Copyright Protection
-
Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue. I'm not saying you in particular, but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities. There are people who argue that they are entitled to download free music simply because the record companies have "enough" money, in their opinion. This is clearly not a "Fair Use" argument. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
Troposphere wrote:
Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue.
Wanna bet? I listen to music while i work. And i work a *lot*. So rather than constantly running the CD drive on my laptop, i rip all CDs after buying them, and listen to them that way. The actual CDs stay safe in their cases, opened only when i need to re-rip them or look at album art. This means that when something like Sony's "rootkit" copyprotection comes along, I will circumvent its attempts to restrict my use of the content, as i will not allow such software to be installed on my computer - especially not the development boxes connected to my employers network. This isn't a theoretical argument, or a thinly-veiled defense of piracy - this is how i listen to legally-purchased CDs, and if i'm prevented from doing so then i will no longer listen to CDs, period.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
Why is no one able to be objective about this issue? You say that for you it's a control issue. Everyone is just so emotional over this that it's hard to talk about it openly. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
You want cold facts? What about this one: The contract of a band with a publisher is exclusive, and everything has to go through the publisher. To get the music from this band, I can't pick a publisher whose service I like better. So free market doesn't work, and I am trying my best to put capitalism back into the music industry (Stan would be so proud of me :rolleyes: ) The cost of music is rising, while service doesn't improve. In a way, huge parts of the music industry simply doesn't offer the service I am willing to pay for. Instead of trying to figure out what I like, they tell me what I should like. Instead of scouting for the very music that wins my heart, they shape music to win most purses. Music, by nature, is emotional. I will always be emo about hearing music, about getting music, about a tune I one lost my heart to, ripping the plastic off a new CD and popping it into my CD-ROM drive. As Joel put it so well only recently, the job of the music industry is to create an illusion: the illusion that someone is singing personally for me and to me.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
i'd be more surprised if they didn't. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'd be more surprised if they didn't
Because of the nature of the current Congress? Or because you think they should?
-
Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue. I'm not saying you in particular, but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities. There are people who argue that they are entitled to download free music simply because the record companies have "enough" money, in their opinion. This is clearly not a "Fair Use" argument. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
No offense taken. Besides my example, you've already had several others. What I would like is an even playing field. For example, if RIAA were to show up in my mailbox, my only recourse is (a) send them a check for $3K or (b) find them in court and send $30K to lawyers. If I win, I have a Pyrrhic victory. If I lose, then I lose big. RIAA is bullying consumers. Like someone else said, they mean to be presenting themselves this way. Sooner or later, someone is going to slap then with a RICO or Monopoly complaint. Like Okay, so your point is that "most people aren't copying according to fair use.." Perhaps, but your argument is that the ends justify the means, that piracy has "provoked" this overreaction. Mind you, this is the *exact* argument people make to justify their piracy. "Well, if they didn't charge so much, then I wouldn't have to do this." Same type of argument. So now, you have backdoor licensing agreements that you "agree" to by dropping the CD onto your computer. We have rootkits that damage the operation of systems, expose the systems to malware, etc. - who is responsible? The same company that claims they are doing this to protect themselves also like to claim they are not responsible for their actions via software. Just look at Sony's attempt to explain their root kit. Sorry, this whole situation is a den of thieves situation. Now the RIAA folks have the congress in their pocket, and we're going to get an entirely new layer of bully laws. Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied. My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'd be more surprised if they didn't
Because of the nature of the current Congress? Or because you think they should?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Because of the nature of the current Congress?
yup Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue. I'm not saying you in particular, but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities. There are people who argue that they are entitled to download free music simply because the record companies have "enough" money, in their opinion. This is clearly not a "Fair Use" argument. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
Troposphere wrote:
Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue.
*tweet* mind-reading, ten yard penalty, repeat first down.
Troposphere wrote:
but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities.
then they are breaking a law that already exists.
Troposphere wrote:
There are people ...
so what? there are also people who don't... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Well what in the law prevents you from making fair use? The law prohibits bypassing copy protections. Why do you need to bypass copy protections in order to do fair use? ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
Troposphere wrote:
Why do you need to bypass copy protections in order to do fair use?
besides the backup issue, there's the fact that you can't legally make a copy of a portion of a DVD (for academic use, for example) without breaking one or more copy protection schemes (DVD region encoding, Macrovision-type signal encryption things, etc). even ripping an album for use on your iPod[^] might be considered illegal (by the RIAA). Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Yawn.. These arguments are so tired. The truth is that too many people think they are entitled to have something of value just because they want it. It's people's inflated sense of entitlement that causes them to steal without conscience, and then rationalize it away as if they have a right to the product in the first place. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
-
John Cardinal wrote:
The rights of any author of a creative work to protect that work should outweigh the rights to copy it.
Why?
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it. Who is going to write software for those niches that no one else is going to unless it pays money to do it? Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.
-
Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it. Who is going to write software for those niches that no one else is going to unless it pays money to do it? Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.
John Cardinal wrote:
Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.
Absolutely - i just don't think the price of those rewards should be greater than what is expected by those granting them. When you or i, as a customer, purchases a software product or music album, or whatever, we do so with the expectation that we will be able to use our purchase in certain ways: listen to the music, execute the software, etc. I do not think it acceptable to allow the person writing software or publishing music to add non-obvious restrictions without also allowing the customer ample opportunity to either circumvent those restrictions or make an informed decision to refrain from purchasing the item should we find them unacceptable. To put the force of criminal law behind the seller, while leaving only the power of the marketplace to protect the buyer seems - at best - excessive.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
John Cardinal wrote:
Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.
Absolutely - i just don't think the price of those rewards should be greater than what is expected by those granting them. When you or i, as a customer, purchases a software product or music album, or whatever, we do so with the expectation that we will be able to use our purchase in certain ways: listen to the music, execute the software, etc. I do not think it acceptable to allow the person writing software or publishing music to add non-obvious restrictions without also allowing the customer ample opportunity to either circumvent those restrictions or make an informed decision to refrain from purchasing the item should we find them unacceptable. To put the force of criminal law behind the seller, while leaving only the power of the marketplace to protect the buyer seems - at best - excessive.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
What? Why on earth? If I go through the trouble to make something new in the world and you merely buy it you think your rights to the work should be equal to my rights to my own work? :wtf: That pretty much sums up the phrase "culture of entitlement" better than most descriptions. Clearly this is what is increasingly wrong with the world today: "I spent my 2 cents and so you should bow down to my mighty dollar, you merely made the product, I actually spent money on it" Not a chance in hell would I ever agree with that mindset. This is not about non obvious copy protection schemes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees that it's a bad thing when a cd you put in your computer does something nefarious behind the scenes without telling you. On the flip side this is a natural reaction people have toward being robbed. If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things. Clearly there has to be some system in place to protect copyright owners that is clear and open. We're not there yet, but I sure as hell want all the weight of the law on my side when I'm robbed.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
The rights of any author of a creative work to protect that work should outweigh the rights to copy it.
i'm not talking about "copying it". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Actually re-reading it I can't figure out what your talking about. What in the world does the "constitution" have to do with it anyway? We're living in a global society, the U.S. isn't in some hidden backwoods village. International copyright law and agreements may be more applicable here. Even ignoring that, to bring the weight of the constitution onto something like music sharing when it's clearly a matter of trade and not civil rights and protections seems to cheapen the very idea of a constitution somehow. Any use of music (for example) that ensures that the person that bought the music or the person who later buys that music off the person how last owned it is the only person that ever get's to play it is fair in my eyes. Hidden, nefarious copyright protection software is clearly not a good thing in anyone's eyes but the people who dreamed it up in the first place and only for a short time until they were caught. Giving the impression that it's ok to violate copyright because some idiots put a rootkit on their cd's or a protected player or something is hurting content producers who deserve to make money off the sweat of their brows and the consumers who fairly purchased and item.
-
Yeah, just look how they keep extending the copyright laws so that Micky Mouse does not become public domain... It is all about the Benjamins.. If things were priced more realistic, I do not think there would be as much pirating. The true problem is more a sign of the moral decay in the world and how few of peolple actually have any ethics. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
But in the case of the U.S. for example do you really think it's the cost? I doubt it very much. Pious people stand up here and say "I don't buy cd's any more because they are too expensive" well that may be, but the vast majority of the U.S. consumer market for music is not represented by the demographic here, it's represented by U.S. teen agers who let's be honest here, have what is about as close to unlimited sources of wealth as the world has ever seen in all of recorded history. I think it *is* in fact more about moral decay and ethics than price. Let's face it, stealing anything no matter the justifications you can come up with for it is still a moral and ethical problem.
-
Actually re-reading it I can't figure out what your talking about. What in the world does the "constitution" have to do with it anyway? We're living in a global society, the U.S. isn't in some hidden backwoods village. International copyright law and agreements may be more applicable here. Even ignoring that, to bring the weight of the constitution onto something like music sharing when it's clearly a matter of trade and not civil rights and protections seems to cheapen the very idea of a constitution somehow. Any use of music (for example) that ensures that the person that bought the music or the person who later buys that music off the person how last owned it is the only person that ever get's to play it is fair in my eyes. Hidden, nefarious copyright protection software is clearly not a good thing in anyone's eyes but the people who dreamed it up in the first place and only for a short time until they were caught. Giving the impression that it's ok to violate copyright because some idiots put a rootkit on their cd's or a protected player or something is hurting content producers who deserve to make money off the sweat of their brows and the consumers who fairly purchased and item.
John Cardinal wrote:
What in the world does the "constitution" have to do with it anyway?
in the post at the top of this thread, Troposhpere: "I didn't realize that the constitution grants everyone the right to steal copyrighted materials."
John Cardinal wrote:
International copyright law and agreements may be more applicable here.
don't look at me, i didn't start the thread.
John Cardinal wrote:
it is fair in my eyes.
yes, well.
John Cardinal wrote:
Giving the impression that it's ok to violate copyright because some idiots put a rootkit on their cd's or a protected player or something is hurting content producers who deserve to make money off the sweat of their brows and the consumers who fairly purchased and item.
no doubt Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it. Who is going to write software for those niches that no one else is going to unless it pays money to do it? Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.
John Cardinal wrote:
Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it
many people have motivations other than money. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
John Cardinal wrote:
Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it
many people have motivations other than money. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
What? Why on earth? If I go through the trouble to make something new in the world and you merely buy it you think your rights to the work should be equal to my rights to my own work? :wtf: That pretty much sums up the phrase "culture of entitlement" better than most descriptions. Clearly this is what is increasingly wrong with the world today: "I spent my 2 cents and so you should bow down to my mighty dollar, you merely made the product, I actually spent money on it" Not a chance in hell would I ever agree with that mindset. This is not about non obvious copy protection schemes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees that it's a bad thing when a cd you put in your computer does something nefarious behind the scenes without telling you. On the flip side this is a natural reaction people have toward being robbed. If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things. Clearly there has to be some system in place to protect copyright owners that is clear and open. We're not there yet, but I sure as hell want all the weight of the law on my side when I'm robbed.
John Cardinal wrote:
If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things.
There is a clear difference between robbing material and/or someone's work vs an "robbing an idea". For instance, if I invent a new knot and someone is using my knot, it does not hurt me at all, however if someone is stealing my computer(s), then I cannot do my work. People think ideas belongs to them, as if they were the first in the world to originate such idea. Next, they file for a patent hoping they will be granted a monopoly on that idea and make a ton of money without lifting a finger. Again, there is a big difference between an idea and some intellectual work. For instance, writing code is more than an idea; it is some actual work. If someone copies your CPP files and re-compiles the executable without your permission, he/she is stealing your work (intellectual property). On the other hand, if someone wants to make a new application from scratch (such as a new search engine, web browser, image/vidoe/music/CAD editor), there should not be any law and/or patent to prevent him/her from creating something innovative. On the other hand, if there is a patent on an idea (such as a web browser), then the small developer cannot afford to pay the fees to get started. The proposed "Copyright Protection" is sponsored by large corporations to reduce competition by stiffing out the small developer to compete against them. By having tons of patents and regulations, many of us risk of being sued by large corporations claiming they own such and such idea. The other solution would be for us to work as slaves for those large corporations :(. As a rule of thumb, what politicians do benefits them and their friends - the large corporations. -- modified at 12:55 Tuesday 25th April, 2006
-
John Cardinal wrote:
If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things.
There is a clear difference between robbing material and/or someone's work vs an "robbing an idea". For instance, if I invent a new knot and someone is using my knot, it does not hurt me at all, however if someone is stealing my computer(s), then I cannot do my work. People think ideas belongs to them, as if they were the first in the world to originate such idea. Next, they file for a patent hoping they will be granted a monopoly on that idea and make a ton of money without lifting a finger. Again, there is a big difference between an idea and some intellectual work. For instance, writing code is more than an idea; it is some actual work. If someone copies your CPP files and re-compiles the executable without your permission, he/she is stealing your work (intellectual property). On the other hand, if someone wants to make a new application from scratch (such as a new search engine, web browser, image/vidoe/music/CAD editor), there should not be any law and/or patent to prevent him/her from creating something innovative. On the other hand, if there is a patent on an idea (such as a web browser), then the small developer cannot afford to pay the fees to get started. The proposed "Copyright Protection" is sponsored by large corporations to reduce competition by stiffing out the small developer to compete against them. By having tons of patents and regulations, many of us risk of being sued by large corporations claiming they own such and such idea. The other solution would be for us to work as slaves for those large corporations :(. As a rule of thumb, what politicians do benefits them and their friends - the large corporations. -- modified at 12:55 Tuesday 25th April, 2006
I understand where you're going with this, but copyright and patent are completely different things entirely. As developers we all know how screwed up the current patent process is. The DMCA has given us a tool as software developers who actually sell our own software and we've used it to stop piracy in the past. In one case a person hacked into an email account at a computer networking company, used a stolen credit card number from a nice older couple in another state to purchase a license for our software, then published that license key on several warez sites. In that case there was three robberies: Our license key, the older couples credit card and the networking companies email account and bandwidth. We sucessfully shut down three warez sites by sending DMCA notices to their ISP's. That's a whole world away from the whole mess that is currently patent law. It must be said that despite the mess that has become the patent system, there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original ideas and they should be able to protect that idea if they developed it themselves. The problem with patents is they are increasingly being used as a weapon in the war of business rather than their original intended purpose.
-
I understand where you're going with this, but copyright and patent are completely different things entirely. As developers we all know how screwed up the current patent process is. The DMCA has given us a tool as software developers who actually sell our own software and we've used it to stop piracy in the past. In one case a person hacked into an email account at a computer networking company, used a stolen credit card number from a nice older couple in another state to purchase a license for our software, then published that license key on several warez sites. In that case there was three robberies: Our license key, the older couples credit card and the networking companies email account and bandwidth. We sucessfully shut down three warez sites by sending DMCA notices to their ISP's. That's a whole world away from the whole mess that is currently patent law. It must be said that despite the mess that has become the patent system, there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original ideas and they should be able to protect that idea if they developed it themselves. The problem with patents is they are increasingly being used as a weapon in the war of business rather than their original intended purpose.
John Cardinal wrote:
...there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original ideas and they should be able to protect that idea if they developed it themselves.
I would agree with the following: ...there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original work and they should be able to protect their work/intellectual property if they developed it themselves.
John Cardinal wrote:
The problem with patents is they are increasingly being used as a weapon in the war of business rather than their original intended purpose.
I agree. My biggest fear is being sued by some large corporation. This is why my company, GenoPro Inc. is not registered in the US - and never will be. All the work I have done came entirely from me, since I never read a single patent from the USPTO. Personally, I find it faster and better to think of a solution instead of searching within the patent database hoping to find something useful. On the other hand, I am almost certain some other developers (or corporations) have filed patents on the ideas I developed, either for serialization of circular data, thread polling, or something else. Am I a criminal?
-
John Cardinal wrote:
...there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original ideas and they should be able to protect that idea if they developed it themselves.
I would agree with the following: ...there are people in the world who devote their lives to actually coming up with original work and they should be able to protect their work/intellectual property if they developed it themselves.
John Cardinal wrote:
The problem with patents is they are increasingly being used as a weapon in the war of business rather than their original intended purpose.
I agree. My biggest fear is being sued by some large corporation. This is why my company, GenoPro Inc. is not registered in the US - and never will be. All the work I have done came entirely from me, since I never read a single patent from the USPTO. Personally, I find it faster and better to think of a solution instead of searching within the patent database hoping to find something useful. On the other hand, I am almost certain some other developers (or corporations) have filed patents on the ideas I developed, either for serialization of circular data, thread polling, or something else. Am I a criminal?
danmorin wrote:
Am I a criminal?
Well technically, yes you might be. You may be infringing on the patent of the forementioned someone who devoted their life to coming up with something which ethically is worse. Are you at risk for litigation? Probably not until you are so sucessful that someone takes notice and have enough revenue to make it worthwhile for them to sue or are directly competing with someone who holds the patent for their own product. None of the work that we do involves anything remotely patentable, straight up business software, nothing technically challenging about it that involves inventing any new way of doing anything. I would say that you are employing a head in the sand approach though which is risky at best. We learned that the hard way with trademarks many years ago in our business. Personally for my line of work I find it faster and better to buy a solution from another company as in 3rd party libraries etc. But the main focus of my work is not to invent new algorithms, but better implemented software than the other guys. I'm glad I'm not in a line of work that involves patents. One of my biggest fears as well is being sued by some large corporation, but being registered outside of the U.S. is little protection against that. We are in Canada and a long time ago we were infringing on someone else's trademark, completely unknowingly, we got a very large package one day in the mail full of legal documents and complied immediately when we realized what we had done. That was good enough for them and it never came to more than that, but it taught us a valuable lesson about how ignorance can be very costly. We have since spent a great deal of money on lawyers, trademark registration, airtight and legal license documents etc to ensure that we have our bases covered and I feel much better for having done that even though it was a painful process at the time, but there are no guaratees just the same.
