The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 16, 2019, 01:56:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Copyright Law of the United States of America  (Read 1008 times)
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« on: November 16, 2009, 06:20:06 PM »

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

It's massive and personally I think it's barely even readable in many sections.  I haven't read the entire document, but this section was alarming and confirms what I've read elsewhere regarding unreasonable remedies for copyright infringement:

Quote
(c) Statutory Damages.
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.

So here's the issue for me.  The real protection should be against having someone profit from an artist's work against the will of the artist.  What's happening here is that for those who have done nothing but created a copy of a song to hear - or just to see if it's the song they were even looking for, a jury must choose a penalty of between $750 and $30,000 at a minimum, since various subsequent fine doubling and other clauses apply as well.  So let's say you've just joined Limewire Pro and searched for songs and began downloads.  Furthermore, the names of these songs are frequently inaccurate.  You could be looking for "shake it up" and wind up with a thousand matches that look perhaps close to what you're looking for.  Let's assume an inexperienced user enters "Shake" and get's the first 1000 songs in the result set.

Well little Bobbie Bad Fortune wakes up to the following possibility:

Average $750 with $30,000 = $15,375.  Let's go conservative and stick with $10,000 per.  Now we're looking at 1,000 songs so that would be a $10,000,000 fine Shocked

In reality the jury looks at the situation so they may be kind enough to low ball the offense.  With a jury of kindhearted peers we're still looking at a mandatory fine of $750,000  Shocked

Oh and just in case you were wondering, it's not an individual artist funding this lawsuit.  It's the record company, or the "owner" of the copyright.  Therefore the rewards will be sent directly to them and not the artists, for the most part.  Is there someone left in this world that sees this as fair, helpful, or in any way a good thing?  And just imagine if these philanthropic record companies decide to filter by suspected capacity to pay for these "infringements?"

Here's to their bankruptcies  Violin
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2009, 12:35:49 AM »

Yeah.. copyright laws are usually mix of old crap combined with new digital restrictions which all sum up to unreadable, not understandable and not sense making "law". We have same kind of situation here in Finland. We have this ex-model turned "politician" Tanja Karpela Jackoff who forced this ridiculous copyright law thru the government few years ago and now everybody is paying for it. The finnish copyright law now is so badly written (thanks to Karpela) that even lawyers can't always interpret it correctly. For example it prohibits the decryption of "powerful encryption mechanism" but nobody can tell you what is "powerful encryption mechanism". First court said that CSS in DVDs is not "powerful" because decryption software is available freely in the internet but then later court decided it was powerful all the sudden. Also because we are part of EU we should have pretty much the same overall legislation but yet again copyright law breaches this and Karpela forced the law thru when we were already in EU.

Funny thing is that if you buy original CD from the record store, you can't put those songs to your iPod if CD uses some sort of copy prevention. Not to mention that our copyright law basically prohibits backups if original material is protected. This was excellent news for families with children because as many of you know, children are excellent in taking care of optical media.

Well as you can imagine, nobody actually respects these laws here because they are so unreasonable.

But yeah, at least we don't have those kinds of fixed fees...
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2009, 09:33:40 AM »

Quote
This was excellent news for families with children because as many of you know, children are excellent in taking care of optical media.

 ROFLMAO  That they are.  Ever wonder if the natural degradation of and accidental destruction of various forms of media is part of the profit picture for these folks?  DRM even expires along with the PC that is "licensed" to play the song.  So give it a few years and some will be purchasing the same music again.... and again.

Sorry to hear about the wonderful Tanja Karpela.  Sounds like Sarah Palin  ROFLMAO

Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!