Internet, we hardly knew ye.
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
- Status
The avatar isn't me streaming episodes nor selling the image of Charmander. If I was taking from anyone, it'd be the person who made the image in the first place, whose identity is a mystery to me.
According to that ruling, there'd be no such thing as piracy of mp3s, video games, movies etc, so long as they're in digital form, but that's incorrect. The law hasn't caught up with reality, as is often the case. And it does matter to me that I don't steal from artists, and to take mp3s that would otherwise be granting them royalties (however meager from my individual purchase), it's still stealing.
The use of Charmander as an avatar falls under Fair Use.
Also, Dowling v. United States makes it perfectly clear that something has to be physically taken for it to be theft. Therefore Piracy is not theft. It IS, however, copyright infringement, which is a civil crime. I'll say this again, because people don't seem to get it: Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. The two crimes are completely different in practice, purpose, and execution, which is why one is a criminal matter and one is a civil one.
The laws HAVE caught up with this Quotemander. The copyright owners have the means to track offenders and seek reparations, which they often do. They simply choose not to do it on a massive scale because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so and they would ultimately lose more than they would gain. It's a business decision, nothing more.
Also, Dowling v. United States makes it perfectly clear that something has to be physically taken for it to be theft. Therefore Piracy is not theft. It IS, however, copyright infringement, which is a civil crime. I'll say this again, because people don't seem to get it: Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. The two crimes are completely different in practice, purpose, and execution, which is why one is a criminal matter and one is a civil one.
The laws HAVE caught up with this Quotemander. The copyright owners have the means to track offenders and seek reparations, which they often do. They simply choose not to do it on a massive scale because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so and they would ultimately lose more than they would gain. It's a business decision, nothing more.
The person distributing is infringing copyright.
If the person downloading isn't stealing, what do you call it?
If the person downloading isn't stealing, what do you call it?
You don't call it anything - it's not illegal. Some may contend that it's immoral, but there are many things that might be immoral and are not illegal.
Right now there are no laws that cover the person downloading or receipt of such goods. Most recent legal cases revolve around the fact that many file distribution services, such as bittorrent, act as distribution services while downloading.
Once you get block one, while you're downloading block two you start transmitting block one to others who are downloading the material.
Thus you are also distributing the copyrighted material while you are still downloading it.
Napster encouraged people to share their material, and so people got caught distributing from their own collection, even though they didn't do it the same way bittorrent does. So if you set your napster to share nothing copyrighted, but downloaded everything you wanted, you were generally not prosecuted.
There have been attempts to introduce laws that make people who receive illegally copied materials liable for copyright infringement, but they don't pass because there are so many cases where one receives such material unknowingly, and you can't always objectively discern intent in such cases. Further, personal copies can always be made for a variety of reasons (back up, time shifting, etc).
Really, how does using it as an avatar qualify as: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Maybe as a parody because of the text, but even then you have to prove fair use yourself: The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[17] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement.
Then again there's always Switzerland: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland
No, the guy downloading is making an illegal copy... so he's infringing copyright just fine.
You're thinking of a physical copy, where the receiver/buyer isn't making a copy, just being given one... i don't know if there is a word for someone that has bought counterfeit merchandise...
Added at: 16:26
I'm actually pretty sure it is illegal, as you are making a copy of the file... they mostly went after people that where sharing because it's easier to prove damage, so get big fines etc...
They still send letters to people who where just d/l songs as i recall...
It is quite illegal (in the US). Just not in the same way as theft.
That, plus if some company sends you a C&D over your avatar, you should probably just switch to a different avatar and save time and money.
It's not exclusive to those uses, which are just examples (hence the use of the word "incuding"). The test for fair use is case-by-case according to those 4 guidelines they have in your link. While I have no idea if there is established case-law around avatars, I suspect that avatar use in general is not a substantial enough use of copyrighted work to effect the potential value of that work.
That, plus if some company sends you a C&D over your avatar, you should probably just switch to a different avatar and save time and money.
It's this exact thing (with the avatars) that was part of the SOPA panic. Any site where one member did something like that would have been shut down.
I think most people don't actually think websites will be shut down for usage of avatars all over the place.
The issue is people don't want the door open for that to happen someday, even if far fetched.
SOPA gives a lot of control to companies to shut down websites through simply claiming infringement, and if later on through the courts it is learned that such "infringement" was just an avatar that falls under Fair Use, then the damage to the website is already done, and by wording of the law the company that claimed the infringement wouldn't be held accountable and would not be open to a counter-suit.
Lets say Dave suddenly finds out that Google erased him from searches, and then his vendor, who helps handle the store or donations. Dave looks in his e-mail and finds out that someone put in a claim of copyright infringement over the usage of images in related to copyright material.
He would have to then go to court and prove his innocence, at which point the website would be losing traffic and money, not counting the money he would have to put into lawyers. Then, even if he does prove to the judge the files were under Fair Use, he can't go and counter-suit them, so he is in the hole.
That is the problem. Right now the companies have to prove a purposeful infringement is happening here before a judge can order the website be imploded. With SOPA, they can implode the website before it even gets to full trial, and then only through a trial can you get it back.
No one wants that door open, no matter how far fetched in may be for it to come down to that situation.
The issue is people don't want the door open for that to happen someday, even if far fetched.
SOPA gives a lot of control to companies to shut down websites through simply claiming infringement, and if later on through the courts it is learned that such "infringement" was just an avatar that falls under Fair Use, then the damage to the website is already done, and by wording of the law the company that claimed the infringement wouldn't be held accountable and would not be open to a counter-suit.
Lets say Dave suddenly finds out that Google erased him from searches, and then his vendor, who helps handle the store or donations. Dave looks in his e-mail and finds out that someone put in a claim of copyright infringement over the usage of images in related to copyright material.
He would have to then go to court and prove his innocence, at which point the website would be losing traffic and money, not counting the money he would have to put into lawyers. Then, even if he does prove to the judge the files were under Fair Use, he can't go and counter-suit them, so he is in the hole.
That is the problem. Right now the companies have to prove a purposeful infringement is happening here before a judge can order the website be imploded. With SOPA, they can implode the website before it even gets to full trial, and then only through a trial can you get it back.
No one wants that door open, no matter how far fetched in may be for it to come down to that situation.
Are you referring to this: including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section
Because you're interpreting the sentence it wrong if you are...
...
But the 1st guideline does include purpose and character, which i guess covers criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research and others...
Hmmm, interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet
So, i guess the question is, is the purpose of the avatar "transformative"?
Added at: 23:47
See my link above if you think they wouldn't use it like that... youtube videos that should be protected under fair use get taken down all teh time...
Doh! You are quite right!
Going by that case in your link, probably, so long as the intent of the artist was not to create avatars, and the provision of those images in those avatars did not interfere with exclusive rights, and many other things, I guess.
To be fair, that's also because Google/Youtube don't feel like fighting it as a default position. Your overall point stands, however. Now way SOPA/PIPA wouldn't be used like that.
T
Tiq
I wonder how many people will resort to patting themselves on the back and acting like theyve won the war, because SOPA and PIPA have been postponed for the moment. Not that I have anything wrong with celebrating a small victory, but a lot of people online have made a bad habit in the past of treating a small victory as a huge one, and then ignoring the continued struggle completely, while circle jerking each other about how "they did it" Something in my gut is telling me that maybe... just MAYBE this time will be different, that the threat here is so great, people are realising this isn't going to go away. I can't fault the people pushing black march, because it seems to me like what they're trying to do here, is an extremely calculated effort to push people beyond that glass ceiling of self- congratulations they usually hit, after they change their profile pictures in the name of (x), and suddenly think theyve become heroes of the internet. These guys want people to take the next step and realise it's going to take more effort to send a message here... but they know asking people to do so is such a motherfucker of a thing, because lots of people are happy to tell you they support a cause, right up untill supporting that cause means stepping out of their comfort zone.
Maddox made a fantastic point about it, that you should all read. http://maddox.xmission.com/
Maddox made a fantastic point about it, that you should all read. http://maddox.xmission.com/
Oh man, I know what you mean.I don't wanna lose House.
Damn it, Dirk would take him away too!
There are already rumors that they are going to take the legislation written into SOPA and move it into the back end of another bill coming up, one that itself has come under fire for concerns over internet privacy.
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act
Just as a rundown, this bill will require all ISPs to keep detailed records for 1 year of what users are doing on the web, from browsing habits to financial information, in case they are buying stuff of an illegal nature, and then report it to the government if requested. That in itself is pretty scary, but look at who sponsors it, Lamar Smith, the same sponsor as SOPA.
If they do decide to put SOPA on the end of PCIPA, the worry is that few in congress would dare oppose it, worried to be seen as "pro-child porn". There are actually arguments that the bill itself was simply given the name it was to make it difficult to oppose, even though the bill allows the government to look at this information in search of any type of crime.
I am really starting to hate my state representative.
P.S. Made one correction, the time at which ISPs will hold information was changed from 18 months to 1 year in the newest version of the bill. Not much better, but I wanted to be more accurate.
http://www.megaupload.com/
I dunno if it's been like that since the shut down but if that logo doesn't give everyone here a chill up their back, I dunno what will.
I dunno if it's been like that since the shut down but if that logo doesn't give everyone here a chill up their back, I dunno what will.
That could be the face of many sites if SOPA-type legislation goes through.
Added at: 23:22
WHAT THE FUCK.
And this is a common Congress trick, lump on a bunch of shit into other bills so it all goes through or doesn't. He's going to keep doing this until he's voted out, from one bill to the next. And even disregarding that, the above bill shouldn't go through due to privacy concerns and the fact that the government should not have that kind of detailed information on every internet user in the United States.
They weren't supposed to be able to legally wire tap us, either, but look how little happened to the Bush administration when they were caught doing it.
Seriously.
I really need to stop reading news on Congressional bills before bedtime. I'm tired of going to sleep in a bad mood.
T
Tiq
I'm kind of surprised at the intelligence in some of these replies. Comparing to RIAA, MPAA, "Dinosaurs may die, but they don't gotta like it."
And then:
"First they came for megaupload, and I didn't speak out because I didn't stream pirated tv.
Then they came for filesonic, and I didn't speak out because I didn't download cracked games.
Then they came for rapidshare, and I didn't speak out because I didn't listen to leaked studio albums.
Then they came for the torrents, and I didn't speak out because I didn't have time to seed anymore.
Then they came for my personal data and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Now this isn't exactly the way it'd work, but the idea is the truth--this is more than about piracy, but about what goes on with people personally on the internet.
Just to be clear, Filesonic was not taken down by the government. They altered services to be a "personal online file storage", which means anything you upload, only you can access. They likely saw what happened to Megaupload, and decided to be safe rather then sorry, thus the change.
Hopefully other file upload websites don't start caving.
Hopefully other file upload websites don't start caving.
Well, I guess I can't fault them there. That's their decision in reaction to what's happened so far.
And it is different from SOPA/PIPA passing, because instead of sites getting shut down, people are being arrested... um...
I've had a few points in my life where I've felt desperate. This relentless assault to try and get crappy legislation passed before impending industry flameout makes me wonder how many rotten eggs are going to get through that are going to take years to straighten out even after they lose relevance.
--Patrick
--Patrick
Agreed. I suspect it's going to be Depositfiles or Hotfile next.
They'd also probably have to show avatars are a different use then just hosting an infringing picture...
I tihnk Quotemander has a better chance citing parody...
So, I guess we're not allowed to have files online unless we pay for it ourselves from a hosting service?
Also, better wording than I had last night (derp):
They're not just after piracy, but your privacy.
Also, better wording than I had last night (derp):
They're not just after piracy, but your privacy.
Well of course not, piracy is already illegal, making it more so ain't gonna change the fact that they can't realistically enforce it...
T
Tiq
I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but we may all have something much worse coming on the horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Requests_for_disclosure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Requests_for_disclosure
- Status