Mark writes: >Well in legal terms you are correct, but I am an old man. I always learned that when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them without permission its stealing. Copyright infringement = stealing in my way of thinking. Copyright was introduced to people making money from the efforts of others to be pursued in court for financial remuneration. Let's say you published a book and I copied it .. Initially, based on the intent of the law, I could make as many copies of your book as I liked, there was no copyright infringement unless I attempted to 'cross the line' and profit by selling those books - and trading on your efforts. And why should there be? I'd just be a wacky loon who either really likes your book, or a deeply disturbed passive aggressive with no clear sense of direction.. Then 'fair use' was introduced which made it more difficult for nuttbags who might want to accumulate vast stockpiles of ammunition for childish copying games. This allowed for the likes of "stop copying me!' <stop copying me!> dad! <dad!> .. for only so long before it would annoy the civil court.. or dad ... ie, only a *portion* of a work may be copied for "personal use". It is also reflected in the fact that the machinery for copying is not subject to seizure by the authorities as is the case with anything used by a law-breaker in breaking the law (crowbars, chemical manufacturing equipment, mime costumes etc). er.. revision - post CD era, companies were able to pursue destruction orders against CD copy facilities.. >They were also deprived of the income that the work would have produced, just as if they had taken a few hundreds out of the persons wallet. Having said that, displaying an image in ones home by tearing it from a magazine would constitute a breach of copyright, the photographer could surely have used the $27, 643. 69c he pricetags his 4x6's at - and he feels it's unfair you didn't pay him Or not.. the courts originally accounted for personal use by the meek and idiotic demands by creators, they accepted that however much an author may WANT for something, it is totally unreasonable that they control every aspect of their work once it leaves their hands. Display rights is akin to copyright. Were I to print on the back of my calendars "Only to be displayed between January 1, 2009 to January 1 2010, and not on sundays, full moons, days when cricket is being played by the Australian international team. Not to be displayed within 12 feet of children and NEVER to be donated to daycare centres or sold to anyone of French descent" - I should under law be permitted to sue for any breach of these terms. However the courts would look at how reasonable my terms were and probably find my case lacking in merit. >I am old. Politicians call it spin. Lawyers often call it debate. Yet most preachers will call it lying. Legal code doesn't change the basic fact that it is an intentional untruth. hmm, and how many preachers use quotes from the bible in their newsletters? This again is acceptable use. it is deemed a quote - and perfectly reasonable to use. Of course there is now trademark laws as well. If my company trademarks the phrase "..and have a great day!" I would be able to sue anyone who uses such a term in any publication (not for stealing or theft, but for trademark violation) Cyprus Hill is a good example of this - apparently taking a photograph of a perfectly natural tree in it's natural environment is a breach of trademark. Somehow the owners of said trademark have convinced the courts that anyone making a photograph is depriving them of income. I would argue this is insane, but then, that is why they won't let me become a judge in the high court.. >Now anyone that would ban the second hand sale of books draws just as much if not more ire from me as the thief. Well you and me both, but once the kiddies have been indoctrinated they won't see it the same way as you and I - they'll see second hand book sales as downright illegal, theft, and depriving those poor suffering publishing houses of millions of dollars in money that is rightfully theirs. In our country it was deemed acceptable to copy an LP to a cassette - apparently copying a CD to a mp3 player is not the same thing and is depriving starving multimillionaires of their rightful shekels.. And of course, using a VHS cassette recorder to copy TV shows has ALWAYS been illegal here. gawd knows how those criminals could sell VHS recorders when VHS players without the record function were a perfectly fine alternative and ensured the seething masses of criminals could be kept in check. I should be expecting the imminent descent of plods on my home for the possession of a HD PVR, which could not possibly be used for anything legal whatsoever.. wish me luck! k
