> >You must be young to consider '67 long enough ago for something to have
gone
> >out of copyright. Out of print has nothing to do with it.
> (snip)
> >You have posted an illegal binary. It dosn't seem you meant to because
you
> >were "pretty sure" you hadn't. This won't save you from prosecution.
Minimum
> >fine is $200, whether there has been fininacial lose shown or not.
> First off, thanks for the binary posting!
> Don't take this as a personal attack- given the hair-trigger nonsense
> about anything involving the Net these days, caution is certainly
> prudent...but...
> While the spirit of what you're saying is reasonable, you're pushing
> the point by arguing that posting this is illegal-
would consider "Black letter" law. The law just plain states it is illegal.
Period. Not open to interpretation. Another common "black letter" law that
you might relate to is the age of consent. There is no wiggle room, no
interpretation. The law is explicit as written. If you try to defend
yourself by telling the judge it was the day before her birthday and stick
to that defence you will get a HARSHER sentence, not a dismisal or leniency.
> Speedvision and AMC both show this film quite frequently. Complaining
> about rebroadcasts (usenet posting, albeit a minor snippet, certainly
> fits the bill) is as absurd as complaining about people circulating
> tapes for personal viewing. Have you ever borrowed a tape from a
> friend, with no monetary compensation, to watch, say, a Grand Prix? If
> you live in the US, you probably have!! By your logic, this too is
> illegal. Are web sites showing snips of Grand Prix qualifying illegal?
> I sure hope not, because I can't get the goddamn qualifying on TV, but
> that's another story for another day....and if so, why hasn't the FIA
> prosecuted them? They're certainly ruthless enough.....
arguments. They are legally wrong. By the way, I live in the US and have
never borrowed a tape of any sporting event from a friend. As for Grand
Prixs specifically, I legally purchase the right to watch them. I watch or
tape them for my own use, period, which, by the way, the law specifically
allows. It specifically disallows you for giving the copy to a friend. This
is just the law. Whether you agree with or not is irrelevant. My view is not
based on "logic." It is based on law. Perhaps the law isn't always logical,
it is, none the less, still the law.
The FIA may be ruthless enough, I have never been a Bernie fan and,
personally, believe he has damaged F1 beyond redemption, NEVER let a lawyer
run the show, but they don't have perfect knowledge either. I'm sure that if
you notified the proper person a cease and desist letter would arrive at
every illegal poster.
> Who's to say that I don't have a copy of Grand Prix (I do) and sampled
> the songs- in fact, a stereo broadcast taped onto a VCR has a better
> sound quality than any pre-made audio tape, and it's clearly better
> than recording from an LP. Then I give the samples to a friend, for
> the same price as the net posting cost. Nothing. Do I owe anybody
> $200? Does he?
legal right to make copies *for you own personal use.* You do not have the
right to download it. See the recent decision against MP3.com. Again, this
is the law. You may disagree. You may choose to violate it. It is still the
law. In your above example the law says, explicitly, that yes, you owe $200.
You have illegally distributed property which was not yours. You are a
thief. What you gained by the theft is legally irrelevant to the theft
itself. Your friend can have his copy seized. It is a stolen good.
> free-weekend preview. The only difference between is how you arrived
> at the samples- did you record from your videotape (again, personal
> use here, it's never been illegal to tape a broadcast) or did you
> download from the net? You can argue about the evil internet all you
> want- the distribution medium is the only difference. How does that
> make it illegal? If I don't sell copies, where's the law being broken?
rights to broadcast. That's a big difference. They have an actual contract
with the copyright holder allowing the broadcast in exchange for
consideration. Legally this is a *big* difference. The poster has no such
contract, or permission of any sort. You have to say "please," at the least
for it to be legal to post it. As I pointed out to the original poster, if
he had a copy of the record he KNEW exactly who to call to ask please. It
isn't hard. He could have done it. For various reasons he didn't. Legally
that is his failure.
> If the producer chooses to make something freely available, how can
> you argue that they can file for damages? This isn't "The Phantom
> Menace" being posted on the net three months before the VCR version is
> released here....this is an ancient movie with an out-of-print
> soundtrack. Is the copyright expired? Of course it's not. But how is
> this distribution different from a free viewing being taped? I don't
> see the copyright arguement entering into this at all, unless it was
> sold for a profit.
make it available. The law limits what you as an end viewer can do with that
broadcast. You may choose not to understand the difference, or just plain
disagree with it. It is fact none the less. Your claim that it is ancient is
just plain fallacious. It is recent. In the purely legal sense it is "new"
enough that it is still under copyright *under a law that gives the LEAST
protection to the copyright holder.*
Bach is ancient. Bach is dead. Neither Bach nor his hiers have any remaining
rights to his works.
Explain to Paul McCartney that "Yesterday" is "ancient" and thus you may do
as you will with it. Or maybe you have to explain it to Micheal Jackson. :)
Look at it this way, if I have a lawnmower in my garage that I havn't used
since 1967 do you feel that that gives you the right to take it without
asking? If you do, do you think the police and a judge will agree with you?
> Good luck finding this soundtrack. You'll be very hard pressed to do
> so- and this file certainly wasn't posted for profit, nor was it
> posted to deter sales for a nonexistent product. At best, it saved
> somebody the time to sample and convert to MP3. Again, personal use is
> the arguement here. How can you say there's been any loss to the
> producer of the medium when it's freely available to copy (on TV,
> radio, whatever)?
MINIMUM punitive fine of $200 even if there was no monetary damage. The law
has seen this argument before, and has rejected it absolutely. Monetary
damage is irrelevant.
As in the above analogy of the lawnmower I might not have suffered any
monetary loss by your taking it. Maybe you even brought it back. You have
still commited at least two criminal acts. You can be prosocuted for those
acts, even though I would *loose* a civil suit against you.
The posting of material for which you do not have the legal rignts to do so
is a *criminal* act, regardless of monetary concerns.
If the person who posted it realizes this and wishes to post it anyway,
well, that's his choice. If you wish to condone it and download it, again,
that is your discision. I havn't anyware made the argument that it is
"wrong," I have just pointed out its explicit legality. Rationalizations
don't effect this law. Your own personal moral threshold is you own, but
irrelevant to the law.
Personally, I have held the opinion that piracy of intectual property can be
a great boon to the rights holder under certain circumstances. I have often
posted id as a prime example of this. With regards to the music industry the
Greatful Dead developed making money off piracy to fine art. It is wonder to
behold.
In all likelyhood, since you consider 1967 as "ancient" that I have been
professionally involved in the music and publishing industry longer than you
have been alive. Certainly long enough for 1967 to be clearly remembered. I
saw Grand Prix on it's original release in the sort of big screen theater
that hasn't even been built since WWII. I'm afraid that in this matter I
simply know better than you do what the law is.
The posting of the soundtrack is illegal. It is a "warz" file. Period. No
wiggle room.
> Enough prattle. Time to run some laps at the Glen....
favorite tracks, and the fact that I live midway between the two has
nothing, NOTHING I say, to do with it. :)
Regards and happy lapping,
Kevin F. Gavitt