Is this legal?

[mikeblas]

and no different than tivo

Not in the eyes of the law. Time shifting for personal use is well-defined to be okay; it's explicitly mentioned in the Betamax case and in the fair-use statues.

File sharing is at best a grey area.

 

[Ice Czar]

I can't give much credibility to Sander Sassen. His essays are some of the least insightful that I've ever read in the technology field.

Meanwhile: nope, I'm not in the recording industry.

I've written a few books and a lot of magazine articles, though. The book was very blatantly plagiarized, and frequently had its entire content posted to the web (from the CD that was included with the book). As a result, I have a strong interest in intellectual property law, and I'm very interested in the seeing good protection for the work of copyright owners.

Have you ever published anything, Elios? Anything that people would pay to see, or want to buy? Most people haven't. As a result, the large majority of people don't udnerstand what goes into producing even something that looks "simple" or "small", or seems "easy".

They end up thinking that almost everything should be free for the taking, since they don't understand what effort, luck, and skill goes into producing something of value.

and Ive been an artist and designer for over 20 years now, and have an equally strong background in copyright law, but the original intent of the laws and the protections they afford the creator have been largely perverted for the benefit of the large media conglomerates, far past their original intent. Very little is now entering the public domain and copyrights are being extended into near perpetuity, meanwhile small holders like me and mikeblas lack the ability to attempt any enforcement, lacking the deep pockets and oversight necessary.

 

[Elios]

I can't give much credibility to Sander Sassen. His essays are some of the least insightful that I've ever read in the technology field.

Meanwhile: nope, I'm not in the recording industry.

I've written a few books and a lot of magazine articles, though. The book was very blatantly plagiarized, and frequently had its entire content posted to the web (from the CD that was included with the book). As a result, I have a strong interest in intellectual property law, and I'm very interested in the seeing good protection for the work of copyright owners.

Have you ever published anything, Elios? Anything that people would pay to see, or want to buy? Most people haven't. As a result, the large majority of people don't udnerstand what goes into producing even something that looks "simple" or "small", or seems "easy".

They end up thinking that almost everything should be free for the taking, since they don't understand what effort, luck, and skill goes into producing something of value.

now i never said every thing should be free but there are some "fair use" issues around

for one
your friend tapes program A. off tv you miss he lends you the tape/DVD or what ever
i see no harm in this

2. getting shows from other markits ie i know people that like anime and would like to watch shows from Japan now i see no harm in some on encodeing the show and putting on the net for free

 

[mikeblas]

now i never said every thing [sic] should be free but there are some "fair use" issues around

So your position is somewhere between this and your other statement, I guess:

im sick and tired of all these ppl that think just becouse you didnt pay for it and you have that you should be sued in the ground

Where, exactly do you stand, then? Can you nail it down a little for us?

for one
your friend tapes program A. off tv you miss he lends you the tape/DVD or what ever
i see no harm in this

Perhaps you meant to specify that the TV program was not from a subscription service, and not a pay-per-view event. Otherwise, the potential for damages should be apparent.

Even for over-the-air programs, your redistribution of the tape to even one other user encroaches on the market for the material. Lots of shows are producing DVDs of previously aired seasons, for example -- why do you think it's right to take away income from everyone involved in the show just for your convenience?

I'm not sure I always agree with the doctrine behind this, so I'm not prepared to provde a deeper argument. But I also have never seen any case law or black-letter law that says it is legal. I asked you before to cite references, but you failed to do so -- are there none?

Remember, the law is what the law says; it's not what you personally think the law should say, or what you personally think is right or wrong.

2. getting shows from other markits ie i know people that like anime and would like to watch shows from Japan now i see no harm in some on encodeing the show and putting on the net for free

It's hard for me to believe that you don't understand why this is wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it.

The performers, artists, directors, writers, producers, enginers, and everyone else who worked on those shows deserve to get paid. They get paid from advertising revenue, paid for by the advertising that the show sold when it was on television. (Or, paid for by the subscription channel's revenues when it bought rights to air the show.)

If someone captures the show and redistributes it in another market without the permission of owner of the copyright, they're infringing on that copyright. Holding a copyright means that you completely control the redistribution and reproduction of the work; it's yours. By copying the work around, you're short-circuiting that right.

Redistributing the work causes damages to the copyright holder in several ways. Perhaps the copies (or even the original capture the distributed copies were created from) is technically inferior; that inferior work still identifies the character, and the character identifies the creator and production house. Now, intentionally or not, inferior work might become associated with the creator or the production house.

Perhaps it was the plan of the copyright holder to market and sell discs in the new market. Lots of shows do this; you can get the whole season on DVD a few months after it aired. They'll lose profits, both directly and consequentially, because of the file trading. Preempting their decision is ethically pompous, regardless of what the law says.

Any of these marketing efforts would bring more income to the producer of the material being copied, and therefore takes potential earnings away from a variety of disciplines involved in the creative, technical, and publishing processes.

Can you really not understand that? Or is it just that you somehow disagree with the premise that people who work to produce desireable content should not be compensated for their work?

 

[Visitor]

I'd like to take a moment to comment on this thread.

As far as legal or illegal goes, one should keep in mind the specific country. Each country has there own laws regarding copy rights.

Where I live (not telling exactly where), one is allowed to have Videos, Software, Music and anything else one desires, as long as the following conditions are observed/followed:

The saved items were not copied using special software or hardware that intentionally gives the user the ability to make perfect copies (the user uses the software/hardware with the intention to make the copy knowing that the software/hardware can provide the copy even though it is protected, i.e. if they use the software/hardware to make the copy, they can not know that said items provide such functionality).

In the case of software, one can not use cracked software or keygens on software marketed *after* 1-1-2004. Software prior to that date can be used with cracks and keygens, if the user has a legally purchased the software, or the company declares that they no longer support the software (Windows 95 is one such product here) or the company no longer exists. If the user downloaded the software, prior to that date, they may use it with cracks and/or keygens, however, this is a grey area item, but is generally 'OK' for private use.

Music may be kept in MP3 or other form (audio CD's etc), if, the end user did not crack the copy protection of the audio (copy a protected audio CD with special software that gets around the protection), and owns the original copy. If MP3's are downloaded, they are allowed to have the MP3 for 24 hours to listen to then it must be deleted. For free-to-air copies (radio), the user is allowed to backup and keep the copy as long as they desire as long as they did not record the copy using computer software to loop from a stereo to there computer (analogue to digital), however recordings done with a radio tuner or TV cards with a radio tuner in there PC are considered legal, but not if the signal is copied from the computer to a stereo, for example. Additionally the user may copy internet radio broadcasts and keep the copy for there own use as long as they desire (software to make internet radio recordings must have been freeware or have been purchased by the user, no cracks or keygens allowed - and many local magazines provide copies of such software with instructions on how to use it legally).

Videos may be kept, just like MP3's if the end user did not use software to get around the copy protection (DVD copies) and did not convert the analogue signal to digital (VHS or DVD player to computer). Any free-to-air broadcasts may be kept, as log as, just like MP3's, the user didn't convert the show from analogue to digital. TV cards receiving (and saving) the broadcast (analogue or digital), are legal, but not VHS/DVD player to computer conversions. These copies may not be passed around, but can be shared with friends and family as long as the user remains with the copy (for example goes visiting to a family or friends and watches the video with them). Downloading TV shows that were free-to-air broadcasts are grey areas, but are generally 'OK' as long as the user does not pass the copy around, even if the show is produced on DVD at a later or earlier date. The free-to-air copy must have been that from the free-to-air signal, and not from a DVD/VHS. Another words, if you copied your favourite TV show (or movie) with your TV card and saved it to CD/DVD, it is (grey area) legal, but the same show copied from DVD and saved on CD/DVD, is not legal.

In all cases, the copied item can not be given or sold to anyone, for any reason, unless the original is supplied and no copies are kept. This is only for private users, and not for companies. Companies must follow the 'normal' copy right (business) laws.

Enjoy, I'm positive someone will disagree with this, however, it is, what it is. And like I said, this in in the country where I live (don't bother asking, I'm not telling (don't want to ruin it)). So if your wondering if something is legal or not, be sure to consult your local laws. If you follow your local laws, and your local laws say you can, and some company goes after you saying you can't, only the courts can make the end decision, and since you followed your local laws, normally nothing will happen to you, but the laws may be changed after that.

 

[Elios]

It's hard for me to believe that you don't understand why this is wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it.

The performers, artists, directors, writers, producers, enginers, and everyone else who worked on those shows deserve to get paid. They get paid from advertising revenue, paid for by the advertising that the show sold when it was on television. (Or, paid for by the subscription channel's revenues when it bought rights to air the show.)

If someone captures the show and redistributes it in another market without the permission of owner of the copyright, they're infringing on that copyright. Holding a copyright means that you completely control the redistribution and reproduction of the work; it's yours. By copying the work around, you're short-circuiting that right.

Redistributing the work causes damages to the copyright holder in several ways. Perhaps the copies (or even the original capture the distributed copies were created from) is technically inferior; that inferior work still identifies the character, and the character identifies the creator and production house. Now, intentionally or not, inferior work might become associated with the creator or the production house.

Perhaps it was the plan of the copyright holder to market and sell discs in the new market. Lots of shows do this; you can get the whole season on DVD a few months after it aired. They'll lose profits, both directly and consequentially, because of the file trading. Preempting their decision is ethically pompous, regardless of what the law says.

Any of these marketing efforts would bring more income to the producer of the material being copied, and therefore takes potential earnings away from a variety of disciplines involved in the creative, technical, and publishing processes.

Can you really not understand that? Or is it just that you somehow disagree with the premise that people who work to produce desireable content should not be compensated for their work?

id like to point you at 100% legal web site about my last comment

www.animesuki.com

 

[Peach]

its legal.

 

[Stugots]

What is the difference between streamripping all my favorite shoutcast servers and just downloading my favorite songs from p2p...

 

[Elios]

What is the difference between streamripping all my favorite shoutcast servers and just downloading my favorite songs from p2p...

effectivly nothing

 

[Stugots]

effectivly nothing

Then effectively isnt every shoutcast server a source of pirating...Why doesnt the RIAA go after them too?

 

[Elios]

Then effectively isnt every shoutcast server a source of pirating...Why doesnt the RIAA go after them too?

thats a good point and some thing i have wondered my self
but unlike a recodering off the radio you get the same qualty as any good mp3

again i think its that the RIAA and MPAA just see p2p as killing sales look at what there trying to do itunes
imo the RIAA and MPAA are out of control and are looking for any resion to sue and put the blame of a failing industry on any thing other then there business model
MPAA: OH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MOVIES!! it must be that file shareing
SURE may be the movies just SUCK or no one wants to spend 40 bucks to see a moive
RIAA: OH NO PEOPLE ARENT BUYING CDS!!! lets sue any one that down loads music and make the pay serivces play by our rules
yeaa.... maybe CD are over priced and most people just want one or two tracks

the MPAA and RIAA ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND to any one that says there doing this for the copyright holders PROVE TO ME that any of them are getting a cut of the lawsuits
the MPAA and RIAA are doing nothing but lineing there own pockets
you think the people that produce the cds are getting any money from the lawsuits LOL
not a chance

what the MPAA and RIAA need to do is pass the info to the copyright holder and let them sue or not sue if thay are indeed loseing there income

just to let every one know the people that work on CDs and moives other then the big names thay get payed like any other working guy the sales of the movie/CD have no effect on what thay get payed

the only people that get more from sales are the big names involved and its there job to sue not the MPAA or RIAA

 

[mikeblas]

id like to point you at 100% legal web site about my last comment

www.animesuki.com

Did you read this page? The part where it says:

Fansubs violate copyrights
We have to admit it: the distribution of fansubs is technically a violation of copyright under the WTO TRIPS agreement.

or the FAQ that page links to?

The site itself admits that it's not 100% legal, and seems to say that it's just hoping it doesn't get sued. It's skirting around the issue by trying to stick to content that isn't licensed in the US, even though the material is covered by copyright even if it is unlicensed in the region where it is being traded. (And the site apparently makes no effort to assure it isn't traded in regions where it is licensed, anyway.)

Given all that, what leaves you with the impression that the site is "100% legal"?

 

[Elios]

http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt

meh you still dont get it that site is out reach of the MPAA and US law and the fansubshave some what of a agrement with the japanese but you didnt read that part

the RIAA and MPAA out of control this link just porves it even the judge thinks the RIAA is out of line

you need to get your head out of your ass and see the MPAA and RIAA are just trying to make money in a failing business model and are just looking to point a finger at some one any one thay have SUED KIDS and now are sueing some lady for some thing she most likely didnt do just to make a point

you have yet to prove that any one ACTLY AFFECTED BY THE infringment is actly seeing the money from the lawsuits and untill i see this ill i will keep my positon that the MPAA and RIAA just want to fill there own pockets

quote:"If you only download unlicensed anime you are unlikely to get into trouble however. Note that none of the files on AnimeSuki belong to companies assocatiated with the MPAA or RIAA, so you can't get in trouble with them for anything listed on AnimeSuki"
guess you didnt read that part the japanese have much more lax copyright laws then here

 

[mikeblas]

http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt

the RIAA and MPAA out of control this link just porves it even the judge thinks the RIAA is out of line

That lawyer made some procedural bludners, that's without dispute. But that judge didn't say anything about the RIAA in that transcript.

They're not at all out of line. They had reason to believe the machine involved in this problem was owned by that woman. Turns out it probably isn't. That woman will have a chance to testify about it and explain her side of the story -- to formally answer under oath, as the judge indicated. If it's later found that it wasn't her machine or her account, then the case is dropped.

Then, if the judge truly finds that the lawsuit was brought without sufficient evidence or was frivolous, he's free to sanction the plaintiff. For the transcript you quoted, though, I don't think the judge has said much about the case -- he's clearly more offended by the lawyer's lack of procedural etiquette and by his suggsetion that the woman go straight to the settlement center.

you need to get your head out of your ass

Now, now. There's really no reason to go ad hominem. I've very kindly discussed this with you. That kind of of remark is really inappropriate, and not reflective of the tolerance and patience I've shown you.

Like it or not, what the RIAA is doing is within the law; they feel they've been damaged by the actions of others and had their rights violated. So they're suing the parties they believe (and can reasonably show) are responsible for those damages. That's the way the system works in America. Could that system be made better? Quite possibly so, but I don't think that's a task for the RIAA to worry about.

and see the MPAA and RIAA are just trying to make money in a failing business model and are just looking to point a finger at some one any one thay have SUED KIDS and now are sueing some lady for some thing she most likely didnt do just to make a point

Isn't every commercial entity trying to make money? I mean, the RIAA isn't representing a bunch of non-profit organizations, are they?

Do you think that the RIAA is trying to make money from the lawsuits? They're not -- they almost always settle out of cuort for amounts amounts that barely cover their legal fees.

I think the point of their action is to draw attention to the widespread misappropriation of intellectual property. Even if that isn't their intent, that's what is happening, and I applaud them for having at least that much of an impact.

Meanwhile, it's hard for me to understand why concress is having hearings about steroids in baseball but pays so little attention to problems IP law is facing.

you have yet to prove that any one ACTLY AFFECTED BY THE infringment is actly seeing the money from the lawsuits and untill i see this ill i will keep my positon that the MPAA and RIAA just want to fill there own pockets

Sorry, but I don't understand why I need to prove that.

 

[Elios]

Sorry, but I don't understand why I need to prove that.

well if some group sues some one over your book and then you didnt get a cut of the money from the settlement and thay whent around saying there sueing on behalf of the book industry
i dont think you would be to pleased now would you
there makeing money off your work just like the ppl that stole it

 

[Elios]

Isn't every commercial entity trying to make money? I mean, the RIAA isn't representing a bunch of non-profit organizations, are they?

Do you think that the RIAA is trying to make money from the lawsuits? They're not -- they almost always settle out of cuort for amounts amounts that barely cover their legal fees.

I think the point of their action is to draw attention to the widespread misappropriation of intellectual property. Even if that isn't their intent, that's what is happening, and I applaud them for having at least that much of an impact.

sure and thats why thay sued Apple to change there pricing on iTunes

 

[I3roknI3ottle]

all this sueing from people like the MPAA or RIAA is crap. I thnk to myself often on reason's why people share music/movies or download them. Yes some of these people are cheap asses and just dont wanna spend the few bucks to get something in life.

One reason I cant stand going to the movies is the blatant overcharges. $7+ USD for a ticket to the movies. Wow i get to watch it on a HUGE screen, but if I need to goto the bathroom or wanna get a refill I have to getup and miss parts of the movie. Then I have to deal with the people in the movie theater, the ones that smell or leave there cellphones on, or bring there 1 year old kid in and it starts crying and they dont want to get up and take it in the hallway and get it to quiet down. Before the movie started, I went to get some popcorn and when I asked her how big a small bag of popcorn would be she showed me a bag no taller then 5-6 inches and no wider then 3-4 inches, for $3 USD.. WTF!?

Then theres the overpricing of cd's... I cannot stand when I purchase a cd and it has 10+ songs on and it and theres SKITS on it. I'm paying for something thats enjoyable too listen too, not to hear some gay skit u put on the cd cuz u didnt want to take the time to make a few extra songs. I've only purchased a few cd's in my entire life,

Eminem: Marshall Mathers LP - 18 total tracks - 4 being skits...
Linkin Park: Reanimation - 20 total tracks - 3 skits and 1 opening thats 1 minute long.
Bone Thugs N Harmony: Greatest Hits - 24 total tracks - 0 SKITS, WORTH MY GODDAMN $$$.

I dont find listenign to someones voicemail or someone's phone conversation enjoyable. So why do these artist put this crap on there cd's. Then some artist just put blatant crap songs on there cd's and only 1 or 2 of the songs are actually worth listening too.

I've got more but im tired and just got off work, so i really cant thnk. When I remember my other comments/rave's ill post em

 

[mikeblas]

all this sueing from people like the MPAA or RIAA is crap. I thnk to myself often on reason's why people share music/movies or download them. Yes some of these people are cheap asses and just dont wanna spend the few bucks to get something in life.

Me, too. I think most people don't think about what goes into the creative process. They've never created anything of value themselves. I think most people don't think about what is required to build a skill to desireable and marketable professional level. They're talentless.

These are harsh statements, but they're backed-up by the facts. Most people don't know how to play any instrument, not to mention play the instrument with enough virtuosity to earn a living from playing someone else's musing -- not to mention playing having the creative ability to write a new, interesting song, do the engineering, record it, produce it, and get it published.

Most people end up thinking that content should just be free. And so they just take it. They end up lobbying against IP patents and copyrights because of their ignorance.

It's sickening.

One reason I cant stand going to the movies is the blatant overcharges. $7+ USD for a ticket to the movies. Wow i get to watch it on a HUGE screen, but if I need to goto the bathroom or wanna get a refill I have to getup and miss parts of the movie. Then I have to deal with the people in the movie theater, the ones that smell or leave there cellphones on, or bring there 1 year old kid in and it starts crying and they dont want to get up and take it in the hallway and get it to quiet down. Before the movie started, I went to get some popcorn and when I asked her how big a small bag of popcorn would be she showed me a bag no taller then 5-6 inches and no wider then 3-4 inches, for $3 USD.. WTF!?

Then why do you go? You could, instead, stay home and read a book you got for free from the library.

Then theres the overpricing of cd's... I cannot stand when I purchase a cd and it has 10+ songs on and it and theres SKITS on it. I'm paying for something thats enjoyable too listen too, not to hear some gay skit u put on the cd cuz u didnt want to take the time to make a few extra songs. I've only purchased a few cd's in my entire life,

Eminem: Marshall Mathers LP - 18 total tracks - 4 being skits...
Linkin Park: Reanimation - 20 total tracks - 3 skits and 1 opening thats 1 minute long.
Bone Thugs N Harmony: Greatest Hits - 24 total tracks - 0 SKITS, WORTH MY GODDAMN $$$.

I dont find listenign to someones voicemail or someone's phone conversation enjoyable. So why do these artist put this crap on there cd's. Then some artist just put blatant crap songs on there cd's and only 1 or 2 of the songs are actually worth listening too.

Then why do you buy them?

I've got more but im tired and just got off work, so i really cant thnk. When I remember my other comments/rave's ill post em

Please do. I enjoy reading insighful comments and using them for debate.

 

[phixt]

If you don't like the prices that are being charged for various forms of media, then don't give them your business. When large numbers of people start doing this, the corporations supposedly abusing their right to price the product will give in to the market and lower the prices or will go out of business. That's simply how a free market works. Sure, RIAA/MPAA/whoever may initially mistake the cause of the lost revenue as P2P, but once they sue the asses off of traders and realize that they're still losing money, they'll get the point. This is of course assuming the argument that P2P isn't the problem.

Out of curiosity, what are the laws regarding rebroadcasting of copyrighted content? Assuming an internet radio station has the right to rebroadcast songs, what stops them from taking individual requests and streaming the various songs to the individual listeners that requested the content? Furthermore, would it be legal for a radio station to boost transfer speed by rebroadcasting a song 100 times as fast as the song is normally played, but at 100 times the bitrate so the song could be reconstructed at the client end? If so, how are these situations different than outright file sharing via P2P?