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
