In 40443d3a.0@entanet, "Braìnbuster" wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
snip babble
Even after all this time, you -=STILL=- haven't even read the code.
Registering
a copyright allows the victim to take -civil- action. There is
also -criminal-
action for copyright violators for which the owner of the copyright needs
no
registration, and those violations are specified in the -criminal- part of
the
code which I have already quoted and you subsequently ignored.
You mean section 412, the one that refers to what can or cannot be done in
the case of an infringement?
Un-dirty-word-believable. This exchange has continued for this long, yet you
-----------[[[[ STILL ]]]---------------
haven't read the code. Well, recess is over, Peter......
Start with Sec. 501, entitled "Infringement of Copyright", which defines a
copyright infringer as "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the
copyright owner AS PROVIDED by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as
provided in section 106A(a)...."[emphasis added]. Okay, we now have a law that
clearly states what comprises an infringement! Holy ****, that was just too damn
difficult, wasn't it, Peter? Whew...!!!
Next we look at the PROVISIONS -- sections 106 through 121. What do THEY say?
Let's see, first come the 'rights' of a copyright.....
Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Sec. 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
......which nobody is disputing. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right
to copy the work, and the author may have exclusive right to claim authorship.
Real simple, huh? Okay. Now, did you notice the first line of Sec. 106? It says,
"Subject to sections 107 through 121", which means a copyright has LIMITATIONS,
as can plainly be seen in most of the following titles:
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Sec. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and
archives
Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy
or phonorecord
Sec. 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and
displays
Sec. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions
Sec. 112. Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings
Sec. 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
Sec. 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings
Sec. 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory
license for making and distributing phonorecords
Sec. 116. Negotiated licenses for public performances by means of coin-operated
phonorecord players
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
Sec. 118. Scope of exclusive rights: Use of certain works in connection with
noncommercial broadcasting
Sec. 119. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of
superstations and network stations for private home viewing
Sec. 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
Sec. 121. Limitations on exclusive rights: reproduction for blind or other
people with disabilities
Let's just start at the beginning, shall we? Sec. 107 -- "Fair Use". Just what
does that mean? As Mr. Owl says, "Let's find out!"
========
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work."
========
Now let's apply each factor to the web page in question.
(1) What was the purpose and character of the use of the copy? Was it used for
commercial purposes? No. Was it for nonprofit educational purposes? I suppose a
technical argument could be made there, but I personally wouldn't consider it
educational. So that section doesn't help.
(2) What was the nature of the work from which the picture was copied? Well, it
wasn't exactly a work of art, and it certainly wasn't anything someone would pay
to view in and of itself.
(3) How much of the original work was copied? One picture from the original
page. Byte-wise it is only 20% of the work. Size-wise it is much less. And since
the pic has very little to do with the topic of the page, it certainly can't be
considered to be an indispensible component of the work. On the contrary, it's a
fairly poor quality image for the intended purpose of the page.
(4) What impact did the use of the copy have on the owners of the original page?
Is it affecting their business? No, and it's not like this was a bootleg CD sold
by the thousands, or a forgery of a famous painting being sold as the original.
The original page isn't even selling the page -- it's free to view by anyone!
Has the author's reputation suffered by the use of that copied photo? Do you
even know who the author (or authors) is? And who, beside you, actually cares
that it was copied? Apparently not even the owner of the copyright cares!
So do -you- think that the copy in question falls under the "fair use" clause? I
think most people are reasonable enough to see that there was no infringement
here. But you probably don't see it the same way, and that's fine, because we
have many, many more sections filled with copyright limitations to consider, not
to mention the limitations under criminal infringement as outlined in Sec. 506.
We should take a look at that real quick:
========
(a) Criminal Infringement. -
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1)
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2)
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any
180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted
works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States
Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution
of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful
infringement.
========
WOW! Look at that -- another law that defines infringement, and with provisions
for punishment, too! By golly we are really getting somewhere now, aren't we,
Peter? But wait! It says, "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a
copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful
infringement." Well, Peter, what else did he do that might constitute criminal
infringement? Anything? Did his actions result in "commercial advantage" or
"private financial gain"? Did the copy he made of the photo have a retail value
of more than $1,000? Anything at all? Can't you think of ANYTHING ELSE he did
that might make his actions illegal under criminal code? No?
Well, we are running out of law. He's not guilty of infringement under civil or
criminal law. How about case law? Oh, that's right, I already mentioned the
movie.... you know, the one with the title that is the same as the case: "The
People vs. Larry Flynt". You know what the US Supreme Court determined there,
Peter? That parodies are protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment. Now
if you are going to claim that the web page in question is not a parody then you
had better up your dosage on the Thorazine because you don't have a very good
grip on reality.
Sure, Frankie, just because I refuse to see how a "pro-legal" person can
defend copyright infringement, that makes me a "hypocrite", huh.
Like the emperor's new clothes... if we cannot see your imaginary "cop out",
we must be stupid hypocrites.
You have it all wrong, Peter: You are a stupid hypocrite not because you refuse
to see how a pro-legal person can defend copyright infringement, but because you
refuse to see that I am -not- defending copyright infringement at all. THERE WAS
NO INFRINGEMENT as defined by CIVIL LAW, by CRIMINAL LAW, by CASE LAW, by PUBLIC
CONSENSUS (since nobody else is whining), and also apparently by the AUTHOR (who
also is not whining). There was only YOU desperately looking for another reason
to attack people in the newsgroup that you don't like!
Get some therapy. I hear that Twisty regularly visits a very good shrink, but it
might take a while to get used to his invisibility......
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----