Re: iTunes "purchase" versus "license"

In article <1129830442.278252.264250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"ed" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > In article <1129670262.320850.157170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "ed" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > One thing is clear though and that is the Federal Copyright Laws.
> > >
> > > that is *NOT* clear for "personal use"- including copying for friends
> > > for noncommercial use- see the congressional otc document i previously
> > > referenced.
> > >
> > > > Even
> > > > if, as you're trying to claim, there is no *license" the provisions for
> > > > "fair use" do not allow copying for your friends, relatives and other
> > > > interested parties.
> > >
> > > until you can show me a law (legislative or case law) that shows
> > > otherwise, i'll chose to believe congress's office of technology
> > > assessment rather than your unsupported assertions.
> >
> > What happens is that the "cpyright" is the license. What I didn't mention
> > earlier is that CD's also fall under the shrink-wrap laws as well. When
> > someone places the copyright symbol on a work, that symbol signifies
> > that there are usage restrictions applied to that work.
> >
> > You can babble all you want about your verbiage in the "office of
> > technology" which is what, from 1984, and unfortunately [for your line
> > of reasoning] the Federal Copyrigh Law is *current law* on the subject.
>
> '88 i believe. ok, so you're saying it's only copyright law that
> prohibits it, and you seem to imply there are changes since the OTA
> report- please cite the *specific* parts that have changed that you
> think are relevant.

first, I'm not going back and comparing two documents when all that's
required is the CURRENT LAW, as outlined in the Federal Copyright Laws.

>
> > When you speak with an IP,
>
> yeah, and lawyers know everything and are never wrong. =D

However, they too are bound by the same Federal Copyright Laws. And I
can tell you from experience in going after infringers, that the Federal
Courts don't have time for small and frivilous cases so an attorney
trying to bring such an action, is just outta luck.

>
> > and I have, fair use is generally taken by
> > the law to mean *for your own personal use* and nothing more.
>
> yup. and how did the OTA report define "personal use"?

All that matters is current law, that is the FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS.
Your OTA is an interpretation and one 17 years old at that. The LAW as
outlined at the Federal Copyright Office is *CURRENT* law, period.

Oh and BTW, infringement can be a felony. More than serious stuff.

>
> > Not
> > copying for friends, relatives
>
> oh, damn, that's exactly how they defined it!

Baloney, that's your interpretation so that it satisfies your need to be
dense and pick nits so suit yourself.

In an attempt to get through your incorrect reasoning here is the law as
currently defined:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.

It means that you[personally) can make a copy that does not affect the
potential market for that Work, in this case a CD. If you copy it and
give it to a relative, you have taken away a "potential market". IF you
borrow the CD from the library and copy it just to listen to, you have
removed a "potential market".

If you purchased a CD, and you copy it, you have not infringed, because
you purchased the CD.

If you buy a CD and copy it, then sell the original keeping the copy,
you have infringed.

Of course, like speeding in your automobile, you have to get caught,
which is what leads to prosecution.


>
> > and may also mean not on multiple
> > computers(note that iPods as authorized to ONE computer).
>
> yeah, and that's a LICENSING restriction that you agree to. a license
> that one can actually point to. not your mythical secret license for
> CDs. =D

It's not the secret you want it to be. the © date-artist gives any
artist protection from infringement from "the moment of creation". And
in more recent times, a work doesn't even need that symbol to have the
FULL PROTECTION of the Federal Copyright Law.



this part covers CD's quite clearly.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html



>
> > > > "Fair Use' only allows your copying your purchased
> > > > CD's for backup and I suppose making your own "mixes" even though the
> > > > RIAA is against both(only because they want to dip into your bank
> > > > account).
> > >
> > > and what do you base this on? i've given clear reference to what i
> > > base my viewpoint on.

The RIAA has their own agenda, right or not but they win by
intimidation. However, I base rights and such on *CURRENT COPYRIGHT LAW*
as stated in the Federal Copyright Office. There is no other source of
that law, regardless of what you think. What's most puzzling is that you
seem to think some advisory office carries more weight than the actual,
current law. Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Again, the CURRENT LAW is stated here and contines all the current
amendments up to April 2005 as near as is stated. Remember yours is from
198X in the distant past.

http://www.copyright.gov/



> >
> > I base my pov on my discussions with my IP attorney and my own use of
> > the IP laws having dealt with both images and music.
>
> yes, and you've made it clear in the example you cited that you had an
> explicit license, separate from copyright law.

I've explained both to you, you're just far too dense to understand how
things work, when it comes to legalities. Speeding is illegal too.

Since you protest so much, CD's, as music CD's fall under the Shrinkwrap
license as defined with computer software and that is covered in the
current law.

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html

1. "Shrink Wrap" Licenses.

Mass-marketing of computer programs means that individually
negotiated,signed license agreements are no longer feasible. Software
publishers haveresponded by developing "shrink wrap," "break the seal,"
or "box top" licenses to control the customer's use and further
distribution of their programs. With many variations, this device
involves including a printed license with the sealed program package
purporting to bind the purchaser to the terms of the
license if the package is opened. While there are serious questions as
to the enforceability of these "licenses," one library declared that it
is refraining from lending computer programs because of the concern that
shrink wrap licenses may prohibit circulation, and urged that section
109 be amended to make clear that its exemptions prevail over these
"agreements."

The questions of whether the language in some shrink wrap licenses
prohibiting rental or lending is enforceable, and whether such language
overrides the specific exemptions in section 109, are serious and need
to be discussed further. It may be, however, that the problem can be
resolved without legislative action, since representatives of software
publishers have declared that their industry has no interest in
asserting that shrink wrap licenses override the section 109 exemptions.

and should I put photos on a CD, this license would apply as well to the
photos as well as music(you can also think of music video where music
and stills are put together.)


>
> > Where you're
> > failing in the logic stream is that you seem to think that the copyright
> > laws and a "license" are two different things. They're not, but they are
> > one in the same.
>
> then why do you pay an attorney to draft up licenses for you? =D

I don't. I write my own licenses and I use the IP attorney to make sure
I understand all the fine points, have constructed my invoice properly,
which for photos is the license, and to prosecute infringers. My photos
are not sold, they are licensed. CD's are nearly the same...you own the
Copy, but the copyright laws and the shrinkwrap law(it's license)
provide protection to the copyright holder.

Lets say a musical group that is releasing a copyrighted CD. If you
think you're right, get one and copy it bearing in mind that you think
you have permission to do so, and give it to your friends, relatives and
so on. Then let the group know you did this and then you get to go to
federal court and see who wins...and I know it won't be you!

You must also be a real picnic with books and magazines you buy. They're
copyrighted too but I'm sure that matters not to you.

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Piracy Solution?
    ... >> It's called the way the law works. ... Show me on MS's balance sheet the losses due to piracy! ... >>> it was cheaper for them to pay a fine, license the software, or be ... No private use violation has ever ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: groff alternative?
    ... one is whether the license can hold. ... Australian law has certain supposedly undisclaimible implied ... this code may not be taken out of the public domain ... You should mull-over how it is that FreeBSD is placed in the ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Theres Just No Way This Is Legal
    ... the production of devices classified as explosives by the BATF ... >corresponding state license may offer no protection at all from state ... >>> law, I will tell you that the sale of kits to make what amounts to ... and some transportation regulations still apply, as well as any and all state ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: RosAsm disassembler output vs. IDA Pro
    ... The copyright law is not that simple Randy....Law is not like math. ... nobody here is a defender of illegal actions. ... the application other then the one specified by the license. ... rent or distribute the app. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: iTunes "purchase" versus "license"
    ... That is how the Federal Copyright ... > of copyright is part of copyright law. ... there is no *license* when you buy a CD jim. ... > license, and then abrogate it's terms, you are in violations of the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)