download music is cheat and thief?
Derek Hornby
Fro the Guardian 8 October 2004
'The record company argument is rubbish'
'The record company argument is rubbish'
Laurence, 40, is an illegal downloader
I was told about WinMX by someone at work. I've downloaded thousands of
singles and hundreds of individual music videos since then.
I go back to my early teens when I listened to the top 40 on the radio and
taped songs from the radio before eventually going out and buying them. To me,
downloading is exactly the same. I will go online and download songs three or
four times a week, using WinMX. I've looked at other sites, like KaZaA, but it
wasn't right for me. I'm not that computer literate and WinMX is very
accessible.
My sons download as well. They will download singles for an hour or so, then
I will go online at about 10pm after they have gone to bed. That's when the
American market opens up. You tend to get more interesting material coming on
in the early hours, like US releases. The new Chris Robinson solo album is the
big one at the moment. He is the former lead singer of the Black Crowes and
hisalbum isn't being released in the UK, so a lot of people want it.
On the video side, there's amazing Grateful Dead and Led Zeppelin concerts
from the 60s available online.
I've never burnt a CD and sold it on. It isn't done. You just do it for your
own use. I probably spend more on music now since I started downloading. A lot
of people I know who download say the same thing.
The quality from illegal file-sharing networks is not as good, which is why if
you like what you are downloading you buy it eventually. I downloaded the
Libertines' new album the other week. I've got broadband so I can do it in
minutes.
The record companies' argument is a load of rubbish. They are doing extremely
well at the moment and people are spending more money on music through
downloading.
I was under the impression they will only really go for downloaders who are
doing it 24/7. But people who are much more computer literate will find ways
around it. I'm going to stick with what I'm doing and see what happens. But if
the law does get a stranglehold on it then legal sites might be my only outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is this guy a cheat and thief?
Derek
Steve Walker
> Well do you think downlaoidng music is stealing, as one hasn't
> paid fo it?
When I was a kid, we used to all buy a different album on Saturday morning
and then spend Saturday afternoon taping them (on a super-seventies Hitachi
music centre owned by someone's dad, because it had Dolby and everyfink!).
Each went home with an LP and 3 or 4 TDK tapes, and the world was a safer
place for it.
Seriously, I think it's risible, pathetic and obnoxious that the music
companies are trying to extend their control like this. A certain amount
of social exchange without monetary gain has always been part of life, and
this stinks of greed. The same people tried to stop us having VHS VCR's,
DVD-Writers, MP3 players ...
By all means go after the boot fair pirates and the dodgy dealers on eBay,
but now they're talking about forcing us to have Palladium/TCPA chip in our
PC's so that they can remotely control & surveil us. They dream of the day
when downloading a tatty Britney song will carry the same stigma as
kiddie-porn, and the FACT vans can patrol our streets with a standing
Warrant to raid premises.
See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html for TCPA, and then follow
me to http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/
Dr Zoidberg
There is a huge moral difference between someone selling thousands of
bootleg CDs at markets , and a home user hearing a track on the radio and
downloading it for a second listen.
I've frequently downloaded music off the net where I've wanted to get a
better idea of an album before buying it.
Where I've liked it I've then gone out and bought it.
Where I've not liked it then I just delete it and forget about it.
This hasn't cost anyone any sales as I wouldn't have bought it on the
offchance it was any good , and I certainly havent stolen anything.
Nobody has been deprived of anything as the people who make daft comparisons
with shoplifting would like to suggest.
So , am *I* a thief?
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.upce.org.uk
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>So , am *I* a thief?
No.
And, while I'm not (at the moment!) arguing that downloading an mp3
via Kazaa or Gnutella isn't (or should not be) a breach of copyright,
it is simply wrong to describe it as "theft". It is wrong legally (as
it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft), and it is wrong
morally (as it is used as a scare tactic).
Anyone who describes copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy" is
either a) stupid or b) deliberately attempting to mislead. Either way,
they've already lost the argument as far as I'm concerned.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"Illusion never changed into something real"
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>Anyone who describes copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy" is
>either a) stupid or b) deliberately attempting to mislead. Either way,
>they've already lost the argument as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, I had a long debate about this in *the other place* about a
year ago, and on closer examination, the arguments were far less clear
cut than I thought. I started off in exactly your position, and ended up
much less certain. It would be worth your while digging out that thread.
--
Richard Miller
Dr Zoidberg
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:20:15 +0100, Dr Zoidberg put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>>
>> So , am *I* a thief?
>
> No.
>
> And, while I'm not (at the moment!) arguing that downloading an mp3
> via Kazaa or Gnutella isn't (or should not be) a breach of copyright,
> it is simply wrong to describe it as "theft". It is wrong legally (as
> it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft), and it is wrong
> morally (as it is used as a scare tactic).
Agreed.
Nobody has been deprived of their property.
> Anyone who describes copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy" is
> either a) stupid or b) deliberately attempting to mislead. Either way,
> they've already lost the argument as far as I'm concerned.
>
Yep. Totally misses the point , and fails to convince anyone.
Its like the anti-piracy ads where they try and blame terrorists and
paedophiles for pirate dvds.
I've been to a large number of boot sales where they are for sale , and the
vendors are almost exclusively what I would suppose are called chavs. They
have clearly been copying films downloaded off the net onto DVDRs at home
and printing off their own covers.
Now ads that emphasise how piracy is supporting work shy dole scroungers
with dubious taste in jewellery might just have some effect , and pointing
out that they are often shite quality won't hurt
--
Alex
YZF 600
"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"
www.upce.org.uk
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <auidm0h291r8nksg2...@news.markshouse.net>,
Well, if you're going to be pedantic, there's a reasonable case for
using the word "piracy", on the gounds that it doesn't have a specific
legal definition and is in common colloquial use for this type of
situation. But there's no sensible way that copyright infringement can
be considered "theft".
The real problem, though, is that copyright is a much misunderstood
concept, even by those who benefit from it. It's perfectly possible to
make a very strong case for the way that copyright works and for the
rights of copyright holders to restrict the use of their material,
even where it doesn't actually cost them any real financial loss. What
really annoys me about the BPI and RIAA, etc, is not that they don't
have a legitimate claim, it's the fact that they themselves don't seem
to have any faith in their own position - which is why they resort to
misleading analogies such as theft.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"Life is both a major and a minor key"
Fat Freddy's Cat
> The same people tried to stop us having VHS VCR's,
> DVD-Writers, MP3 players ...
>
>
And along the lines of the book publishers many many years ago who
protested vehemently against the introduction of public libraries -
after all, who would buy a book if you could lend it for free?
The record companies are a disgrace - they make enough as it is to
finance a *very* comfortable lifestyle for the executives and stars, so
who gives a shit if I download a few albums - which I would add I
probably would *not* pay for at the risk of them being shite. Any good
stuff (movies, music etc) I do buy legit copies of.
The other point is that they've been extremely slow on the takeup to
provide legit payed for downloads - saves buying a whole album of
fillers when you really just want the 2 or 3 released tracks.
The price as well - they really shot themselves in the foot when they
argued CD's were expensive due to the new technology - well, CD blanks
now cost a fraction of a penny in the kind of bulk they buy them in but
the cost of an album has hardly dropped equally. I feel sympathy to
artists, but none at all to the record companies.
g.
Jack
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:2snn0hF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Derek Hornby wrote:
> but now they're talking about forcing us to have Palladium/TCPA chip in
our
> PC's so that they can remotely control & surveil us.
from the point of view of someone who built his own computer (me) i cant see
it happening
Jack
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ck645v$8ve$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Well do you think downlaoidng music is stealing, as one hasn't paid fo
it?
>
> Fro the Guardian 8 October 2004
> 'The record company argument is rubbish'
> So is this guy a cheat and thief?
> Derek
>
>
I also buy more music now that i download, in fact, i wouldnt have the same
taste of music i do if i didnt download, i wouldnt pay for gigs/concerts etc
Chris Street
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:00:15 +0100, Richard Miller put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>In message <auidm0h291r8nksg2...@news.markshouse.net>,
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>>>Anyone who describes copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy" is
>>>either a) stupid or b) deliberately attempting to mislead. Either way,
>>>they've already lost the argument as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>Actually, I had a long debate about this in *the other place* about a
>>year ago, and on closer examination, the arguments were far less clear
>>cut than I thought. I started off in exactly your position, and ended up
>>much less certain. It would be worth your while digging out that thread.
>
> Well, if you're going to be pedantic, there's a reasonable case for
> using the word "piracy", on the gounds that it doesn't have a specific
> legal definition and is in common colloquial use for this type of
> situation. But there's no sensible way that copyright infringement can
> be considered "theft".
I'm no expert but I'd argue that passing off a good counterfeit as an
original is deception, and that is covered under the Theft Act is it not?
Rob
But in the context of making a copy of someone else's intellectual property
for your own use, (the topic of this thread), there is no passing off nor
any deception, so reference to the theft act is irrelevant. You cannot steal
something merely by replicating it.
The only reason the word theft is bandied about, usually by the large record
companies, is because it's in their interest to demonise the copier as
someone who is taking money from their pockets - which is clearly nonsense.
--
Rob
Dr Zoidberg
Seconded.
Most of the bands I listen to now I first heard when I got a copy of their
music either on tape , then cd and now MP3.
I go to dozens of concerts a year , and buy large numbers of CDs pretty much
all as a direct result of having "stolen" their music
Palindr☻me
> Jack wrote:
>
>>"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:ck645v$8ve$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>
>>>Well do you think downlaoidng music is stealing, as one hasn't paid
>>>fo it?
>>>
>>>Fro the Guardian 8 October 2004
>>>'The record company argument is rubbish'
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>So is this guy a cheat and thief?
>>>Derek
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I also buy more music now that i download, in fact, i wouldnt have
>>the same taste of music i do if i didnt download, i wouldnt pay for
>>gigs/concerts etc
>
>
> Seconded.
>
> Most of the bands I listen to now I first heard when I got a copy of their
> music either on tape , then cd and now MP3.
> I go to dozens of concerts a year , and buy large numbers of CDs pretty much
> all as a direct result of having "stolen" their music
>
Most of the analogies to this seem way off, so here is
another one:
Suppose someone finds a way of making near-perfect copies
of Rolex watches, for next to no cost, and gives large
quantities of them to anyone that asks. He is based in, say,
Afghanistan, One person takes a box of these watches and
reutrns to the UK, stands on the corner of the High Street,
handing them out for free. He has a sign saying, "These are
not Rolex Watches". The watches have writing on them saying,
"This is not a Rolex".
Who is committing what crime? The manufacturer clearly is -
but I can't imagine that the Afghan authorities don't have
more urgent things to do..
Is the guy on the street corner breaking any law? (Other
than, "Obstructing the Highway, Action likely to cause a
breach of the peace, etc"
Are the people on the street breaking any laws by taking the
watches?
--
Sue
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:00:15 +0100, Richard Miller put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>In message <auidm0h291r8nksg2...@news.markshouse.net>,
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>>>Anyone who describes copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy" is
>>>either a) stupid or b) deliberately attempting to mislead. Either way,
>>>they've already lost the argument as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>Actually, I had a long debate about this in *the other place* about a
>>year ago, and on closer examination, the arguments were far less clear
>>cut than I thought. I started off in exactly your position, and ended up
>>much less certain. It would be worth your while digging out that thread.
>
>Well, if you're going to be pedantic, there's a reasonable case for
>using the word "piracy", on the gounds that it doesn't have a specific
>legal definition and is in common colloquial use for this type of
>situation. But there's no sensible way that copyright infringement can
>be considered "theft".
>
The Theft Act definition includes intangible property as well as
tangible in what can be stolen - something which surprised me at the
time.
The thread in the other place was called "Much good comes from online
piracy". Here is a sample exchange from that debate.
> In message <vbnegtj...@corp.supernews.com>, AllYou!
> <ida...@conversent.net> writes
> >I'm not sure, but I think that we've had so many simultaneous
> >discussions that you may have confused two different points. It's
> >always been my contention that I could make a case for theft in two
> >different ways. 1) The theft of the right, with the right being the
> >property, and; 2) The theft of the copy of the song, with the copy
> >being the intangible property. I this particular post in which I
draw
> >upon Stuart, I'm claiming only the latter and not the issue of the
> >right itself. In this case, I'm contending that the actual copy of
the
> >song is the intangible property belonging to the rights holder, and
> >that he's been deprived of it. And I use Stuart to back up that
claim.
>
> This all comes back to what is meant by "owning" the copy of the song
in
> the absence of owning the medium, and our discussion elsewhere on the
> thread about that.
>
> The trouble is, the way I see it, "owning the copy" does come down to
a
> matter of owning certain rights in the song, and the question whether
> those rights have been permanently denied to the owner won't go away.
But you just made one too many jumps. I'm not arguing that he's been
deprived of his rights. I'm arguing that he's been deprived of the
copy.
The right's owner owns the copy as defined by copyright law. And
certainly,
(for the sake of this issue) the loss of the copy does not deprive the
rights holder his rights. But that skips over the fact that it *does*
deprive the rights holder of the copy which he owns.
He owned the copy (as defined by copyright law).
It was taken from him (or, as the judge said, converted).
The pirate has no intention of returning it.
Theft.
--
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
Counterfeiting, though, is a different offence to that being committed
by those who download and share mp3 files. Counterfeiting is a form of
fraud; it's presenting something as if it were something else. There
is no fraud or deception involved in giving away an mp3 version of a
genuine recording.
In the case of counterfeit goods, knowingly selling them for profit
comes under the Theft Act because it is a form of dishonestly
obtaining money. The actual theft in this case is the dishonest
acquisition of the price paid for the goods. The "victim" of the theft
is the customer of the counterfeiter, not the owner of the copyright
infringed by the counterfeiter. The copyright owner may take civil
action against the counterfeiter for damages under the copyright laws,
but the criminal action only applies to the transaction between the
counterfeiter and the customer.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! <--
"Life is bigger, it's bigger than you"
Chris Street
I was referring to the local chav selling from a car boot sale with an
appropriately inkjetted box at the local car boot. To my mind that is theft
and could well be described as piracy.
For joe public downloading a few tracks off the latest Iron Maiden album
and seeing if it's worth buying is something else again - personally I
don't even think this should be a criminal offence. It should be up to the
copyright holder to prove a loss in the civil courts, and if they have
airtime on the local radio station for these tracks then I don't see how
they could claim that.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:30:10 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 00:05:12 +0100, Chris Street put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>I'm no expert but I'd argue that passing off a good counterfeit as an
>>>original is deception, and that is covered under the Theft Act is it not?
>>
>> Counterfeiting, though, is a different offence to that being committed
>> by those who download and share mp3 files. Counterfeiting is a form of
>> fraud; it's presenting something as if it were something else. There
>> is no fraud or deception involved in giving away an mp3 version of a
>> genuine recording.
>
>I was referring to the local chav selling from a car boot sale with an
>appropriately inkjetted box at the local car boot. To my mind that is theft
>and could well be described as piracy.
Indeed, but that's not what the original thread was about.
>For joe public downloading a few tracks off the latest Iron Maiden album
>and seeing if it's worth buying is something else again - personally I
>don't even think this should be a criminal offence.
It isn't a criminal offence.
> It should be up to the
>copyright holder to prove a loss in the civil courts, and if they have
>airtime on the local radio station for these tracks then I don't see how
>they could claim that.
It's not the downloaders who are being sued, it's the uploaders - the
people who make large quantities of files available for others to
download. This is a prima facie breach of copyright - the real
question is whether or not it's appropriate for copyright holders to
take such action.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"All the promises we break from the cradle to the grave"
Tim Jackson
> In the case of counterfeit goods, knowingly selling them for profit
> comes under the Theft Act because it is a form of dishonestly
> obtaining money. The actual theft in this case is the dishonest
> acquisition of the price paid for the goods. The "victim" of the theft
> is the customer of the counterfeiter, not the owner of the copyright
> infringed by the counterfeiter. The copyright owner may take civil
> action against the counterfeiter for damages under the copyright laws,
> but the criminal action only applies to the transaction between the
> counterfeiter and the customer.
Knowingly selling them for profit would be a criminal offence under
section 107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act. I suspect
that's what, say, Trading Standards would be more likely to take
action under, rather than (or perhaps as well as) for any offence
under the Theft Act.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
Howard Neil
The Theft Act 1968 does have a suitable section, S16, Obtaining a
pecuniary advantage by deception. One part of the definition of
"pecuniary advantage" is: where a person obtains a reduction or
deferment of or evades any debt or charge for which he is or may become
liable (including one not legally enforceable).
--
Howard Neil
Chris Street
When you can only buy hard drives that work with a palladium aware OS you
will be.....
Jack
"Palindr鈤籱e" <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2spoghF...@uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> Most of the analogies to this seem way off, so here is
> another one:
>
> Suppose someone finds a way of making near-perfect copies
> of Rolex watches, for next to no cost, and gives large
> quantities of them to anyone that asks. He is based in, say,
> Afghanistan, One person takes a box of these watches and
> reutrns to the UK, stands on the corner of the High Street,
> handing them out for free. He has a sign saying, "These are
> not Rolex Watches". The watches have writing on them saying,
> "This is not a Rolex".
>
> Who is committing what crime? The manufacturer clearly is -
> but I can't imagine that the Afghan authorities don't have
> more urgent things to do..
>
> Is the guy on the street corner breaking any law? (Other
> than, "Obstructing the Highway, Action likely to cause a
> breach of the peace, etc"
>
> Are the people on the street breaking any laws by taking the
> watches?
>
> --
>
> Sue
>
>
>
>
street peddling (or something, those arent exact words)
umm.. possibly public nuisence(sp)
Rob
||
|| I was referring to the local chav selling from a car boot sale with
|| an appropriately inkjetted box at the local car boot. To my mind
|| that is theft and could well be described as piracy.
Still not theft AFAICS but definitely piracy, and definitely illegal.
||
|| For joe public downloading a few tracks off the latest Iron Maiden
|| album and seeing if it's worth buying is something else again -
|| personally I don't even think this should be a criminal offence.
Good job it isn't then.
|| It should be up to the copyright holder to prove a loss in the civil
|| courts, and if they have airtime on the local radio station for
|| these tracks then I don't see how they could claim that.
The copyright holder always has a civil remedy for infringement.
--
Rob
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>It's not the downloaders who are being sued, it's the uploaders - the
>people who make large quantities of files available for others to
>download. This is a prima facie breach of copyright - the real question
>is whether or not it's appropriate for copyright holders to take such
>action.
It is a breach of copyright, is it?
Let's say I own a copy of a picture in which someone else owns the
copyright. I display that picture in my window, and a lot of other
people come along and take photographs of it. Am I breaching copyright,
or are the people taking the photos?
--
Richard Miller
Damot
I guess so. But there was music before the music industry so there
will be music after they've gone.
Personally I think the quality of music will increase if people are
producing it because they enjoy it, and it will spread because it's
*good* not because the music industry spend millions promoting it.
I've loads of freeware software that is much better than commercial
stuff. The same thing applies I reckon.
Rob
|| Rob wrote:
||| But in the context of making a copy of someone else's intellectual
||| property for your own use, (the topic of this thread), there is no
||| passing off nor any deception, so reference to the theft act is
||| irrelevant. You cannot steal something merely by replicating it.
|||
||| The only reason the word theft is bandied about, usually by the
||| large record companies, is because it's in their interest to
||| demonise the copier as someone who is taking money from their
||| pockets - which is clearly nonsense.
|||
||
|| The Theft Act 1968 does have a suitable section, S16, Obtaining a
|| pecuniary advantage by deception. One part of the definition of
|| "pecuniary advantage" is: where a person obtains a reduction or
|| deferment of or evades any debt or charge for which he is or may
|| become liable (including one not legally enforceable).
The Theft Act goes nowhere near covering the making of a copy of piece of
copyrighted music.
Regarding theft.
There is no dishonesty, no appropriation of another's property, no depriving
of same (let alone no intention that this be permanent), in fact there isn't
a single element present for the law to be have been broken.
Regarding s16.
Apart from the very obvious absence of any deception, s16 is limited in
scope to cover cases of dishonesty in obtaining improved terms for insurance
policies, annuities, employment or betting.
--
Rob
Tim Jackson
See section 24(2) of the Copyright etc Act 1988.
[quote]
Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies
24. - (1) [....]
(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the
licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a
telecommunications system (otherwise than by broadcasting or inclusion
in a cable programme service), knowing or having reason to believe
that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the
reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <l00gm05kr1v2245av...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>>It's not the downloaders who are being sued, it's the uploaders - the
>>people who make large quantities of files available for others to
>>download. This is a prima facie breach of copyright - the real question
>>is whether or not it's appropriate for copyright holders to take such
>>action.
>
>It is a breach of copyright, is it?
Yes.
>Let's say I own a copy of a picture in which someone else owns the
>copyright. I display that picture in my window, and a lot of other
>people come along and take photographs of it. Am I breaching copyright,
>or are the people taking the photos?
No-one is, because copyright law specifically allows for people to
take photos of an artistic work on public display[1].
The two cases are not comparable, because copyright law specifically
addreses the former in a way that it does not address the latter. The
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has separate sections dealing
with sound/video recordings and "artistic works" (eg, paintings,
sculptures, etc).
The rationale behind the difference is that if you take a photo of a
copyright artistic work, you aren't actually copying the work itself -
you are making something new (the photograph) that contains a
representation of it. And derivative works are, in some cases (such as
this one), permitted. But if you re-record an audio or video file (eg,
by ripping a CD to mp3), the end result is an actual copy of the
original. This distinction isn't entirely consistent, and is arguably
irrational, but it is, nevertheless, enshrined in the law.
[1] The owner of an art gallery may restrict photography on their
premises if they so wish, but this is for their own reasons rather
than because of any copyright in the paintings on display.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"We do what we like, and we like what we do"
Jack
"Chris Street" <venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6dfbyiaiotag$.1gsn2g72l08fo.dlg@40tude.net...
and im sure i could get my non palladium aware OS to tell the hard drives
its palladium aware :)
Jack
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aUkK4cAs...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
noone is.. if i take a photo of a can of coke, am i breaching the copyright
on their logo?
Tim Jackson
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:35:06 +0100, Richard Miller put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >copyright. I display that picture in my window, and a lot of other
> >people come along and take photographs of it. Am I breaching copyright,
> >or are the people taking the photos?
>
> No-one is, because copyright law specifically allows for people to
> take photos of an artistic work on public display[1].
This doesn't apply to pictures. It only applies to
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic
craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in
premises open to the public.
[Copyright etc Act section 62]
There are certain limited exceptions which do apply, e.g. if the
picture is included in the photo only incidentally. [Section 31]
The reason that someone uploading copyright music is treated
differently from Richard displaying a picture in his window is section
24(2), quoted in a separate post.
In the case of the picture, the person who photographs it is
(probably) infringing, but the person who displayed the picture isn't.
In the case of uploaded music, on the other hand, the person who
downloads it is a primary infringer, and the person who uploads it is
also guilty of secondary infringement under section 24(2).
[snip]
> The rationale behind the difference is that if you take a photo of a
> copyright artistic work, you aren't actually copying the work itself -
You undoubtedly are copying it. Copying is defined as "reproducing
the work in any material form" [section 17(2)]. A photo of a picture
is a reproduction of it in a material form.
> you are making something new (the photograph) that contains a
> representation of it.
The photo will have a new copyright of its own, but that doesn't alter
the fact that the photo will be a copy of the picture, and taking it
will infringe the copyright in the picture.
> And derivative works are, in some cases (such as
> this one), permitted.
"Derivative work" is a concept from US copyright law. UK copyright
law has the concept of an "adaptation", but that only relates to
literary, dramatic or musical works, not pictures [section 21]. Even
for those, making an adaptation without permission will usually
infringe, unless it falls within one of the limited exceptions
provided elsewhere in the Act for copyright works generally.
> But if you re-record an audio or video file (eg,
> by ripping a CD to mp3), the end result is an actual copy of the
> original. This distinction isn't entirely consistent, and is arguably
> irrational, but it is, nevertheless, enshrined in the law.
There is no such distinction. A photo of a painting and an mp3 ripped
from a CD are both copies.
Richard Miller
<ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote on Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:35:06 +0100....
>> In message <l00gm05kr1v2245av...@news.markshouse.net>,
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>> >It's not the downloaders who are being sued, it's the uploaders - the
>> >people who make large quantities of files available for others to
>> >download. This is a prima facie breach of copyright - the real question
>> >is whether or not it's appropriate for copyright holders to take such
>> >action.
>>
>> It is a breach of copyright, is it?
>>
>> Let's say I own a copy of a picture in which someone else owns the
>> copyright. I display that picture in my window, and a lot of other
>> people come along and take photographs of it. Am I breaching copyright,
>> or are the people taking the photos?
>
>See section 24(2) of the Copyright etc Act 1988.
>
>[quote]
>Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies
>24. - (1) [....]
>(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the
>licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a
>telecommunications system (otherwise than by broadcasting or inclusion
>in a cable programme service), knowing or having reason to believe
>that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the
>reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
>
And in the peer to peer system, where someone merely leaves a file in
their directory, in what way do they "transmit" anything? What happens
is that someone externally accesses it. The person who has the first
copy does nothing.
--
Richard Miller
Howard Neil
> Howard Neil wrote:
> || Rob wrote:
> ||| But in the context of making a copy of someone else's intellectual
> ||| property for your own use, (the topic of this thread), there is no
> ||| passing off nor any deception, so reference to the theft act is
> ||| irrelevant. You cannot steal something merely by replicating it.
> |||
> ||| The only reason the word theft is bandied about, usually by the
> ||| large record companies, is because it's in their interest to
> ||| demonise the copier as someone who is taking money from their
> ||| pockets - which is clearly nonsense.
> |||
> ||
> || The Theft Act 1968 does have a suitable section, S16, Obtaining a
> || pecuniary advantage by deception. One part of the definition of
> || "pecuniary advantage" is: where a person obtains a reduction or
> || deferment of or evades any debt or charge for which he is or may
> || become liable (including one not legally enforceable).
>
>
> The Theft Act goes nowhere near covering the making of a copy of piece of
> copyrighted music.
>
> Regarding theft.
> There is no dishonesty, no appropriation of another's property, no depriving
> of same (let alone no intention that this be permanent), in fact there isn't
> a single element present for the law to be have been broken.
>
The word "theft" is not mentioned in S16. This section was inserted to
specifically deal with cases where S15 does not apply as there is no
obtaining of property by deception.
> Regarding s16.
> Apart from the very obvious absence of any deception, s16 is limited in
> scope to cover cases of dishonesty in obtaining improved terms for insurance
> policies, annuities, employment or betting.
>
I would agree that there is no deception in copying such material for
your own use but a poster earlier in this thread said "I'm no expert but
I'd argue that passing off a good counterfeit as an original is
deception, and that is covered under the Theft Act is it not?" I was
replying with this in mind as, depending on circumstances, there *could*
be deception involved.
There is nothing in the Theft Act that limits the scope of S16 to
insurance policies, annuities, employment or betting. Perhaps you are
aware of specific case law?
--
Howard Neil
Steve Walker
Not yet, but they'd like to reach that position.
Rob
But they don't just leave a file in their directory. Without the p2p
software running, the file can't be shared. The file sharer actively
installs and offers for upload, a copyrighted file using software
specifically designed for this purpose. This is distributing, which would
seem to me, to make him liable under s107 (1)(e) of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
Of course it would then remain to be proved who actually used the computer
to do this.
--
Rob
Tim Jackson
[Questioning whether uploading music infringes copyright]
> And in the peer to peer system, where someone merely leaves a file in
> their directory, in what way do they "transmit" anything? What happens
> is that someone externally accesses it. The person who has the first
> copy does nothing.
I agree there may be arguments on these lines when the recently
announced actions against peer-to-peer uploaders are heard.
However, as I understand the technology, allowing peer-to-peer access
involves more than just leaving the file in a directory. The computer
has to respond to external requests and send the file that has been
requested. My view would be that that is "transmitting", as required
by section 24(2). While it may happen automatically, it's not a
purely passive arrangement. And the person with the first copy
has deliberately set up his computer to do it.
Richard Miller
<rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.com> writes
>But they don't just leave a file in their directory. Without the p2p
>software running, the file can't be shared. The file sharer actively
>installs and offers for upload, a copyrighted file using software
>specifically designed for this purpose. This is distributing,
How is it distributing? I am not transmitting anything, I am not sending
out anything, I am not duplicating anything. All I am doing is allowing
other people to take copies in breach of copyright if they choose to do
so.
>which would seem to me, to make him liable under s107 (1)(e) of the
>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
I'm unconvinced.
--
Richard Miller
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <ckbthq$5o0$1...@titan.btinternet.com>, Rob
><rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.com> writes
>>But they don't just leave a file in their directory. Without the p2p
>>software running, the file can't be shared. The file sharer actively
>>installs and offers for upload, a copyrighted file using software
>>specifically designed for this purpose. This is distributing,
>
>How is it distributing? I am not transmitting anything, I am not sending
>out anything, I am not duplicating anything. All I am doing is allowing
>other people to take copies in breach of copyright if they choose to do
>so.
You are running software which makes the copies available. And, as
this software is neither installed nor running by default, you are
"distributing" if you use it.
>>which would seem to me, to make him liable under s107 (1)(e) of the
>>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
>
>I'm unconvinced.
I think you'll find that the courts have already ruled against your
opinion on this one.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love"
Steve Maudsley
> In message <ckbthq$5o0$1...@titan.btinternet.com>, Rob
> <rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.com> writes
> >But they don't just leave a file in their directory. Without the p2p
> >software running, the file can't be shared. The file sharer actively
> >installs and offers for upload, a copyrighted file using software
> >specifically designed for this purpose. This is distributing,
>
> How is it distributing? I am not transmitting anything, I am not sending
> out anything, I am not duplicating anything. All I am doing is allowing
> other people to take copies in breach of copyright if they choose to do
Interesting question - all internet traffic that uses tcp-ip protocols is
taking part in an exchange of data - tokens pass both ways in order to
verify and validate the transmission of the data, There has to be an active
process at both ends...