 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter
| reply to Marilla
Re: There is some sanity in the world!! Your claim has no merit here. And they are right, in this instance. Using a machine/program to obtain "illegal" copies of copywritten works is not wrong. Supposedly posessing those "illegal" copies is the problem.
If that was the case, then cd burners and cars would be "illegal" if someone made a copy of a song and drove the disk over a friend's house and gave the disk copy to them.
Shoot, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, are computers "illegal" since they can be used to download GIF files? CompuServe owns the rights to that image format. I don't pay CS everytime I download a GIF file, though I have a copy of "their works" on my computer.
What if people decided to copywrite their website. Would my computer/brower be seen as "illegal" since I technically have a perfect copy of their page on my computer?
This is NOT a cut and dry issue.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ |
|
 TexasGuy49 States And TexasPremium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX | And if you make a copy of a CD and drive it through a state border, it is a federal offence right there.
--
-- Who drank has died, who drinks will die; is he immortal who is sober? -- |
|
|
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
2 edits | reply to DaSneaky1D
once you publish to the internet it is "presumed" to be copyrighted....you don't have to actually pay for the copyright, to collect any monetary compensation, you have to pay...if I'm not mistaken
--
BlooMe |
|
 mibagent_xGo giggle the handlePremium
join:2001-03-04
Barnhart, MO | Change presumed to assumed. And we all know assumed is,
Assumption is the mother of all f***-ups
--
Join Team helix and help find a cure. |
|
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D:
Shoot, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, are computers "illegal"
I personally have not read the Induce Act in its entirety, but if it is written broad enough, can you imagine the first lawsuit?
"Well the P2P program induced me to download the copyrighted work and the Microsoft XP made it easy (induced) me to download the P2P program and the Dell computer made it easy (induced) me to use the operating system and my ISP made it really fast (induced) for me to get online via the phone wires that verizon (induced) me to use while running on the power company's electricity (induced).
That list can get even longer if you want to nitpick the computer components apart (Nvidia/ATI, RAM, HDD, etc, not to mention peripherals like monitor, mouse, etc)
--
Zuh? |
|
 pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D:
Shoot, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, are computers "illegal" since they can be used to download GIF files? CompuServe owns the rights to that image format. I don't pay CS everytime I download a GIF file, though I have a copy of "their works" on my computer.
----
What if people decided to copywrite their website. Would my computer/brower be seen as "illegal" since I technically have a perfect copy of their page on my computer?
»www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw
Unisys has[had] the patents to LZW/GIF. They only charged to encode the files. They didn't charge anything to decode files. I continue to use PNG just as a protest against patents, as do many other people.
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | The patent expired last year. Use GIFs at will 
KM |
|
| reply to pcscdma
said by pcscdma:
Unisys has[had] the patents to LZW/GIF. They only charged to encode the files.
So when I convert an image to GIF or create one does that mean I am violating patent laws? My guess is Unisys isn't so uptight about usage as the RIAA and MPAA. |
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | It depended on the software you used to do it.
If you wrote your own software to covert images and apply the LZW compression and you did not license that compression technology from Unisys, then yes, you were in violation of the patent.
If you used someone else's software to do that, then you're kinda in violation, but ultimately the one to 'go after' would be the company that provided/wrote that software.
If you used third-party software that did license that compression scheme, then the gifs you create are fine.
Unisys WAS uptight about it - this is one of the biggest patent arguments of the past decade. It cause all sorts of geek protesting on using gifs. Unisys actively sued companies who made gif creation/conversion software without licensing.
But regardless, the patent is expired anyway, so however you wanna do it...
KM
--
If Clinton lied, so did Bush.
Iraq Casualties | War Propaganda
Air America - Radio for the Rest of US! |
|
1 edit | reply to DaSneaky1D
Actually Unisys owns (well, owned since it pretty much expired everywhere) the GIF format. And even then, the only restriction on GIF was the LZW compression algorithm (nothing about decompressing so you can view).
Also, you have to realize that law can never be constructed to encompass all future events. That's why there are judges and lawyers to interpret the spirit of the law. Even still, despite what the RIAA, MPAA, and Hatch would have you believe there is still fair use rights. That is why you can download web pages and images off of the internet. As long as you do not redistribute the works as your own (plagiarism in academia, copyright infringment in legalise) or redistribute them against the wishes of the creator, that is allowed.
Everyone uses the argument that p2p downloading is the same as borrowing of a friend. Who are you really kidding. Is it that hard to admit that what you are doing is really illegal (the RIAA and MPAA handling of the situation is a completely different story). Think of it this way. Is stealing a CD from a store more illegal than downloading that album? After all the CD costs almost nothing to the store (probably less than the bandwidth used to download the album).
And the argument that you wouldn't have bought it anyways so it's alright to download is pretty weak. Yes, it is a vaild argument to disprove the outrageous monetary losses claimed by software, music, movie analysts. It's not a valid justification for downloading things you don't own (even when you do own it, I would say it's an iffy issue, since why would you need to download if you already own it? any backups or copies you can make yourself). |
|
| said by vlovich:
Is it that hard to admit that what you are doing is really illegal (the RIAA and MPAA handling of the situation is a completely different story)?
Actually to me it is. The very purpose of copyright law was to protect the artist from exploitation. When you make money off another person's work you have to give them a share and give credit where its due. Nothing more. The only time when free distribution really becomes an issue is when it actually affects the artist's livelihood (which has yet to happen). What's different now is how copyright law is interpreted by the RIAA to use the word "distribution" on its own instead of "sales and distribution", which is what's stated in copyright law. That one grey area is what the RIAA exploits regarding the legality of sharing music.
If you want to move to a moral issue that's another story, but legally the record industry's stance is iffy at best. As for me it's all about sharing a form of art and no matter how much it's shared people will continue to pay for it. That much has been shown over the past five years of what the entertainment industries call "rampant file trading on a massive scale". If it's so massive and the sales figures look as good as they do then where's the problem? |
|
