Is this illegal?

[AstroManLuca]

You can basically throw out anything having to do with "fair use." These days, those words mean nothing. The big copyright holders have been trying (and succeeding) to redefine "fair use" until it doesn't cover anything at all.

EDIT: Changed "free use" to "fair use." FAIR USE is the thing that has been killed in recent years.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p

Again, copyright concerns the exclusive rights of authors to copy and distribute. The uploader is the one doing the copying and distribution, not the downloader.

This is specifically why software companies use clickwrap . There's no such thing as clickwrap for dvds or cds

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

:laugh:

Sure. Sure.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p

Again, copyright concerns the exclusive rights of authors to copy and distribute. The uploader is the one doing the copying and distribution, not the downloader.

This is specifically why software companies use clickwrap . There's no such thing as clickwrap for dvds or cds

Quote directly contradicts your statement.

quote from copyright.gov > quote from preslove.ATOT

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

:laugh:

Sure. Sure.

It was a master's level class and I got an A in it. The professor explained this distinction to us, specifically.


Accessing information is only illegal if you "jump" a digital fence.

 

[IEC]

*******************************************************

A Comic from Duke Law CSPD which will enlighten you on Fair Use.

*******************************************************

 

[lupi]

I saw this cute blonde chick with this nice ass, since it'd be a huge waste to try and strike up a witty conversation then go on a date with her yadda yadda, is there anything wrong with just bending her over for a moment so I could try the goods?

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: nobody554

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: waggy
since it would be a huge waste to buy a BR and I already paid $10 to watch it at the theater?

Just making a point that they already turned a profit from me.

That being said, I guess that would make it legal to download the entire movie and show it to a crowd of people. I mean, they've already made a profit off of you, so you can do that, right?

You're on time to join Nik's jackass camp, it's over there

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Just write some trite bullshit about the physics of the car chase. Then you can rip that clip and host it. Just do it until someone sends you a C&D

Yeah thanks, will do.

Originally posted by: Nik
I'm right.

Barfo is obviously already well aware of the legality, he's just looking for a loophole, an excuse to do what he's going to do anyway (or, rather, has probably already done).

So what's wrong with wanting to do the right thing? I could have just downloaded the whole movie and be done with it but here I am trying to find a legit justification.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Nik
If you don't have expressed written consent, then it would be a copyright infringement.

I don't understand how you can even ask this question.

You know better than that. Certain fair use provisions don't require consent.

Originally posted by: Mo0o
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

Your thing doesnt qualify

I'm right.

Barfo is obviously already well aware of the legality, he's just looking for a loophole, an excuse to do what he's going to do anyway (or, rather, has probably already done).

So a valid defense is now a loophole?

 

[dudeman007]

cough up the 10 bucks already

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Barfo
So, I watched Quantum of Solace in the theater when it was out and it sucked, but I did like the car chase scene (I love Aston Martins).

So I'm wondering if it would be illegal if I downloaded a 720p clip of that scene, since it would be a huge waste to buy a BR and I already paid $10 to watch it at the theater?



P.S. Anyone know where can I get a hold of it, in case it's legal?

I'm going to go into your house and take part of your stuff because I like it.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Barfo
So, I watched Quantum of Solace in the theater when it was out and it sucked, but I did like the car chase scene (I love Aston Martins).

So I'm wondering if it would be illegal if I downloaded a 720p clip of that scene, since it would be a huge waste to buy a BR and I already paid $10 to watch it at the theater?



P.S. Anyone know where can I get a hold of it, in case it's legal?

I'm going to go into your house and take part of your stuff because I like it.

:roll:

EDIT: If you like how my house looks you're more than welcome to take pictures. I won't stop you. I don't even care if you ask or not. You can just drive up to it and start taking pictures. As long as you're not taking pictures through my bathroom window or something, or breaking into my house...

 

[Nik]

Both analogies suck.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p

Again, copyright concerns the exclusive rights of authors to copy and distribute. The uploader is the one doing the copying and distribution, not the downloader.

This is specifically why software companies use clickwrap . There's no such thing as clickwrap for dvds or cds

That was really impressive preslove.
- preslove makes a statement of fact
- NS1 proves this statement false using relevant resources
- preslove seamlessly repeats his mistaken statement as though his posts carry more weight on the subject of copyright than copyright.gov

The arrogance is strong in this one.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Marinski
download whatever you want

:|

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

:laugh:

Sure. Sure.

It was a master's level class and I got an A in it. The professor explained this distinction to us, specifically.


Accessing information is only illegal if you "jump" a digital fence.

Newsflash for preslove: professors aren't right 100% of the time. I don't care if it's a master's course, or a course that leads to a PhD. If you're so certain that merely making a copy is okay, as long as you don't distribute it, take your video camera into a theater.

Also, it's a master's level course - just about everyone gets A's in master's level courses. In my opinion, after attending master's level courses at 3 different universities (and seeing some of my friends' work from other universities), each was less rigorous than my bachelor's degree.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: Mo0o
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

Your thing doesnt qualify

Ok, thanks for the info, so if I write a blog post about the movie then I could watch that clip for illustration purposes?

Nope, it means that you could quote the movie in your blog post. It doesn't mean you can go download it without paying. Seriously, stop trying to justify your actions. Its illegal. Do it if you want, but you have to be a complete moron to think that you have any legal reason to download this movie.

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: Nik
Both analogies suck.

So does your credits-less movie comparison.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: Nik
Both analogies suck.

So does your credits-less movie comparison.

Hardly. You made the point that it's not the entire movie, so it should be okay to download. I gave an example a portion of the movie would be missing from your download where you would obviously know that you are breaking the law, drawing the conclusion that downloading only part of the movie without license to own/use does not constitute a change in legality.

Fail more, Barfo.

 

[GasX]

a true classic, "if you have to ask" question...

 

[DayLaPaul]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: preslove
Downloading is not illegal. Uploading is illegal.

Lmao, do you actually believe that?

Yes. I learned it in an information policy class. Copyright infringement involves copying and distribution of information, not accessing information (as long as you are not taking steps to evade copy protection, see DCMA).

:laugh:

Sure. Sure.

It was a master's level class and I got an A in it. The professor explained this distinction to us, specifically.


Accessing information is only illegal if you "jump" a digital fence.

I think either your professor was flat out wrong or you just misinterpreted what he was trying to say. People who download copyrighted material are rarely prosecuted for that crime, while people who distribute copyrighted material are aggressively prosecuted. That doesn't mean that downloading a file isn't still illegal. They're both illegal.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
*******************************************************

A Comic from Duke Law CSPD which will enlighten you on Fair Use.

*******************************************************

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
*******************************************************

A Comic from Duke Law CSPD which will enlighten you on Fair Use.

*******************************************************

I tried reading through that but it's too long winded and doesn't get to the point fast enough. I quit after, like, the 4th page.

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: Nik
Both analogies suck.

So does your credits-less movie comparison.

Hardly. You made the point that it's not the entire movie, so it should be okay to download. I gave an example a portion of the movie would be missing from your download where you would obviously know that you are breaking the law, drawing the conclusion that downloading only part of the movie without license to own/use does not constitute a change in legality.

Fail more, Barfo.

I made the point that it's a very little part of the movie (I even specified, 2 minutes or even less) and you compared it to downloading 100% of an actual movie, minus the credits, which no one wants to see, why do you equate grabbing a very small part of a copy righted work with grabbing the whole of it? I guess your point is that obtaining even one second of footage from a movie would constitute a copyright violation, fine then, what about the fair use exceptions that have been posted in this thread and you have refused to acknowledge?

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: Nik
Both analogies suck.

So does your credits-less movie comparison.

Hardly. You made the point that it's not the entire movie, so it should be okay to download. I gave an example a portion of the movie would be missing from your download where you would obviously know that you are breaking the law, drawing the conclusion that downloading only part of the movie without license to own/use does not constitute a change in legality.

Fail more, Barfo.

I made the point that it's a very little part of the movie (I even specified, 2 minutes or even less) and you compared it to downloading 100% of an actual movie, minus the credits, which no one wants to see, why do you equate grabbing a very small part of a copy righted work with grabbing the whole of it? I guess your point is that obtaining even one second of footage from a movie would constitute a copyright violation, fine then, what about the fair use exceptions that have been posted in this thread and you have refused to acknowledge?

Well, are you going to use it for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism? If yes, then technically you could d/l that 2min part.

However, you already have shown that your reason for wanting to d/l it is b/c "you love Aston Martins". So while you could critique it in a reasonable and fair manner, your motives are just for your own personal enjoyment. I guess that starts to dip into moral/ethics.