[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by nerys

Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society.

Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war.

I have some ground rules that I follow and would appreciate others following as well you are off course free not to but I may also stop talking to you. Repeating myself over and over again gets tedious. IE do not ignore points I make. If you disagree with a point STAY ON POINT. DO not say no 2+2=4 is wrong and then provide something irrelevant like 2=3+5 see your wrong???? ie apples to oranges. I promise to do the same with you if I have not already replied to a point you make. If you repeat a point I already replied to I will simply direct you to read the previous posts as you should have already :-)

Not a demand. its just how I work and would appreciate a return of this common courtesy.

Sure. I'm not intending this to be flaming, either. But I have said mostly what I've wished to say about this. But I respect the amount of time you've spent in your words, as have I.

Of course, that doesn't mean we have to agree. I will say, though, that you are confusing your metaphors slightly. You could be saying 2+2=4, and I could be saying (2+2+8)*2/3=8. Or you could be saying 2+2+1=5 and I can be saying 2+2=4. In the fruit metaphor we may indeed be talking apples and oranges, but you only want to talk about apples and I want to talk about fruit. The point of this overly-long paragraph is that I am responding to what you write. If you find that irrelevant, then don't respond or reply. Or reiterate your point, or point me back at what you've written. Whatever you feel like. But that doesn't mean objectively that I'm being irrelevant.

I'm also only responding to what I care to here, so you will see snips here and there. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree, or that I don't appreciate the totality of your post. It's also in part because I want to limit the size of this reply post.

So onward and forward.

<snip>
Again irrelevant. TIRES needs to have safety standards. NO ONE with half a brain will disagree with this. ALSO its not the MANUFACTURER dictating these limitations its the LAW (regardless of the manufacturer this is important) dictating this for a GOOD JUST LOGICAL VALID REASON. ie disobeying it means people DIE.

Last time I checked there are no logical SAFETY issues with books and no one DIES if I print a book on red paper instead of white paper.

So again it was an irrelevant illogical comparison. Hence why I got upset :-)

Fine if you wish to feel that way. But there are issues of economics and theft tied into copyright. No, nobody dies from copyright infringement. But it is the law. Product safety standards are the law. You talk more about law later, but the point I'd make is: You can choose to violate the law. It does not invalidate the law.

"You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf."

No the apples to oranges is your issue here. YOUR the one that brought this up when you stated "your reading it without paying for it" in one of your posts.

SO I replied with OTHER INSTANCES of reading it without paying for it. THIS was not "my" thought process it was YOURS which I replied to :-) I never conveyed an opinion of "ownership" regarding this. JUST wanted to show the fallacy of the statement but your reading it without paying for it.

Sorry to disagree, but you're the one who brought up "other instances of reading it without paying for it," in justifying, "who is harmed by cracking the DRM." And your examples were very much apples to oranges. Especially because the subject under discussion was not just "reading without paying for it," - the fundamental issue behind copyright law - but also whether you have the right to make copies of books electronically or otherwise. So I used your example of checking books out from the library to show that a book you haven't paid for, and copied, is not legal. Even for personal use. And also, just because you are in possession of something does not convey you unlimited use to do with it what you will.

But I would like to say that I think it's called having a discussion, and not deciding who has to be right.

"The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it."

But it also does not say I can not. It can NOT in fact deny me this right otherwise the transcription that occurs when I READ it into my RAM (thats my
brain) and my Hard Disk (my long term memory) would also HAVE to be illegal.

Actually, the issue of a copy being created when your computer reads software into RAM has come up in copyright litigation about software. If I recall correctly it was about the cases that determined that an archival copy of a software program (note: program - not data file) is fair use.

But, the only other thing I'd note is that your brain does not have RAM and a Hard Drive. Not yet. So I really don't see the point of that.

THE ENTIRE intent of copyright law applies SOLELY to "distribution" Do you know how and why copyright law was created?

"Article I, Section 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It is about giving the author the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. To make it short: It's as much about the licensing of the work to you than it is the distribution of it.

Player Piano's IIRC. They would BUY sheet music transcribe this to player piano paper (no problem) but then mass produce and sell these player piano strips.

See now? its not the transformation thats the problem its the DISTRIBUTION thats the problem. I can and SHOULD be able to do anything I want with that sheet music for my own uses. According to your strict interpretation of what you think the law says if I buy Piano sheet music and play it with my Guitar I am breaking the law? I am somehow violating the authors rights?

If I buy 10 sheets Convert it to guitar and then give or sell those 10 sheets of my guitar and INCLUDE the original purchased 10 sheets of piano. Well This gets grey. on one hand a legally purchased copy of the original is going with each derivative so no "new work" is generated (legally) but I am also now PROFITING from the authors work above and beyond the original purchase. I do not know how the LAW handles this but personally for free no problem for profit is a problem (to me) Copyright law DOES allow for conversion of media and it DOES permit you to PAY someone to do it for you. Like I said GREY and off the track of this discussion :-)

It is somewhat off track. But not all that grey, and having worked with music copyrights professionally for about nine of the last fourteen years I do know something about it. You have made ten new copies of a new arrangement. It would not be legal for you to do so in the first place without first having secured permission for the print music rights to duplicate them. You have created a derivative work by rearranging and/or transposing the author's work. I have had use requests both approved and rejected by clearinghouses. But I'm sorry to inform you that there is nothing grey about the situation.

If you wish to understand more, I would recommend http://www.internetmedialaw.com/arti...pub_income.pdf to understand the different types of rights that are associated with music, and http://www.mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/copying , FAQ section, which should confirm exactly what I've just written.

Do I have a problem with your doing that? Well, if it is was a song that I had written and arranged, I would, I suppose. Why? Because if you wanted a guitar version you should have asked me for it. And yep, I'd have a right to print income for a new version orchestrated for guitar, trumpet, or four-part harmony.

I'm going to snip a lot of the next section. If you feel copyright law doesn't apply, well, that's your lookout as we've previously discussed. But I do disagree with you. So maybe we'll just agree to disagree.
to those words but I DO OWN the PPR to those words.

"In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in."

Actually no they do not otherwise deaf people or partially blind people etc.. would be criminals. I AS OWNER of said content have the right to VIEW that content in ANY means or format or medium I so desire. They KNOW this and they also know there is NO WAY they can make a law that makes it illegal.

I think I'm following what you're saying. But I also believe you are incorrect. As I previously mentioned, different forms of publication are licensed separately. So, for an audiobook, yes the author does deserve another license royalty. I think we have just about exhausted this also, though, and must agree to disagree.

I think from your following paragraphs you are suggesting that DRM was created to get around your "rights" as the physical owner of a book. All I can say is, again, one of us is certainly wrong under the law. And I hope we never have to find out which one of us is.

"Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?"

Thats Mr Goodwriters problem buddy. Releasing on new formats is NOT intended to sell to me (I already bought it) its intended to sell to those that DID NOT WANT the book version and NOW WANT the electronic version and are NOW WILLING to purcahse it

Your logic is so entirely flawed it really is almost laughable. I mean its almost like you LITERALLY MEAN that I am somehow DEPRIVING the author of legitimate profits if I buy his book and decide NOT to buy the 2nd edition because I already have the first edition.

Are you serious?? Your joking right? your logic is completely flawed. IT ONLY WORKS if I DISTRIBUTED that LIT version so all the lit user now have no reason to buy it.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. And distribution has nothing to do with it. If you don't want the rights to the eBook, then don't buy it. If you do, then go ahead.

It's been mentioned several times in the thread that there is a limit at which the law will operate and be enforced. Is anyone going to come after you for making an eCopy for yourself? Doubtful at best.

That still has nothing to do with if the behavior is lawful or not.

Well we are not talking about distribution WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL. We are talking personal singular conversion. he has NO RIGHT to compel me to buy his book over and over again in new version. IN FACT copyright law was written SPECIFICALLY to prevent this thats why I AM ALLOWED to convert my VHS to DVD and my DVD to BLU RAY if I so desire. (not counting copy protection which is a separate issue from copyright law)

I have the RIGHT to enjoy my purchase in any medium I desire. His decision to not release it in all formats first well thats his problem not mine. The law backs me up on this. the media corps are TRYING to do an end run around these laws protecting me with the DMCA and DRM hence why its illegal and wrong.

"Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing?"

YES as a matter of fact I DO have that right. Please go read some copyright law and fair use law.

And I would recommend that you do the same. Start with http://www.copyright.gov/. Fair use does not give you the right to anything, actually. It is a defense which can be employed when one is accused of infringement. It is a defense which is individually applied to specific cases of infringement. And even then you do not have the right to do whatever you wish with a work. There have been decisions where infringement was upheld for as little as 400 Words of an article that was never published.

To make this short, as the intellectual property lawyer above put so much more succinctly, I'm afraid I can't agree that you understand the fundamentals of copyright. And I do not intend to insult you with that. I'm simply hoping that your views do not lead you into a situation where you will be wrong and have to pay a price for that.

"Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark"

WHAT ?? do you even know what those words mean?? copyright and patent are EXACTLY the same things.
<snip>

No. They are not. They are entirely different concepts of intellectual property protections, for different types of intellectual property.

http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...and-patent.htm
http://www.gillhams.com/articles/166.cfm
http://www.askdavetaylor.com/differe...e_patents.html

They are protected under different laws, by different governmental bodies, for different reasons, and with different case law behind them.

<snip>
""I can shout fire in a crowded theatre,""

and doing so is YOUR RIGHT and can NOT be taken from you (please read the first amendment)

any law saying you can NOT yell fire in a theatre is ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE

what the law SHOULD say is its illegal to cause a panic or potential panic in a theater REGARDLESS of how you do this. Same effect without violating the first amendment.

So the illegal act is NOT yelling fire. its causing a PANIC or POTENTIAL PANIC that fact that you yelled fire to do this is not relevant. I am pretty sure the supreme court already shot this down or at least they should have I will have to look into it. but you get my point.

Interesting. At the risk of yet one more irrelevancy, do you have the right to tell an airport guard you have a bomb? And then tell him or her you are only kidding?

Actually YOU CAN walk down main street with a sixgun on your hip. ANY law saying otherwise is illegal (NO I would not openly challenge it without proper preparation as the risk is too high) in fact in MANY states it is PERFECTLY legal to carry a weapon. its carrying a CONCEALED weapon that you need a permit for :-)

Why is there any difference? But, that aside, I hope you never try it in Manhattan without a permit. (And forgive me for not mentioning that little bit before.) Because you can personally believe that is legal behavior all you wish. It will still get you 3 and a half to fifteen.

"Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch."

LaughingVulcan. Come on man you have VULCAN in your name for christs sake this should mean you know SOMETHING about the word LOGIC. I am not trying to insult yo I just laughed when I read your illogical quote above and then noted your name :-)

No insult taken. Few people seem to realize that the "Laughing" part comes first, or that a LaughingVulcan is usually a contradiction. (No, I am not a troll. I have been using this web name for a Long time.) Or the assumption that a Vulcan must have perfect logic - which has not been true since at least Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. But I digress. I think that's part of the problem - it takes so long to respond that I get tired. And I usually ramble on when I get tired. Anyway...

You describe two acts. MAKING A FIST and THREATENING YOU WITH IT.
<snip>

All I was noting was, as you have somewhat affirmed, rights have their limits.

"Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right."

But this will not work. The system is broken. the LAST avenue to fix this system is mass defiance by the people.

I am more optimistic. But I know that you are not without your evidence for that view. And you might be right. Or I might.

Or I could go to bed now. That seems more likely.

(But I did fully read what you wrote to the end of your post.)