Am I doing something illegal? Libary downloads

[TrueDave]

I have no beef with teh law at all. I just want to know the score.
If I choose to do something illegal i just want to know. I have NEVER complained to a police officer for enforcing the law be it a traffic ticket or getting caught throwing snowballs at the FireChiefs car. ( we didnt know).

Thank you for helping remind me to keep an eye out but . . this is the Mego Museum Forum! If a cop had to track me HERE to bust me for something I would be the one poking fun of him.

( To be honest I sometimes am disapointed there arent more Mego fans. Seems small here. Mego has a lot of Love. Maybe theres just a lot of Non Posters)

One "screwing" can land you in court and one can't.

Depends how you define "consumer" but the breaking of the law
is illegal in "anyone's eye".

Hey... I'm just illustrating a point... 'cause it really doesn't matter one
way or the other to me what people do to get what they want
regarding the subject matter here (it's essentially harmless)
... proceed at your own risk...
but to flaunt being a "rebel" in this fashion on a public board just
comes off a bit brash and/or cheesy to me.

Especially the part of saying that illegal things are legal. There ARE
standards of humility IMHO.

[Brazoo]

>Copyright laws were never suppose to allow copyright holders to yank work out of culture indefinitely like that.

They came about originally ‘cos publishers ended up holding all the cards, and could screw the artist out of any fiscal compensation. They were originally applied to literary works.... you can see how, even TODAY musicians get boned by big companies, and it wasn’t that long ago that “creator owned” became a selling point for then mainstream comics.

You're right - but legal interpretations of the benefits of those laws include what I was saying as well.

>Some of those limits include lengths of time companies could hold copyrights for.

AHA! This comes about as the back-and-forth goes on. Copyright once died with the holder; or, after a set period of time. (When I got mine, 25 years back, it was 50 years after the death of the holder.) Corporate copyright added a new wrinkle, since the holder wouldn’t die. The IDEA was that if you could prove you were still using it, you could renew it. THIS one gets kinda murky, but suffice it to say.... nobody here is ever gonna own Batman. This is where TRADEMARKS come in. They’re different from copyrights, more ironclad, and can be renewed forever.

Exactly. A famous example is how Disney was going to loose the copyright for early Micky Mouse short films - but retain the trademark for Micky Mouse... their persistence and the size of their wallet changed the way copyright laws work.

EDIT: I had a quick break, re-read this, and realized how mangled and insane my point is here. Maybe when I have time I'll come back to this one later!

>To protect culture - to ensure creative growth - to make sure influential work is available for future generations.

That’s what a lot of folks say, but really: no. It’s all strictly fiscal. Does it REALLY matter if folks can make their (literally) own version of “The Count of Monte Cristo” or if they HAVE to slap spaceships in it and call it something else? Not really.

Again, there are precedents that support the interpretation of the benefits I'm suggesting. Sorry, I don't have time to find anything now, but I can try to post references later.

>The biggest problem with copyright law now is that whoever has the most money wins.

Yeah and no. On the UP-side, the technical age can make it EASIER to prove ownership without registering since I can put my stuff out on the net for free. Ta-dah! I got here first, I win! BUT that makes it more rife for ripoffs (the original point we were discussing) and isn’t as concrete as actually registering. (Or better yet; trademarking.) The most money doesn’t always win in these cases. (Look at “Clonus vs The Island.”) But often the sneakiest does.

That case was settled - it was purely up to the corporation's bean counters to figure out the costs of fighting the case forever or settling. There are TONS of cases exactly like that. Basically the Corporation controls the legal outcome either way - which is crazy.

Off the top of my head I'd say take a look at the Starbucks lawsuit on the Comic Book Legal Defense Funds site. It's not the same thing, because in this case the copyright violator was an artist attempting to protect himself using parody/fair use. Again, sorry I don't have much time now to find exact links.

>Hey, wait a second, I though you suppose to be the big anti-corporate guy on here?

HAW! I’m not actually anti-anything; except maybe stupid....

So that's why you're always arguing with me!

>Yeah - but isn't understood that digital media is going to be shared too?

Yes and no. It depends what you’re considering “shared” to mean. If you want to give your friend a digital copy of a song, you’re still copying the code. It’s STILL piracy, and something is still being illegally replicated. There’s a clause on most store-bought software referring to how many computers you can legally run the software on at one time. So.... I can sell my old copy of Windows ‘95, provided I’ve removed Windows ‘95 with THAT serial number from MY system prior. Otherwise I’ve illegally copied code.... even if I did so backwards from how we normally think of stuff as being copied.

>I can't put legally purchased MP3s I don't want anymore on eBay.

THAT’S an odd one. The argument THERE is that the copy you’re selling isn’t technically the same copy you downloaded: even if it’s completely identical. Software on a disk can be passed on ‘cos I can sell the actual, original disk. I’m DEFINITELY selling the specific, individual version. The stuff on my computer is a copy of THAT; but remember: I can legally make as many copies as I want for my own use. The one on my computer falls into that category; and the note from the company about how many individual computers I can legally run that copy on is an extra condition of sale. A download exists as a burst of data; and it’s thought that any OTHER burst of data isn’t the same one. So I’m not sending you my specific copy of the song; I’m sending you a NEW copy. (Kinda how some folks surmise that the transporters on Trek aren’t actually sending YOU to the planet, but are sending an exact copy at the same time they destroy the original.)

Now; there ARE ways of setting things up so’s you could do this in a legal and verifiable way, bit it’s not worth it for folks like Apple to bother.

Don C.

Well the digital sharing thing isn't really my personal pony in this race - I do think I understand why it's confusing for people. "You bought this, it's yours" is a concept people understand.

[Brazoo]

>I thought a lot of publishers offer libraries discounts - actually.

I’m sure some do. The library thing goes a bit far afield for me, since I’m pretty sure no library would EVER be interested in anything I”ve produced. I know of some weird twists as far as libraries are concerned.

>I'm not sure about publishers denying sales to libraries - I thought they couldn't do that now -

They might. One of the confounding issues here is that a lot of folks reading this are probably thinking in terms of US copyright; which up until recently was different from everyone else’s. Here in Canada you’re SUPPOSED to send a copy of your stuff to the national library for archival purposes, and the actual rules for copyright place no other requirements on what you do with your stuff or how you distribute it.

Yeah - for argument's sake I'm trying to stick with what I know of US laws -their are some real differences for sure!

Personally, I think Canada's copyright laws are better - but it probably goes back and forth on a few things.

>I agree that some people have an entitlement complex, but I think the corporations have an entitlement complex as well.

Definitely. That’s why the pendulum swings.... as each side manages to scream “GIMME!!! GIMME!!!!” louder than the other....

>Can you imagine if a corporation held copyrights to the works of Shakespeare? It's cultural robbery.

....depending on what you think of Shakespeare.... Funny thing; a LOT of his stuff was.... let’s say “appropriated” from other writers.

Ha - well, I'm not really trying to defend Shakespeare - as much as I'm trying to come up with an example about how artists (Shakespeare included) share and build on ideas pretty freely. I think we'd both agree that that's how art evolves.

Now, is that the same as making a mash-up of two new songs and distributing it as your own work? I don't think so, but again, I'm fairly moderate with my criticism of the law.

>Intellectual Property law is not the same thing as copyright law.

>Copyright law strictly protects copyright holders from getting their works reproduced - it doesn't protect ideas at all. Trademark laws protect brands

They actually all go together. Intellectual Property refers to the product of imaginative endeavors. Batman IS intellectual property. Copyright is the legal process by which USE of that property is enacted. If I had invented Batman, I would hold the copyright. (Unless I was dumb enough to sell it to some big company....) Copyright exists wether it’s formally documented or not; although it’s probably a good idea to get it legally registered. Trademarks are a more specific and rigorous form of copyright, in which your intellectual property is given a very specific and substantial legal presence. If I created Batman and didn’t sell the rights I could make his outfit pink and still own the copyright. If I had trademarked him and then made his outfit pink, I would hold the copyright on pink Batman but not necessarily the trademark unless it was established during the registry that being pink was somehow a facet of the character. ‘Course, YOU couldn’t make Batman pink and claim him as your own ‘cos I still have copyright. Unless you did so for satirical purposes (which falls under “fair use”) or for review or critique. (Also fair use.)

The ambiguity comes in when fair use is disputed, or when someone makes something that’s pretty close to something someone else already created.

Sorry - I was specifically talking about laws originally relating to Batman. Specific Intellectual property laws didn't exist in the US at that time.

The printed material was protected by copyright and the brand was protected by trademark.

The "idea" (or IP) couldn't be protected with existing laws - which is why there were so many battles about heroes with capes at that time.

IP laws are very new in the US - and that's one of the things that blurred the lines and makes interpretation of these laws difficult.

>They wanted the purchasers license to be limited to the medium they bought it in

GIMME GIMME GIMMEEEEEE!!!!!!

>Legally consumers are allowed to back-up information they purchase.

Yup. Like the Windows example. Hence why the courts threw it out. Copying a CD I bought onto MY ipad doesn’t violate copyright.

>This makes a mess of previous copyright laws which prevented people from making copies of published works.

Not really.

>What's the difference between backing up a CD, and backing up a comic book?

Nothing. And you can legally make as many scans of your comics as you want. BUT:

>Then extend that to what's the difference between lending a comic and lending a digital file?

‘Cos that digital file ISN’T the original work you paid for. You MIGHT make an argument if you lend the comic, ‘cos the comic is coming back to you. (Theoretically....) ‘Course, at this point it probably isn’t worth it for the copyright owner to track down who has what, for how long, what their intent is.... But if you put your copy on a website so’s ANYBODY can “borrow” it, there’s more in it for them to shut you down ‘cos the potential damage is immense. On your own, you can really only pass that comic around to SO MANY people....

....which doesn’t make it RIGHT; it’s STILL illegal, but it’s not worth enforcing. (Which you could argue isn’t right either; but this is where practicality meets ideology....)

If a law can't be enforced, what good is it? Copyright holders are responsible for protecting their property the same way I'm responsible for keeping a $20 bill in my pocket instead of leaving it on the sidewalk for the day. If they can't can't protect their property, and people won't comply to the laws - what is the use of the law? I don't personally like it, but I agree with people who criticize it. These laws should be easier for consumers to understand.

>there's this blurry line between bootlegs and counterfeits too.

Nope. They’re two different names for the same thing.

>Counterfeits are technically illegal to buy and sell - I believe

Illegal to sell; not buy. (Unless you intend to RE-sell them....) Hence why 90% of the population escapes punishment.

Don C.

I thought bootlegs related to work that was circulated but not commercially available another way - and counterfeits imitated actual products or were packaged to look official - and I thought there were different laws pertaining to ownership of both. Wikipedia has different definitions for both, but doesn't explain the laws in terms of owning the products - and I can't find another source.

[TrueDave]

"but to flaunt being a "rebel" in this fashion on a public board just
comes off a bit brash and/or cheesy to me." H.

I have a libary card and I know how to use it ?

Dude I am the humblest mother ****er anyone could EVER know.

[ctc]

>there are precedents that support the interpretation of the benefits I'm suggesting

No doubt; but that’s the pendulum swinging. For the most part I’d still go with the idea it’s generally fiscally motivated when someone cries foul.

>Basically the Corporation controls the legal outcome either way - which is crazy.

Well.... not EXACTLY; although a good lawyer can drag things out until the other side goes broke, or dies. There’s a good bit about the Clonus thing on the MST3K disk: essentially, Spielberg didn’t have a case. They could plead Parallel Development, but given the staggering number of similarities between the two films even THAT would be a tough go.

....but that’s why I say it generally goes to the sneakiest, and not necessarily the wealthiest. Although being insanely wealthy can buy a LOT of sneaky....

>I think Canada's copyright laws are better

They WERE; but in the last decade or two the US laws changed to become more in line with everyone else’s. The old US ones were geared more towards patents and trademarks; which are expensive and therefore favoured corporations. (Not to the EXCLUSION of an everyday person, but when you consider EACH CHARACTER in your story would need a separate trademark, and the process for ONE starts at about $1500 it can get excessive quickly.)

>is that the same as making a mash-up of two new songs and distributing it as your own work?

This starts getting into the practical thing. There are very specific rules as to how much you can “borrow” from one song before it’s a rip. (I THINK it’s 3 seconds.) Thank-you Vanilla Ice.... Nowadays folks usually get permission first.

Shakespeare is a good example: most of his plays were actually altered versions of foreign works, so it was unlikely that anyone would have seen the original (given Shakespeare was the guy who popularized entertainment) and even if they DID, those other guys were foreign; so given the attitude of the time nobody would have cared.

....and most importantly, a lot of those guys were too distant or dead to complain. Even nowadays, the only time it becomes a real issue is if someone is around to complain. (Ask Michael Gilbert....)

>The printed material was protected by copyright and the brand was protected by trademark.

Hmmmm.... it’s kinda tough to describe what a trademark does. It gives an idea a legal presence; makes it an entity as far as the law is concerned. The US interpretation was that copyright was extended to the work itself, but the ideas behind it were still kinda nebulous. What IS “Batman?) Registering a trademark would define.... say, Batman.... in specific, legal terms. So if someone made their own story (as opposed to copying one of mine) I could call shenanigans because according to my trademark, Batman is......

The idea of intellectual property was THERE; sort of, but not defined as well as it was here in Canada. Or most places.

>If a law can't be enforced, what good is it?

Well.... I gotta catch someone ripping me off before I can charge them. That doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t necessarily make me lax. This is the practical problem coming up again. There’s only SO MUCH that can be done.

‘Course, it’s also why big companies like to come down hard on violators. We might not cath you, but if we do....

>I thought bootlegs related to work that was circulated but not commercially available another way - and counterfeits imitated actual products or were packaged to look official

That’s right; but they both fall under the category of “unauthorized reproduction” as far as the law is concerned.

>I thought there were different laws pertaining to ownership of both.

I don’t think there is. I remember a lot of debate over this in the early 90's, but I’m pretty sure the idea that ownership isn’t illegal was upheld.

Don C.

[TrueDave]

"but to flaunt being a "rebel" in this fashion on a public board just
comes off a bit brash and/or cheesy to me." H.
Also I'm not a "rebel" I'm a "Reject"
Small difference, we both ride in the back of the bus.

[Adam West]

I have to agree with ctc on this one. If someone is more familiar on this subject than me...feel free to chime in. I am an accounting geek and did take 4+ classes in law including one that dealt with copyrights, trademarks, and patents exclusively. I am basing my experience on 18+ year old rules I learned in college. We never addressed issues regarding taking a CD, making a copy and giving it to your friend because the internet was not widely used (I know it might sound strange but I was using it back then to enter various investment firm databases (such as Merrill Lynch) and remember clicking on a button on a green screen that said I was using the data for academic purposes. Personally, I think everything went crazy when Napster was created. The basic defense was that this was file sharing...similar to ripping the CD that you purchased and giving it to your friend...but it was available to anyone. Napaster lost so to me that says that there is some precedent set regarding media and sharing/selling copies.

[Adam West]

I think a majority of the people on this forum work in an artistic field (just based on being a member for years...and doubt that there are any other accountants or lawyers on here...at least to my knowledge). With that said, I look at the law as the law and not something that is up to my interpretation. I also feel (and I stress the word feel) that it is wrong (despite the law), to do anything that would violate any rights of artists or others who seem to be riding on a very fine line. Again..my opinion but when I think of artists (whether it be musicians, actors, physical artists, etc.)....I just find it wrong to copy items that rightfully belong to the artist or company who has the rights to the property. In the library example, obviously the librarian knew there was an issue or he/she wouldn't have asked. I guess I'm just the type of person who believes a person or company who has the rights to a song, etc. should be compensated for it.

[TrueDave]

In the library example, obviously the librarian knew there was an issue or he/she wouldn't have asked. I guess I'm just the type of person who believes a person or company who has the rights to a song, etc. should be compensated for it.

Another libarian looked at my funny yesterday. It doesnt take long to download these. So I had a big stack.

I think it's because it is so fast. While Im working on the computer I can copy them in a minute each.
If I was copying them from a LP to an 8 Track I wouldnt feel so bad/
I think I'll stop. Even if it is legal . Just feel indecisive about it.

Thank You Adam West
( What I really feel bad about is I dont check out enough books and most folks just use teh libary as a Video rental, Libarians can make you feel so guilty)

I think thats an excelelent observation there are a lot of creative types here on teh forum.
How should I feel about watching the Twilight Zone straight Through? Or I have over a hundred dollars worth of graphic novels I didnt pay for?

Most people wouldnt BUY a copy of Moby Dick, but the book is made available and hundreds of peopple can check out and read teh book, thus getting enjoyment out of it yet not contributing to the books creators ?

I remeber my comics very well. I have bascialyy "copied' the graphic novels I check out into my mind. And I see no reason to buy them now.


Another thing. One Thirsday a month the Libary has a "Foriegn Movie Night" I can go watch a film with a group of other folks in thier meeting room.

Isnt that specifically illegal?
I heard they were after Hospitals and rest homes to stop playing films.

[ctc]

>Isnt that specifically illegal?

Yup; but it usually falls into the "not worth prosecuting" category. "Good job busting up that illegal hospice film-showing ring, Sam." Provided they even find out. They'll usually serve a C&D on these instead of an all-out raid.

Don C.