On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote:
>I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for
>copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over
>there across the pond, and here in England.
Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other
recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows.
Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know.
>I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would
>still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in
>debate.
It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here.
AHRA. Federal Constitutional law.
>Again read the terms of the copyright agreement for clarification.
Copyright law is Federal Constitutional Criminal and Civil law. You
don't make the terms, Federal law does. Contract law is state civil
law. Guess which one trumps?
>But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a
>copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When
>does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial
>customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD?
All of your barbed language aside, it's legal to copy a friend's CD to
MD in the U.S. If you interpreted the term commercial in the AHRA the
way you want, the term non-commercial would have no meaning, a big
no-no in statutory interpretation. Could the language of the statute
be any clearer? If the AHRA term non-commercial is too vague for a
particalur case, then prosecution would be unconstitutional. That's
how it works here.
>> Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hmmmmmmmmm.
>> That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author, see ya
>> Mr. Book publisher.
>
>See the copyright notice. No autopsy, no foul - copyright owner agrees.
>Copyright owner explicitly doesn't agree, or decides to disallow - I would
>imagine they have perfect grounds.
Wrong, where there is a conflict, copyright law trumps contract law.
Copyright law is Federal law. You don't make the terms. The
copyright terms are Federal Constitutional law, no matter what drivel
you read on the back of the CD etc. Fair use doctrine is Federal
Constitutional law, case law.
>> College kid puts copyrighted information available for download on the
>> internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it? No? See
>> ya Mr. Prosecutor.
>
>Does he *own* it, or the copyright?
No.
>See the copyright agreement - let the courts decide.
The Courts have decided on this one. Of course I had to simplify it
to get it down to 3 lines. Think I'd just make something like that
up? The terms of Copyright are Federal Constitutional law. They have
nothing to do with state contract law.
>> You want the FBI to get a warrant to search your home because they
>> have probable cause to believe you have been recording minidiscs of
>> other people's CD's? Really?
>
>No, not at all. I think the debate is on the legality of the situation, not
>necessarily the practicality or the risk.
It's legal to record someone else's CD for noncommercial use in the
U.S. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law.
>
>> You want CD's with controversial political speech (and that's a lot of
>> pop music these days) to be available only to people who buy them?
>
>Quite simply, poignantly and plainly - depends on who owns the copyright and
>the restrictions, or lack of, that they permit their material to be
>distributed with.
Not in the U.S. it doesn't. Federal Constitutional law.
>> Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to restrict and
>> decide what can or cannot be copied in your home?
>
>No, so long as you actually have complied with whatever copyright
>restrictions apply.
Copyright does not trump personal liberty in the U.S. Not even close.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where the highest moral
value was copyright law. Would you?
>
>I mean if you own a CD, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down
>your door telling you what you can and can't do with it.
That would be illegal and, if done by a government, unconstitutional,
in the U.S.
>
>If you don't, and are pirating it offa friend, I don't think anybody is
>gonna come breaking down your door, either. But I still don't believe it's
>legal, unless the copyright agreement allows it.
It's legal. The AHRA allows it. It's Federal Constitutional law.
>> Don't you think
>> that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at
>> stake a little bit here?
>
>This is a little of a strawman really.
No, it's the heart of the matter.
>> Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to
>> a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright
>> itself derives from the Constitution.
>
>I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples'
>intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this.
No, it derives from the Constitution.
>
>> The bottom line is, once someone gets in their home in the U.S , your
>> copyright grip over them loosens a lot.
>
>You never have a copyright grip over them. Simply your copyright material
>you have *allowed* them to buy under *your* restrictions. If they didn't
>like your restrictions, they had all the constitutional rights to walk away
>and not buy it.
>
Your restrictions so to speak are a matter of contract law, and may or
may not be legally binding. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional
law and has nothing to do with your restrictions. Whether certain
contract terms are binding is a matter of state law and varies greatly
from state to state. Fairness can be a major consideration.
Unreasonable terms in little print drafted by the person bringing the
lawsuit are often rendered null by a state court.
>
>I think what is being discussed is the questionable legality of pirating
>copyright material owned by a third party.
It's legal to copy someone else's CD in the U.S. for noncommercial
use. See the AHRA. Federal Constitutional law.
>
>I guess the reality is that somebody copying another person's CD, is
>unlikely to get into trouble. But that doesn't make it legal, just because
>the practicality of the situation is unlikely to result in any action.
It's legal in the U.S. Which really improves your chances of not
being prosecuted.
>
>That's why the bigger issues of the net, mp3s and such is poignant here.
It's poignant because people want to know what's legal and what's
ethical, an admirable quest.
>
>But as you say, you enter into a contract when you buy most copyright
>materials. Most people either conveniently ignore, deny or fail to realise
>this exists.
>
Contract law is state civil law. Copyright law is Federal
Constitutional Criminal and Civil law. Guess which one trumps.
>Just because of this, and the unlikely recourse, does not suddenly turn this
>into legal activity, as some seem to be claiming.
The Congress, the Courts, the AHRA and the Constitution have
established that it is legal activity.
I'm winging this folks, if I make a mistake please forgive me.
Happy New Year to you too!!! : )
Regards to the list, Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
