|
Post by las logged out on Aug 23, 2006 18:24:51 GMT -5
Lets talk about copy right laws on books If one wants to get technical you cannot even borrow your book out to someone else...what about these old books with copyright laws being sold at garage sales and book stores there breaking the law arn't they?You take the secret sect book and it's copy right laws for example these were started before the advent of the Internet and the freedom of information act
|
|
|
Post by duh on Aug 24, 2006 7:25:46 GMT -5
You are not correct Lloyd. Maybe in Canada, but not the USA. Copyright is strictly messing with the book or whatever. Copying part of it for instance without the owner's permission or the one in charge. What you are saying is selling a book at a garage sale is wrong. No you are wrong. That is no different than a store selling the book. The store doesn't get permission to sell the copyright but to sell the book and that permission is from the city more than likely, just to do business. Happy garage saleing.
|
|
|
Post by losing our rights on Aug 24, 2006 9:49:52 GMT -5
Not so fast duh. las isn't as far off as you think... More and more of our fair use rights are being robbed from us in the name of copyright. The problem comes from the way USA copyright laws are currently written - they are so broad, just about anyone can pick the interpretation they like. For example, if you play copyrighted songs on a guitar in the privacy of your own home, and you like to discuss your techniques on-line, the music industry is going to shut you down. (They've already shut down a number of discussion boards just like this one dedicated to discussing guitar playing techniques.) The story is here: www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/technology/21ecom.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=sloginI'm just waiting for the day when the copyright police raid the convention grounds and arrest everyone for "public performance" of copyrighted hymns during meeting. Don't laugh. You'd be surprised what the government can take away from you incrementally.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Aug 24, 2006 11:04:56 GMT -5
Whats wrong with copying a book on a disc or printing the pages out for my own use yet copyright laws prohibit..I haven't made one thin dime on any book or video
|
|
|
Post by inaccurate on Aug 24, 2006 11:15:50 GMT -5
Not so fast duh. las isn't as far off as you think... More and more of our fair use rights are being robbed from us in the name of copyright. The problem comes from the way USA copyright laws are currently written - they are so broad, just about anyone can pick the interpretation they like. For example, if you play copyrighted songs on a guitar in the privacy of your own home, and you like to discuss your techniques on-line, the music industry is going to shut you down. (They've already shut down a number of discussion boards just like this one dedicated to discussing guitar playing techniques.) It was not the discussion of the technique that was the problem it was the fact that the work had been copied and transmitted. This would be like someone buying a work of fiction, copying it and adding their own notation, and distributing the resulting work on the INTERNET. Anyone getting the work would be getting the intellectual property belonging to the original author as well as the added notation. The IP is being distributed without benefit to the owner. It is stealing. As far as playinig in your own home - that is not an issue. Making copies of sheet music is.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Aug 24, 2006 11:28:17 GMT -5
What about transmission wouldn't that apply to lending your book out to someone else....some people do circulate books videos among certain friends yet the original owner still has rights to the book and can request them back at any time.Just referring to the implications the rules leave
|
|
|
Post by losing our rights on Aug 24, 2006 12:08:09 GMT -5
It was not the discussion of the technique that was the problem Wrong. Learn then post. I was a regular at olga.net. We didn't copy and transmit work. We discussed playing. Get a clue, you trolling fuk! No dumbasss. It would be like someone buying a CD at the store, listening to the song, singing along with it privately, then discussing singing along with the songs on-line with friends. You don't get it do you, you mind-numbed assswipe. NO ONE IS GETTING THE WORK. IT'S A GODDAAMNED DISCUSSION. IF the bible were copyrighted (its not) your line of thinking would make discussing it (all churches) illegal, even if nothing was read directly from it. Only per your brainwashed notion of "distributed". You've been brainwashed. Learn to think for yourself. Well that's what I was doing. And you dumb fuks have made it more difficult now. Just waiting for a knock on the door from the copyright Nazi's. Oh God. That's not what we were doing. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 24, 2006 18:48:06 GMT -5
Its my understanding that copyrights deal with re-selling for profit, and you better believe a bookstore has permission to sell the books they have in stock. Every distributor has a contract with the store, every distributor has a contract with the publishing company and so on and so-forth.
Re-selling a used book at a yard sale WOULD NOT fall under copyright violation because you are selling YOUR personal property, IF you made copies and sold those, then YES I believe it would technically be illegal.
|
|
Inaccurate and inappropriate
Guest
|
Post by Inaccurate and inappropriate on Aug 24, 2006 23:44:35 GMT -5
It was not the discussion of the technique that was the problem Hey - you posted the article. I just read it, something I gather, you did not do. On-line Guitar Archive (OLGA) is down for exactly the reason I said - they were providing copyrighted guitar tablatures from their archives without paying the artist. They were allowing people like you to steal copyrighted material. Of course, you never did that. Look at the name of the group - it is the oldest archive in existence. Just for the record, the word is spelled fu ck.
|
|
|
Post by ipr on Aug 24, 2006 23:49:04 GMT -5
Re-selling a used book at a yard sale WOULD NOT fall under copyright violation Nope! You've owned it before - the legal presumption is you've read it - if someone else reads it, that constitutes public presentation of the item - if the copyright doesn't grant public (presentation/display/performance/etc) then its illegal to do it. Nope! The paper of the book is yours but that's where it stops. Everything else is held by the copyright owner. Since you cannot remove the ink from the pages, you cannot seperate the intellectual property from the physical property, so the book is not entirely yours. Same with your music, movies, etc. - you may own the disk, but you don't own the data on it, so you can't do anything with it without the express consent of the intellectual copyright holder. OR even gave them away... Not just "technically", but "absolutely".
|
|
|
Post by profits on Aug 24, 2006 23:49:58 GMT -5
Its my understanding that copyrights deal with re-selling for profit, and you better believe a bookstore has permission to sell the books they have in stock. Every distributor has a contract with the store, every distributor has a contract with the publishing company and so on and so-forth. When you buy the book you buy the right to that copy. You can do as you wish with that copy. But you cannot make a copy. Sell it, burn it, loan it, etc. The creator of the work got paid for that copy. If you want to make an additional copy, you need to pay the owner. This is correct.
|
|
|
Post by For clueless on Aug 24, 2006 23:58:48 GMT -5
Here is your clue from the article you posted. It is the heart of the issue: The battle shares many similarities with the war between Napster and the music recording industry, but this time it involves free sites like Olga.net, GuitarTabs.com and MyGuitarTabs.com and even discussion boards on the Google Groups service like alt.guitar.tab and rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, where amateur musicians trade “tabs” — music notation especially for guitar — for songs they have figured out or have copied from music books.
I added the red because from your response it seems you did not bother to read the article you posted and the article that went on to articulate exactly what the issue was, unlike your narrow view of what was happening.
The intellectual property was being transmitted in the form of 'tabs' on the Internet. It is stealing the IP of someone else.
While it is true this did take place on discussion groups, it was not the discussion that was the object of the suits but the trading of intellectual property.
This was not the object of the charges brought. It was the trading of the tablatures and the downloading of archived copyrighted tablatures.
|
|
|
Post by uh uh on Aug 25, 2006 0:00:01 GMT -5
Its my understanding that copyrights deal with re-selling for profit, and you better believe a bookstore has permission to sell the books they have in stock. Every distributor has a contract with the store, every distributor has a contract with the publishing company and so on and so-forth. When you buy the book you buy the right to that copy. You can do as you wish with that copy. But you cannot make a copy. Sell it, burn it, loan it, etc. The creator of the work got paid for that copy. If you want to make an additional copy, you need to pay the owner. This is correct. this is the gradeschool version in real life, the law is a little stickier
|
|
|
Post by to ramblin man on Aug 25, 2006 0:37:08 GMT -5
Oh believe what you want you little nazi. It's not like this is a discussion to you, just a chance to puke your propaganda on the table hoping everyone gets a good look at it.
|
|
|
Post by Very clear on Aug 25, 2006 23:41:03 GMT -5
Oh believe what you want you little nazi. It's not like this is a discussion to you, just a chance to puke your propaganda on the table hoping everyone gets a good look at it. our response indicates your lack of understanding why you are no longer able to steal the work of others on your "discussion" sites.
|
|
Public Presentation
Guest
|
Post by Public Presentation on Aug 26, 2006 0:03:36 GMT -5
Re-selling a used book at a yard sale WOULD NOT fall under copyright violation Nope! You've owned it before - the legal presumption is you've read it - if someone else reads it, that constitutes public presentation of the item - if the copyright doesn't grant public (presentation/display/performance/etc) then its illegal to do it. This is incorrect for analog books: From the US copyright laws: Reading a book, for example, is not a regulated (by copyright law) use of the book. It's a free use: reading a book creates no copy. To lend someone a book is not a regulated use: it creates no copy. And to sell someone a book is not a regulated use: it creates no copy. These ordinary uses are beyond the reach of copyright law. Or put differently, copyright law leaves these ordinary uses immune from regulation.This is not including digital works, only analog works, i.e., paper books. Regarding digital books: Reading a book in analog space may be an unregulated act. But reading an e-book is a licensed act, because reading an e-book produces a copy. Lending a book in analog space is an unregulated act. But lending an e-book is presumptively regulated. Selling a book in analog space is an unregulated act. Selling an e-book is not. In all these cases, and many more, ordinary uses that were once beyond the reach of the law now plainly fall within the scope of copyright regulation. The default in the analog world was freedom; the default in the digital world is regulation.
According to thge US copyright office you are in error. Digital data is treated differently. The whole issue revolves around the fact that digital use creates a copy. Analog does not. You own the paper on the book and a license to use the IP contained therein. As the owner you can sell the book and the license to the IP as long as you do not create copy in so doing. Libraries, for example, can purchase books and loan them out. Stores can purchase videos and rent them to people. But you cannot project a video and charge people to watch it without the permission of the copyright owner.
You really need to read the copyright laws. There is a reason the laws are called copyright laws.
|
|
Interjecting re copyright law
Guest
|
Post by Interjecting re copyright law on Aug 26, 2006 19:59:12 GMT -5
You really need to read the copyright laws. May I interject here? I HAVE read the copyright laws and I'm sorry, but your views are a bit to simplistic and naive. Maybe you could read the law itself rather than putting all your faith in just editorials on the subject. You can learn a lot here: www.copyright.gov/title17/(And may I also say here that your selective quoting of the law is a typical tactic of those seeking to misuse it and/or misguide others. Your argument is very one-sided and you don't seem to show any interest in admitting that this law is very complex, even possibly one of the worst pieces of code we have to deal with. Please, for the sake of fair discussion, try to look at the code without injecting your own bias into it.) Take care.
|
|
|
Post by To the interjector on Aug 27, 2006 1:05:04 GMT -5
You really need to read the copyright laws. May I interject here? Certainly. As have I. While the case I mentioned was simplistic, it is the way the law reads. I will assume this was your claim: Nope! You've owned it before - the legal presumption is you've read it - if someone else reads it, that constitutes public presentation of the item - if the copyright doesn't grant public (presentation/display/performance/etc) then its illegal to do it.Selling a book to someone else is not a public presentation. Since you have read the law I am sure you will be able to point out the portion of the law that makes reselling a printed book illegal. Think of the number of used book stores that must be in violation if the law. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point out the pertinent paragraphs in the copyright law. I attempted to make it readable for all and am fairly certain that what I wrote is supported by the law. Thanks, I have a copy. I have read the law. I have used it for the past twenty years. Again I ask you, point out the sections that you feel make an argument that if you resell a printed book that you are breaking the copyright law. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by ipr on Aug 27, 2006 9:56:17 GMT -5
I will assume this was your claim: Nope! You've owned it before - the legal presumption is you've read it - if someone else reads it, that constitutes public presentation of the item - if the copyright doesn't grant public (presentation/display/performance/etc) then its illegal to do it.Well your assuming wrong cause I said it not the interjecter.
|
|
|
Post by lloydswanson on Aug 27, 2006 9:58:24 GMT -5
i think copywright means I have a right to copy anything i like
|
|
|
Post by Charles JL on Aug 27, 2006 10:10:46 GMT -5
A less myopic view of copyrights and the problems they cause and solve can be found in the publication below. It's a great book, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in an honest assesment of the issue.
Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet, by Jessica Litman (ISBN:1573928895)
Re: Selling used books... no, it is not illegal, but if we don't change the direction we're heading in, it may soon be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2006 10:26:56 GMT -5
Re "Learn then post. Learn then post. Learn then post." etc etc Did you type this out, or just cut and past? ;D
|
|