Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Anonymous take out childpornFollow

#27 Nov 01 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.

#28 Nov 01 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.


Also, if you listen to the announcer toward the end of a football game (and maybe other sports), they talk about how you're not supposed to record it, etc., even discuss the game without the written consent of the NFL. So everyone that talks about a football game after it happens is going to prison.

Laws are stupid.
#29 Nov 01 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Zieveraar wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.


Also, if you listen to the announcer toward the end of a football game (and maybe other sports), they talk about how you're not supposed to record it, etc., even discuss the game without the written consent of the NFL. So everyone that talks about a football game after it happens is going to prison.

Laws are stupid.


If you ask the NFL for written permission to talk about football does that count as discussing the game?

Itsa conspicy I tells ya!

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Nov 01 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.


If the gamestore was charging to lend those games out, that's called "renting". And they have to get permission to do that. You cannot make a profit on someone else's work. You absolutely may lend free of charge to someone else. Note, that there's a difference between lending a single copy and "distributing" as well.


The words actually do matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Nov 01 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Libraries are special circumstances. The only thing you can do is make a copy for a single immediate family member, and only for a trial purpose, and even that is subject to permission from the creator of the media. Even making a copy for yourself is illegal. Fair Use is supposed to protect against this, but DRM and the DMCA have completely nullified Fair Use.

The extent of the DMCA can be seen if you go back and look at the first victim of the DMCA, a Russian researcher circumventing the DRM of software for research purposes. The funny thing is that not only is violating DRM for research allowed under the DMCA, but selling software that could not be copied for backup purposes was illegal in Russia at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov He was eventually released and the charges were dropped, but it just highlights how overreaching DRM and the DMCA is. Pretty much everyone is in violation at some point, it's just a matter of whether or not someone is going to press charges.
#32 Nov 01 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.



Wait.... what? Of course you can. Otherwise, there would be no stores, anywhere.
#33 Nov 01 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.



Wait.... what? Of course you can. Otherwise, there would be no stores, anywhere.

He's talking specifically about plagiarism, dear. At least, I hope.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#34 Nov 01 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Nilatai wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.



Wait.... what? Of course you can. Otherwise, there would be no stores, anywhere.

He's talking specifically about plagiarism, dear. At least, I hope.


How is renting out a game plagiarism??
#35 Nov 01 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.



Wait.... what? Of course you can. Otherwise, there would be no stores, anywhere.

He's talking specifically about plagiarism, dear. At least, I hope.
Not true. If that's what he meant, he would have used those words. He always chooses his words wisely. Always. Just ask him.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#36 Nov 01 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.



Wait.... what? Of course you can. Otherwise, there would be no stores, anywhere.

He's talking specifically about plagiarism, dear. At least, I hope.
Not true. If that's what he meant, he would have used those words. He always chooses his words wisely. Always. Just ask him.


Am I the only one confused about this, or am I just missing something obvious?
#37 Nov 01 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.


Music sampling says "Hello".
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#38 Nov 01 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Am I the only one confused about this, or am I just missing something obvious?
Gbaji told me in the past that he always uses the words in their exact meaning and that you should never infer his words mean anything other than exactly what they say as he always makes sure he uses the exact words that should be used. So, if he never stated plagiarized, then he wasn't talking about that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#39 Nov 01 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Am I the only one confused about this, or am I just missing something obvious?
Gbaji told me in the past that he always uses the words in their exact meaning and that you should never infer his words mean anything other than exactly what they say as he always makes sure he uses the exact words that should be used. So, if he never stated plagiarized, then he wasn't talking about that.


Oh, I meant gbaji's comment, not yours. Sorry.
#40 Nov 01 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,901 posts
gbaji wrote:
You cannot make a profit on someone else's work.


ITT: gbaji disavows capitalism.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#41 Nov 01 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he had some narrow focus, he's wrong. I can buy a book/DVD/Album/etc for $10 and turn around and sell it for $12 without any issues provided I can find a buyer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Nov 01 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Kachi wrote:
when you're watching movies or television online, you're streaming huge files, and they can't all possibly be stored on the average computer.

Streams aren't huge. They tend to be smaller in file size than a typical torrented version of the episode, because streams are usually lower quality.
Kachi wrote:
Is it the same when viewing a webpage? For example, I can't view this url (the actual page, not just the address) from this computer if it's offline, even by retrieving some deleted temporary file, can I?

Anything you see on your computer is on your computer. All that changes is how easily accessible it is and how quickly it is overwritten.

A nifty little firefox extension is flashgot. It allows you to easily snatch and flash file you see in your browser and save it in a more accessible format. With it, I can save any youtube video or any flash game I'd want from a website.

Edited, Nov 1st 2011 9:14pm by Allegory
#43 Nov 01 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he had some narrow focus, he's wrong. I can buy a book/DVD/Album/etc for $10 and turn around and sell it for $12 without any issues provided I can find a buyer.


Legally that's a grey area. I can't speak for books, but digital media is not yours. When you buy it you're purchasing a license to use that media based on how the manufacturer decided it should be viewed (CD, DVD, BD, etc). Since you don't own the media and have only purchased a conditional use license, you're legally not allowed to sell it. However, it stomps the **** out of Fair Use and First Sale to the extent that if Hollywood attempted to prosecute, it would kill DRM laws and the DMCA, which grants them so much power as is that they aren't willing to shoot themselves in the foot. As I said, everyone has violated the DMCA at some point, it's just a matter of whether or not someone is willing to prosecute.
#44 Nov 01 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I can cheaply get a 1TB or bigger drive. (well until recently) Assuming an HD movie is around 10G you could put 1000 movies on that harddrive. A netflix stream isn't going to be nearly that much.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#45 Nov 02 2011 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Zieveraar wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.


If the gamestore was charging to lend those games out, that's called "renting". And they have to get permission to do that. You cannot make a profit on someone else's work. You absolutely may lend free of charge to someone else. Note, that there's a difference between lending a single copy and "distributing" as well.


The words actually do matter.
Even if they aren't renting it and are just letting people try it out, I'd imagine that the game stores have a list of stuff that can contractually do and not do. What a game/music/movie store can or can't do and what some joe off the street can do are totally different things. Bob can lend Steve a piece of media, and so long as neither of them is copying it to do so, it's fine.
#46 Nov 02 2011 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Raolan wrote:
Since you don't own the media and have only purchased a conditional use license, you're legally not allowed to sell it.

You do own the physical media and are legally allowed to sell it all you'd like. This was decided back when the music industry decided to go after used CD shops. The Supreme Court decided that First Sale doctrine prevails. In fact, the earliest cases of this were explicitly about whether or not a publisher can insert language prohibiting you from reselling the physical media; they can not.
Legality wrote:
Luckily for Mr. Augusto, UMG seems to have forgotten about the century-old "First Sale Doctrine." In 1908, the Supreme Court handled a similar issue in Bobbs-Merril Co. v. Straus. Therein, Bobbs-Merril, a publisher, attempted to control the second-hand price of one of its books by inserting a detailed declaration:

The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.

Macy's Department Store sold copies of the book for less than $1, and Bobbs-Merril brought suit to prevent them from continuing to do so. The Supreme Court replied, in short, "That's not how this works..." The Court stated that once a person purchases or is given a book (that is, after its "first sale"), it belongs to that person exclusively. Of course, a seller is still free to negotiate a contract or licensing agreement with the buyer regarding subsequent use of that book. But barring that, the individual is free to sell, lend, or give away the book as he or she sees fit. The First Sale rule has since been extended to cover other published materials, including movies and music. The copyright holder still retains the right to make and distribute additional copies of the original work, but that copy Joe Plumber bought with his own money? It's his and his alone. He doesn't have to sell it at the price the publisher sets, pay the publisher a share of the resale value, or listen to what the publisher has to say at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Nov 02 2011 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Zieveraar wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Heck, even lending a movie or cd to a friend is already a violation.
Wrong. Lending someone the physical book, movie, cd, game, etc. is perfectly legal.

You can read about the concept here.


Not according to the copyright shown on every DVD.

A local gamestore chain was also forced through a court to stop lending out games.

I don't know if libraries get exceptions or whether or not DVD's give the wrong information, but as far as I can see, I can't lend out a DVD for instance to anyone in theory.


If the gamestore was charging to lend those games out, that's called "renting". And they have to get permission to do that. You cannot make a profit on someone else's work. You absolutely may lend free of charge to someone else. Note, that there's a difference between lending a single copy and "distributing" as well.


The words actually do matter.


Quite true, I was using a wrong example.

However, all dvd's I own specifically refer to the fact that lending is not allowed.

Belgian copyright law specifically refers to this:

Quote:
Art. 1.
(1) The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have
it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever.
This right shall also comprise the exclusive right to authorize adaptation or translation of the work.
This right shall further comprise the exclusive right to authorize rental or lending of the work.
The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to communicate his work to the
public by any process whatsoever.
(2) The author of a literary or artistic work shall enjoy an inalienable moral right in his work.
Overall renunciation of the future exercise of this right shall be null and void.
This right shall comprise the right to disclose the work.
Non-disclosed works may not be seized.
An author shall have the right to claim or to refuse authorship of his work.
He shall enjoy the right to respect for his work that shall permit him to oppose any alteration to that
work.
Notwithstanding any renunciation, he shall maintain the right to oppose any distortion, mutilation or
other alteration to his work or any other prejudicial act to the same work that may damage his honor or
reputation.


Exceptions are limited, the usual things I suppose, the family circle is not bound by it, although I suppose what a family circle is, is subject to debate too.

A quick search for the US law also leads to this, lending is not allowed.


Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 7:31pm by Zieveraar
#48 Nov 02 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
The warning on all US DVDs only makes reference to not copying any portion of it, and not showing it in public without permission.

It's a gray area. The anime club Otekku at GA Tech writes and obtains permission from the copyright holders of licensed works (in the US, on DVD) prior to showing them in their auditorium, since the club is free and open to the public (so any bum off the street can wander in and join them, even if he's not a GA Tech student.) On the other hand, UGAnime never bothered with that, because although the viewing is technically "public" in that it's on a public university and anyone can walk in and start watching, it is not advertised outside of the university and the viewing is inside a closed room inside a giant building... so not really "public" at all. Neither club charges membership fees to view the anime.

The only time it's really enforced is at film festivals on grass lawns where people pay admission to the festival. At that point, it's crossed the line clearly from private to public and is no longer in the gray area by any stretch.
#49 Nov 02 2011 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Since you don't own the media and have only purchased a conditional use license, you're legally not allowed to sell it.

You do own the physical media and are legally allowed to sell it all you'd like.


Actually, Gbaji was referring specifically to digital media.

gbaji wrote:
I can't speak for books, but digital media is not yours. When you buy it you're purchasing a license to use that media based on how the manufacturer decided it should be viewed (CD, DVD, BD, etc). Since you don't own the media and have only purchased a conditional use license, you're legally not allowed to sell it


When you buy a song from itunes, you're buying a license to listen to the song, not the song itself. A digital music file is not a tangible item, so laws governing sale or use of tangible items are difficult to apply equally.

Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 12:47pm by BrownDuck
#50 Nov 02 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suspect we're mixing lines of conversation between threads. We've bits about all sorts of media going on and the focus expands and contracts depending on who is typing at the moment.

Gbaji does reference disc media however and music and movie discs fall under First Use doctrine. I don't have the right to rip the film from the DVD and distribute it but I do have the right to sell the disc for any price it'll fetch. Software is the same way although other technical limitations may hinder you (registration codes, etc).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Nov 02 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
You own the physical media, not the contents. So you own the disk and the case. The contents of the disk, the art on the disk, the inserts in the case, and the box art are being licensed.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars

Quote:
"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."


2 and 3 are the important ones because they apply to DRM, which is protected under the DMCA. Unfortunately the DMCA is such a huge catch-all style law that it even nullifies Fair Use and First Sale.

Quote:
The ALA contends that the first sale doctrine facilitates the availability of copyrighted works after their commercial lifespan, by inter alia enabling the existence of libraries, used bookstores, and hand-to-hand exchanges of copyrighted materials. The ALA further contends that judicial enforcement of software license agreements, which are often contracts of adhesion, could eliminate the software resale market,


Here's an older article that addresses your link http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/12/post-sale-life.ars/2

Quote:
In June 2008, the court affirmed Augusto's right to sell the discs after pointing out that the discs arrived unsolicited through the mail and were therefore "gifts" under federal law. Once more, the key issue of the "license" was not fully explored, though, since the receiver had never signed or viewed such a license before receiving the discs.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 312 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (312)