I’m a big Amos ‘n’ Andy fan. I would like to get episodes of this Fifties TV series, but because of its so-called “racist” nature, there are none legally avaiable anywhere - I assume that whoever owns the copyright has no intention of releasing the episodes on video. (Any tapes you see are bootlegs).
My question is, if Amos ‘n’ Andy appeared on any of the filesharing networks, would it be ethical to download them, considering that there is no way now or in the forseeable future to buy them legally?
No. Your desire to see something is unaffected by the copyright.
Consider the following case, of a porn movie made by an actor before he became famous. The actor decided to purchase the rights to the rights to the movie because he didn’t want it released. The movie will never be legally available if he holds the rights, correct? Regardless of your desire to see that movie, why should the copyright be violated?
Now, this isn’t quite the same thing, but IMO the principle holds. Your desire to see something (regardless of whether it will or will not cause monetary loss) doesn’t trump the rights of the copyright holder.
You also have no idea if the copyright holder will change their mind and someday release the shows. Either way, I don’t see it as your call.
What about if there is no current copyright holder? I’m thinking of an example where I want to play an old, early '80s computer game on my current setup (say via emulation), but I can’t buy a copy of the original game, the company that made it has long since gone out of business, and no one has inherited the rights to it. Would it be considered public domain at that point, or what?
I have two questions here: One, what do you mean by “abandoned” copyright?; and two, how do you know that the original copyright hasn’t expired. It could be that someone owns the shows themselves but not the copyright.
Okay…three questions :D:
I recall Johnny Carson being furious when he found out NBC had destroyed all the “kinescopes” of his early years on The Tonight Show. Kinescopes, as I understand them, are actually movies (35 mm, I believe) of televisions as the televisions themselves broadcast their shows. It could be that no kinescopes were ever made, or that they have either been lost, destroyed or degraded to the point of being unusable.
Someone probably does have the rights to it, but may not be aware or care that they do. When a company dissolves, the assets go somewhere, either to the purchaser or to the stakeholders (e.g. partners, corporate shareholders, etc.) If the company that made the game was merged into another company, the intangible assets probably travelled with that merger. The point is, the rights went somewhere. It’s not like someone took the copyright and pitched it by the side of the road.
Ethically: Certainly you have the right. The only ethical basis for copyright protection is to protect the financial interests of those who create intellectual property. If nobody is selling the item in question, there is no financial loss, and no ethical issue.
Legally: You don’t have a leg to stand on. If it’s under copyright protection, you can’t legally obtain a free copy without the holder’s permission. And chances are SOMEONE holds the right, they’ve just abandoned the property. But if someone happens to have big snarly lawyers and notices a lot of people donwloading their property, they’ll probably decide that lawsuits are a good way to make a quick buck.
It’s the same issue as squatting in an abandoned house. There’s nothing actually wrong with it, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get busted at some point.
[QUOTE=laigle]
. Legally: You don’t have a leg to stand on. If it’s under copyright protection…
[QUOTE]
That’s a big “if.” Copyright laws have changed at least a couple of times since the 50’s. For one thing, material created before 1978 that does not have a legal copyright notice in plain view loses its copyright protection once the original term of copyright expires. This does not apply to material created after 1978.
If you’re talking about ethics, since I don’t buy into absolutes, I would answer : it depends.
In the case of the “abandonwares” (the computer games produced in the 80’s and which are unavailable essentially because companies which produced them either don’t see the point in trying to sell them or have dissapeared), I would have no qualms with that. Actually, I do download such games, though I don’t download games which are still available for sale.
In the case of the porn movies made 20 years ago by someone who don’t want them to be available anymore, then it wouldn’t be ethical to try getting bootleg copies.
I would decide on a case per case basis. Similarily, I would never state an absolute ethical rule which would result in putting in the same category someone who “stole” a discarded sandwich in your garbage can and someone who stole your TV set in your bedroom.
I disagree. At a minimum you are removing the rightsholders choice to release them at some point in the future. And that’s ethically wrong.
Now if it’s fallen out of copyright then have at it. But if it’s still held then someone went to at least SOME trouble to preserve those rights…therefore they’ve expressed the desire to use, at some point, those right…even if their use of those rights entirely consists of not making the product available to the public.
I don’t agree that a copyright holder ethically has the right to withhold the copyrighted works. If and when he chooses to sell them in the future, then you can talk about it being unethical to keep distributing copies; until then, he is only abusing copyright.
Should all things then be available for distribution? What’s to keep someone from saying (I quote a well-known musician here…or at least paraphrase)…
“We put this song together. Recorded and mixed it. But then we decided it just wasn’t very good. So we never released it as we didn’t feel it properly represented what we wanted to acheive.”
The copyright holder himself shouldn’t be forced to release it, but other people who obtain copies shouldn’t be prevented from doing so themselves, unless the copyright holder has concrete plans to release it within a reasonable timeframe.
Actually, there’s a peculiar grey area called “abandoned ware.” According to some friends of mine, abandond ware is software that hasn’t been in production for a certain amount of time (or with new versions released).
My attempts, back in the day didn’t lead me to anything conclusive as to the legality. Some sites seemed to be pretty extensive and I’m sure someone would have tried to shut them down.
Are you talking about DMB’s Lillywhite Sessions? That’s a very interesting case. They didn’t want it to be released, but their fans got screwed out of some pretty good music. You have to respect DMB’s wishes, but I can also see that it’s not really fair to their fans…
But shouldn’t an artist or group have the right to withhold work they feel is inferior? Poor material out and about could adversely affect their reputation and sales.
IANAL, but legally, I don’t think it’s a gray area at all. Unless the work is very, very old, someone holds the copyright, and someone will continue to hold it until the work is so old that no one cares about it anymore. In the case of software, by the time the copyright expires, the only computers that’ll still be able to run it will be in museums and landfills.
Of course, since copyright infringement is a tort against the copyright holder, not a crime against The People of The Great State of <wherever you are>, the law won’t be enforced if the copyright holder doesn’t care about enforcing it, or isn’t even aware that he holds the copyright.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what you’re really asking is: Should an artist or group have the right to take back something that they’ve already released? (After all, if they really withheld it in the first place, no one else would have a copy to distribute.)
In my opinion, no, they should not. They don’t own the material, they only have a temporary monopoly on distributing it. That monopoly is there so that they can be reimbursed for the effort they put into it, and to entice them to create more works with the prospect of being reimbursed for those–not so that they can decide which works people get to enjoy.
No disrespect intended but I must disagree. What I was asking was something more along the lines of what **Jonathan Chance ** said: “We put this song together. Recorded and mixed it. But then we decided it just wasn’t very good. So we never released it as we didn’t feel it properly represented what we wanted to acheive.”
I wasn’t speaking of something released that copyright holder wanted to call back, but of something created and then deemed undesirable.
My understanding of copyright law is that the holder does indeed own the material (the original material at any rate) and that it may not be reproduced or sold or even duplicated (fair use exempted) without the permission of the copyright holder. I don’t believe it’s accurate that the copyright holder only owns a temporary monopoly on distributing it. He/she can withhold it; pass it on to others with or without permission to the recipient to sell or reproduce the item; make it part of his/her estate, etc. The legal copyright holder, as long as the copyright is valid, has complete and total control over the material that was created.
However, if, like it has been said before, if the copyright holder is unaware of the infraction being perpetrated, or doesn’t care, then one can violate the copyright and suffer no consequences. And IANAL either, but once a copyright has been violated, the person commiting the violation opens him/herself to potentially expensive repercussions at some time in future (and at a time not of their choosing ).
Ah, but as we all know, you don’t just want to not allow artists who release their work to not be able to “take it back,” you also think it’s perfectly fine for someone who sees a creative work in someone else’s private residence to make copies of that work and then distribute these copies to the world. You also think that it’s morally okay for a photo lab to copy and publicly distribute copies of their customers’ photographs. Same goes for a framing shop—you think that they should be able to distribute copies of any of their customers’ paintings.
I know, I know. Old news. But I just can’t forget how emphatically you stated that you thought that was okay.
).