That obfuscatory hijack is both old and irrelevant.
That did not appear to be the implication in the following statement (made in the original thread):
I’m guessing that this sentence lent a good bit of weight to the closing of the thread…
Oh…
I, uh, I do admit, I never read the closed thread in its entirety. Totally my bad. :o
But I was under the impression that a 24 hr period to “test” mp3s was acceptable. I’m going to have to go and find a cite, hmmmm.
Well, the first two points are wrong, and the second two would be disputed by the poor shareholders in Napster, or the in-house counsel at Kazaa. But thanks for playing.
I’ve never heard of that. Yeah, I’d like to see a cite.
I’d say our friend Lobsang has plenty of reason to dislike the mods. They keep closing his (inane, banal, pointless, uninteresting, piece-of-fluff) threads. Like the one where he suggested that everybody in MPSIMS start their on lj-style thread in that forum just to keep everyone else posted on what was on their minds at every given moment. Like he does. Like in this thread.
On preview, I have an un-cited, tangential bit of information to offer: When downloading ROM files (games) for console game emulators, you are allowed to download them if you either already own the actual game cartridge, or you delete the files within 24 hours (or so the emulator websites have told me). I’ve never seen or heard of that limitation applied to music files, though.
So If I like the ROM, I can go buy a Pac-Man machine?
<Dr Evil>Riiiiiigggggghhttttt</DE>
Yah, I suppose this is a blatant hijack, and I do apologize.
But as requested, here is a cite.
Many music sharing websites include this disclaimer or something similar.
The exact website this came from contains material that might be considered questionable by the boards, but I will happily provide them by email.
Okay, I’m done with this one, please.
Harli steps back into the shadows yet again
Come back Harli! You have done nothing wrong, asked good questions and shown good judgement in not posting the link.
FYI- a filesharing website’s policy is not binding Copyright law.
Fair Use is defined by the four factor test of Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended. There are additional exemptions such as Section 110 (for in-class face to face instruction, and Teach Act allow uses). These music sharing sites policies are make believe or posturing for the inevitable litigation.
(Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office)
While there are legal MP3 copies of songs available from certain pay services (and a few promotional deals by recording labels) all of the major file trading services of note specialize in illegally traded copyright materials(1). Their “policies” do not change this at all.
Some Cites and helpful information:
(1) A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
From the copyright office’s web site:
How much of someone else’s work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.
http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q47
Good sites:
http://www.benedict.com/webiss.htm
http://www.albany.edu/~ls973/copy.html
http://www.cetus.org/fairindex.html
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/23intellectprop/
Anyone has further questions, I would be happy to help as much as I can without providing legal advice.
Does it make you feel good to say hurtful things about people (people who incedentaly have never said or done anything hurtful to you)?
Just wondering, as it seems to be such a common thing here on the SDMB that there must be some thrill in doing it. There is, afterall, no other possible benefit to it that I can see.
Well, Lobsang, at least you now know that at least one person you don’t know and will never meet thinks the things you say are beneath his notice. Oh, except that he noticed them.
I’m sure you’ll be up all night, inconsolable.
I’ve also heard he’s a few miles long, has a population of a couple million and controls a large portion of the planets wealth.
Sounds pretty friggin big and scary, if you ask me.
Manhattan? I could take him.
(Gosh, I’m clever.)
Harli:
We can dig up contradicting cites all day, but the rule here is no discussion of downloading files. Remember, Napster was supposedly legal because they had disclaimers. They got closed down. The Chicago Reader (who owns this message board) doesn’t have the desire nor ability to defend against any allegations of promotion of music piracy (which the linked-to thread could be seen as).
It is one of the touchier subjects on this board, but it’s out of true necessity.
Another example- It is legal to grow medical marijuana for medical reasons under California law. But if I start a thread detailing how to do so, then it’s goodbye, thread. It may be legal from a certain point of view, but that doesn’t mean the Reader’s ass is covered (or mine, for that matter).
Of course, I beleive that a GD thread titled “Is file-sharing illegal?” would be OK, as long as no one does anything that could be construed as active involvement in
file sharing, including links.
Ya dig?
[Larry Mudd, channelling Gene Kelly & Frank Sinatra]
I’ll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too…
[/LM, c GK & FS]
Why are there no beef, bean, AND cheese burri…
Ah, never mind. That one’s been used up.
Has anyone seen my car keys?