(OT) Morality query
Nicolaas Hawkins
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that
> this is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests
> for DVD rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are
> all assisted even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an
> issue if these programs are used.
>
> Comments?
>
IMO there is a clear distinction between software piracy/theft which is an
unlawful act in and of itself, and supplying someone with software (or
providing them with the means to obtain software) which is capable of being
used for an unlawful purpose. In the latter case you have no way of
knowing (or, for that matter, controlling) the use to which the said
software will be put - or not.
--
Nicolaas.
- Echo: The only thing that cheats some of us out of the last word.
Onno Tasler
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that this
> is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests for DVD
> rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are all assisted
> even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an issue if these
> programs are used.
Well, you wrote *could* - that is right, all of these programs *could*
be used for unlawful purposes. So, there are also a lot of completely
legible usages for these programs.
Cracks on the other hand are in nearly all cases not only a breach of
the softwares license, but also of copyright law.
Same with an axe - it is mainly a useful tool, even if it *could* be
used for unlawful purposes (like murder). Shall I now stop to tell
people where to afford axes?
I hope you see the difference between a clearly illegal act and a tool
that might be used for illegal purposes. The first is shopping at a
receiver of stolen goods, the second is shopping in a do-it-yourself
market.
bye,
Onno
John Corliss
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that this
> is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests for DVD
> rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are all assisted
> even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an issue if these
> programs are used.
>
Fair use law (at least in the U.S.) says making a copy of your own CDs
and DVDs is legal as long as the copies are for your own use. Cracking
software could actually be ethical (but usually *not* legal because
usage agreements usually say not to reverse engineer) if you lost the
registration code (for instance lost the CD envelope or other package
with the code on it) but actually had the software.
It's a tough call, but the main reason cracks are off topic in this
group is because there is a distinct need to keep warez discussion
out. The group will lose legitimacy if pirates start frequenting it.
Besides, they have their own groups. Note that those groups sometimes
don't get carried by some newsfeeds and the same thing could happen to
this group.
--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
W
into the melee, yelling something about:
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that
> this is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests
> for DVD rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are
> all assisted even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an
> issue if these programs are used.
>
> Comments?
>
I think there are acceptable uses for programs such as CD Music
extractors. I have a 200 disc CD changer in my home, and if I want to
make a copy of the CD which I purchased so I can listen to it in my car,
then I believe (perhaps wrongly?) that I can make that copy legally.
There are probably other acceptable "legal" uses for the other programs as
well, but there are no acceptable "legal" uses for cracked commercial
software.
My 2 cents.
--
Jonathan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us all bask in television's warm glowing warming glow.
H.S.
Mel
"John Corliss" <jcor...@Ihatespam.net> wrote in message news:vkesq28...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Fair use law (at least in the U.S.) says making a copy of your own CDs
> and DVDs is legal as long as the copies are for your own use. Cracking
> software could actually be ethical (but usually *not* legal because
> usage agreements usually say not to reverse engineer) if you lost the
> registration code (for instance lost the CD envelope or other package
> with the code on it) but actually had the software.
In the UK - As far as I can make out from the copyright regulations I've read,
Both copying CDs and reverse engineering software seems to be legal,
even if a licence agreements seeks to prohibit it..
Legal or not, I can't see any moral issues against e.g. removing copy protection
from software you've paid for (or fixing bugs) if it interferes with your own
personal legal usage.
The unauthorised distribution of "cracked" copyright material is unlawful,
and an entirely different matter.
===============================================
From "The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992"
50A.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it
which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a
licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.
(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement
which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).
Decompilation.
50B.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language-
(a) to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
(b) incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it,
(that is, to "decompile" it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are that-
(a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be
operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective"); and
(b) the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.
(3) In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user-
(a) has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(b) does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(c) supplies the information obtained by the decompiling to any person to whom it is not necessary to supply it in order to achieve
the permitted objective; or
(d) uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any
act restricted by copyright.
(4) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement
which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).
Paul
essentially programs made for and distributed for free and this is done with
the knowledge and consent of he developer
cracks arent
my 2p
;)
Paul
:.so i have the internet ; what do i do now?
"Paul Blarmy" <foxe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b12e53c...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that this
> is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests for DVD
> rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are all assisted
> even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an issue if these
> programs are used.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Paul
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "it takes a man who knows no fear, to wrestle with a goat"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003
Mcubed
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that
> this is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests
> for DVD rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are
> all assisted even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an
> issue if these programs are used.
>
> Comments?
>
IMO, copyright doesn't enter into it at all. Software cracks are off-
topic. Cracked shareware or commercial software isn't freeware, it's
warez. Many DVD and CD rippers and most file-sharing programs are
freeware.
"Morality" is even farther afield. I could go on for days about how
unethical and dangerous our current copyright laws are in the U.S., but
that's also off-topic. At least there's some comfort in recent polls
finding that 2/3 of Americans largely ignore copyright.
--
Michael
New York, NY USA
Andrew C. Cooper
into Power Point and other presentations. I see nothing wrong with this.
If someone wants a copy of our presentations that we have either burned to a
DVD or other wise, they get it with out the music.
Some times we have to rip a DVD we have made because I forget to make a
backup, so a DVD ripper is good to have. BUT if a CD we bought is broken or
quites working, we quit using any songs we have ripped from it.
We never share any software, unless it's freeware, with anyone, and you can
just guess what kind of trouble that causes.
--
<><
Andrew C. Cooper
<><
Check Out Our New Web Site!
Word For Life Resource Center
http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
Get Your Free Christian Screen
Saver At:
* http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm *
"Paul Blarmy" <foxe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b12e53c...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that this
> is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests for DVD
> rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are all assisted
> even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an issue if these
> programs are used.
>
> Comments?
>
Nicolaas Hawkins
> On 24 Aug 2003 17:00:46 GMT, Mcubed wrote...
>
>> Many DVD and CD rippers and most file-sharing programs are
>> freeware.
>
> Yes I know, but I posted the original comment mindful of the fact that
> there will be times (many times perhaps) these items are used for
> copyright infringement purposes.
>
So? Where a person has legitimate possession of a legal piece of software,
where and why does it become any business of yours what they use it for?
That's Orwellian "Big Brother" stuff of the worst kind. Good heavens,
what's next - Thought Police? Surveillance cameras in every home?
--
Nicolaas.
- It's okay to call someone stupid - just don't prove it.
Andrew C. Cooper
They are not doing it for our entertainment.
--
<><
Andrew C. Cooper
<><
Check Out Our New Web Site!
Word For Life Resource Center
http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
Get Your Free Christian Screen
Saver At:
* http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm *
"Paul Blarmy" <foxe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b3e9c1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 02:32:54 GMT, Andrew C. Cooper wrote...
>
> > I run a Christian Ministry. We use songs from cd's we have bought to
paste
> > into Power Point and other presentations. I see nothing wrong with
this.
>
> For what it's worth Andrew, I can't see why you shouldn't do this either.
> But it's not my opinion that counts and I'm sure the record companies
> would think differently to either of us.
John Corliss
> (clipped) BUT if a CD we bought is broken or
> quites working, we quit using any songs we have ripped from it.
Why? This is one reason why you are allowed to make copies for fair
use. You paid for a *working* copy of the music. If you bought a CD
and it didn't work, then went back to the store to return it only to
find that the store had gone out of business, then you would be out
the money. Your only recourse would be to obtain a copy of the music
from somebody else and you would have that right because you bought
the CD and own it.
John Corliss
> Andrew C. Cooper wrote:
>
>> (clipped) BUT if a CD we bought is broken or
>> quites working, we quit using any songs we have ripped from it.
>
>
> Why? This is one reason why you are allowed to make copies for fair use.
> You paid for a *working* copy of the music. If you bought a CD and it
> didn't work, then went back to the store to return it only to find that
> the store had gone out of business, then you would be out the money.
> Your only recourse would be to obtain a copy of the music from somebody
> else and you would have that right because you bought the CD and own it.
>
Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
to have a working copy of it."
Brian Tillman
protection
>from software you've paid for (or fixing bugs) if it interferes with your
own
>personal legal usage.
The fallacy with the statement lies in "software you paid for". You don't
buy software. You buy the right to use it. The software itself remains the
property of the owner, with no rights of ownership transferred to you.
That said, it is always legal, under current copyright laws, to make a
backup copy of any software for which you're licensed and if the copy
protection prevents that, I think you have the right to circumvent the
protection.
--
Brian Tillman Internet: Brian.Tillman at smiths-aerospace dot com
Smiths Aerospace Addresses modified to prevent SPAM.
3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Replace "at" with "@", "dot" with "."
Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991
This opinion doesn't represent that of my company
Mel
"John Corliss" <jcor...@Ihatespam.net> wrote in message news:vkjvimk...@corp.supernews.com...
> John Corliss wrote:
> > Andrew C. Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> (clipped) BUT if a CD we bought is broken or
> >> quites working, we quit using any songs we have ripped from it.
> >
> >
> > Why? This is one reason why you are allowed to make copies for fair use.
> > You paid for a *working* copy of the music. If you bought a CD and it
> > didn't work, then went back to the store to return it only to find that
> > the store had gone out of business, then you would be out the money.
> > Your only recourse would be to obtain a copy of the music from somebody
> > else and you would have that right because you bought the CD and own it.
> >
>
> Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
> to have a working copy of it."
Good Question; That has me puzzled me too.
If you buy a CD then the licence (which is what you have actually
purchased) doesn't expire with the medium it is recorded on.
(Unless it is one of the new self-destructing DVDs that are available
with a restricted play licence).
In fact many copy protected music CDs are not durable because they do
not comply with the relevant CD standard and the error-correction
data which is supposed to allow for scratches which occur in normal
usage is incorrect.
In my view this makes it almost essential to back-up such CD's ..
or better still not to buy them in the first place because they are usually
also of sub-standard audio quality.
On the other hand Public performances would probably fall foul of
copyright laws unless you have permission and pay the due royalties etc.
As an example this is from UK copyright law..
(see http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv19 )
Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public.
19.-(1) The performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
(2) In this Part "performance", in relation to a work-
(a) includes delivery in the case of lectures, addresses, speeches and sermons, and
(b) in general, includes any mode of visual or acoustic presentation, including presentation by means of a sound recording, film,
broadcast or cable programme of the work.
(3) The playing or showing of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a sound recording, film, broadcast or
cable programme.
Mcubed
> On 24 Aug 2003 17:00:46 GMT, Mcubed wrote...
>
>> Many DVD and CD rippers and most file-sharing programs are
>> freeware.
>
> Yes I know, but I posted the original comment mindful of the fact that
> there will be times (many times perhaps) these items are used for
> copyright infringement purposes.
>
And as I said in my reply, copyright doesn't enter into it. Whether people
do or do not use these programs to infringe copyrights is beside the point.
If they are freeware applications, they're on-topic here.
Mcubed
> John Corliss wrote:
>> Andrew C. Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> (clipped) BUT if a CD we bought is broken or
>>> quites working, we quit using any songs we have ripped from it.
>>
>> Why? This is one reason why you are allowed to make copies for fair
>> use. You paid for a *working* copy of the music. If you bought a CD
>> and it didn't work, then went back to the store to return it only to
>> find that the store had gone out of business, then you would be out
>> the money. Your only recourse would be to obtain a copy of the music
>> from somebody else and you would have that right because you bought
>> the CD and own it.
>
> Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
> to have a working copy of it."
Under what statute is that the case? When you buy a CD, you buy a
product, not a license. That product is yours to do with what you will
-- listen to it, copy it for personal use, use it as a frisbee. If you
scratch it or render it unplayable, you don't have any special right to
replace it free of charge anymore than you have the right to replace a
toaster that breaks free of charge.
Andrew C. Cooper
side of right.
Many times I have been called to a church to repair or fix a problem with
their computer to find tons of illegal software on their computers.
--
<><
Andrew C. Cooper
<><
Check Out Our New Web Site!
Word For Life Resource Center
http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
Get Your Free Christian Screen
Saver At:
* http://www.wordforlife.com/cmhm *
"Mcubed" <myspa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93E29121F718Amy...@130.133.1.4...
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
> John Corliss <jcor...@Ihatespam.net> wrote in
>>to have a working copy of it."
>
> Under what statute is that the case? When you buy a CD, you buy a
> product, not a license.
It falls under the fair use provision of copyright law -- you can create
one copy for personal archival use.
--
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish that He didn't trust me so much. - Mother Teresa
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Many times I have been called to a church to repair or fix a problem with
> their computer to find tons of illegal software on their computers.
And I bet sometimes that is done in all innocence, although probably not
always.
Mcubed
> On 25 Aug 2003 17:56:24 GMT, Mcubed wrote...
>
>> And as I said in my reply, copyright doesn't enter into it. Whether
>> people do or do not use these programs to infringe copyrights is
>> beside the point. If they are freeware applications, they're
>> on-topic here.
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, the original point was to question the premise that crack
> requests are frowned upon (rightly so) and software to (potentially)
> assist in copyright theft is deemed to be above board.
>
> Shades of grey?
Not at all -- it's as black & white as on-topic vs. off-topic. An
enormous amount of freeware sought and recommended in this group can
assist in copyright infringement. (BTW, none of the software you
mentioned can aid in "copyright theft." Theft of copyright would involve
somehow stealing somebody's registration of copyright on a particular
work -- i.e., you write a book, and I manage to get your text copyrighted
in my name. Arguably, this is how the recording industry works, but it
needs only lawyers to accomplish this, not special software.)
A fair percentage of the software on Pricelessware.org can be used, one
way or another, to infringe copyrights, including most of the sub-
categories of "Internet," "Text," "Multimedia," and "Graphics," and
selected programs listed under other categories. I don't see how CD
rippers are any more or less "grey" than email clients, image morph
tools, or word processors. All of these can be used to copy,
redistribute, and/or alter copyrighted material.
Judging from the number of copyrighted articles and images I get sent
regularly, together with the ubiquity of email clients, my guess is that
those probably infringe a greater number of copyrights than any of the
software applications you mentioned.
Mcubed
in news:3F4A5DEE...@TRASHsonic.net:
> Mcubed wrote:
>> John Corliss <jcor...@Ihatespam.net> wrote in
>>>Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
>>>to have a working copy of it."
>>
>> Under what statute is that the case? When you buy a CD, you buy a
>> product, not a license.
>
> It falls under the fair use provision of copyright law -- you can
> create one copy for personal archival use.
>
You can create more than one copy, and for more than "personal archival"
purposes -- in the U.S., anyway. For example, you can make a copy to
use in your car, you can make another copy for a 2nd residence, etc.
You can make MP3s to listen to in your portable or on your PC.
But that wasn't how I read John's meaning -- he seemed to be implying
that buying a CD once gives one rights beyond what might be considered
fair use. You don't "own the rights" to anything, you own the CD.
John Corliss
You missed my point. I was saying that if I bought a cd and it was
defective from the start *AND* I had no recourse for recompensation,
then I would not feel *in the least* guilty for obtaining a working
copy of it. And in the U.S. at least, this is in the "Fair Use" law.
You *CAN* make copies *for your own use*.
John Corliss
> Melinda Meahan wrote:
>>Mcubed wrote:
>>>John Corliss <jcor...@Ihatespam.net> wrote in
>>>
>>>>Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
>>>>to have a working copy of it."
>>>
>>>Under what statute is that the case? When you buy a CD, you buy a
>>>product, not a license.
>>
>>It falls under the fair use provision of copyright law -- you can
>>create one copy for personal archival use.
>
> You can create more than one copy, and for more than "personal archival"
> purposes -- in the U.S., anyway. For example, you can make a copy to
> use in your car, you can make another copy for a 2nd residence, etc.
> You can make MP3s to listen to in your portable or on your PC.
>
> But that wasn't how I read John's meaning -- he seemed to be implying
> that buying a CD once gives one rights beyond what might be considered
> fair use. You don't "own the rights" to anything, you own the CD.
Horse shit. I was implying nothing of the sort. You bought the cd and
have the right to a working copy of it according to the "Fair use law"
in the U.S. at least. And anyway, it would be up to the law to figure
out whether or not my CD was defective from the start. They could
never do that. If you lose the CD though, you're screwed.
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
>assist in copyright infringement. (BTW, none of the software you
>mentioned can aid in "copyright theft." Theft of copyright would involve
>somehow stealing somebody's registration of copyright on a particular
>work
< snip >
Well, as this long thread is already OT, and as you seem like you
might know something about copyright, can you help me with the answer
to the following questions please ? Probably by email as it is so OT.
Though you might consider your answer helpful to others here.
I want to re-publish a book. The original says copyright Joe Bloggs.
Someone says that they are Joe Bloggs and can give me permission. How
can I confirm that ? The book being published 30 years ago would
probably mean their current address wouldn't be the same as when
published. Even if I knew such info.
I want to re-publish. Someone says that they took over the publishing
rights from Joe Bloggs. How could I confirm that ?
Obviously I would be interested in an Australian answer but I suppose
the situation might be similar in many countries due to the Bern
convention (?)
To get partly back on topic, one of the things I was considering was
making a book a freeware download.
Regards, John.
tls...@concentric.net
<jcor...@Ihatespam.net> took a very strange color crayon and
scribbled:
>Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
>to have a working copy of it."
Hmm, it occurs to me that my neighbor totals their car, they don't go
into their garage and bring out a copy they made of it...they have to
get a *replacement*. Only in la-la land would one believe that buying
something includes the right to copy it yourself perpetually. Besides,
what you're supposed to do with CD's that are that irreplacable is
make a copy and use the copy, while storing the original in a safe
place.
--
Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi
tls...@concentric.net / http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>>Excuse me, I meant to say that you "bought the CD and own the rights
>>to have a working copy of it."
>
> Hmm, it occurs to me that my neighbor totals their car, they don't go
> into their garage and bring out a copy they made of it...they have to
> get a *replacement*.
That's because they *can't* make a copy of it (unless they own a
foundry and machine tools.) If they could, they would. This comparison
is an apples and oranges kind of thing and I think you know it.
Besides, if you read the thread thoroughly, you'd see that I said the
following in my post preceding the one you are replying to:
"If you bought a CD and it didn't work, then went back to the store to
return it only to find that the store had gone out of business, then
you would be out the money. Your only recourse would be to obtain a
copy of the music from somebody else and you would have that right
because you bought the CD and own it."
And that was the remark that I was correcting. I stand behind my
statements.
> Only in la-la land would one believe that buying
> something includes the right to copy it yourself perpetually.
No, I agree. You only have the right to make copies *FOR YOUR OWN USE*
as long as you own the original copy. And I don't live in Los Angeles,
but I do live in the U.S. where we have Fair Use laws DO state that
you can make copies *for you own use* of copywrited material that you
have bought copies of. This right extends until you lose the original
media. Then you would be unable to prove that you ever had an original
copy.
If I have a record and make a tape of it for my primary use, then the
tape breaks, I DO have a right to make another copy from the record.
Sorry, that's my right in the U.S. Can't speak for other countries.
> Besides,
> what you're supposed to do with CD's that are that irreplacable is
> make a copy and use the copy, while storing the original in a safe
> place.
So we agree?
Now enough of this O.T. chatter. If others want to argue, they can be
the proverbial one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest. I for one am
getting back to freeware.
--
Over and out, from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Helen
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> But that wasn't how I read John's meaning -- he seemed to be implying
> that buying a CD once gives one rights beyond what might be considered
> fair use. You don't "own the rights" to anything, you own the CD.
I would agree with that completely.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> I want to re-publish a book. The original says copyright Joe Bloggs.
> Someone says that they are Joe Bloggs and can give me permission. How
> can I confirm that ? The book being published 30 years ago would
> probably mean their current address wouldn't be the same as when
> published. Even if I knew such info.
>
> I want to re-publish. Someone says that they took over the publishing
> rights from Joe Bloggs. How could I confirm that ?
>
> Obviously I would be interested in an Australian answer but I suppose
> the situation might be similar in many countries due to the Bern
> convention (?)
There's a great Yahoo mailing list that deals with these issues --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/copy_rights
The people there are not lawyers but are well versed in copyright laws
and how to research them.
tls...@concentric.net
<jcor...@Ihatespam.net> took a very strange color crayon and
scribbled:
>So we agree?
Up to a point. If something can be freely bought on the open market,
then you don't have the right to make a copy. It's only things that
are no longer for sale that you may use all measures to preserve.
(Microsoft notwithstanding...)
John Corliss
> John Corlss wrote:
>
>>So we agree?
>
> Up to a point. If something can be freely bought on the open market,
> then you don't have the right to make a copy. It's only things that
> are no longer for sale that you may use all measures to preserve.
> (Microsoft notwithstanding...)
Don't let it be said that I ever refused to admit that I was wrong:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html#1
and:
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market
for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is
unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding
is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
John Fitzsimons
reply <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>John Fitzsimons wrote:
>> I want to re-publish a book.
< snip >
>There's a great Yahoo mailing list that deals with these issues --
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/copy_rights
Thanks Melinda. I will check that out. :-)
Regards, John.
techie
<Til...@sparkingwire.com> wrote:
>>Legal or not, I can't see any moral issues against e.g. removing copy
>protection
>>from software you've paid for (or fixing bugs) if it interferes with your
>own
>>personal legal usage.
>
>The fallacy with the statement lies in "software you paid for". You don't
>buy software. You buy the right to use it. The software itself remains the
>property of the owner, with no rights of ownership transferred to you.
I really don't feel like rehashing the same arguments for the 10,000th
time so suffice it to say that it is questionable whether shrink-wrap
EULA's are legally binding on consumers. If you want the boring
details, check out Microsoft's WindowsXP support group where this
topic comes up anywhere from once a week to ten times a day, depending
on the phase of the moon.
>That said, it is always legal, under current copyright laws, to make a
>backup copy of any software for which you're licensed and if the copy
>protection prevents that, I think you have the right to circumvent the
>protection.
You can make a copy but under the DMCA you can't break the copy
protection code to do so. So, if you leave the code intact it's legal
to copy a copy-protected CD, but it's not legal if you have to alter
the bits in order to make a functional copy.
Mcubed
@corp.supernews.com:
> Mcubed wrote:
>> But that wasn't how I read John's meaning -- he seemed to be implying
>> that buying a CD once gives one rights beyond what might be considered
>> fair use. You don't "own the rights" to anything, you own the CD.
>
> Horse shit. I was implying nothing of the sort. You bought the cd and
> have the right to a working copy of it according to the "Fair use law"
> in the U.S. at least. And anyway, it would be up to the law to figure
> out whether or not my CD was defective from the start. They could
> never do that. If you lose the CD though, you're screwed.
Buying a CD that is defective does not give you *any* "fair use" right to
obtain the copyrighted contents of that CD via other means. If you can't
return the CD, you're out of luck, though you could always try
complaining to the Better Business Bureau or some such.
I think you're misinformed as to what fair use is all about. Generally,
fair use statues arose out of cases involving the ability to *reuse*
copyrighted material, in criticism and such. Home copying has really
only been an issue since about the late 1960s, while questions of what is
or is not fair use go back almost as long as copyright itself. There is
actually precious little in the way of court rulings regarding the rights
of consumers to copy copyrighted material for their own personal use, but
it is generally presumed to be a defacto privilege. The most pertinent
and important ruling was the Supreme Court's decision in Universal vs.
Sony, which found that nothing in copyright statutes prevents consumers
from "time-shifing" their television viewing by using a recording device.
But note that the Court *DID NOT* okay the use of these devices for
making archival copies, nor did they IN ANY WAY imply that using these
devices for other purposes did not constitute copyright infringement. In
fact, quite the opposite -- the Court specifically said that even though
these devices *could* be used to infringe copyrights, they had a
substantial non-infringing use that over-rode those concerns. That was
the same logic that the judge in Diamond vs. RIAA relied on to allow the
manufacture of the Rio portable MP3 player.
By the same token, there is no court precedent I'm aware of that clearly
establishes that it is illegal to keep a copy of a CD you made after you
lose, destroy, or even resell the original. Can you cite what it is you
mean by "If you lose the CD, you're screwed"? I think, John, that you're
making this stuff up as you go along, without any legal basis for your
opinions.
Mcubed
news:8kglkv4lk42mqsovc...@4ax.com:
> I want to re-publish a book. The original says copyright Joe Bloggs.
> Someone says that they are Joe Bloggs and can give me permission. How
> can I confirm that ? The book being published 30 years ago would
> probably mean their current address wouldn't be the same as when
> published. Even if I knew such info.
>
> I want to re-publish. Someone says that they took over the publishing
> rights from Joe Bloggs. How could I confirm that ?
>
> Obviously I would be interested in an Australian answer but I suppose
> the situation might be similar in many countries due to the Bern
> convention (?)
You would have to do a copyright search, to confirm that the person that
claims to control the copyright actually does. Once you found who
controls the copyright, you'd have to confirm with him who controls
publishing rights. In the book publishing business, publishing rights
typically revert to the author (or whoever controls the copyright -- the
author's estate, if the author has died) a year or two after the book
goes out-of-print, though some contracts stipulate that the author must
ask for reversion of rights. So if the book you want to republish is
currently OP, then chances are the copyright holder also controls the
publishing rights. I imagine you would do a copyright search through
whatever government organization administers copyright in Australia. In
the U.S., you would do it through the Copyright Office of the Library of
Congress.
If the book is still in-print, you should probably start with the current
publisher. The publisher can tell you whether it controls on-line
distribution rights. If it doesn't, it can put you in touch with
whomever does (probably the copyright holder).
> To get partly back on topic, one of the things I was considering was
> making a book a freeware download.
That might be where things get a little tricky, depending upon the
material in question. Say the book is out-of-print in Australia, but
still in-print in the U.S. If you contracted with the copyright holder
to make the book available for download in Australia, would you then have
to make sure that only Australians can access the server to download it?
If you failed to do that, can you be sued by the American publisher? I
don't know how that works ... definitely lawyer questions, if it's
relevant to the book you have in mind.
John Corliss
was in error. However, I must admit that in such a situation, I
personally would have no qualms about obtaining another copy via other
means. And I doubt most any artist would object either.
Mcubed
> See my other post with the links (reply to tlshell). I admitted that I
> was in error. However, I must admit that in such a situation, I
> personally would have no qualms about obtaining another copy via other
> means. And I doubt most any artist would object either.
Heh...personally, I have no qualms about infringing copyrights under lots
of circumstances, given the current state of copyright law. But unjust
laws are laws nonetheless, and it's always good to know when you're bending
them, breaking them, or treading in muddy waters.
mister2u
> Paul Blarmy wrote:
> > People who post looking for cracks etc. are quite rightly told that this
> > is not acceptable. I agree entirely with that. However, requests for DVD
> > rippers, CD music extractors, file sharing programs etc. are all assisted
> > even though the subject of copyright theft *could* be an issue if these
Good point you could pose a similar question about abandonware,a big
no no in this group it seems,abandonware is illegal the question
is,should it be?I think I know what most folks here will say.
John Fitzsimons
>John Fitzsimons <xpm4s...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:8kglkv4lk42mqsovc...@4ax.com:
>> I want to re-publish a book. The original says copyright Joe Bloggs.
>> Someone says that they are Joe Bloggs and can give me permission. How
>> can I confirm that ?
< snip >
>You would have to do a copyright search, to confirm that the person that
>claims to control the copyright actually does.
< snip >
Thanks for your explanation/answer Michael. Much appreciated. :-)
Regards, John.
longshotjohn7
. The argument was that
> keyloggers were "evil" and therefore shouldn't appear on ACF. My
> argument is that there's no problem as long as they're freeware.
no freeware here...just opinionated "rubbish"
m2cents
longshotjohn 7
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/hot2trot
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing. --Albert Einstein