tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post2618192103144700849..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: What RIAA Has Said About Home TapingWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-79587881239039782342009-08-10T13:31:57.783-04:002009-08-10T13:31:57.783-04:00The following compromise seem to me to be in the p...The following compromise seem to me to be in the public interest. <br /><br />1. Agree that we are going to do all that we can from a legal and technological perspective to protect copyrighted works.<br /><br />2. Greatly reduce the length of copyright protection. (5 years? 10 years? Twenty years?)<br /><br />The corporations could focus on making money on new works.<br /><br />People would available to them a vast library of classic music and literature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-35975969611462873312008-06-17T23:44:00.000-04:002008-06-17T23:44:00.000-04:00im pretty sure shoplifting and file sharing withou...im pretty sure shoplifting and file sharing without permission are quite a bit different legally sweets...<BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/>Anne<BR/><BR/>______________________<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.HoustonFreeHomeSearch.com " REL="nofollow">Dream Homes The Heights</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-85764183114257520202008-06-04T20:10:00.000-04:002008-06-04T20:10:00.000-04:00I have thoroughly enjoyed this blog, and specifica...I have thoroughly enjoyed this blog, and specifically, the dialogue between "Craig" and "William". I'm not going to take sides, but offer a thought for consideration. America's economy is struggling in many areas, especially in media as of late. Yes, technology enables the youth of today to obtain movies, music, programs, etc. illegally. Why do they do it? Its free, and everyone is doing it, its like telling them they cant take candy out of the jar, but also telling them the chances of them getting in trouble are slim. Everyone is doing it, how is the government going to punish them? Put the next generation of the workforce into prison, or fine them $250,000, when they are already too far in debt? Consider this, even though copying or file-sharing is illegal, its one of the biggest ways to advertise or popularize an item, song, program, or movie. Also, why does everyone have an ipod or mp3 player? Because nobody wants to listen to the same artist for an hour on a CD. Sure, the first couple times around are nice, but then it becomes annoying and repetitive. Also, the musicians and artists of today only have one or two "hit" tracks worth listening to on the CD. So instead of buying the whole album for the two songs, it is a lot easier and CHEAPER, to get on the computer, and download what you want, and skip the rest of the mediocre tracks. This way, you can have a wide range of artists, albums, and genres on your mp3 player, and you dont even have to take 10 seconds to change CDs to find that one "hit" song you want to hear right at that moment. Also, I hate CDs with a passion because of how flimsy and vulnerable they are to damage. I dont have time to pamper my music, and next thing you know, my $20.00 CD is worthless in a couple hours, because its already skipping. I believe, if copyright laws were enforced more strictly, and the public was scared enough into submission, mp3 player sales would dwindle or fall, musicians would lose popularity, nobody could afford to buy all the CDs they wanted, and everyone would move onto the next thing. Piracy, theft, and abuse has been around since the second man was introduced to the earth. As soon as someone has something nice, everybody else wants it, and will even take great risks to get it. <BR/><BR/>Also, I smile every time somebody talks about "making a backup copy". Lets not be naive, who serriously has the time, room, and patience to make a copy of every DVD or CD in their collection. I dont even have time to backup important documents on my personal computer. Back in high school, I would sometimes ask if i could bring a DVD into class and illustrate a point through a movie or clip, and the teacher would turn me down because of "legalities". These "legalities" kept me from clearly proving a point or helping my classmates learn something. So I had to restort to verbally explaining or using another method. Licensing creates many issues in the world of education. Does anyone here have any idea how many high school and college students carry $800.00+ programs on their laptops using the school's licensing rights? How much of that is legal? Also, does anyone realise how much hacking, file sharing, and copying has made the youth of today so computer litterate? If it wasn'tt for MySpace for example, none of the kids would know about "code" or "html". How many of the images they use are illegally copied or used? Truthfully, I believe this "problem" of copyright infringement has made Americans who we are, what we know, and how we know it. Forgive the structure, grammer, and flow, but I just had to hurriedly leave a couple thoughts for you to consider. <BR/><BR/>And forgive me Willaim, but the quote "...when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail..." simply killed me. Even if it isn't best utilized in this blog, it is still a GREAT quote to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1981506304760295862008-02-13T02:28:00.000-05:002008-02-13T02:28:00.000-05:00Thank you for your blog, I work in education and u...Thank you for your blog, I work in education and unfortunately my best source of information about the RIAA's Copyright Crusades is normally news media. The old satirical <I>Onion</I> article "I have an Ipod--IN MY MIND" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33642 suddenly seems disconcerting, when simple everyday actions can lead to persecution of the individual and the intrusion and fear seems limitless. What I do not understand is why people are putting up with this. In a program evaluation graduate course I'm currently taking a student asked if keeping the results of a privately funded program evaluation was illegal. The professor, trying to appear fair-minded, didn't answer her (Much like our recording industry friends) and instead explained that being open about one's performance raises reputation. I pointedly stated that the results of a survey is one's property and there's no need to disclose every minor negative or problem, doing so would likely destroy a good company.<BR/>...My response led to a general lambasting of myself best paraphrased as "without rules to force people to do the right thing, everyone will just lie." It feels like the RIAA situation is the same. The majority of our country is not tech savvy or even aware of the progression of these events, so public attitude is the result of a simple distillation from headlines and conversations and those headlines are vapid and the conversations uninformed, with the record labels doing a better job getting their tale across than the knowledgable journalists. Hopefully the existence of more media like this bog will change that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-72921270256530747402008-02-06T04:50:00.000-05:002008-02-06T04:50:00.000-05:00It is amazing to note that with regard to Audio Ta...It is amazing to note that with regard to <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.e-audiotapes.com " REL="nofollow">Audio Tapes</A> that “DAT poses the most significant technological threat the American music industry has ever faced.” Further, there are so many discounts available for audio tapes in the market.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-25807229092325191872008-01-20T15:53:00.000-05:002008-01-20T15:53:00.000-05:00While all of the attention on the personal copying...While all of the attention on the personal copying issue has been focused on RIIA’s view of the matter, what about the position of movie studios? On January 18th, the New York Times’ “Bits” section had a discussion of sorts between Rick Cotton, GC of NBC/Universal, and Professor Tim Wu. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/bits-debate-on-the-rights-of-readers-and-viewers/#more-843<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here are Mr. Cotton’s views:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Rick Cotton: Once again I am going to separate the legal answer from the consumer proposition. Simply put, copying a DVD is not fair use, as a legal matter. Never has been. But that is not and should not be the end of the discussion. We have to ask ourselves what’s a “fair” and attractive offer for consumers?<BR/><BR/>"If consumers want multiple or backup copies, content companies have an obvious incentive to meet that demand. In the physical world, that is not easy. To permit easy decryption unfortunately opens the flood gates to unlimited digital copying and distribution. NBCU, like many content companies, does have policies in place to replace at a discount DVDs that wear out. But we recognize that is awkward and far from ideal.<BR/><BR/>"But, looking forward, one of the exciting characteristics of the new, digital world is that technology will allow us greater flexibility to respond to consumer desires. In some of our new digital download services, we are looking at creating a “three-copy” model that empowers consumers to have files that can be loaded into various devices. In addition, we’re offering viewers download-to-own movies on Amazon Unbox and via iTunes. They can choose to download commercial free episodes of our TV shows or watch free, streaming, ad-supported programs on our websites. We’ve offered fans material from “Battlestar Galactica” and “The Office” to create mashups. And we expect to expand those offerings both on our websites and on Hulu.com.<BR/><BR/>"We would also hope for cooperation from the consumer electronics industry to create a secure, managed copy capability on DVD players of the future enabling encrypted copies for personal use. Digital technology holds the key to new capabilities that will create a secure copying functionality in the home while protecting digital content from unwarranted piracy."<BR/><BR/>While Mr. Cotton’s answer is admirably clear (like Jay Berman of RIAA’s before Congress) is there legally something dispositively different about DVDs from, say the home taping permitted in Sony? Or, copying a VHS for personal use? Right before the holidays, my twins wanted the Star Wars trilogy; I looked in all the major retail outlets in NYC, but not a copy was to be found; I did find a used one at a small store in Grand Central Terminal, and was assured it was as good as new. (I inspected the discs and they were clean). But after a few viewings, they deteriorated, and Episode IV became unwatchable. Having more time, I ordered a new set from amazon.com. So what should I do now: make back-up copies, or pay, at a discounted rate for a third set of copies when these wear out, assuming the studio (Fox) has such a policy?William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-57156132491266051762008-01-09T09:59:00.000-05:002008-01-09T09:59:00.000-05:00Patry sayeth:"I went out into my back garage where...Patry sayeth:<BR/><BR/>"I went out into my back garage where I keep, in no order at all, hundreds of older Congressional committee reports and hearing transcripts. After two trips, I found what I was looking for:"<BR/><BR/>Dude (said in the finest Budweiser commercial tone), <A HREF="http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/computing/peripheral/scanners/ss/feature/" REL="nofollow">this</A> item should be on your acquisition list post haste.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-32203697761107327622008-01-08T16:23:00.000-05:002008-01-08T16:23:00.000-05:00Friends, If everyone is afraid that the RIAA wil...Friends, <BR/><BR/> If everyone is afraid that the RIAA will litigate against them for putting content from a CD onto their computer or ipod (shared or not) what will the result be? In other words, why this story from Fisher, why the widespread media attention, and why now? After all, the slippery slope argument and RIAA lawsuits have been around for awhile...<BR/><BR/> Well, I think other established parties have a stake in initiating this discourse. People who own CDs but fear litigation from the RIAA will go to iTunes and buy the album or tracks that they already own in CD format rather than uploading their collection wholesale. So the result will be sales for iTunes that otherwise are lost in translation from one medium to another. Furthermore, the CD is removed from the transaction. <BR/><BR/> The RIAA must understand this, or they would not have retracted the statements made my the Sony rep in Capitol v. Thomas and would not have gone on NPR (of all places) to debate a guy like Fisher, who in this instance, is wrong. The RIAA does not want people to be afraid to buy CDs and afraid they can only use them in a CD player. Even if RIAA members get a 15% or 20% cut from iTunes, if the members lose the relevancy of the CD they sell as a means of content distribution, it loses everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-38687044682556378792008-01-08T15:57:00.000-05:002008-01-08T15:57:00.000-05:00On e-mail lists, one knows to use an emoticon to e...On e-mail lists, one knows to use an emoticon to ensure that no one mistakes a tongue in cheek comment. Sarcasm often fails without a wink or intonation that clarifies the intent.<BR/><BR/>I'm just a passerby, can see that you are a serious sort, talking about serious topics so I didn't possess the secret decoder ring to your tongue in cheek comment.<BR/><BR/>As for misstatements, I wonder if my rage towards this entire drama (RIAA vs the American public) is all that unusual, it's just been my experience that the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys wearing black hats for easy identification seems so lost on me. The lawyers that take the cases for the defendants likely make considerably less than the other side, argue the right motions (hopefully) but at the end of the day, they go home and do their thing but for the defendants, it's entirely personal. How many of them will end up having to declare bankruptcy? How many of them will have to sell of their cars, houses, belongings, etc?<BR/><BR/>You can be happy now, <A HREF="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14581" REL="nofollow">WaPo has issued a retraction.</A><BR/><BR/>That must means things are safe and we can now rip the CD's we own to our hard drive. < decoder_ring >That was sarcasm< /decoder_ring >Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-44909605286137109132008-01-08T14:34:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:34:00.000-05:00On the Cary Sherman reference, I think you complet...On the Cary Sherman reference, I think you completely missed the tongue in cheek nature of that, and once again seriously misstate things.<BR/><BR/>I never said I wouldn't draft something unless I was being paid to do so; clearly I would not be paid and wasn't asking to be paid for it. My blog, for example, is advertising free, and is hosted by Blogger, which if I did run ads, would be run through my employer's Ad program. But I keep a complete separation of my personal thoughts from my work for my employer, even when, as here, I could earn money from doing so. And, 5 days a week, I spend a lot of time researching material and putting it online for free for so that issues can be discussed in an intelligent way. That is what I am interested in enabling. I have no idea what if anything you enable.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-44130725516417580512008-01-08T14:16:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:16:00.000-05:00William, I think you feel the same sense of anger ...William, I think you feel the same sense of anger at me that I feel for the entire industry that has caused this predicament. I see that as a good thing. I see all the players, regardless of whether they advocate for plaintiff or defendants pretty much as enablers for the process.<BR/><BR/>I guess what really set me off was the comment that you made, the second on the list...<I>Yes, if only I were paid what Cary Sherman has been paid, I would get right on it, or more likely, retire...</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you just didn't realize the impact that someone would take away from those sentiments.<BR/><BR/>In Howell, I see a guy that was originally offered a $6,000 out of court settlement with RIAA. He refused and was ordered to pay $40,000 from original summary judgment order which was vacated since he figured out that he was in deep doodoo and made a meager defense. I doubt that the outcome will change after the current round but that's yet to be seen.<BR/><BR/>I was aghast seeing you couch your participation in this obvious inequity from the view of your wallet.<BR/><BR/>At least I appreciate your honesty.<BR/><BR/>CraigAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1542242688528990752008-01-08T13:59:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:59:00.000-05:00Indeed, DM, that is the subject of tomorrow's blog...Indeed, DM, that is the subject of tomorrow's blogWilliam Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-68185859549714495212008-01-08T13:56:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:56:00.000-05:00With somewhat perfect timing, the UK has published...With somewhat perfect timing, the UK has published a proposed series of amendments to their copyright laws, specifically making the personal copying of music between digital storage devices legal:-<BR/><BR/>http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-consult/about-formal/about-formal-current/consult-copyrightexceptions.htm<BR/><BR/>Currently the practice is not legal (the equivalent fair use clauses in the UK are outdated and so the wording is impossible to bend to fit as with the USA). Consultation runs until April and already the music industry bodies are wringing their hands and weeping theatrically...<BR/><BR/>DMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-21604507054879673842008-01-08T12:59:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:59:00.000-05:00Craig, I don't think it is being defensive to obje...Craig, I don't think it is being defensive to object when you say,falsely and in an ad hominem way, as you did:<BR/><BR/>"Personally, I don't think that you are at all interested in advancing the cause for the American public but rather weigh in because it fits your charade as contributing to a solution...which clearly, you aren't."<BR/><BR/>What could you possibly base that on? That had nothing to do within your inability to parse legal arguments; you don't know me personally, and you know nothing about how I have comported myself in being a copyright lawyer for over 25 years. Do you think I went to all the trouble I did in researching the issue and then writing it, and offering a solution, because I was engaged in a charade? And what's the charade, offering a concrete solution, one used in many European countries? What's your non-charade solution, then? <BR/><BR/>You seem to think that the only way people will address important issues is if others' views are serially misstated. I hope other journalists don't share your approach.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-81449612031492286412008-01-08T11:41:00.000-05:002008-01-08T11:41:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, I didn't mean to impugn that you were e...I'm sorry, I didn't mean to impugn that you were endorsing Dennis DeConcini by my reference, I guess I have made you a bit defensive (probably not a bad thing altogether though).<BR/><BR/>Here's my issue in a nutshell.<BR/><BR/>For the purpose of what Mark Fisher accomplished via his article, he completely hit the nail on the head. Some 4 days after publication of his article, during whatever you want to call it that happened on NPR, it became clear that users simply cannot assume that if they possess a digital copy of their store bought CD's on their hard drive to be a legal. Cary Sherman had several opportunities to provide clarity, as you pointed out, and refused to do so. Once can only conclude that this is lack of clarity is deliberate.<BR/><BR/>I don't know Mark Fisher's background and it seemed evident that he wasn't capable of advocating the legal argument he appeared to be making but the story wasn't the legal argument itself, but rather, the notion that there is a slippery slope to be navigated.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, plaintiff in their pleading does not delineate which part of the equation constituted the legal act (possessing the digital copies or them being in a shared folder) and what made it illegal, or to add further confusion, "unauthorized". Clearly plaintiff is unconcerned as to how they got there. Plaintiff was aware that kazaa is more than capable of sharing music files without defendant's knowledge <A HREF="http://www.ftc.gov/reports/p2p05/050623p2prpt.pdf" REL="nofollow">FTC Report on Peer to Peer File Sharing Technlogy</A> which RIAA had comments embedded. Page 8 has specific references but I would guess that you are already familiar with this document.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point simply is...a newspaper reporter, like myself has no chance arguing the legal merits of a technical legal case but the public that reads those columns was clearly not ill served by the entire exchange. It was healthy, informative.<BR/><BR/>I think that this issue on a larger scale is reflected by the wave that Barack Obama is currently riding. The American public is getting sick and tired of the same people coming up with the same confused solutions to the same problems (not that I am suggesting that I believe that Barack Obama actually will change that). The fact is, the dialog is jaded, couched in buzzwords that reflect retroactive thinking and the truth is, there is a very big problem which needs to be solved.<BR/><BR/>CraigAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-76904683147694258042008-01-08T11:26:00.000-05:002008-01-08T11:26:00.000-05:00So, the RIAA's position in 1987 was that home copy...So, the RIAA's position in 1987 was that home copying for personal use was "commercial," presumably because the alternative was a commercial act -- buying another copy. Or, as Jack Valenti said, buy another copy if you want a backup (he was probably more eloquent.)<BR/><BR/>But, then the AHRA comes along and protects "noncommercial" copying. Of course, under the RIAA's definition of "commercial," this doesn't buy you much.<BR/><BR/>This definition of commercial, however, is so broad that nearly ever use would be commercial. After all, if I wanted to use a copyrighted work, I could (nearly) always buy a license to use it. The only time that the use stops being commercial is if the copyright owner outright refuses to license for that use.<BR/><BR/>Under the RIAA's definition, then, both fair use and the AHRA defense are almost completely foreclosed.Christopher Fulmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16543538534660568711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-57073489710245652882008-01-08T10:34:00.000-05:002008-01-08T10:34:00.000-05:00Craig, all of us have the obligation to use hammer...Craig, all of us have the obligation to use hammers and nails honestly. For example, the reference to DeConcini was merely quoting questions he posed. How quoting someone is endorsing them or anything they say is a mystery.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you and I disagree at all in how, ultimately, the problem should be resolved. I think there should be a clear statutory exemption for home taping, and it is only Congress that legislates such laws.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-31938952724353655202008-01-08T10:17:00.000-05:002008-01-08T10:17:00.000-05:00per William Patry...Craig, I disagree with everyth...per William Patry...<BR/><I>Craig, I disagree with everything you said. I actually proposed a solution, and one that is not only very pro-consumer, but one designed to eliminate the very atmosphere of illegality that we both find so troubling.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry William but when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.<BR/><BR/>When a technology is so obtuse that even the FTC says that the average user is unaware that he is doing something illegal, the technology has invented an entire class of criminals which is randomly punishing people.<BR/><BR/>I am in technology and I understand that the industry claims copyright restrictions and therefore you won't find the programs like kazaa or limewire on my computers and I have purchased well over 600 CD's and have no interest in trading songs.<BR/><BR/>I am not a lawyer, have never read through copyright law and would never presume to be knowledgeable about copyright law but it's evident to me that if the law is so fuzzy that the legal community cannot clearly define what the boundaries are then it is the legal community that must shoulder the blame for this morass. The sad fact is that the average citizen has no more ability to discern what their legal options are with CD's that they have purchased than they have nailing jello to the wall.<BR/><BR/>I note with amusement that you referred to Dennis DeConcini as someone, while in Congress who was concerned with the music industry and their efforts to muddy the water concerning the users' rights because it is Dennis DeConcini's firm that is representing RIAA in Atlantic v. Howell.<BR/><BR/>I vaguely recall some concept of lawyers believing that the fight for the little guy was the one battle worth winning.<BR/><BR/>CraigAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-44286016311616444382008-01-08T09:51:00.000-05:002008-01-08T09:51:00.000-05:00YFTL, because fair use is ad hoc and really post h...YFTL, because fair use is ad hoc and really post hoc (you don't know it is fair use until the judge/jury says it is), an exemption for personal use is a much better way to go: if you fit within the type of conduct Congress wants to permit, that's it, no liability. The trick with exemptions is to carefully draft who is in and who is out, and that's why it takes time to figure out. There are a number of exemptions in the Act: Sections 108 (library photocopying), 109 (first sale), 110 (noncommercial performances), etc.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-65089337805222215452008-01-08T09:29:00.000-05:002008-01-08T09:29:00.000-05:00The biggest legislative failing of the current fai...The biggest legislative failing of the current fair use statute is the risk of using it. There is a huge downside to going to trial and raising the fair use defense, but there's no downside in trying to abridge that right.<BR/><BR/>The same thing comes up in most of the proposals here too. It seems to me that any exceptions that impose a significant burden of proof on an individual to prove the exception and without penalty to the putative enforcer for attempting to abridge those rights is doomed to the same failure as fair use.<BR/><BR/>If we value fair use, we should not allow copyright owners to attempt to enforce their rights contrary to fair use / personal use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-75572989794013577092008-01-08T07:43:00.000-05:002008-01-08T07:43:00.000-05:00In Polish copyright law the so-called "allowed per...In Polish copyright law the so-called "allowed personal use" is permissible. To be precise, in Polish law the act which provides for the use is not called "Copyright Act", but in fact "Author’s Rights and Related Rights Act" (Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych), usually but imprecisely (according to many factors) translated into "Copyright Act".<BR/><BR/><EM><BR/>It shall be permissible, without the consent of the creator, to make personal use, free of charge, of a work that has already been disclosed. However, this provision shall not authorize the construction of a building based on an architectural work or a work of urban architecture made by another person.<BR/>2. Personal or private use shall extend to use within a circle of persons who are personally related, in particular by blood or marriage, or who entertain social relations.<BR/></EM><BR/>Art. 23(1-2). Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych, Dziennik Ustaw (Official Journal) from 1994, No 24, poz. 83 with later changes.<BR/><BR/>In this way generally:<BR/>- downloading and possesing (sic!) copyrighted works (except computer software) is legal,<BR/>- sharing (making available for someone else) is illegal,<BR/>- private copying - for personal use (except computer software, but again, you can make one backup copy) is legal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-25948877325576986322008-01-08T07:22:00.000-05:002008-01-08T07:22:00.000-05:00Craig, I disagree with everything you said. I actu...Craig, I disagree with everything you said. I actually proposed a solution, and one that is not only very pro-consumer, but one designed to eliminate the very atmosphere of illegality that we both find so troubling. <BR/><BR/>On your point about lawyers, if the issue is whether something is lawful, then obviously one has to talk about law, not whether the price of gas is too high. And I am far from the only one to complain about the Post's error; Tech Dirt, Slashdot and other very anti-RIAA sites did too, so why didn't you complain about them: are they tools of American corporations to you? Being truthful should be a concern to everyone. The Post reporter could have made the exact same points he wanted while still getting the story right; but he didn't, and neither did you in your comment. Its important to be intellectually honest and you have a long way to go in getting there.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-78499789579978201172008-01-07T23:54:00.000-05:002008-01-07T23:54:00.000-05:00The problem is that lawyers only see legal issues ...The problem is that lawyers only see legal issues when the reality is that lawyers and politicians have criminalized a significant cross section of the American public to the point where they say to themselves that the law is wrong. It's entirely absurd.<BR/><BR/>The American populace no longer has an advocate. Only corporations who do extensive lobbying, contributions, etc. get the legislation that they want and the public gets screwed.<BR/><BR/>So it's hardly surprising that when a newspaper columnist actually points out that people are screwing themselves by ripping the CD's that they already own in combination with software that most users don't comprehend the implications of installing become punching bags for that bastion of American corporate responsibility, the RIAA, a honored intellectual property lawyer such as yourself is critical because he is so concerned with their inaccuracy.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't think that you are at all interested in advancing the cause for the American public but rather weigh in because it fits your charade as contributing to a solution...which clearly, you aren't.<BR/><BR/>CraigAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-87602187279707505292008-01-07T19:38:00.000-05:002008-01-07T19:38:00.000-05:00Here's my suggestion. It's rather broad, but I thi...Here's my suggestion. It's rather broad, but I think that it's the only reasonable way to go in light of the prevailing cultural norms. The language likely needs a bit of work, but I hope that it gets the idea across. Additionally, I do not think that any of the provisions here should be proposed as 107A. First, it's inelegant. Second, these exceptions really don't have anything more to do with fair use than first sale does. This is sui generis, really.<BR/><BR/>Anyway:<BR/><BR/>(a) No act by a natural person not for commercial purposes or private financial gain shall be considered an infringement of copyright or a violation of any other right under this Title.<BR/><BR/>(b) For the purposes of this section, commercial purposes or private financial gain--<BR/>(1) include, but are not limited to, the copying, preparation of derivatives, distribution, public performance or display, of copyrighted works--<BR/>(A) where there is receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, in exchange for any works; or<BR/>(B) accompanied by advertising; and<BR/>(2) do not include, the copying, preparation of derivatives, distribution, public performance or display, of copyrighted works in the absence of the receipt or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, in exchange for any works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-24943861418550680002008-01-07T17:59:00.000-05:002008-01-07T17:59:00.000-05:00Here is my sketch of a possible provision:§107A. ...Here is my sketch of a possible provision:<BR/><BR/>§107A. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106(A) the personal use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. <BR/><BR/>§101 “Personal use” shall consist of the use of an authorized copy by the authorized copy owner for one or more of the following purposes:<BR/> (1) transferring, by any method now known or later developed, the copyrighted work from one tangible medium of expression to another tangible medium of expression, known or later developed;<BR/> (2) distributing, by any method now known or later developed, a copy of the authorized copy to members of the authorized copy owner’s household; or<BR/> (3) performing or displaying, by any method now known or later developed, the copyrighted work for member’s of the authorized copy owner’s household.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Any thoughts from our experts as to the best form for such an amendment, i.e. a section 107A or something else? <BR/><BR/>Thanks for starting a thread on this! And thanks to yftl for taking the first crack at it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com