Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by rnunnink
    [...] The people downloading from Napster were not prosecuted because of some bias against bad PRPRPR. $They$ $were$ $not$ $prosecuted$ $because$ $there$ $is$ $no$ $penalty$ $under$ $existing$ $law$ $for$ $the$ $actions$ $they$ $tooks$ $and$ $their$ $actions$ $violated$ $no$ $provision$ $of$ $the$ $act$ $including$ $the$ $stricter$ $1998$ $act$. [...]
    Sorry, but you're wrong. By the simple act of logging onto Napster with files available for sharing, you are violating copyright (unless you have permission from any artists whose works you may have available). They could have received the same potential penalties as street corner vendors selling pirated CDs or videos.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #22  
    Sorry, but you're wrong. By the simple act of logging onto Napster with files available for sharing, you are violating copyright (unless you have permission from any artists whose works you may have available). They could have received the same potential penalties as street corner vendors selling pirated CDs or videos.
    Are you sure Toby? Unfortunately I think we are moving into the realm of lawyers here. Any lawyers out there have an option and not willing to charge us for it. The original act and the 1998 are definitely confusing to the layman. And yes I have a problem with any legislation that is so vague or confusing you need a law degree and a supreme court decision to understand. Pirates even on the streets of NYC are not prosecuted. The police just make them run for cover because they don't have vendors licenses.

    If a half million people are breaking a law on a daily basis downloading from Kazaa I would think some government official would have something to say about it.

    I guess my initial problem that started this entire discussion was I felt that the moderators were calling an act illegal that may not be illegal. The law is murky enough to prohibit members of this community from doing it here because of the threat of lawsuit. No one wants that, but is it truly illegal. Before Visorcentral set this policy did they get an actual lawyer tell them to set this policy or is it an interpretation that they made themselves. Probably because the site can't afford a lawyer. ( totally understandable)
    Facts all come with points of view
    Facts don't do what I want them to
    Facts just twist the truth around
    Facts are living turned inside out
    - David Byrne
  3. #23  
    Actually, I could've sworn that case law has upheld the right to 'format-shift' works to which you are licensed (at least where the audio medium is concerned).
    Right. That's where the law get's murky. The basic premise of copyright law is that no one may copy the work except for the person holding the copyright. That said, there are instances where that is changing (mainly due to digital media) which makes deciphering copyright law that much more of a grey-area.

    I will point out that I am not a lawyer...and that the only one that can actually answer a lot of this is an intellectual property rights lawer.

    They were not prosecuted because there is no penalty under existing law for the actions they tooks and their actions violated no provision of the act including the stricter 1998 act.
    They were not prosecuted because it is easier to go after the source. They did break the law. It is no different than purchasing bootleg CDs. I'm not exactly sure what specific law you are breaking, but you're breaking one of them.

    Sorry, but you're wrong. By the simple act of logging onto Napster with files available for sharing, you are violating copyright
    Well, I think this is where it get's murky. In the past, you technically weren't breaking the law by sharing your CD with someone. If they COPIED the CD, then they were in violation of the copyright. Not you necessarily. So, it can be argued that having files on your hardrive is not illegal. Copying someone else's files is. (I'm not saying that argument would hold up in court against the RIAA lawyers, though!)

    Of course, things are changing every day as things move into the digital realm and new lawsuits are brought forth daily. It's hard to keep up with everything.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  4. #24  
    Pirates even on the streets of NYC are not prosecuted.
    Just because a crime is not prosecuted, does not make it legal. The street vendor's in NYC that sell pirated good ARE breaking the law. They are not all rounded up each day simply because it would be too much of a drain on the resources available.

    As for VC banning such discussion, well, that's there prerogative. They can ban any discussion whether they feel it is illegal or not.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by rnunnink
    I guess my initial problem that started this entire discussion was I felt that the moderators were calling an act illegal that may not be illegal.
    Copyright infringement IS illegal, plain and simple. Be it ebooks, software piracy, or whatever. Illegal acts or activities are not condoned nor welcome here.

    I have no problem with an open discussion such as this, as long as the legal boundries of the law or policies of VisorCentral don't get crossed (by posting links, etc). I DO have a problem with continually bashing the VC staff and policies we follow here. I'm sure there are many other discussion sites where this may be allowed, but it's not tolerated here.

    Originally posted by homer
    Just because a crime is not prosecuted, does not make it legal.
    Software piracy is probably the best example of this. Companies like Microsoft, for the most part, don't go after personal users who use illegal copies of their products (due to resource limitations). Of course, the latest Microsoft Product Activation is being used to curtail this activity. However, if a large corporation is thought to be in violation, the Bill Gates software police will knock at their door. Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you're innocent.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  6. #26  
    Sorry if you took offense at anything I said. I have genuine respect for the mods here and feel you guys do a good job.

    When you have the best site on the internet for discussing palm handhelds, you should be expected to be challenged to keep the product quality high.

    And I still have to disagree with those of you who say copywrite infringement of the kind we are discussing is illegal.

    Copyright infringement IS illegal, plain and simple. Be it ebooks, software piracy, or whatever
    Creating an unauthorized ebook is illegal.
    Creating a website to distribute unauthorized ebooks is illegal.

    Downloading an unauthorized ebook? grey especially if you own the book in text form
    Sharing an ebook by beaming?. Grey
    Sharing a link to website? Grey

    Congressman Rick Bouchard a person I hope more familiar with these laws then any of wrote

    The American public has traditionally enjoyed the ability to make convenience and incidental copies of copyrighted works without the necessity of obtaining the prior consent of the owner of the copyright. These traditional "fair use" rights are at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American public.From the college student who photocopies a page from a library book for use in writing a report to the typical television viewer who records a broadcast for viewing at a later time to the prudent home computer owner who makes back-up copies of the information he has lawfully stored on his hard drive, we all depend on the ability to make limited copies of copyrighted material without having to pay a fee or obtain prior approval from the owner of the copyright prior to making the copy.
    In fact fair use rights to obtain and use a wide array of information are essential to the exercise of First Amendment rights. The very vibrancy of our democracy is dependent on the information availability and use facilitated by the Fair Use Doctrine
    So again unfortunately I think the question unfortunately falls to the lawyers and Mark you specifically avoided my question whether the policy of Visorcentral is based on sound legal advice or fuzzy ground like we have here. I asked for this policy to be reviewed specially because I believe it is based on such fuzzy ground.

    Men of good conscience can always disagree and that is the foundation of our country and our democracy. One of the founding fathers said it better I am sure and I offer you my hand in true friendship. I am enjoying our discussion.
    Facts all come with points of view
    Facts don't do what I want them to
    Facts just twist the truth around
    Facts are living turned inside out
    - David Byrne
  7. #27  
    Downloading an unauthorized ebook? grey especially if you own the book in text form
    Definitely grey if you already own the book. Not so grey if you don't (you are basically stealing a book).

    Sharing an ebook by beaming?. Grey
    No, this is pretty much illegal. You are making a copy of a copyrighted piece of work to give to someone. That's illegal. No different than photocopying a recipe from a magazine and giving it to your neighbor. That, too, is illegal. Rarely, if ever, prosecuted, but illegal none-the-less.

    Sharing a link to website? Grey
    This one bugs me. It should not be illegal in any shape or form to link to materials on the internet. This is a matter of free speach, IMHO. It is illegal to rob a bank, but it is legal to write a book on how to do it. That's how it should be.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by rnunnink
    whether the policy of Visorcentral is based on sound legal advice or fuzzy ground
    Policy is policy... doesn't matter what it's based on.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by homer
    It should not be illegal in any shape or form to link to materials on the internet. This is a matter of free speach, IMHO.
    I'm not sure that it is illegal to simply post a link, otherwise, all the search engines would not be able to provide links for certains topics, etc. It does, however, raise an issue of ethics. As a moderator, our policy has always been to prohibit it (the same as posting personal email addresses). Personally, as an indivudual, I cannot, in good conscience, accept it either.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by rnunnink
    Are you sure Toby?
    That depends on what you mean by 'sure'. I'm sure that in some courtroom, on some day, in front of some judge, that a lawyer could prove that Santa Claus really exists. I'm just going by the digging that I've done WRT copyright on software that I wrote and publishing on the web.
    Unfortunately I think we are moving into the realm of lawyers here.
    And why exactly are you surprised by that?
    Any lawyers out there have an option and not willing to charge us for it.
    ROFLMAO
    The original act and the 1998 are definitely confusing to the layman. And yes I have a problem with any legislation that is so vague or confusing you need a law degree and a supreme court decision to understand. Pirates even on the streets of NYC are not prosecuted. The police just make them run for cover because they don't have vendors licenses.
    Just because they _aren't_ prosecuted or sued, doesn't mean that they couldn't/shouldn't be.
    If a half million people are breaking a law on a daily basis downloading from Kazaa I would think some government official would have something to say about it.
    I'm sure that far more people break the speed limit laws on a daily basis, and yet ...
    I guess my initial problem that started this entire discussion was I felt that the moderators were calling an act illegal that may not be illegal.
    If one is publishing someone else's copyrighted materials in full on the web without permission, they are in violation of copyright law. Period.
    The law is murky enough to prohibit members of this community from doing it here because of the threat of lawsuit. No one wants that, but is it truly illegal. Before Visorcentral set this policy did they get an actual lawyer tell them to set this policy or is it an interpretation that they made themselves. Probably because the site can't afford a lawyer. ( totally understandable)
    http://www.whatiscopyright.org
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by homer
    [...] I will point out that I am not a lawyer...and that the only one that can actually answer a lot of this is an intellectual property rights lawer. [...]
    Oh, forgot the other link I wanted to post...
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    Mark Eagle wrote Policy is policy... doesn't matter what it's based on.
    Mark I definitely disagree with you on this point. As a moderator I consider you a protector of the first amendment freedom of everyone here. And your signature containing the phrase God bless America, my home sweet home tells me that you believe in the constition of the United States and it would not surprise me in the least that at some point in your life you took a loyalty oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

    Censorship of free speech should always be based on the strictest of policy. Every Supreme Court decision based on the first amendment guarantees this policy.

    The policy we are talking about I am sure was designed to protect Visorcentral from litigation. Therefore I understand that you as a moderator need to continue to edit discussion that contains reference to unauthorized websites. I would like you to refrain from using the word illegal in your editing of theses discussions and rather say something like " The website you have posted a link to has the potential to have litigation brought against Visorcentral and it was removed for that reason". By saying this instead of illegal website you remove what I think is more of a value judgement then a bases in sound legal doctrine.

    Hell I could be wrong and it may definitely be illegal to download an unauthoiriazed ebook or mp3 file but I think you and the rest of the mods from Visorcentral should refrain from calling it an illegal act and closing thread should only be done with extreme prejudice, when you are 100% positive that the act is illegal. You may believe it is morally wrong and I am not sure where I fall in that belief system myself. Legally who knows on this issue.

    And I was smiling when I wrote this. Sometimes it's not easy to discern a person's position in this medium because of the limitations of the medium.
    Facts all come with points of view
    Facts don't do what I want them to
    Facts just twist the truth around
    Facts are living turned inside out
    - David Byrne
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by rnunnink
    it would not surprise me in the least that at some point in your life you took a loyalty oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States
    Never took an oath outside of the Pledge of Allegiance


    I think you and the rest of the mods from Visorcentral should refrain from calling it an illegal act and closing thread should only be done with extreme prejudice, when you are 100% positive that the act is illegal.
    How many times does it need to be said? Copyright infringement is illegal. I don't need a lawyer or sound legal basis to make that assertation. Providing links to infringed material is not something we do here. No matter how you dress it up, that's the bottom line.

    As for general policy used here at VisorCentral, I don't make it. I'm a volunteer simply enforcing the rules and regulations with the power entrusted to me. If you want something changed or disagree with policy, the person to contact is marcus.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  14. #34  
    Censorship of free speech should always be based on the strictest of policy. Every Supreme Court decision based on the first amendment guarantees this policy.
    Free speech is only applicable in the public space. Visor Central is a privately owned forum. You must abide by the rules of the establishment.

    Just as good ol' dad always said: 'as long as you live under this roof, you will abide my rules...'
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  15. #35  
    Woha, back the truck up here. VC is NOT public, it DOES NOT have to abide by free speech rules. They could say probably say anyone who likes the color red couldn't access the site if they wanted to, it's a PRIVATE site with PRIVATE rules you must abide by to use the site. VC says no illegal links can be posted. Therefore, if you post illegal links, you will either have them delete or your account will be terminated. End of story. No free speech is needed.
  16. #36  
    Just because a crime is not prosecuted, does not make it legal
    Actually if you fail to try to protect your copyright you lose it.
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by Techie2000
    Actually if you fail to try to protect your copyright you lose it.
    You're confusing copyright with trademark.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #38  
    OK I'll be the first to admit when I wrong. Posting a link to a web page that has an unautorized ebook is illegal and can even be a felony. Found an excelant site on copy write infringement

    http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html


    The first is the doctrine of "contributory copyright infringement." If you make something whose sole purpose is to facilitate others in violating a copyright, and/or you encourage people to do it, and you know you are doing this, you can be liable for contributory infringement even though you didn't do any copying. So if you know that the owners of a site don't want you linking inside, and you do it anyway just so people can get around their rules, then I think that if their rules are upheld as valid (unknown) then you could be held liable for contributory infringement. You aren't doing any copying, but you are taking actions solely to cause other people to make allegedly illicit copies for themselves. (This, by the way, is part of what Napster was sued for.)

    In the DeCSS case, the judge ruled that 2600 magazine, by linking, wasn't providing DeCSS software, but it was "trafficking" in it. What the judge said was that linking wasn't just telling people where something was, which remains legal. Linking, the judge felt, was an action as well as expressing information. He picked the bizarrely extreme analogy of political assassination, which is both expressive and murderous at the same time, to explain that some forms of expression which do other things can be regulated.

    The owners of the 2600 web site replaced their links with text URLs, and so far are unpersecuted. This would be in line with the theory that a link is not just a piece of text but also code in a computer language (HTML) that builds a virtual "button" that people push to cause not just speech, but actions to take place.
    Facts all come with points of view
    Facts don't do what I want them to
    Facts just twist the truth around
    Facts are living turned inside out
    - David Byrne
  19. #39  
    ...replaced their links with text URLs, and so far are unpersecuted. This would be in line with the theory that a link is not just a piece of text but also code in a computer language (HTML) that builds a virtual "button" that people push to cause not just speech, but actions to take place.
    Where there's a will, there's a way...

    As far as I know, we won't allow this, either.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by Techie2000
    Actually if you fail to try to protect your copyright you lose it.
    Copyright's are good for either life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms, depending on the type of work.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions