There are most definitely some criminal laws against some copyright violations. Whether they apply here, I don’t know.
Ripping the soundtrack of a zombie movie would definitely be problematic.
P.S. Whether breaking the law is wrong, even if the law doesn’t involve immorality, is itself immoral is a whole new ball of wax that would require a new thread.
I had a VHS Duplicator - the same machine the ‘factory’ used to cut your store-bought VHS tapes.
It would happily copy any source - and there was a nice Video rental store handy.
Never did get around to strip-mining it.
I also have a DVD player which will strip out region code and CSS encryption.
Never used it either.
Ask your radio station to play any of the Shatner or Nimoy ‘songs’ - they’re hilarious, and the station probably still has the (gasp!) records.
They won’t play them over the air - the Broadcast Rights for those dried up decades ago.
But they were still re-released on Rino Records CD’s.
US Copyright law is bizarre - the DMCA (the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) was specifically triggered when the 1927 ‘Steamboat Willie’ (first appearance of Mickey Mouse) was set to expire (70 years for Copyright).
The Law lost all credibility with that maneuver.
Why would this be true when it’s not true for any other music of that era? Can you provide a cite?
This, however, is true. People have said this dozens of times here and will continue to do so as long as necessary.
My cite on Broadcast rights was the Morning DJ a KFOG (SF) - he made a point of coming up with bizarre tunes for Friday the !3th.
One of them was a collection of Shatner/Nimoy which pushed the boundaries of ‘Fair Use’.
His explanation of why he couldn’t play the entire songs was Copyright - specifically, the Broadcast Rights.
KFOG once stopped playing a ‘regular’ when it was pointed out that, although they had some rights to the piece, they had not paid for Broadcast rights. I take they considered the point important.
The various ‘rights’ under US law come/came up on these boards whenever someone wants to start a Bar/Restaurant/Studio and wants/wanted to take their CD’s and play them in a commercial environment.
Personal/Commercial/Broadcast
Do they even bother with Youtube anymore?
I collected the WB Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies. As part of that exercise, I became aware of 11 shorts not shown since 1968, for ‘racial sensitivities’. They continued to show many that were even more offensive, but they would go after anyone distributing them.
There is one which is always listed in the top 25 of any list of Greatest Cartoons 1920-1970.
I made a habit of seeing how quickly it would be quashed on YouTube.
There for a few years, it was a game - see if the collectors could put it up before WB/YouTube caught it.
Now, there are so many copies, the posters don’t even play games with the title any more.
Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves (spelling may or may not count)
You are correct that the CTEA probably would have passed if Disney disappeared, but people who use the Disney argument in this discussion are simply using Disney as a sort of metonym for corporate interests, and there is little doubt that corporate interests were crucial to the passing of the Act.
You say that the US and European systems “had to be reconciled,” but all you’re doing is presenting as an assumption the very thing that was up for grabs in the debate. You act like this is some sort of self-evident truth, but that misrepresents the situation. Plenty of minds at least as good as yours, including Nobel-winning economists like Milton Friedman and a bevy of intellectual property lawyers, did not, in fact, believe that the systems needed to be reconciled. That doesn’t make you wrong, per se, but it does mean that your position is not as unassailable as you seem to be asserting.
Some, in fact, argued that Congress had a primary duty not to reconcile with European standards, but to determine whether the extension of copyright would actually serve the interests of the United States as defined in the Constitution. The European directive to reconcile copyright terms, which led to the extension in Europe from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author, was part of an EU directive, and was not a requirement of a Berne convention itself. It’s not like the United States has a stellar record of aligning itself with European practices in other areas, and they could have said to Europe, “We think the terms we have are just about right, and if you feel the need to reconcile them, you can bring yours down.”
Curiously I have seen most of these, including Coal Black. In the cinema. About 15 years ago one of the local art house cinemas ran a once only screening of the whole lot, in a late night session. So it is possible. They aren’t really all that good, but the wartime ones were certainly eyebrow raising for their overt racism.
One of the members of a board dedicated to the WB shorts mentioned that he had all 11 on 35mm.
That board closed down, but another had incredible screen shots of Coal Black - perfect color and saturation.
I do wish the folks at WB had had the guts to put them out. If Disney can release their stuff, so could have WB.
Last I heard, the LT/MM are now in the ‘historical interest’ section of WB - no longer in active play.
So, with the disappearance of physical media, the best we can hope for is a decent bit stream somewhere.
Well, there’s a definite cite. Hard to believe that a morning DJ could be wrong about fine points in the law. I can’t find a single cite on the internet confirming this, but why should that stop you? I mean, a morning DJ.
Yes and no. usedtobe spewed the standard nonsense of Steamboat Willie. That’s not just “corporate interests.” That’s an example of urban mythology similar to folk etymology, in which a plausible sounding specific scenario is invented out of whole cloth. Claiming that Disney did it because of “Steamboat Willie” shows a total lack of understanding of IP law and indeed any of the complex issues involved and makes it a story about “Them.”
Corporate interests certainly were involved and they certainly made the change inevitable, but many creatives also publicly pushed for the change. What you’re arguing is whether the change was desirable, a different argument entirely. In our real world the two systems had to be reconciled. That may not be true on whatever world Milton Friedman lives but there the rainbows are made of methane and gold dust fairies sprinkle the atmosphere with vitamins.
Again, this is not a rational argument; it’s simply a syllogism.
“I agree with the decision made by Congress.
I live in the rational world.
Therefore in the rational world the two systems had to be reconciled.
QED”
All this despite the fact that hundreds of actual copyright lawyers and constitutional lawyers and economists (not JUST Milton Friedman, as you dishonestly imply), as well as politicians who were aware of America’s obligations under the Berne Convention, made extensive arguments showing that the two systems did not, in fact, HAVE to be reconciled, and that the change did not actually serve the purposes of copyright protection as established in the constitution.
As i suggested earlier, it’s not necessarily that you’re wrong on the issue. Clearly, there are differing opinions. But your dismissiveness and illogic in making your case does you little credit. I’ve not noticed you to shun rationality and logic in your debating tactics before. Is it just this topic that pushes your buttons somehow?
The Berne Convention has been signed by 168 nations. That’s fairly close to all of them.
But …
-
The basic term recommended in the Berne Convention is 50 years, not 70 that the USofA has.
-
The individual copyright rules do not* agree among those 168 countries. Basic stuff like copyright terms vary quite a bit. The USofA, for example has an uncommon rule about works for hire. (The Disney gift.)
Plus there are all sorts of special exceptions, variations, etc. Not all media are treated similarly in all countries. When terms get extended, how this applies to older works is a complete mess.
One of my favorite special exceptions copyright is the one on Peter Pan in the UK.
The main focus of the Berne Convention is allowing someone to copyright a work in one country and then gain some protection in all other signatory countries (in theory).
I have absolutely no idea why people keep insisting that the Berne Convention somehow enforces extra lengthy copyright terms. And that Disney was a major lobbyist during the last round of term extensions in the US is beyond dispute.
- That listing only gives current terms. Prior terms, even after signing the Berne Convention, are a still larger greater mess.
I think you’re misreading my intent. I mean only that the reconciliation with the European Union was a political and economic reality that opposition forces had no possibility of averting. I have never stated that the increase was the best choice to make, or even that it was superior to the alternatives. I’m on record here as saying that I don’t like current copyright lengths and that the extra time for corporate copyrights is the worst part of the law. I preferred the concept behind the pre-1976 system in which copyright was for 28 years but allowed for a 28-year extension.
What I’m against the ridiculous reductionism of people who want to get their hands on stuff for nothing. Calling the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 the Sonny Bono Act is preposterous. Bono was one of a dozen sponsors of the bill and died before the final debate and vote. Calling it the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is equally silly, for reasons I gave above. That reduces a serious issue to mockery.
Actually, many serious issues, most notably the piracy that usedtobe brags about. Solving the problem of orphan copyrights is a serious issue. Making facts available online from copyrighted works is a serious issue. Funding the Library of Congress to process registration of copyright in the first place is a serious issue. (One of the issues with extensions was that the underfunded LoC staff never were able to handle them properly. They can barely handle electronic registration today so a huge additional task is impossible.) Worrying about which 1928 items will enter into the public domain in the next decade is one of the lesser problems.
The online argument over copyright is almost entirely fraudulent. The complainants are almost entirely from people wanting free stuff. The Internet makes it all too easy to succumb to that temptation. That’s the real copyright problem, not the babble from people who say the equivalent of that the Iraq war was about oil. I can be against that without being for the Iraq war. If you allow the argument to be defined by people with a false assumption no progress can ever be made.
But in your earlier post you complained that “What you’re arguing is whether the change was desirable, a different argument entirely.”
But that’s at the heart of the issue. While you might be right that the political and economic realities of the time made it difficult to oppose and (in the end) impossible to prevent the passing of the Act, this is not the same as saying that “the two systems had to be reconciled.”
The latter claim implies inevitability, indeed coercion. But there is nothing in the Berne Convention, or in the US Constitution, that required the US Congress to pass the CTEA. Had the Congress, in fact, decided not to pass the Act, there were no provisions in either document that would penalize the United States. Basically, there was no compulsion, and where there is no compulsion what we are dealing with becomes, as you seem to recognize, a political and and economic decision. And such decisions are always made based on debates about what is and is not desirable.
When you say that “the two systems had to be reconciled,” and that the passing of the Act reflected the “political and economic reality that opposition forces had no possibility of averting,” all you are saying is that the people who found the Act desirable had more power and influence, at that particular time, than the people who opposed the Act.
By your definition, every single law passed, in the history of the world, was something that “had” to happen. This formulation makes the debate over desirability, which is a central issue in many legal discussions, completely moot.
Why?
You understand, i assume, that the term is actually written into the law itself, by the very people who supported and voted for the law. Here is a copy of the Act (pdf). As you can see, the very first section of the Act says:
Why is it preposterous to refer to the law by one of the very names that it’s authors assigned to it?
I agree with all of these things. So do many of the people i have read who oppose term extensions for copyright. It is, you know, possible to hold more than one thought in our puny minds at the same time, just like you can.
This is complete bullshit.
What i want, and what many of the people arguing this issue want, is copyright law that respects the original spirit of the Constitution. I want law that encourages and rewards the production of useful knowledge, but that also allows for dissemination of that knowledge, and that discourages things that the purchasing of copyrights (and patents, for that matter, but that’s a separate issue) for the purpose of profiteering. I want copyright laws that don’t do an end-run around the Fair Use provisions of Title 17, as so much of the DMCA did. Like you, i want them to fix the issue of orphaned works. I think they should also strengthen laws against people who claim copyright on out-of-copyright works, and who make bad-faith efforts to intimidate people out of reproducing such works.
I don’t deny that some people just want to steal stuff, but you know what? Most of the provisions in current copyright law aren’t preventing them from doing that anyway. They do it, and they get away with it, and adding another 20 years to copyright terms doesn’t change that. While there might be plenty of online debaters who are merely pirates looking for justification, it’s disingenuous to focus on that as the only place where these debates are happening. If you look to Reddit or 4Chan or whatever for understanding the debate, you’ll probably find a lot of people who don’t know what they’re talking about, but that’s not where serious people look for a serious discussion about the implications of copyright law.
Where is a serious place? Here? Then why was my comment in this thread provoked by yet another poster whose serious discussion was a complaint that free stuff is no longer available because of something something nonsense something copyright bad?
Why are you debating the implications of copyright law in GQ, for that matter? Why would you namecheck Milton Friedman of all people? (Libertarian solutions can be correct. But that’s only because in logic if you start with a false premise any solution, true, false, or neither, can result.)
I don’t want to debate with you. We both seem to agree that the 20-year extension wasn’t meaningful although for some reason it’s all the know-nothings can understand, though I don’t understand why you think their ignorance shouldn’t be pounded. I think we mostly agree about what would happen in a better world. I doubt that we would agree on any road to get there (Milton Friedman?) or how it would be possible in the real political world.
I will admit that I always forget that in a fit of death remorse Congress put Sonny Bono’s name on the bill.
In order for the optical data to be played as audio, it is copied to an electronic format on solid state memory.
It is not illegal to maintain a copy of intellectual property you have access to.
It is legal to use any property you have access to, in a way you have permission to, and vice-versa.
That said, your library card extends only so far, beyond that, you are a criminal.
Cheers.
Yes, it is illegal. But considering the high cost of gas and your time, I’ve been it a better use of my time to buy the tune from iTunes.
I don’t think I’ve ever borrowed music from the library, but I’ve borrowed it from friends and then purchased the tracks i liked.
there are three important questions:
Is it legal?
It’s it moral?
Will I get caught?
I once asked a lawyer about a similar situation. I had borrowed a large textbook and wanted to copy it so i could carry one chapter at a time to read on the train.
He opined that it might be legal, but suggested i only copy one chapter at a time, and destroy it before copying next one.
I decided it was moral and i wouldn’t get caught, and copied it all at once and destroyed the whole thing when i returned the book. I feel no guilt.