I'm sure the copyright holder does consider it. But given the deep pockets of most of the copyright holders that are suing, I'd bet it's barely a passing thought.
When I say good for IP generally, I really mean in terms of the ease of filing and reduction of cost. So for inventors (large and small) and the population in general, WIPO filings have been good. Higher IP costs likely would lead to higher product costs.
I'm not denying fair use. Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense". In other words, the defendant bears the burden of raising the defense and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement.
I think fair use is great and I believe it does outweigh the DMCA.
These are my personal views, so I don't know whether there is much worth here. Like anyone else, my opinions may sometimes be the same or differ from someone else's and won't necessarily follow the laws.
1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?
I think a limited amount of time should be provided. If I am an author and I drop dead the day after I've spent 20 years writing a book, shouldn't there be some type of compensation? I think the duration specified in the original 1790 law was fine. 14 years and renewable for another 14 (if the author was still alive). The Mickey Mouse copyright extensions are way over the top.
2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?
I'm not a huge of software/business method patents. I've done them over the years, but maybe it's my hardware engineer side that nags me about this saying that flow charts and functional boxes really shouldn't be patentable. Copyrights I'm okay with. I think CONTU was right.
3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?
Not a fan. I wouldn't have any issues with that going away.
4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?
They shouldn't, as long as the restaurant isn't using any IOC trademarks in a way that could cause customers to be confused about affiliation.
5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?
Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally. And I think the WIPO patent filing system was very good for patents. OHIM was good for trademarks in the EU. Not quite sure about the Berne Convention.
6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?
I think the copyright holder gets to decide how to handle its content. Let them succeed or fail on their own.
7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?
No.
8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?
No, if you are talking about taking your content and making it viewable on numerous devices for your household use.
9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?
No. It's only a single copy being moved.
--------------
Again, these are only my opinions. I'm sure the xxAA orgs would disagree with some of them.
No. It's a derivative work then and you would need the copyright owner's permission. In reality, what are the damages and who will know if you do it in private? That is, if you rip it to Xvid or put it in an MKV container, etc. Clearly buying a DVD copy doesn't give you the right to download a BR copy from the internet.
Reading to your children wouldn't be, but reading it to the public as a public performance would be. I'm not sure whether the consumer is the one getting stupider. Silly semantic arguments, well . . .
I get your point, but you don't get the laws. You get to do whatever you want with the physical media. You do not get to do what you want with the copyrighted material.
You do not get to make derivative works and publish those. You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies.
Guess who has the right to make copies and derivative works? That's right, the copyright owner only.
I'm done with this discussion. You clearly don't understand copyright laws and derivative works. Study up a bit on those.
At the end of the day, I don't like the DMCA and I think copyright laws are out of whack, but the arguments and discussions here are asinine.
No, I'm correct. You're the typical non-lawyer playing semantics and gotchas.
Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.
If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work. And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
I don't remember saying I worked for the xxAA. But then again, clearly reading, understanding and critically analyzing isn't one of your strong points given the kinds of comments I'm reading here.
I think I'll do fine with an EE undergraduate degree and experience in designing microprocessors and computers and writing software. There's likely a bit of need of people having that knowledge.
So that the commenters understand the law and attempt to make intelligent responses. Read the comments and keep in mind what the copyright statutes really say. You'll see that the vast majority of the comments are spoken by people that have no idea of the laws.
The author should have put a couple of sentences out there explaining the laws. But of course it would lessen the clicks.
Don't know, don't care. I'm talking about what the laws are not how to implement or execute them. I don't disagree with the author, I have a problem with the clueless commenters. I've only seen less than a handful of knowledgeable, intelligent responses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
I'm sure the copyright holder does consider it. But given the deep pockets of most of the copyright holders that are suing, I'd bet it's barely a passing thought.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Funny stuff, you correcting me.
I've already corrected you. No need for more attorneys. You fundamentally don't understand copyright law. That's okay. Not many non-lawyers do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I guess you got me. I didn't even consider Fair Use. Oh, wait . . .
Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts. Gotcha games are not interesting to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Ripping and/or reencoding video is a derivative work. Only copyright holders have the statutory right to do that.
Fair use is likely a winnable defense.
This stuff is not difficult. The silly setting up and knocking down of strawmen is what's annoying.
Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
When I say good for IP generally, I really mean in terms of the ease of filing and reduction of cost. So for inventors (large and small) and the population in general, WIPO filings have been good. Higher IP costs likely would lead to higher product costs.
Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
I'm not denying fair use. Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense". In other words, the defendant bears the burden of raising the defense and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement.
I think fair use is great and I believe it does outweigh the DMCA.
Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
These are my personal views, so I don't know whether there is much worth here. Like anyone else, my opinions may sometimes be the same or differ from someone else's and won't necessarily follow the laws.
1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?
I think a limited amount of time should be provided. If I am an author and I drop dead the day after I've spent 20 years writing a book, shouldn't there be some type of compensation? I think the duration specified in the original 1790 law was fine. 14 years and renewable for another 14 (if the author was still alive). The Mickey Mouse copyright extensions are way over the top.
2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?
I'm not a huge of software/business method patents. I've done them over the years, but maybe it's my hardware engineer side that nags me about this saying that flow charts and functional boxes really shouldn't be patentable. Copyrights I'm okay with. I think CONTU was right.
3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?
Not a fan. I wouldn't have any issues with that going away.
4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?
They shouldn't, as long as the restaurant isn't using any IOC trademarks in a way that could cause customers to be confused about affiliation.
5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?
Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally. And I think the WIPO patent filing system was very good for patents. OHIM was good for trademarks in the EU. Not quite sure about the Berne Convention.
6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?
I think the copyright holder gets to decide how to handle its content. Let them succeed or fail on their own.
7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?
No.
8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?
No, if you are talking about taking your content and making it viewable on numerous devices for your household use.
9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?
No. It's only a single copy being moved.
--------------
Again, these are only my opinions. I'm sure the xxAA orgs would disagree with some of them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Fair use is a defense.
Re: Does this mean we get to watch in any format?
No. It's a derivative work then and you would need the copyright owner's permission. In reality, what are the damages and who will know if you do it in private? That is, if you rip it to Xvid or put it in an MKV container, etc. Clearly buying a DVD copy doesn't give you the right to download a BR copy from the internet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
Sure. Do a search for copyright laws.
Re: It doesn't work
Reading to your children wouldn't be, but reading it to the public as a public performance would be. I'm not sure whether the consumer is the one getting stupider. Silly semantic arguments, well . . .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Again, don't know, don't care. I don't do any of that stuff you mentioned, so I couldn't care much less.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I get your point, but you don't get the laws. You get to do whatever you want with the physical media. You do not get to do what you want with the copyrighted material.
You do not get to make derivative works and publish those. You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies.
Guess who has the right to make copies and derivative works? That's right, the copyright owner only.
I'm done with this discussion. You clearly don't understand copyright laws and derivative works. Study up a bit on those.
At the end of the day, I don't like the DMCA and I think copyright laws are out of whack, but the arguments and discussions here are asinine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
No, I'm correct. You're the typical non-lawyer playing semantics and gotchas.
Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.
If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work. And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
Get it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
You're agreeing with me then. You own the media. Do what you want with it. Tear, burn, draw, deface, whatever. It's yours. You can still do that.
However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I don't remember saying I worked for the xxAA. But then again, clearly reading, understanding and critically analyzing isn't one of your strong points given the kinds of comments I'm reading here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I think I'll do fine with an EE undergraduate degree and experience in designing microprocessors and computers and writing software. There's likely a bit of need of people having that knowledge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
No, but I do understand the laws in context to what the author is writing.
Re: Re: Clickbait article
So that the commenters understand the law and attempt to make intelligent responses. Read the comments and keep in mind what the copyright statutes really say. You'll see that the vast majority of the comments are spoken by people that have no idea of the laws.
The author should have put a couple of sentences out there explaining the laws. But of course it would lessen the clicks.
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Don't know, don't care. I'm talking about what the laws are not how to implement or execute them. I don't disagree with the author, I have a problem with the clueless commenters. I've only seen less than a handful of knowledgeable, intelligent responses.