*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Some equations are illegal Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Some equations are illegal" Watch "Some equations are illegal" New topic
Author

Some equations are illegal

Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Dimitry Sklyarov a Russian programmer was thrown in a US slammer for 30 days after attending an American conference because some equations are illegal. All he did was point out some errors in Adobe e-book locks.


Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
According to the company's website, the software permits eBook owners to translate from Adobe's secure eBook format into the more common Portable Document Format (PDF).

I would suggest that whether Adobe wants their secure documents converted into PDF's should be up to Adobe, shouldn't it? And I'm sure that none of those converted PDF's ever end up in the hands of people who don't own a license to the secure product, right?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I would suggest that whether Adobe wants their secure documents converted into PDF's should be up to Adobe, shouldn't it?


No, it should be up to the consumer in accordance with fair-use laws.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
This is really old news though.
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
TO answer Tom,
The software only works on e-books purchased through proper channels.It's used to convert e-books to formats easier for blind people to read. I cannot see how Adobe loses out. The guy obviously has the ken to make the product safer than Adobe can and it would be in the interests of his company to do so.
Does the product have to be proof against smart attackers and not the average Russian ? Or we have no idea what the average Russian is ?

Contrarily ,

a Princeton engineering prof named Ed Felten submitted a paper to an academic conference on the failings in the Secure Digital Music Initiative, a watermarking scheme proposed by the recording industry. The RIAA responded by threatening to sue his ass. He fought back because Ed is the kind of client that impact litigators love: unimpeachable and clean-cut and the RIAA folded.
[ June 21, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

I agree with Thomas. The owner of the copywrite should have the right to determine what can be done with their work.

If you disagree, which you are entitled to do, then make sure to take any licensing/validating mechanisms out of any code you or your company writes.


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
The secure pdf is merely the medium, not the copyrighted material itself. There is a disturbing trend to try to control the media which may be used to access copyrighted content. This was thought to have been dealt with via the fair-use laws, which basically meant that legal users of the copyrighted material could copy and move the information to different media for their own fair use. A perfect example is that of preserving a backup copy of a videotape you purchased, or photocopying a page out of a book you purchased. One of the worst laws our country has come up with, which whill no doubt eventually be overturned, is the DMCA (thanks Bill Clinton). Companies such as Adobe are using the DMCA to circumvent fair-use, so far successfully, since those benefitting from the DMCA are doing their best to make sure a DMCA case doesn't make it to the US Supreme Court.

Normally, if you buy a book or a movie, you may later re-sell that product. This terminates your ability to use the copyrighted material and transfers it to the new owner of the product. In some cases, eBooks may only be played on the machine that downloaded them. So not only can you not transfer it to another computer that you own (or say to a PDA to read on during your morning's commute), you cannot re-sell the book to somebody else. Again, this is a violation of fair-use, and a blatant attempt by the companies to dictate the use of their material beyond what is reasonable and beyond what they are entitled from their copyright.
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Originally posted by fred rosenberger:

If you disagree, which you are entitled to do, then make sure to take any licensing/validating mechanisms out of any code you or your company writes.


If you work on the assumption that the majority are honest, the only way to find the flaws in security drawn up by your company's genius is to disclose the system's workings and invite public feedback.


But now any secret code used to fence off a copyrighted work is off-limits to any kind of feedback. Not only that you can sue anyone for interfacing with your "copyrighted" product. Even for tweaking performance ?

Lessig - free culture

Forget fair use , where has unregulated use gone ?
[ June 21, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
The BBC iMP program has found favour with Lessig - new thinking on Digital Rights Movement.

BBC iMP revealed - All content DRM'd

Or rather, the Creative Archive found favour.

"During the Q&A session another interesting revelation concerning the Greg Dyke's idea floated at RTS Edinburgh 2003, the Creative Archive. The content that makes up the Creative Archive will be downloaded using a similar application, but will not be restricted by DRM enabling people to re-edit it, or use it to make other programmes. Importantly it will not be the complete BBC archive, the examples given was - it will be nature programmes but it will not be show such as Dad's Army (An old very popular comedy show first show in the 1970's)."
[ June 21, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
If you work on the assumption that the majority are honest...

Napster demonstrated that the majority are not honest. Have you ever downloaded copyrighted material without paying the copyright holder?
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Perhaps most had already bought a legal copy but thought "hey, let's get one for the kids to mess up. Uncle Joe is a techie, he'll know how."

And Uncle Joe,inundated with such requests, shows them how to get a copy off the web.

So I'd say the majority are 'honest' technophobes. Helped along by well-meaning technophiles.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Napster demonstrated that the majority are not honest. Have you ever downloaded copyrighted material without paying the copyright holder?


Not that I recall but I'm about to here,

Steam, and get creative into the bargain. Unfortunately the download doesn't seem to work very well. It is freeware , soon to be shareware.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

the only way to find the flaws in security drawn up by your company's genius is to disclose the system's workings and invite public feedback.

untrue. this is ONE way, but not the ONLY way. And if your company, which (probably) owns the copywrite, agrees, by all means send it out to the masses and get that public feedback.

but if the copywrite owner says "hey, this is MINE, so DON'T give it to anybody", then you have no right to do so on your own. That's like saying "speeding is against the law, but the cops aren't stopping all the speeders, so i'll just do it myself". the non-owner does not have that right.



A perfect example is that of preserving a backup copy of a videotape you purchased

Normally, if you buy a book or a movie, you may later re-sell that product.

yes, you may. but then, legally, you must destroy your own backup copy, or transfer it with the original. you can't make a backup copy of a tape, then sell the original, while keeping the backup for your own use. that has always been illegal. However, it may have been overlooked in the past because the cost to pursue any claim would outweigh the benefit.

but with digital copying, you make a backup, and sell the original (although how can you really tell?). then, you make a backup of what you have, and sell it again and again... or just keep giving it away free. now you've got thousands of perfect copies, each spawning thousands more. now it actually is cheaper to prosecute and stop the copies than to ignore it.


In some cases, eBooks may only be played on the machine that downloaded them.


some of the EULAs i've read, when you download the book, state that you are not buying THE BOOK, but the RIGHT TO READ THE BOOK ON ONE MACHINE. You are granted the right to read the book as often as you want on that one machine, but that's it. if you don't agree, don't buy that right to read it. seems fair to me.

you cannot re-sell the book to somebody else.


you don't have that right, since you didn't buy the book. Read the EULA before you buy it.

If you work on the assumption that the majority are honest


i don't.


any secret code used to fence off a copyrighted work is off-limits to any kind of feedback....Even for tweaking performance

again, not true. the owner of the copywrite on the secret code gets to decide. And part of the issue is the way our legal system works. if you don't VIGOROUSLY DEFEND YOUR COPYWRITE, you can lose it entirely. So you don't have a choice in saying "we didn't give THEM permission, but we like what they did, so we'll let it go. But THESE guys are using it without our permission, so we'll go after them". If you don't pursue everything, you lose the right to persue anything.

and there's no reason why one can't form partnerships and say "hey, company XYZ, here's a NDA agreement, we want you to look at this and give us feedback."
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
FR: some of the EULAs i've read, when you download the book, state that you are not buying THE BOOK, but the RIGHT TO READ THE BOOK ON ONE MACHINE. You are granted the right to read the book as often as you want on that one machine, but that's it. if you don't agree, don't buy that right to read it. seems fair to me.

It doesn't bother you that this is a blatant violation of fair-use? Just as companies have the right to vigorously defend their interests, consumers must vigorously defend their rights. The DMCA is an attack against consumers and grants unreasonable protections to copyright holders in violation of established fair-use.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It doesn't bother you that this is a blatant violation of fair-use?
What does this have to do with "fair use"? As far as I know, "fair use" is used to allow limited quoting of material for articles and books. Section 107 of the copyright law defines fair use and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

This is not an attack on consumers. You don't like it? Don't buy it! The companies will get the message quickly if everyone stops buying their products.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
It doesn't bother you that this is a blatant violation of fair-use? Just as companies have the right to vigorously defend their interests, consumers must vigorously defend their rights. The DMCA is an attack against consumers and grants unreasonable protections to copyright holders in violation of established fair-use.

It's no violation of fair use at all.
You license the material for a specific purpose and within that license may use it as you see fit.

If you want fair use, buy the book on paper and type in the pages you like to have a "backup" of at your neighbour's friend's barber's assistent's mother's boss's son's girlfriend's computer because that's where 90%+ of all copies made under "fair use" claims of software and music end up, in other words out in the wild pirated copies made deliberately for that very purpose.


42
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

From Standford's web site:
Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism...one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income....

so how is making 3000 copies on napster "commentary and criticism"? How is making a backup?

I haven't found the case law, but i'm assuming that it was ruled that a consumer's right to protect their purchase supercedes the holder's right to prevent copying. BUT, again from what i've seen, if you buy the right to read the book, the seller stores that data. if you then lose the file, you can download it again for free. so you haven't lost anything. you have nothing to lose if you don't make a backup. what right is being curtailed here?
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
I can share a book with family, friends even a book club. I won't be able to do that with an e-book because no one is going to sit in front of my computer long enough to read it. Surely, there's a loss to society here.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
I can share a book with family, friends even a book club. I won't be able to do that with an e-book because no one is going to sit in front of my computer long enough to read it. Surely, there's a loss to society here.


So then buy the paper version. As far as I know, book stores still sell paper versions of most books.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What does this have to do with "fair use"? As far as I know, "fair use" is used to allow limited quoting of material for articles and books. Section 107 of the copyright law defines fair use and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.


http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.html


This is not an attack on consumers. You don't like it? Don't buy it! The companies will get the message quickly if everyone stops buying their products.


When the US is moving towards a digital television standard, and companies are being required to install digital rights management hardware into their sets, this is not something that can realistically be responded to simply by not purchasing a product. And this is but one small example. This is very much an attack on consumers, and an attempt to provide unreasonable protection of copyrighted material. I have no problem with content owners protecting their content as long as the protections are reasonable and protect consumer's rights. It's when I'm being forced to give up long recognized consumer rights that I have an issue.
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Just because the technology is new , the underlying use doesn't have to be restricted.
I'd be happy with an e-book public library to join for free. I'd also be happy to wait for the requisite time for new books to appear in the library. I think it's 6 months from when it's published. A library buys a certain number of copies.

If the BBC has a free archive ..... Heard on the news today that Greg Dykes who was instrumental in it's formulation ,was replaced. So who knows.

Full text of Greg Dyke's Edinburgh International TV Festival speech

t seems every generation has a media revolution. For my mother, it was radio; for me it was television; for my children, it is digital.

Each revolution is different, and we are still learning about how digital can make a real difference to people's lives. Unquote.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Jason ,did you notice this about the parts of fair use that you are claiming: the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses.... In other words, even the most pro-consumer organization on the web has to admit that case law is not on their side and they only have the opinion of "many" lawyers. Section 107 says nothing about this so if it is a "right" it would have to be a court created right based on no specific federal law. I thought conservatives were opposed to those?

I'm sorry but there is no right to do what you want with things owned by others. If you don't like the law then toss your TV in the garbage. Studies show you will be healthier and smarter anyway. Then go buy a book made from paper and give it to a friend when you are done.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm sorry but there is no right to do what you want with things owned by others.


So then you don't own the copies of the DVDs or CDs you buy? I guess using this logic you don't really own much of what you purchase. It's just a licensing fee we're paying whenever we purchase something, right?
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Old Search Engine, the Library, Tries to Fit Into a Google World

"The nature of discovery is changing," said Joseph Janes, associate professor and chairman of library and information science at the University of Washington. "I think the digital revolution and the use of digital resources in general is really the beginning of a change in the way humanity thinks and presents itself."

"One of the rarest things to find is a member of the faculty in the library stacks,"


If people won't be able to find it digitally they will not bother to look elsewhere, eventually.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

So then you don't own the copies of the DVDs or CDs you buy?
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


I believe what was said was "read the EULA". You do own the CD. read the fine print in the booklet: "Unauthorized copying is a violation of copywrite law". That statement, or some form of it, has been on EVERY cd i've ever seen. making a copy of the cd onto your computer, for your own personal use is legal. making it available for 10k people to copy it for free is not. Selling the CD is legal. keeping that 'backup' copy after you sell it is not, and has never been, legal.

the EULA on the E-BOOK will state that you are not allowed to copy/read it on another machine. you agreed to this when you bought it (remember that "i agree" button you clicked???) YOU are curtailing your own rights, which you can do. YOU have AGREED to this. You shouldn't then complain that "I gave up my right, but now you're actually taking it away from me".

that just doesn't hold up.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
So then you don't own the copies of the DVDs or CDs you buy? I guess using this logic you don't really own much of what you purchase. It's just a licensing fee we're paying whenever we purchase something, right?
It depends on the licensing agreement, doesn't it?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by fred rosenberger:
making a copy of the cd onto your computer, for your own personal use is legal. making it available for 10k people to copy it for free is not. Selling the CD is legal. keeping that 'backup' copy after you sell it is not, and has never been, legal.


I quite agree that making copyrighted works available to those who haven't purchased them is quite illegal and should remain so. I also agree that you must dispose of any copies of the copyrighted material if you sell it. That said, the DMCA can make the legal acts of copying a backup, and even selling the original, illegal. If the content is protected with even the most basic encryption (it is reported that Adobe used ROT-13 for their eBooks) then the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent such encryption, even to produce your own backup or to allow you to transfer the material to another medium.

As a concrete example of why people are up in arms over the DMCA I'll refer back to my example of digital rights management (DRM) controls being placed in televisions. The last I heard (I haven't been following it real close lately), this protections scheme includes a "copy bit" which can prevent you from copying the broadcast onto a recording device. Time-shifting, that is recording a program when it is broadcast and watching it at a later date, is explicitly allowed under fair-use and backed up with case law. However, the DRM can now prevent you from time-shifting a program, which is blatantly against fair-use. As the signal being received is encrypted, the DMCA makes it illegal for you to decrypt the signal yourself, if for example you wanted to record and time-shift the program. This is clearly an attack on the consumer's fair-use. Copyright law does not legally prevent the consumer from recording the broadcast, the encryption placed on it and DMCA however may.

This was the gist of the Sklyarov case... Their software circumvented the Adobe eBook encryption and allowed people to read the eBook using readers other than the one Adobe intended. For example, you could read the eBook with Acrobat after using the software. This allowed people who purchased the book to read it on any machine they owned, not the one simply they downloaded the eBook on. More importantly, the eBook could now be read with programs that would speak the text, allowing access to the material by the visually impaired.

Without the DMCA, none of the above is illegal and it is not a violation of copyright. Post-DMCA it is suddenly illegal merely because the encryption placed on the files (ROT-13 in some cases) has been circumvented, not because of copyright violation. The DMCA is being used to grant content owners unreasonable protections they do not have under copyright laws.

Regarding the EULA, it is my understanding that quite often these things cannot be legally defended in court. For one, fairly often you don't even have access to the EULA until after you purchase something. Additionally, the EULA cannot force you to give up your rights as a consumer. Go out to BestBuy, purchase a piece of software, go home and open it, read the license, then try to return it because you don't agree to the EULA. You're not going to get your money back I can pretty much guarantee you.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
I don't know about copyright law and fair use in countries other than the U.S., but a lot of what's flying around in this thread does not accurately describe U.S. copyright law.

fred rosenberger:

if you don't VIGOROUSLY DEFEND YOUR COPYWRITE, you can lose it entirely.

This is not true, at least in the U.S. Copyright doesn't have to be defended to remain in force. You can wait and let someone violate your copyright blatantly and continuously for years, and still sue them successfully later on.

What's confusing is that trademarks, in contrast to copyrights, do have to be vigorously defended, or they can be lost, because they are based on usage rather than origin. The laws governing copyright, trademark, and patents are each very different from the others, though.

Thomas Paul:

What does this have to do with "fair use"? As far as I know, "fair use" is used to allow limited quoting of material for articles and books. Section 107 of the copyright law defines fair use and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Fair use does not specify an amount. In some cases, copying an entire work may be "fair use" - see the Sony VCR case, for example. In other cases, even a very limited quote may be a violation. I believe the reason people are allowed to make backup copies of software they own is also because it's fair use, though I haven't read the relevant case law in that particular instance.

"the legal basis is not completely settled"

The legal basis is never "completely settled" in fair use cases in U.S. law, because the U.S. law requires a case by case balancing of five or six different issues to determine if something is fair use. The best you can do is look at the relevant case law and make an informed guess about how the courts would rule in your case.

Napster demonstrated that the majority are not honest.

This, I think, is the most critical issue. So, when trying to enforce the law, do you go after the thieves who are stealing the material, or do you go after honest people who are just trying to use what they've paid for?

For years, the recording industry in the U.S. went after the honest people, trying to use technical means to prevent copying of music and going after people who provided tools to get around copy protection schemes, even when those people were in no way violating the law. It was kind of like going after the makers of coat hangers to keep people from breaking into automobiles. All that these efforts accomplished was pushing more and more people into copying music illegally, since doing it legally was getting to be more and more of a hassle.

Well, last year, they finally bit the bullet and started going after the thieves, by filing lawsuits against thousands of people who had actually downloaded music illegally. The result? Illegal downloading of music is finally down by a significant percentage, reversing a multiyear uptrend.

Weird, how the only thing that worked was going after the people who were actually violating the law!

[Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; if you need legal advice on this subject, go see a lawyer specializing in the area you need advice in.]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

Copyright doesn't have to be defended to remain in force.

oops. i think you're right here. my apologies.

Well, last year, they finally bit the bullet and started going after the thieves, by filing lawsuits against thousands of people who had actually downloaded music illegally.

I think i have to DISAGREE with you here. They didn't (to my knowledge) sue the folks who downloaded music, but the people who HAD files you could download. That, to me, sounds like suing thr record store for having cds that someone else could shoplift.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

To extend the analogy, let's say you have the someone else's CDs in your music store on consignment. You decide it's ok to put them on display. You decided it's ok for them to be 'borrowed' freely. The person who owns that property never gave your permission to do either, but because you own the store you feel you have the right to do as you please.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

my analogy may not be perfect, but neither is yours. the "borrowers" in yours are doing so on good faith that the store owner has the rights to loan the cds. They are not aware that what they are doing is illegal.

you might be able to convince me that the people they are prosecuting are doing something illegal. but it's reprehensible that they are not also persuing the folks at the other end...
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
I think i have to DISAGREE with you here. They didn't (to my knowledge) sue the folks who downloaded music, but the people who HAD files you could download.

Everyone one of the people I had read about admitted that they illegally downloaded music. Some admitted to downloading thousands of songs in violation of copyright law.

All I have to say about software is that if you don't like the rules then don't buy the software.

And finally Jason, I know of no case law that says you can't contractually give up your rights. You can even give up your freedom of speech by contract.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by fred rosenberger:
my analogy may not be perfect, but neither is yours. the "borrowers" in yours are doing so on good faith that the store owner has the rights to loan the cds. They are not aware that what they are doing is illegal.

You didn't catch my drift; I was using 'borrowed' as a polite euphemism. The people in question aren't stealing the CDs from the store, but they're still stealing them.
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Hundreds More Sued Over Music File Swaps

"While some surveys have shown the number of people engaging in file-sharing has declined since the RIAA began its legal assault, other data shows millions continue to share music, movies and software online."

Prices may have to come down to really trivially low levels to stop people sharing.
The downside is that the volume of music available will expand enormously so that no one would really know what anyone else is listening to.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
A twist to some equations are illegal.

Swiss OK Gypsy Holocaust Suit Vs IBM

Someone didn't comply with fair use.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by fred rosenberger:

I think i have to DISAGREE with you here. They didn't (to my knowledge) sue the folks who downloaded music, but the people who HAD files you could download. That, to me, sounds like suing thr record store for having cds that someone else could shoplift.


Same thing. They went after Kazaa users who made copyrighted material available over that network.
That material for the largest part was previously downloaded by those people and the rest was made available publicly in violation of copyright laws as well as the license agreement on the CDs.
"unauthorized copying, reproduction and rental prohibited by law"...
"public performance not allowed without prior written permission"...
etc. etc.

The record store buys the CDs from the record company and then sells them at a premium to consumers.
If the CD is stolen the copyright holder looses nothing.

If you go about downloading music from the P2P networks and burning your own CDs they loose a lot.

It's no surprise that the sales of music CDs drops with about the same number as the rise in the sales of blank CD-Rs...
It's also well established that the theft of CD cases and booklets from music stores has gone up dramatically since Napster started operations.
Before Napster such theft was almost unheard of, after Napster it's a very serious issue.
A store might have dozens of cases a day, some here have permanent buckets with hundreds of naked CDs of which the booklets and cases have been stolen in the store for �5 or less each. They never seem to go empty despite people buying from them.
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11152
    
  16

If you go about downloading music from the P2P networks and burning your own CDs they loose a lot.


Not always true. I have downloaded songs (yes, i admit to it here) i though i wanted. played them a few times, thought they were crap, deleted the file.

I have also downloaded songs i sort-of liked, listened to it enough times, and convinced myself to go buy the cd i never would have otherwise. In that case, downloading the song illegally MADE a sale. but there are NO statistics on this sort of thing.

am i saying these offset each other - of course not. but i think the music industry is purposely ignoring that side, to skew the numbers. after all, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. and you should never trust any statistic you didn't make up yourself.

;-)
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by fred rosenberger:

am i saying these offset each other - of course not. but i think the music industry is purposely ignoring that side, to skew the numbers. after all, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. and you should never trust any statistic you didn't make up yourself.

;-)


I know it has been statistically proven that 90% or more of all statistics are lies or at least used incorrectly

Yes, there may be a small percentage of people who get an mp3 from somewhere and go on to buy the CD.
But they are far in the minority and P2P networks were not designed for them (I've been sent mp3s without asking by people over IRC and MSN for example which I deleted after listening to them (and in several cases purchsed CDs as a result), those networks are all that's needed for that traffic).
P2P networks were designed to facilitate the wholesale circumvention of intellectual property laws by people downloading entire CDs and large software packages.
Had they not been the software would have included provisions to block such use or at least make it much harder and resellers wouldn't advertise that use like they do.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Helen Thomas quotes from Yahoo news:

"While some surveys have shown the number of people engaging in file-sharing has declined since the RIAA began its legal assault, other data shows millions continue to share music, movies and software online."

It's so typical how the sentence paints this as some kind of contradiction. Are the journalists really not smart enough to figure that it's perfectly possible that millions are still doing it, but fewer millions than before?
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
More millions are getting online and being caught in this web of deceit, perhaps ?
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Some equations are illegal
 
Similar Threads
Concurrency with 2-cores-CPU
Getting compilation error while running axis web service
How does a sail work?
"implosion" of US economy
Real time objects to Java objects