been defined. Law even allows to make one back-up copy of any sort of copyrighted material (at least in my country), but you may never give, lend or sell it to anyone.

Purchasing a "piece" of legal copyrighted material you buy not only the actual data you will use, but also a licence that allows you to do it. Without the latter one, you would use the material illegally.

Where can I find more information about end-user rights using multimedia production? Recently I had a harsh discussion on this topic, but the conversation reached a dead-end as any of us was not aware of the actual juridical situation.

As mentioned before, leagal copyrighted material contains a lincence. You cannot duplicate the licence, although it is possible to make a copy of the licence object. The copy may NOT be used as such, unless you pay for another licence, that's pretty clear. But what is it actually allowed to do with the original? May I sell it including the licence? Well, eBay.com and Amazon.com allows to do that, so should I understand it is legal?

Concidering the fact that it was me who bought the audio CD I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, it means that I am the only person who can touch, listen, even look at the object??? What about my houshold (my children, wife, brothers, sisters)? Each of them must purchase another licence in order to listen to the recording? If so, how do I prevent the "illegal" listening to the CD? How is the "home-use" defined?

I guess, the only way to make everything correctly is not to buy anything if you don't want to infringe the law. But there should be a solution. These things should be at least mentioned somewhere. Please! Anyone! Help! I'm confused!

The Captain · February 19th, 2005, 21:56

If you hadn't noticed, the other members were being a bit sarcastic. The general opinion around here is that the RIAA should be targeted by terrorists.

The whole copyright thing has been blown way out of proportion just so that a dying industry can stay alive, allowing entertainment companies to basically take away the rights of both artists and consumers for the sole reason of profit.

I wouldn't be too concerned with what is legal/illegal because nowadays big companies have been taking the law into their own hands and even influencing Congress for their sole gain. Rather, I would be concerned with what you yourself find moral and right.

__________________

DFI LT X38 mobo, E8400 OC @ 4ghz, 4gb G.Skill DDR2 1066mhz, 8800GTS 320mb (G80), 2 x 150gb WD Raptors in RAID 0, 2 x 320gb media/backup drives, NB & CPU DangerDen waterblocks, BlackIce GTX 360 radiator

Last edited by The Captain; February 19th, 2005 at 22:45..

Boltzmann · February 20th, 2005, 00:58

Copyright laws have reached a point where they're simply ridiculous. Intelectual property laws suck big time, for most of the time. This crap about not lending your audio CD to anyone is the epitome of it...

Take a look at this article, called Against Intellectual Property . It may look a bit like propaganda, but it's right for most of the part.

__________________
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream."
- Wallace Stevens

Me on Twitter

WindHydra · February 20th, 2005, 01:44

I skipped some parts, hope they are not important

But making intellectual property not able to be owned will probably be worse... like the author said, who has the ability to produce goods at lower costs?
Although it is ridiculous how much consumers have to pay for stuff like medicine. I know lots of money went into researching drugs, but it still doesn't make sense to charge tens of thousands times the production price

__________________

Hydrobiosis.com :bounce:

We ran like the wind, under the cerulean skies...

**Cid Highwind** · February 20th, 2005, 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evaldas

Recently I bought an audio CD where I saw an inscription that states:

„Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited”

You mean I may not lend it even to my own brother????

Like they'll ever sue you for lending a cd to your brother

They should be happy for you lending it instead of giving him a backup

__________________
PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz // GPU: Sapphire ATi HD5870 1GB // Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3
RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 // HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint // SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W // Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

industrian · February 20th, 2005, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boltzmann

Copyright laws have reached a point where they're simply ridiculous. Intelectual property laws suck big time, for most of the time. This crap about not lending your audio CD to anyone is the epitome of it...

Take a look at this article, called Against Intellectual Property . It may look a bit like propaganda, but it's right for most of the part.

Intellectual property and software patents... *shudders* the bane of my Professional Issues in Computing classes. Seriously, software patents are 100% certifyable bull****. Thank god Europe at least has some common sense.

As for CD copyrights, the newest Iron Maiden CD took a different strategy. Instead of shouting at you, it asked for you just to respect the artist's work and if you like it, pay for it. Lol, and i loved the effectiveness of the Copy Protection found on a lot of CDs (over a veeeeeeery short period of time). I guess they never heard of DAC.

KanedA · February 20th, 2005, 15:20

best way is to buy something and hide it, than for 100% you won't breake the law

__________________

**Cid Highwind** · February 20th, 2005, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by industrian

Intellectual property and software patents... *shudders* the bane of my Professional Issues in Computing classes. Seriously, software patents are 100% certifyable bull****. Thank god Europe at least has some common sense.

As for CD copyrights, the newest Iron Maiden CD took a different strategy. Instead of shouting at you, it asked for you just to respect the artist's work and if you like it, pay for it. Lol, and i loved the effectiveness of the Copy Protection found on a lot of CDs (over a veeeeeeery short period of time). I guess they never heard of DAC.

Europe has more sense? I did some research on my own and I found out that I'm not even allowed to backup software or music when the creator has done effort to prevent you from copying the source disc.
So if I buy a new CD, and it's copy protected, they can sue me for having illegal MP3's on my HD.

Next problem: How to check if a cd is protected when the ripping software bypasses the protection by default

__________________
PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz // GPU: Sapphire ATi HD5870 1GB // Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3
RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 // HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint // SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W // Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

industrian · February 20th, 2005, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

Europe has more sense? I did some research on my own and I found out that I'm not even allowed to backup software or music when the creator has done effort to prevent you from copying the source disc.
So if I buy a new CD, and it's copy protected, they can sue me for having illegal MP3's on my HD.

Next problem: How to check if a cd is protected when the ripping software bypasses the protection by default

Yeah. Screw that though. Next thing The Man is gonna be telling us is that we don't actually OWN the software/music we purchased and have physically, but that we're only borrowing it.

And i was refering to Europe not allowing software patents.

Evaldas · February 20th, 2005, 21:31

Cid Highwind, may I please ask to share with us these results of your little research?

Where is it officially stated (in a governmental act or smth) that you MAY NOT lend or borrow an intellectual product? What punishment is applied to a person that commits such a crime?

The more I go deeper into that, the more I understand such a threat on CD covers is the same the case of an old lady who shakes her finger at a couple of "adolescent free-thinkers" that kiss each other in a public place. It is forbidden (at least in my country) to spread pornography, but the above mentioned activity could not be classified as such.

Besides, if I am allowed to sell my legally purchased CD, you will never prove I commit a crime giving it for free. So if it is impossible to apply an article of a criminal code neither practically, nor THEORICALLY (!!!), why then bother shaking that damn finger at someone?

As I understand, you didn't quite catch my point. I was talking about theory, but not the farcicality that these copyright laws bring. The most ridiculous thing in the essence of these laws is not their presence, as you claim, but their incongruity with each other.

And I dissagree with the article Against the intellectual property. The argument that this type of property aggravates inequality is ridiculous: it is actually the material property that creates the precipice between the rich and the poor. You mean we all should refuse the material property because of that? Bearing in mind the fact that the welfare is inherited, communism was born. As history has already proved, such a system rotted. So why should we tolerate the absence of intellectual property?

Although limits must be drawn. That's what interests me.

Mykas0 · February 20th, 2005, 21:53

Huh, I would surely understand that up to a point, but not even being able to lend it to your brother it's way too stupid...

And I was younger (SNES and Genesis time :P) all the kids in school traded games, now we should all be in jail! XD

__________________
World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan.
Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

Evaldas · February 20th, 2005, 22:12

Quote:

And I was younger (SNES and Genesis time :P) all the kids in school traded games, now we should all be in jail! XD

Please indicate me the article in the criminal code that does not allow to sell legally purchased records. What about Amazon.com and eBay.com? These giant companies should definitely have already been sued for that!

Mykas0 · February 21st, 2005, 01:16

So... they are doing illegal stuff? :P

__________________
World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan.
Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

Evaldas · February 21st, 2005, 11:13

Is it a question or an affirmation?

"We all should be sued for kissing in public places in USA," I could state in the same way as you do. Will such a proposition be correct? I will repeat my previously asked question: which article of the criminal code does not allow to do that?

Mykas0 · February 21st, 2005, 16:32

Well, it's easy... just get a legal cd you have, it must say something like "Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited", so I guess they must have a law or something about that...

__________________
World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan.
Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

Evaldas · February 21st, 2005, 17:09

You guess???

Boltzmann · February 21st, 2005, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evaldas

And I dissagree with the article Against the intellectual property. The argument that this type of property aggravates inequality is ridiculous: it is actually the material property that creates the precipice between the rich and the poor. You mean we all should refuse the material property because of that? Bearing in mind the fact that the welfare is inherited, communism was born. As history has already proved, such a system rotted. So why should we tolerate the absence of intellectual property?

Material property is quite different from intellectual property. I agree with laws to protect the former, and mostly disagree with laws to protect the later.

If I steal your car, you’ll lose it. No longer you’ll be able to use it. If I copy your audio CD, you won’t lose anything. You’ll be able to listen to your music as usual. Material property creates the rich/poor inequalities, and intellectual property laws exacerbate it, without adding anything to society. Most True Lawyers (i.e. academic lawyers, when they’re not defending a client; when they get a client they become the devil incarnate) will agree with me on this issue. There’s extensive literature on this subject (check out the link I provided; they’ve footnotes with full bibliographical rerefences).

And the nasty thing is: the people who actually work to generate content (i.e. artists, software developers, engineers) are the ones who get less money. The rich get control over the content, and make a lot more out of it than the actual developers. And keep in mind that the rich who are controlling the copyrights never generated any useful content.

There are other issues as well… for instance:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Against Intelectual Property

The idea behind patents is that the fundamentals of an invention are made public while the inventor for a limited time has the exclusive right to make, use or sell the invention. But there are quite a few cases in which patents have been used to suppress innovation.2 Companies may take out a patent, or buy someone else's patent, in order to inhibit others from applying the ideas.

BTW, quoting from that article:

Quote:

"If you talk about the whole subject with the word "property" you're prejudging the most basic question in the whole area which is, "how do we treat this thing or that thing or the other thing?" The most basic question would include alternatives such as making it somebody's property, and maybe various other alternatives. But if you call the whole subject "property" you've prejudged that."

Richard Stallman, on the concept of "Intellectual Property"

So maybe I shouldn't even be talking about intellectual property at all...

__________________
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream."
- Wallace Stevens

Me on Twitter

February 19th, 2005, 18:49	#1
Evaldas I♥☣ Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Raccoon city Posts: 200	Authors rights Recently I bought an audio CD where I saw an inscription that states: „Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited” You mean I may not lend it even to my own brother????

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 19th, 2005, 19:30	#2
industrian Some Scottish Guy Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Xindian, Taiwan, ROC Posts: 4,276	It means you can't even play it loud enough for people other than you to hear it as well. Same with VHS and DVD films: "Home Use Only." I'd send some cops round to your house, but they're too busy with real crimes.

February 19th, 2005, 20:27	#3
WindHydra Wind, Life, Eternity Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: El Monte Posts: 1,331	Yeah, you can't lend it to anyone. It IS real crime!!! By the way, cops won't go because copyright owners have to pursue the infringers themselves... I think some softwares even limit the number of times you can install, even if you erased the past installation (like when your computer dies). Or maybe it's talking about installing on to multiple machines... __________________ Hydrobiosis.com :bounce: We ran like the wind, under the cerulean skies... Last edited by WindHydra; February 19th, 2005 at 20:34..

February 19th, 2005, 20:47	#4
Evaldas I♥☣ Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Raccoon city Posts: 200	Yeah, but law does not say listening to loud copyrighted music would be copyright infringement as the loudness level has never been defined. Law even allows to make one back-up copy of any sort of copyrighted material (at least in my country), but you may never give, lend or sell it to anyone. Purchasing a "piece" of legal copyrighted material you buy not only the actual data you will use, but also a licence that allows you to do it. Without the latter one, you would use the material illegally. Where can I find more information about end-user rights using multimedia production? Recently I had a harsh discussion on this topic, but the conversation reached a dead-end as any of us was not aware of the actual juridical situation. As mentioned before, leagal copyrighted material contains a lincence. You cannot duplicate the licence, although it is possible to make a copy of the licence object. The copy may NOT be used as such, unless you pay for another licence, that's pretty clear. But what is it actually allowed to do with the original? May I sell it including the licence? Well, eBay.com and Amazon.com allows to do that, so should I understand it is legal? Concidering the fact that it was me who bought the audio CD I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, it means that I am the only person who can touch, listen, even look at the object??? What about my houshold (my children, wife, brothers, sisters)? Each of them must purchase another licence in order to listen to the recording? If so, how do I prevent the "illegal" listening to the CD? How is the "home-use" defined? I guess, the only way to make everything correctly is not to buy anything if you don't want to infringe the law. But there should be a solution. These things should be at least mentioned somewhere. Please! Anyone! Help! I'm confused!

February 19th, 2005, 21:56	#5
The Captain Crono! Wake up! Join Date: May 2002 Location: cyberspace Posts: 1,449	If you hadn't noticed, the other members were being a bit sarcastic. The general opinion around here is that the RIAA should be targeted by terrorists. The whole copyright thing has been blown way out of proportion just so that a dying industry can stay alive, allowing entertainment companies to basically take away the rights of both artists and consumers for the sole reason of profit. I wouldn't be too concerned with what is legal/illegal because nowadays big companies have been taking the law into their own hands and even influencing Congress for their sole gain. Rather, I would be concerned with what you yourself find moral and right. __________________ DFI LT X38 mobo, E8400 OC @ 4ghz, 4gb G.Skill DDR2 1066mhz, 8800GTS 320mb (G80), 2 x 150gb WD Raptors in RAID 0, 2 x 320gb media/backup drives, NB & CPU DangerDen waterblocks, BlackIce GTX 360 radiator Last edited by The Captain; February 19th, 2005 at 22:45..

February 20th, 2005, 00:58	#6
Boltzmann Retired Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Jundiaí - São Paulo - Brazil Posts: 8,876	Copyright laws have reached a point where they're simply ridiculous. Intelectual property laws suck big time, for most of the time. This crap about not lending your audio CD to anyone is the epitome of it... Take a look at this article, called Against Intellectual Property . It may look a bit like propaganda, but it's right for most of the part. __________________ "Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." - Wallace Stevens Me on Twitter

February 20th, 2005, 01:44	#7
WindHydra Wind, Life, Eternity Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: El Monte Posts: 1,331	I skipped some parts, hope they are not important But making intellectual property not able to be owned will probably be worse... like the author said, who has the ability to produce goods at lower costs? Although it is ridiculous how much consumers have to pay for stuff like medicine. I know lots of money went into researching drugs, but it still doesn't make sense to charge tens of thousands times the production price __________________ Hydrobiosis.com :bounce: We ran like the wind, under the cerulean skies...

February 20th, 2005, 15:20	#10
KanedA PS2 PAL[v9], PS3Slim PAL Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: PolanD Posts: 5,362	best way is to buy something and hide it, than for 100% you won't breake the law __________________

February 20th, 2005, 21:31	#13
Evaldas I♥☣ Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Raccoon city Posts: 200	Cid Highwind, may I please ask to share with us these results of your little research? Where is it officially stated (in a governmental act or smth) that you MAY NOT lend or borrow an intellectual product? What punishment is applied to a person that commits such a crime? The more I go deeper into that, the more I understand such a threat on CD covers is the same the case of an old lady who shakes her finger at a couple of "adolescent free-thinkers" that kiss each other in a public place. It is forbidden (at least in my country) to spread pornography, but the above mentioned activity could not be classified as such. Besides, if I am allowed to sell my legally purchased CD, you will never prove I commit a crime giving it for free. So if it is impossible to apply an article of a criminal code neither practically, nor THEORICALLY (!!!), why then bother shaking that damn finger at someone? As I understand, you didn't quite catch my point. I was talking about theory, but not the farcicality that these copyright laws bring. The most ridiculous thing in the essence of these laws is not their presence, as you claim, but their incongruity with each other. And I dissagree with the article Against the intellectual property. The argument that this type of property aggravates inequality is ridiculous: it is actually the material property that creates the precipice between the rich and the poor. You mean we all should refuse the material property because of that? Bearing in mind the fact that the welfare is inherited, communism was born. As history has already proved, such a system rotted. So why should we tolerate the absence of intellectual property? Although limits must be drawn. That's what interests me.

February 20th, 2005, 21:53	#14
Mykas0 World's Top C.T. fan Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Japan Posts: 226	Huh, I would surely understand that up to a point, but not even being able to lend it to your brother it's way too stupid... And I was younger (SNES and Genesis time :P) all the kids in school traded games, now we should all be in jail! XD __________________ World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan. Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

February 21st, 2005, 01:16	#16
Mykas0 World's Top C.T. fan Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Japan Posts: 226	So... they are doing illegal stuff? :P __________________ World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan. Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

February 21st, 2005, 11:13	#17
Evaldas I♥☣ Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Raccoon city Posts: 200	Is it a question or an affirmation? "We all should be sued for kissing in public places in USA," I could state in the same way as you do. Will such a proposition be correct? I will repeat my previously asked question: which article of the criminal code does not allow to do that?

February 21st, 2005, 16:32	#18
Mykas0 World's Top C.T. fan Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Japan Posts: 226	Well, it's easy... just get a legal cd you have, it must say something like "Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited", so I guess they must have a law or something about that... __________________ World's Top Captain Tsubasa fan. Please visit my works in http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/25182.html ! =)

February 21st, 2005, 17:09	#19
Evaldas I♥☣ Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Raccoon city Posts: 200	You guess???