Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 5:32 PM
Default "For Personal Use"
Should people be allowed to copy copyrighted material like in the US or should the rules apply to everything like in the UK?
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#2 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 5:42 PM
Since when are we allowed to copy copyrighted material in the US? Do I understand what you're saying...?

Test Subject
#3 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 5:48 PM
Seriously, when were we ever allowed to copy copyrighted material? That's illegal...
Field Researcher
#4 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 5:54 PM
Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of "copyrighted"? I'm confused.
Lab Assistant
#5 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 7:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by sabrown100
Should people be allowed to copy copyrighted material like in the US or should the rules apply to everything like in the UK?


People aren't allowed to copy copyrighted material in the US. They just do it anyway.

What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

"Ma'am, your eyes look red. Have you been drinking?"
"Officer, your eyes look glazed. Have you been eating donuts?"
Theorist
#6 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 7:35 PM
And if they get caught, they get fined heavily, and in some cases, get thrown in jail. A lot of individual Americans MIGHT copy it in small doses, a CD here or there, and the Feds might not be too concerned, but that doesn't make it legal, just like a cop not chasing you down to give you a ticket if he clocks you at 71 in a 70mph zone. He could, and would be in his or her rights to pull you over, but, is it worth the effort? Obviously, if you do 110 in that 70 mph zone, the police officer is gonna go after you...and if you have a terabyte worth of illegal software or music on your PC, and the Feds find out, they are going to be more concerned than if you have a few songs you got from a non-legal source. But, just because a lot of Americans get away with it, on a very limited, small scale, doesn't make it legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Top Secret Researcher
#7 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 8:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SABrown100
Should people be allowed to copy copyrighted material like in the US or should the rules apply to everything like in the UK?


Actually, you can use copyrighted material you just have to pay for it. For example if I write a play (in the US) and someone wants to use it, as long as they pay me and give me credit on the program and I agree to it, they can perform it. Is that what you mean SAbrown?

The humor of a story on the internet is in direct inverse proportion to how accurate the reporting is.
#8 Old 22nd Sep 2007 at 8:49 PM
I know the laws on patenting are different in the US than the UK.. for example, provided you can find proof that you actually invented the lightbulb (e.g. in written form), that is enough to prove you hold copyright for it. So if I had an idea right now, I could send myself an email with date and time on it, keep hold of it, and charge anyone who wanted to use my idea (provided that nobody else had an email with that idea on it prior to mine). Here in the UK, one has to actually go down to a patent office and pay however much to officially copyright it..

Other than that, I'm pretty sure breach of copyright is illegal everywhere in the world :p
Test Subject
Original Poster
#9 Old 24th Sep 2007 at 4:37 PM
Sorry I meant the wrong country - in wikipedia it says:

"In the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the courts or through legislation. The concept is sometimes no" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#10 Old 24th Sep 2007 at 6:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Haylifer
I know the laws on patenting are different in the US than the UK.. for example, provided you can find proof that you actually invented the lightbulb (e.g. in written form), that is enough to prove you hold copyright for it. So if I had an idea right now, I could send myself an email with date and time on it, keep hold of it, and charge anyone who wanted to use my idea (provided that nobody else had an email with that idea on it prior to mine). Here in the UK, one has to actually go down to a patent office and pay however much to officially copyright it..

Other than that, I'm pretty sure breach of copyright is illegal everywhere in the world :p


That does not constitute an official patent or registered copyright in the US - especially email, as it's really easy to change the dates on those or a printout thereof.

There's the commonly-held but erroneous belief that mailing yourself a copy of something, then leaving it unopened provides proof that you had it first that will hold up in court - they open the envelope which is postmarked a certain date, find your info within, and all is clear. This can be true, but it doesn't provide you with a trademark, patent, or copyright, which are much more defendable.

In the US and many other places, your work is automatically copyrighted to you the moment you create it. You do not need to register that copyright in order for it to be valid. However, for any commercial usage it is best to register because it makes your copyright much, MUCH more defendable.

Some countries have quite a bit more lax laws on copyright infringement, and exactly what constitutes infringement does vary from country to country. Many countries are not like the US in that they don't have the RIAA and such heavily lobbying for their causes, so copyright infringement may be handled differently or smaller infringements largely ignored... but you certainly can't freely copy copyrighted material in the US or in most places in the world - certainly not and make a profit off it - and get away with it.

I think people will begin to see, over the coming years, a change in the way intellectual property is thought of, as a direct result of the internet. Making a profit off information will no longer be a matter of creating the information, but providing a reliable, fast service for easy access to that information, and then paying a profit to the creators based on percentages. One must learn to change with the times and provide a useful service that fits within what is possible with technology, or your business will perish. The recording and movie industries holding to the old ways are going to kill themselves because they've made piracy easier than paying. Game companies are starting to get a clue and offering Direct2Drive and other direct download schemes so people don't have to leave the comfort of their chairs to get new games. Scale down the pricing scheme to a level where the price is low enough to offset the hassle of dealing with pirating things and people will do it.

I would also really love to see a return to the original idea of copyrights - to protect an artist's work for a period of time to allow them and their children to profit from it, and then the work goes public domain. Certain companies are holding onto copyrights far longer than they should be (Disney, I'm looking at you here!) due to the Copyright Term Extension Act, and I think this stranglehold on creative property long after the death of the original author stifles creativity and is contrary to the initial concept of copyrighted material.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Forum Resident
#11 Old 24th Sep 2007 at 6:44 PM
Copyright is there for a reason! To protect the artists work and such! (you get what im saying)?

The way it is now is good i think! Although some of the penalties seem a little harsh!
#12 Old 25th Sep 2007 at 1:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
I think people will begin to see, over the coming years, a change in the way intellectual property is thought of, as a direct result of the internet. Making a profit off information will no longer be a matter of creating the information, but providing a reliable, fast service for easy access to that information, and then paying a profit to the creators based on percentages. One must learn to change with the times and provide a useful service that fits within what is possible with technology, or your business will perish. The recording and movie industries holding to the old ways are going to kill themselves because they've made piracy easier than paying. Game companies are starting to get a clue and offering Direct2Drive and other direct download schemes so people don't have to leave the comfort of their chairs to get new games. Scale down the pricing scheme to a level where the price is low enough to offset the hassle of dealing with pirating things and people will do it.

I would also really love to see a return to the original idea of copyrights - to protect an artist's work for a period of time to allow them and their children to profit from it, and then the work goes public domain. Certain companies are holding onto copyrights far longer than they should be (Disney, I'm looking at you here!) due to the Copyright Term Extension Act, and I think this stranglehold on creative property long after the death of the original author stifles creativity and is contrary to the initial concept of copyrighted material.


Agreed, and I think that we are heading towards a major revision of copyright law. One of the arguments that I held against the RIAA is that instead of trying to work with P2P technology when it was first coming into existence, they instead decided to sit and do nothing until it was too late. At this point, unless they find a way to co-exist with and embrace new technologies, they are destined to go the way of the dinosaur.

Yes, your idea of being able to rapidly and reliably exchange information is the wave of the future. I also think that the term of the copyright should be reduced to 5 years tops before it goes public, unless it can be demonstrated that the original authors are still adding or revising the original work in some way (such as add-ons for TS2 for example) or some other extenuating circumstance. 99% of any revenues are going to be made in that period of time (much less for software), so keeping a copyright beyond that time is largely irrelevant.

As far as how to deal with the P2P and piracy, one obvious solution I see is to do what radio and TV has been doing for years... advertise. Embed advertisements in the works, and perhaps by paying a fee, the user can turn the advertisements off. The idea seems to work well for shareware. Another possibility is to offer a low-grade copy of the work for free, and if the user decides that they like the song, video, etc., again, they can pay a fee to upgrade to a higher quality version.
Lab Assistant
#13 Old 25th Sep 2007 at 2:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by TingTong
Copyright is there for a reason! To protect the artists work and such! (you get what im saying)?

The way it is now is good i think! Although some of the penalties seem a little harsh!


Yes, but honestly, a lot of these "artists" aren't the ones that really put in the work - it's the writers, the sound engineers, and the people behind the scenes that suffer from piracy. For example, if I liked Kanye West and I downloaded a song illegally, it wouldn't be Kanye himself that I would really be affecting. His album sales might take a bit of a dip, yes, but he still would get paid his millions and he can still act like a spoiled brat - it's the people behind the album that suffer.

There are some artists who do work really hard - they play their own instruments, write their own songs etc. - they're the ones that the copyright should be protecting, because it's their work. I don't care if somebody loses millions when all they do is go in to the studio with their limo and their assistants, sing a song that somebody else has written, then leave the rest up to the sound engineers who put synthesizers in, etc, etc, etc. I don't have any sympathy for them. But I respect copyrights because, as I said before, of those behind the scenes.

What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

"Ma'am, your eyes look red. Have you been drinking?"
"Officer, your eyes look glazed. Have you been eating donuts?"
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#14 Old 25th Sep 2007 at 2:18 AM
*nod* I think with artists, offering the actual music for free download - perhaps at a reduced quality from a pay version, in a hard format (on CD or whatever) would be a good idea. In addition, actual goods - tee shirts, posters, other band swag - should be looked into more.

And I think when it comes to the internet, individual artists, especially music-wise are much much better off than going with a label. Rather than popularity being based purely on promotion and advertising, simple word of mouth and linking and networking with fans on sites such as (*shudder*) Myspace allow artists to work directly for their consumers without the label taking a huge cut off the top as a middle man. The more artists that realize that and capitalize on it - and soon - the better.

It becomes a bit of a natural filter... the MTV-set will be there as long as the giant record labels continue to frantically cling to the hope that they can bring back disco yet again and push yet another blonde trashy singer on us... but if the real sales and money is to be made on actually having artistic merit and selling your work online... I'm all for that. Perhaps we'll actually get a decent new music style out of it. Been waiting for one for a long time. Might actually have to learn to sing and play instruments for people to listen to you, rather than having someone in a studio fiddle with some knobs and make you sound like you actually can sing.

I'm not sure if 5 years is quite the term I'd support for copyright duration, even with the clause about continued work. I think 10 years would be more reasonable and I think you could get folks to more readily agree to something like that.

I am seeing more of a trend for creators in general - artists, writers, software creators, etc., using Creative Commons Licenses, with an awareness that having some measure of open-sourcedness (for lack of a better term here, I'm a little tired) for their work is better than holding tight to it with a clenched fist. I rather like that trend and I hope it continues. Open creativity is a good thing, and anyone who's played Civilization games loves when their civ hits a Golden Age.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
#15 Old 25th Sep 2007 at 7:22 PM
What I got from the OP was, is copying the Sims 2 disk for "personal use" a breach of copyright. If it is, should it be?

Personally, I don't think it should be. I make copies of all my important games, applications, and documents just in case I lose them or my computer quits on me. I do find it unacceptable to make copies and then sell them or pass them out.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#16 Old 25th Sep 2007 at 7:25 PM
Well, I'm not sure if it is - you're allowed to make a backup under laws in most places. However, copies of many CDs (including the Sims 2) simply don't work as backups. There's copy protection to prevent you from doing that.

I just keep all my disks together in one place with the serials written on them in permanent marker, so I don't have any chance of losing them or the booklets or anything, and there's no problem. Unless my house burns down or something, they'll be safe.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
 
Back to top