Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:22:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
476 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > If he wouldn't have purchased it a million years, then why would he want
> > you to give a copy to him?
>
> What if it's just a loan (like the library does)? What if I want him to
> check out this really cool live recording of Pink Floyd at Pompeii -- so I
> dupe it and give him the copy? My point being that his interest is minimal,
> but he'll give it a shot based on my opinion.
Well, first off, if it's the same version of Pompeii that I have, then you
have my sympathy for some really poor sound quality. If it's not, then you
have my envy for a really cool disc.
As I understand it (and of course I'm a board-certified copyright lawyer
with decades of courtroom experience!) it's okay to loan the original copy,
but not subsequent copies for which the copyright owner has not been duly
compensated. Obviously this sort of "loaning" would be wildly open to abuse
and is one of the grey areas to which you alude below.
> Your car analogy doesn't work, nor does the lego analogy because they are
> things that are not easily duplicated -- the thing itself is not replicable.
> Books are not as easily replicated as are music, video, software...
But I don't see duplicability as relevant--theft of the intellectual
property is still theft, regardless of how easy or convenient it is. Let's
look at it like this: Imagine that you bought a CD and desided to let me
borrow it. If I returned to you not the original but a burned copy of it,
would you think that equitable? If not, why? If so, I'd like to borrow
your Pompeii CD...
> > I have a friend who really likes the new Blacksmith's Shop but wouldn't in
> > a million years pay to own it, is it okay for me to photocopy the
> > instructions and give them to my friend?
>
> Gee, it's one of the better deals out there right now too! But according to
> TLC's own statements on this via Brad J. -- the instructions can be made
> available upon the release of the set. The fact that such material is not
> already part of the scans database is a self-imposed limitation set by K.
> Loch and whomever else gets to decide that they will not post scans until
> after 3 years of the item being in the marketplace.
Whoa! I wasn't aware of that--that's uncharacteristically cool of TLC to do
so. Okay, so my LEGO analogy doesn't work, but that's not the point.
Pretend it's MegaBloks or TYCO or Best-Lock or any other brand of anything
that includes intellectual property; are you saying that they have no right
to protect their copyright and to prevent unauthorized duplication of their
material?
How, as an aside, is this sort of "it belongs to anyone who wants it"
situation different from communism, in which everything belongs to everyone
because everything belongs to no one in particular? (That's another debate,
obviously!)
> Getting back to the subject at hand: I didn't rent or buy the DVD "Hedwig"
> -- but someone loaned it to me and now I think it's one of the better films
> of the recent past. Nobody made dime one on this thing from me. Arguably,
> I need never rent or buy it, as I have already partaken of it's pleasures as
> I have already "seen" it. How far does this stuff go? Can one not loan
> something one has purchased for oneself? Do all other viewers need to buy
> it for themselves? Can the current DVD owner have a "Hedwig" party where
> friends gather to drink, laugh, and socialize around a viewing of this film?
>
> As it turns out, I know the legal answers to those questions. There is grey
> area, and there is even what people actually do in reality -- laws be damned.
Well, sure--but that can be said of anything. I've always understood that
the "unlicensed public exhibition prohibitied" warning specifically forbids
the playing of the material as part of a pay-to-play venue; if you were
charging a cover at the "Hedwig" party, that would be unlicensed public
exhibition.
> As a former English major myself, my whole degree career was predicated on
> reading and quoting from works I never intended to own -- and yet every
> conceivable benefit was had from "loaned" copies of the works in question.
> Yes, I have a vast private library of books on critical theory -- but a
> larger set of such works was needed for some of my research. Some of the
> books I referenced from libraries are LONG out of print. Where does one
> draw the line?
Not sure of the specifics of when something enters the public domain, but
that seems like a good place to draw at least one of the lines. If your
papers gave appropriate credit to your source material, you're fine. If
not, then you engaged in plagiarism, of course, regardless of whether or not
the source materials were in the public domain.
> And can you draw the same lines for works currently in print? Can you apply
> the same reasoning to CDs, video, and MP3s?
Certainly there's some precedent about this, such as in sampled music, but
witness the problems facing that fine musician Vanilla Ice and his allegedly
creative use of another party's intellectual property.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) What if it's just a loan (like the library does)? What if I want him to check out this really cool live recording of Pink Floyd at Pompeii -- so I dupe it and give him the copy? My point being that his interest is minimal, but he'll give it a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
