If you already had a hardcover copy, and just wanted to "redo" the cover, the first sale doctrine clearly accommodates that. It's your book, cut it up and put it back together however you want. That doesn't result in additional copies of that book. That's not what the poster(s) above suggested, though.
Just like many here complain that infringement is not "theft", I have a hard time seeing how anyone is "harmed" because the luxury product they have purchased doesn't have all the conveniences they want.
Whether the copy is for "personal purposes" is not the extent of the legal inquiry in looking at fair use. There are four criteria. You also look at whether the work is more creative than factual, how much of the work is copied, and the impace of the copying on the market for the work.
I'm not so sure it's an easy slam-dunk to say it's a fair use. I'm assuming the books are creative works of fiction, and that the entire book is being copie. That's two strikes right there (though it's not a simple case of tallying up scores). Is the publisher still selling hardcover copies of the book? He might argue that the person printing out his own copy of an e-book and slapping a cover on it represents a lost sale that negatively impacts his legitimate market for hardcover copies that he already sells himself.
Of course, I understand that this was probably not something the DMCA specifically intended to combat. This is essentialy a corner case - how many people actually have the hobby of creating their own custom hardcover editions? So, while I'd like to see an interpretation of the DMCA that doesn't make this guy feel like he's risking jail time, that doesn't mean the DMCA has failed somehow, merely because someone in a tiny niche hobby can't exercise his skill on every single work he might want.
As for the posters above who commented that it was a shame that the DMCA prevented someone from going into business doing this for others, well, that, to me, would be pretty clearly outside of the fair use doctrine. You're no longer talking about someone doing it for himself. You're talking about setting up a business based on making unauthorized copies of someone else's works.
I do find it funny that the complaint these days is usally about a particular title not being available as an e-book, but in this case, we're hearing the drum beat to turn an e-book back into a dead-tree publication.
In US copyright law, fair use is generally not viewed as a "right" that is "guaranteed". It is a defense to an allegaton of infringement. So, as a result, if you're able to make the copy, the fair use doctrine keeps you from having to pay damages, but it's not something that an author has to proactively enable.
"I'd argue that it's just as much an "entitlement" mentality by the "sellers" to pretend that only they get to decide what the consumer should be able to get, without listening to what the consumer wants."
Of course the seller is not "entitled" to any particular terms of sale. If he sets terms that the consumer does not like, the consumer has every right to reject the transaction. Flip it around, though, and it's just as true. If the consumer wants things the seller doesn't want to provide, the seller also gets to walk away from the transaction.
Both parties are entitled to walk away from a transaction that they feel is not giving them what they.
Yes, it may be the case that "infringement is one of those ways" in which sellers might do better to be "realistic" rather than "right", but it is still important to note that infringement, though it may be a real-life response, is not a legitimate response.
. . . that there's an automated system in use that automatically takes into account some measurement of news article appearances by an artist? If an artist starts grabbing headlines, for whatever reason (made a charity appearance, was a guest on Leno, got arrested - or, yes, even died), the interest in that artist goes up, which might support a price increase.
Perhaps it was as easy as that. Doesn't change the awkwardness of having the price go up within hours of the artist's untimely demise (though, with Houston, she was probably overdue), but doesn't make it as callous and insensitive as it is being portrayed by the vast majority here.
But, I guesss it's more satisfying to assume the label is a hearse-chaser....
Are you actually looking at the claims of the patent, or just commenting on the idea of a large animal costume controlled by a person from inside?
One thing that might be unique about this costume design is the balanced nature of it so that you can make the costume MUCH bigger than the perosn inside it. Clearly the dinosaur costumes were way bigger than the Ludo costume.
True, though the copyright covers basically only the arrangement of the various elements (not the borrowed elemets themselves), plus whatever of your own commentary you throw in.
The copyright owner of the compilation doesn't have any claim to the stuff he's borrowed.
The pictures I saw of supposedly "peaceful" protests at BART stations included people clmibing on top of the trains, requiring multiple officers to drag them down.
I consider that a situation where BART can reasonably consider that the public is subject to imminent danger from an out-of-control crowd, and they should be able to take pre-emptive steps to keep that from happening.
The train platform is not a public gathering place like a mall or city square. It is a place for ticketed passengers to board and exit from trains. It doesn't take much rowdiness at all before someone gets hurt, perhaps fatally. There are other places in the train station to protest that do not interfere with service or cause risk to protesters or innocent bystanders.
I just plain don't have a problem with BART taking steps like shutting down their cell phone repeaters if they reasonably believe someone is planning a disruptive event for the platform itself.
In Bell, a particular man was singled out to have his specific service terminated, with no ability to re-establish it. He was essentially banned from having his own telephone service. He was not merely one in a crowd who were impacted temporarily by a service outtage.
In the BART situation, nobody was singled out. Nobody's cell phone subscription was cancelled. Nobody was put on a blacklist preventing them from establishing cell phone service.
The facts of the Bell case just make it inapplicable to what happenedin the BART situation.
As for your landline example, it is easily distinguished from the BART situation as well. If the building owner cut his own riser wires, he would arguably be in breach of his lease to you, since you rented the apartment with phone wiring. In any case, cutting the wires is a physical act that seems to imply an intent to permanently deprive the target person of his landline phone service. This is not the case with BART. Nobody's "wires" extended to the train platform until BART added cell phone repeaters as a convenience to its customers. BART merely decided to not provide that convenience for a short time. Anybody who still wanted to use their cell phone could go back to a point where the cell phone signal could reach them naturally, which was exactly what had to happen in the time before BART added the repeaters in the first place.
So, the Bell case might be used as a precedent for the general concept that phone service is considered important, but it is easily distinguishable from the facts of the BART situation, and would therefore not be direct support for the proposition that BART's actions were illegal.
The Bell case was about a particular person who had been individually targeted for this treatment - essentally an order to not do business with him because of his putative connection to "illicit" activities. Further it appears Bell was indefinitely denying phone servie to the man.
In the BART situation, BART merely said, "OK, we're not providing cell phone repeater service at all today." Nobody was singled out. BART didn't selectively deny use of their cell phone repeaters to the people they didn't like, but allow people they did like to continue to use them. They pulled the plug altogether. And, unlike in the Bell case, it appears BART pulled that plug only long enough to get past the potentially dangerous situation they were worried about.
Bell was in the business of providing phone service, and no other sevice provider were available. Here, BART is not a cell phone servce provider. Nobody subscribes to the BART Mobile Phone Services.
It might be more applicable if BART had banned someone from ever riding its trains, because the person was believed to ride the trains to and from "illicit" activities.
The cited case appears to be about a prohibition against a particular person being able to SUBSCRIBE to telephone service AT ALL. And, based on the brief excerpt, seems to have come out correctly - it's inappropriate to try to ban someone from being to own a phone altogether.
However, that's not what happened in the BART situation Nobody in the BART situation deprived anybody of the right to own a phone or subscribe to a cell phone service. Nobody's phones were confiscated, nor were their subscriptions cancelled. BART disabled repeaters that had been placed in its stations as a convenience for riders.
It may very well be the case that BART was in the wrong (though, personally, I don't think so), but this case does not appear to support that.
It seems that BART had an area where people could protest - and be seen protesting - without interfering with riders or the operation of the trains. However, this was apparently considered not good enough by the would-be protesters, who, as I saw in at least one article, had people climbing on top of the trains, requiring multiple BART officers to drag them down.
I don't expect to not have to pass by a protest. However, I do expect to be able to pass it by without being in any way diverted from my otherwise reasonable path. The moment a protest delays my use of the trains, the protesters' swinging fists have just met the end of my nose. And they should not be surprised when someone swings back.
Wow. A First Amendment right to not be prevented from acting to shut down public services.
And, apparently, a First Amendment right to protest in an area that is potentially dangerous for both protesters and innocent bystanders.
I just don't get how your desire to speak out against some action by BART gets to trump my right to ride BART without interference. As the old saying goes, "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Free speech should just about never be able to trump the rights of others to go about their own business unmolested, as I should have a an equally-valid and important free speech right to ignore your blathering about whatever it is you're on a tear about.
And this focus on the speech being somethign BART didn't agree with seems a red herring. As I see it, they might have taken the same action with a group plannig to swarm a station to show their undying love and support for public transportation. It's a matter of trying to maintain the provision of public services and public safety.
Perhaps the protesters think it's OK if the platform were to become so crowded and chaotic that someone gets pushed onto the tracks.
Your response implies that, once having provided cell phone repeaters, BART can then NEVER turn them off or let them fall out of repair, because it would infringe the free speech rights of BART patrons.
That just doesn't make sense. By "acting affirmatively", I am referring to your apparent belief that BART is now OBLIGATED to provide and maintain cell phone repeaters.
. . . that anybody needs to act affirmatively to faciliate your exercise of that right.
Turning off cell phone repeaters in stations doesn't prevent anybody from protesting. You still have exactly the same right to show up there to chant slogans and carry a sign as you did before. You can still take whatever photos/videos you could before (even with your cell phone), and can still send them out via your favorite social media service. Just, apparently, not from right there on the platform. Seems like plenty of people were able to express their views just fine - even from train stations - before cell phones came along, so it's not clear to me how turning off the repeaters is an abridgement of First Amendment rights.
Now, that doesn't mean I think BART is acting wisely. That's a completely different issue.
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use Right Not Affected
It's not telling you it's illegal to drive through the gate, it's telling you it's illegal to break down the gate.
HM
Re: Fair Use Right Not Affected
Making the copy itself may be a fair use, but there is no fair use defense to circumventing copy protection.
In that sense, copy protection is a completely independent - and prior - hurdle to clear before even getting to the fair use question.
HM
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you already had a hardcover copy, and just wanted to "redo" the cover, the first sale doctrine clearly accommodates that. It's your book, cut it up and put it back together however you want. That doesn't result in additional copies of that book. That's not what the poster(s) above suggested, though.
Just like many here complain that infringement is not "theft", I have a hard time seeing how anyone is "harmed" because the luxury product they have purchased doesn't have all the conveniences they want.
HM
Re: Re:
Whether the copy is for "personal purposes" is not the extent of the legal inquiry in looking at fair use. There are four criteria. You also look at whether the work is more creative than factual, how much of the work is copied, and the impace of the copying on the market for the work.
I'm not so sure it's an easy slam-dunk to say it's a fair use. I'm assuming the books are creative works of fiction, and that the entire book is being copie. That's two strikes right there (though it's not a simple case of tallying up scores). Is the publisher still selling hardcover copies of the book? He might argue that the person printing out his own copy of an e-book and slapping a cover on it represents a lost sale that negatively impacts his legitimate market for hardcover copies that he already sells himself.
Of course, I understand that this was probably not something the DMCA specifically intended to combat. This is essentialy a corner case - how many people actually have the hobby of creating their own custom hardcover editions? So, while I'd like to see an interpretation of the DMCA that doesn't make this guy feel like he's risking jail time, that doesn't mean the DMCA has failed somehow, merely because someone in a tiny niche hobby can't exercise his skill on every single work he might want.
As for the posters above who commented that it was a shame that the DMCA prevented someone from going into business doing this for others, well, that, to me, would be pretty clearly outside of the fair use doctrine. You're no longer talking about someone doing it for himself. You're talking about setting up a business based on making unauthorized copies of someone else's works.
I do find it funny that the complaint these days is usally about a particular title not being available as an e-book, but in this case, we're hearing the drum beat to turn an e-book back into a dead-tree publication.
HM
Re:
In US copyright law, fair use is generally not viewed as a "right" that is "guaranteed". It is a defense to an allegaton of infringement. So, as a result, if you're able to make the copy, the fair use doctrine keeps you from having to pay damages, but it's not something that an author has to proactively enable.
HM
Entitlement
"I'd argue that it's just as much an "entitlement" mentality by the "sellers" to pretend that only they get to decide what the consumer should be able to get, without listening to what the consumer wants."
Of course the seller is not "entitled" to any particular terms of sale. If he sets terms that the consumer does not like, the consumer has every right to reject the transaction. Flip it around, though, and it's just as true. If the consumer wants things the seller doesn't want to provide, the seller also gets to walk away from the transaction.
Both parties are entitled to walk away from a transaction that they feel is not giving them what they.
Yes, it may be the case that "infringement is one of those ways" in which sellers might do better to be "realistic" rather than "right", but it is still important to note that infringement, though it may be a real-life response, is not a legitimate response.
HM
Couldn't it be . . .
. . . that there's an automated system in use that automatically takes into account some measurement of news article appearances by an artist? If an artist starts grabbing headlines, for whatever reason (made a charity appearance, was a guest on Leno, got arrested - or, yes, even died), the interest in that artist goes up, which might support a price increase.
Perhaps it was as easy as that. Doesn't change the awkwardness of having the price go up within hours of the artist's untimely demise (though, with Houston, she was probably overdue), but doesn't make it as callous and insensitive as it is being portrayed by the vast majority here.
But, I guesss it's more satisfying to assume the label is a hearse-chaser....
HM
The mere IDEA is obvious?
Are you actually looking at the claims of the patent, or just commenting on the idea of a large animal costume controlled by a person from inside?
One thing that might be unique about this costume design is the balanced nature of it so that you can make the costume MUCH bigger than the perosn inside it. Clearly the dinosaur costumes were way bigger than the Ludo costume.
HM
Re: Compilations
True, though the copyright covers basically only the arrangement of the various elements (not the borrowed elemets themselves), plus whatever of your own commentary you throw in.
The copyright owner of the compilation doesn't have any claim to the stuff he's borrowed.
HM
Re: Re: That sounds fine to me.
So much for "your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."
HM
That sounds fine to me.
The pictures I saw of supposedly "peaceful" protests at BART stations included people clmibing on top of the trains, requiring multiple officers to drag them down.
I consider that a situation where BART can reasonably consider that the public is subject to imminent danger from an out-of-control crowd, and they should be able to take pre-emptive steps to keep that from happening.
The train platform is not a public gathering place like a mall or city square. It is a place for ticketed passengers to board and exit from trains. It doesn't take much rowdiness at all before someone gets hurt, perhaps fatally. There are other places in the train station to protest that do not interfere with service or cause risk to protesters or innocent bystanders.
I just plain don't have a problem with BART taking steps like shutting down their cell phone repeaters if they reasonably believe someone is planning a disruptive event for the platform itself.
HM
Re: Re: Clearly distinguishable
In Bell, a particular man was singled out to have his specific service terminated, with no ability to re-establish it. He was essentially banned from having his own telephone service. He was not merely one in a crowd who were impacted temporarily by a service outtage.
In the BART situation, nobody was singled out. Nobody's cell phone subscription was cancelled. Nobody was put on a blacklist preventing them from establishing cell phone service.
The facts of the Bell case just make it inapplicable to what happenedin the BART situation.
As for your landline example, it is easily distinguished from the BART situation as well. If the building owner cut his own riser wires, he would arguably be in breach of his lease to you, since you rented the apartment with phone wiring. In any case, cutting the wires is a physical act that seems to imply an intent to permanently deprive the target person of his landline phone service. This is not the case with BART. Nobody's "wires" extended to the train platform until BART added cell phone repeaters as a convenience to its customers. BART merely decided to not provide that convenience for a short time. Anybody who still wanted to use their cell phone could go back to a point where the cell phone signal could reach them naturally, which was exactly what had to happen in the time before BART added the repeaters in the first place.
So, the Bell case might be used as a precedent for the general concept that phone service is considered important, but it is easily distinguishable from the facts of the BART situation, and would therefore not be direct support for the proposition that BART's actions were illegal.
HM
HM
Re: Re: Clearly distinguishable
The Bell case was about a particular person who had been individually targeted for this treatment - essentally an order to not do business with him because of his putative connection to "illicit" activities. Further it appears Bell was indefinitely denying phone servie to the man.
In the BART situation, BART merely said, "OK, we're not providing cell phone repeater service at all today." Nobody was singled out. BART didn't selectively deny use of their cell phone repeaters to the people they didn't like, but allow people they did like to continue to use them. They pulled the plug altogether. And, unlike in the Bell case, it appears BART pulled that plug only long enough to get past the potentially dangerous situation they were worried about.
Bell was in the business of providing phone service, and no other sevice provider were available. Here, BART is not a cell phone servce provider. Nobody subscribes to the BART Mobile Phone Services.
It might be more applicable if BART had banned someone from ever riding its trains, because the person was believed to ride the trains to and from "illicit" activities.
HM
Clearly distinguishable
The cited case appears to be about a prohibition against a particular person being able to SUBSCRIBE to telephone service AT ALL. And, based on the brief excerpt, seems to have come out correctly - it's inappropriate to try to ban someone from being to own a phone altogether.
However, that's not what happened in the BART situation Nobody in the BART situation deprived anybody of the right to own a phone or subscribe to a cell phone service. Nobody's phones were confiscated, nor were their subscriptions cancelled. BART disabled repeaters that had been placed in its stations as a convenience for riders.
It may very well be the case that BART was in the wrong (though, personally, I don't think so), but this case does not appear to support that.
HM
Re: Re: Interesting...
It seems that BART had an area where people could protest - and be seen protesting - without interfering with riders or the operation of the trains. However, this was apparently considered not good enough by the would-be protesters, who, as I saw in at least one article, had people climbing on top of the trains, requiring multiple BART officers to drag them down.
I don't expect to not have to pass by a protest. However, I do expect to be able to pass it by without being in any way diverted from my otherwise reasonable path. The moment a protest delays my use of the trains, the protesters' swinging fists have just met the end of my nose. And they should not be surprised when someone swings back.
HM
Interesting...
Wow. A First Amendment right to not be prevented from acting to shut down public services.
And, apparently, a First Amendment right to protest in an area that is potentially dangerous for both protesters and innocent bystanders.
I just don't get how your desire to speak out against some action by BART gets to trump my right to ride BART without interference. As the old saying goes, "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Free speech should just about never be able to trump the rights of others to go about their own business unmolested, as I should have a an equally-valid and important free speech right to ignore your blathering about whatever it is you're on a tear about.
And this focus on the speech being somethign BART didn't agree with seems a red herring. As I see it, they might have taken the same action with a group plannig to swarm a station to show their undying love and support for public transportation. It's a matter of trying to maintain the provision of public services and public safety.
Perhaps the protesters think it's OK if the platform were to become so crowded and chaotic that someone gets pushed onto the tracks.
HM
Re: Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
Maybe Anonymous also has a First Amendment right to engage in their disruptive activities:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092160-93/anonymous-plans-bart-web-site-attack-pro test/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
HM
Re: Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
Spot on.
HM
Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
Your response implies that, once having provided cell phone repeaters, BART can then NEVER turn them off or let them fall out of repair, because it would infringe the free speech rights of BART patrons.
That just doesn't make sense. By "acting affirmatively", I am referring to your apparent belief that BART is now OBLIGATED to provide and maintain cell phone repeaters.
HM
Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
. . . that anybody needs to act affirmatively to faciliate your exercise of that right.
Turning off cell phone repeaters in stations doesn't prevent anybody from protesting. You still have exactly the same right to show up there to chant slogans and carry a sign as you did before. You can still take whatever photos/videos you could before (even with your cell phone), and can still send them out via your favorite social media service. Just, apparently, not from right there on the platform. Seems like plenty of people were able to express their views just fine - even from train stations - before cell phones came along, so it's not clear to me how turning off the repeaters is an abridgement of First Amendment rights.
Now, that doesn't mean I think BART is acting wisely. That's a completely different issue.
HM