Copyright Protection
-
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.
-
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.
danmorin wrote: Am I a criminal?
John Cardinal wrote:
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.
If someone spent his life producing something that took me a few weeks of work, then he is an idiot. I know I am not a criminal, and I never stole anything from anyone. Was the purpose of patents for protecting the inventor? I am the inventor of my own code, since I created it myself without copying from anyone else. I should have the right to enjoy the fruit of my labor without being harrassed by a greedy idiot. On the other hand, someone extorting money from inventors by claiming he is the owner of an idea because he "first" paid politicians (the government) for his right to legal plunder is not ethical.
John Cardinal wrote:
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.
A trademark is a different issue, as it involves the identity of the product. If I pretend my product was built by Microsoft, then I am defrauding the customers purchasing the product as well as abusing the identity of another entity (Microsoft). A trademark infringement is somewhat similar to identity theft, and there must be provisions within the law to protect one's identity.
-
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
But that needs to be their choice right? Because some program for fun and the benefit of others does not mean that everyone must. Some actually need to make a living at this.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
If things were priced more realistic, I do not think there would be as much pirating.
Just what is the right price for crap?
Rocky Moore wrote:
The true problem is more a sign of the moral decay in the world and how few of peolple actually have any ethics.
Agreed. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Whatever the market will bear.:)
-
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:
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"
No one is forcing you to sell what you make. If i want you to sell me your software for $20 with the understanding that i'm going to be running it on 8 machines and you don't think that's fair, you have every right to say "no deal". Why do you need more protection than i do? Why should Sony be able to demand my arrest if i remove their copy protection, but i'm left to suck it up if their copy protection breaks my computer, or leaves me unable to play the CD i purchased as expected? Sure, rant on about kids these days and their unrealistic expectations. You know good and well that it is not just the right, but the duty of a customer to demand fair terms for the goods and services they purchase, and in this regard music and software are no different than apples and automobiles.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
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
If you want an informed opinion about IP visit http://lessig.org/ and read some of Lawrence Lessig's books / watch this presentation: http://www.lessig.org/freeculture/ Most people that say, "I don't want my work stolen" have no idea what that means or how to better market themselves - installing / maintaining / servicing open source software packages will be the future for most smoes. If you write a wonderful little tool that nobody else has, then you'll be known in the community and your "prestige" will improve - fame and fortune will follow. That is for 95% of all software (OS / email / web browsers should all be free). There is always going to be niche markets - for instance, Corporate Tax Software because there's too much domain knowledge and frankly nobody is doing that for free, cause it sucks. On the bigger, movie / song side of things - the CP laws DO NOT protect the artist - they protect the publisher. I know several producers of film / commercials who's stance is basically, they get paid to produce a video and could give a crap about what happens to it once it has been delivered. If you are an artist, make your songs available to everyone, upload your mp3's for free to everyone - because when you come to town to play a gig, you'll pack the venue and that's where you'll make your money. Artists only receive penny's on the sale of CDs. If you are a hollywood producer of movies, with a 100 million dollar budget, you don't care what happens to your Mission Impossible III movie after it has been PRODUCED. You are doing what you love to do. It is the publisher (who backed the movie with 100 million dollars and want to see big moneys on their investment) who needs to protect that investment, and I understand that. But, after 7 years it is public domain and anyone can do anything they want with it. This is how we grow, how we invent, and what the USA originally stood for. If you don't get this, then you are a publisher - a leech on society - and the only reason you exist is because of other people's talents. Brian
-
Some of the people who posted comments on the article complain that their civil liberties are being eroded by such legislation. I didn't realize that the constitution grants everyone the right to steal copyrighted materials. 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,¸
Not stealing--traditionally accepted use. Fair use has been an accepted part of copyright law since it first emerged. That's been eroded. The right to a parsonal archival copy has always been an implied part of every copyright license. That's been eroded. I could go on and on. A constitutional right? no, not explicitly. But rights that have been part and parcel of common law and statutory formulations of copyright law for hundreds of years. David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
