Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
> Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
141–150 of 290 posts
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author’s life is too long. Surely, 20 years is far sufficient to incentivize creating media, although I would err on the side of 10 years. The copyright term is automatically too long if my anyone who would benefit from it entering the public domain is dead.
I think we need to completely revisit the ownership model here. Kill copyright entirely. (I would vote for anyone-- up to and including Mike Pence-- who made this a major plank of their campaign) We have at least one corner of the universe where we've defeated scarcity. We can't run out of music. Hell, we can't even run out of a specific recorded performance, if even the most trivial efforts of due-diligence backups…
I go in slightly different directions on both of your proposals. I think intellectual property in general should be eliminated, though I think copyright is a good olace to start. As for the artistic endowment, I think that the task of deciding what counts as an artistic endeavor is an intractable problem and that universal basic income is much more simple and equitable.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#143> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonabl…
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
So executing software actually isn’t an infringement of copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit exception is an actual exception (unlike “fair use” which remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK, IANAL.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Set up your own record label and implement your wish list of better terms. If you're reading hacker news, there's a good chance you can do most of the coding for free/stock/spec. Then you can be like totally cool about piracy and drink all of the kool aid about how piracy is just a different form of promotion. My guess is that you'll come to the same conclusion as me: piracy destroys marketplaces. It forces the…
There's more between "being cool with piracy" and "thinking copyright should hold indefinitely". This is about 78rpm records ffs. All the artists are probably dead by now.
The artists were probably paid a one-off $50 to come into the studio and record, and the rentiers have profited off them ever since.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#145> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonabl…
They can relocate that part to the Netherlands. Copying without public distribution is explicitly legal, and all storage media and smartphones carry a "tax" that's given to the rights holders to compensate them for this. For a long time downloading was legal (uploading wasn't), due to this. But it has changed sometime in the last decade. While the tax is still there and mandatory, so the copyright-lobbyists won on pa…
You are completely mistaken
That fee only covers general piracy. It does not give you the right to copy copyrighted works. In fact, european copyright is much stricter than US copyright. There is no fair use and european copyright (based on the napoleon code) forbids making a copy of copyrighted works except for a few exceptions specifically mentioned in the law (eg a browser displaying a webpage, etc...).
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#146This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.
we'll lose it like the great library of alexander
The great library was lost by abandon not fire. That's a really strongly held belief that's hard to debunk unfortunately.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#147This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.
It'll move to a different country, or its authors will be hounded down by the United States and gigantic corporations.
Working for Sony, UMG, Netflix, any media distribution group, is, as far as I'm concerned, evil. You actively work to make human existence worse. I'd have a word for their lawyers, but I'm sure they're busy being paid hundred of thousands to be sacks of shit.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#148> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction, and when it transferred those copies to the public, yet another.
That first step, making a digital copy of a copyrighted work, is not illegal to my knowledge of at least Dutch copyright law — you're allowed to make a copy "for your own studies", although it's not allowed to then give this copy away, or in general to make the copy for somebody else.
I also thought that copyright lasts for 70 years, so that all pre-1953 work is in the public domain, or did Disney succeed in extending this period?
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp... .
Hence, congress passed a law:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Re: Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
I think a lot of that has since gone away. I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
[deleted]