 dave Premium,MVM join:2000-05-04 not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Jacek Re: Are they even able to do that?
said by Jacek: If this would be the case, it would make illegal to read fragments of the book in a bookstore before buying one.
The correct analogy would be if you were to start photocopying the book in the bookstore.
('Fair use' of course would allow small extracts, as long as you could get the bookstore to agree.) |
|
  Saltor the Dispenser
@mobisoft.fi | reply to NewLife I'd say a bigger threat to the security of your country is your atrocious educational system.
(BTW your spelling is terrible.) |
|
  IANAL BIPOOTV
@rit.edu
| reply to Camelot One How about US Code Title 17, Section 106(1)(»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html)?
Drop this into your pipe: By definition, only the copyright holder may authorize reproduction of the copyrighted work. Before your download of the file there is one copy -- on the uploader's computer. Post download there are two copies. Based solely on your action of requesting the file was a copy made.
Just because you're in a (to steal a reference from down the thread) bookstore with a photo-copier in it, doesn't give you the right to make copies
Now would you please stop your ranting about downloading copyrighted, unauthorized reproductions of music files being legal? |
|
  dcgaber
@was-dc.ds
| reply to Camelot One Check the criminal code out (too lazy to provide a link), but once you cross a certain monetary threshold, you are committing a crime. There are civil and criminal remedies.
The code is also protected under trade secret laws. Be aware, in the US, having that code is illegal. Think of it this way, you may say it is not illegal to look at it, but perhaps illegal to copy it. When you have it in your computer, you are making a buffer copy to look at it, that is copying and courts (and legislatures) consider that to be infirngement. |
|
  Sarick It's Only Logical Premium join:2003-06-03 USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| reply to Camelot One I could say yes your right.
The problem with agreeing with that is, even though it's not illegal you can still get sued for doing it.
A Lawsuit can be more than enough to make people tremble in fear. -- Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com |
|
  weebl
@ntli.net | reply to Camelot One I would have thought, as I already own a copy of their software, that I ought to be able to look at the source code. After all it's just what I own in another form. |
|
  dasesq
join:2001-10-07 Long Beach, CA
1 edit | reply to Camelot One Here are some laws for you....copying appears to be a crime (thus, "copyright")
»caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···106.html »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···501.html »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···506.html |
|
  Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| reply to Sarick said by Sarick :
Downloading music IS NOT A CRIME..
WHY..
Downloading Copyrighted music without a license is ILLEGAL.
You're right. I should have been more specific. 
Within the US, downloading copyrighted music without permission from the copyright holder isn't legal. -- -Jason Levine http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/ http://www.PCQandA.com/ http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
  Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs:
1 edit | reply to dasesq While I appreciate both of you posting links to actual law, after reading them, I still see nothing that specifically states that downloading copyrighted music is a crime.
I do however see dcgaber's point about trade secrets in regard to the MS code (the topic of the thread) I think it would be a very tough case to make, but since lawsuits are all about who has more money, they could make it work. |
|
  GrnMessiah
@208.5.x.x
| reply to NewLife Uh, DUDE!
As I recall from NETCRAFT, more than half of web servers are Linux. As I understand, the entire Linux system is GPL (which allows anyone to view or play with the code). Government servers run this, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have been seriously raped.
Besides, it's 2000. Under the government licensing programs, they are required to use XP. The nation isn't is jeopardy if the code for a OS that M$ has all but stopped supporting gets released to the public. |
|
  Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| reply to weebl said by weebl: I would have thought, as I already own a copy of their software, that I ought to be able to look at the source code. After all it's just what I own in another form.
You own a license to use the software. That license contains certain provisions. For example, you can't give your copy away to ten of your best friends.
You have no license to the source code. This means you aren't allowed to download it, even just to look at. With Open Source applications, they specifically grant you the right to download and look at the code. If the coders on an Open Source app were to revoke that right and go to a Closed Source model, you wouldn't be able to look at the code for subsequent versions. (Let's ignore for a second just how something would go from Open Source to Closed Source. It's a completely hypothetical example. In the real world it would probably be next to impossible to pull off.) -- -Jason Levine http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/ http://www.PCQandA.com/ http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
  AthlGrond Premium,MVM join:2002-04-25 Aurora, CO
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Camelot One said by Camelot One : I still see nothing that specifically states that downloading copyrighted music is a crime.
You mean you weren't joking? Oh, well...
Take a peek at: »www.copyright.gov/
When you download a song you have made a copy of it, which is prohibited and thus illegal.
said by US Copyright Office: WHAT IS COPYRIGHT? Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, "Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts."
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
Here is a link to all the exceptions including fair use etc: »www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |
|
  jackknife
join:2001-02-24 Phoenix, AZ clubs: | reply to Saltor the Dispenser Our educational system is fine.
Our people are stupid! |
|
  Rhobite Premium join:2002-02-24 Cambridge, MA clubs:
| reply to Camelot One »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying, which is illegal without permission of the copyright holder. Some people think that downloading falls under fair use if they don't share the file, or it's legal for the first 24 hours. There's nothing in the law that supports either of these ideas. -- Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
 ftzsee Premium join:2001-11-22 clubs: | reply to AthlGrond »www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
 |
|
  Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs: 1 edit | reply to jackknife Thank you AthlGrond. |
|
  TheMadSwede Premium join:2001-01-30 Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Logan 5 said by Logan 5 : Mustang Systems..wonder what ever became of them???
If I'm not mistaken, they wrote an ok Customer Messaging Tool for customer service via email. Could be a different Mustang. -- A good idea expressed in a poor manner is a bad idea. |
|
  CoffeeSloth
@65.165.x.x
| reply to dcgaber Trade secret only apply to dealings between corporations., and even then they apply to the person violating the agreements signed as a condition of hiring or between unfair dealings with a country that doesn't recognize our laws. Trade is the key word here.
As for downloading being illegal...check with your lawyer, however, it is copyright violation to distribute without a license, not to receive without a license. And the monetary threshold applies to whether or not it's a felony or a misdemeanor.
It would be illegal to break into a server to grab the code and distribute it, but if they have it on a public FTP site (anonymous login) then no one broke in to get it. I don't know how the code was originally downloaded but the legality of M$ actions with their statement is debate-able. |
|
  jhustanutter1
@kaballero.com | reply to GeminiCub4U Hello Microsoft (M$) are you listening?
That is the sound of another FREENET node being installed...
Looks like you have a problem. |
|
  Melchior Premium join:2003-06-15 Mars clubs: | reply to Logan 5 WildCat! was sold off and it was picked up by Santronics who still continue to make it.. there are a few systems running it still as it's very web/internet oriented now. |
|