Don't tune in for Super Bowl LXI if your TV is more than 55"

[Doodler]

You could be subject to prosecution.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.

I'm just gonna put that there, and let y'all comment on it. I'd offer my opinion, but I fear that the V-chip I had installed in my brain would probably melt down under the onslaught and subject y'all to language that would render an aircraft carrier full of sailors shamefaced.

[sarongsong]

...NFL officials spotted a promotion...on the church Web site last week...Spotted?

[publius]

These copyright laws are just getting out of hand. I could ramble on and froth out of the mouth about this for ages. These "content providers" are getting it in their heads that can control all aspects of the individual's "consumption of content". To H-E double hockey sticks with 'em.

Because the public pays wads of money to these "content providers", they have the resources to buy off politicians and laywers to their enforcers. How I wish the public would just, even for a month, stop buying their crap.

That would do more to humble these SOBs down than anything else.

-Richard

[Chuck]

A strong consumers' union would be useful. If the union's leaders could arrange for a few million people to boycott a product then better arrangements could be negotiated. Such a union would be weak against providers of necessities such as food and clothing but people can live indefinitely without professional entertainment.

[publius]

A strong consumers' union would be useful. If the union's leaders could arrange for a few million people to boycott a product then better arrangements could be negotiated. Such a union would be weak against providers of necessities such as food and clothing but people can live indefinitely without professional entertainment.


Yes, it would be nice if the entertainment industry realized that their products, in the grand scheme of things, are useless. The trouble is there is demand for their products and that inflates their sense of importance and power in their minds.

Something like a large natural disaster would do the trick of showing them how worthless their products really are in the grand scheme. If getting food, clothing, and shelter became an uncertainty for many people, they wouldn't have too much time or truck for the entertainment industry, would they?

A natural disaster of course would *force* the public to concentrate on what's really important. It would be nice if they would voluntarily show the entertainment industry what's really important.

That industry increasingly sees its own customers as its enemy, but an enemy they nonetheless own. They should see be thankful to the customer who is willing to pay money for something that is essentially worthless. :)

Nothing makes me madder than buying a piece of hardware, and have that hardware have stuff built in that is antagonistic to me, its owner, because the "content providers" want to control how I use that hardware.

I'm in a vast minority, but Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry aren'tt going to get one more red cent out of me. I'm not buying their products any more. No more DVDs, CDs, or anything, including going to movies. Not one more red cent. And oh how wish many more would do the same.

-Richard

[publius]

I'll add this: A personification of what I think of the "content provider" and entertainment might help. Paris Hilton would fit that bill pretty good. :) She's an utterly idiotic dingbat heiress living off the fruits of her grandparents' labor. There's an old saying, "shirt-tail to shirt-tail in three generations", that describes a family empire phenomemon. One generation makes it, the second generation maintains the status quo, but the third generation looses it all. The third generation, raised in the lap of luxury, never learns the traits and values that allowed the first generation to rise up.

However, when that first generation mangages to amass a large enough fortune, worthless 3rd and later generations can be supported indefinitely, basically just off the interest. :) There's so much there they can't blow it all no matter how reckless they are.

Anway, the entertainment industry is in the worthless 3rd generation phase now. A bunch of Paris Hiltons running around acting stupid, and with some slimy crooked reptile lawyers acting as their enforcers. If Paris were to loose her money, those reptiles would just turn on her in a second.


-Richard

[Maksutov]

No problem.

I'm going to tune in to Super Bowl XLI.

[hhEb09'1]

I'm just gonna put that there, and let y'all comment on it. Churches do that all the time. Use their status and membership to circumvent restriction. Want to get together with a bunch of friends and buy shares in a vacation ranch tax free? Do it through a church. However, all sorts of businesses pipe unauthorized and unpaid radio feed through their phone system for on-hold background music--technically, they're supposed to have paid for the privilege.

publius, you should probably thank the stars that the public is not so organized--probably the first worthless thing that they'd boycott is experimental physics. :)

[publius]

publius, you should probably thank the stars that the public is not so organized--probably the first worthless thing that they'd boycott is experimental physics. :)

If it would get rid of Hollywood along with the likes of Britney Spears and that bunch, I'd consider it a fair price, indeed.


-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

If it would get rid of Hollywood along with the likes of Britney Spears and that bunch, I'd consider it a fair price, indeed.
:)

[sarongsong]

...Paris Hilton...an utterly idiotic dingbat heiress living off the fruits of her grandparents' labor...Easy now...2006 income was $7M (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/U3HH.html) .

[Neverfly]

I think that price would be too steep.
Let the idiots run around in circles
As long as Physics and knowledge progresses too.

[Gillianren]

I won't watch the Super Bowl regardless. But I got a huge stack of movies from the library today, so it's not like I'm lacking for things to watch.

[Moose]

Spotted?

Yeah, but it checked out on replay, so it's all good.

[farmerjumperdon]

Not enough evidence to overturn the call?

[farmerjumperdon]

Is there really a law that specifies the size of the TV screen?

I could see protecting themselves from the recording and selling, or maybe even from people charging admission - but a free real-time viewing of broadcast signals does not seem to be within their jurisdiction.

[NEOWatcher]

You could be subject to prosecution.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

Can anyone find out what they are interpreting in the law?

a) I always thought that the fair use was meant to limit the amount or type of profit being gained from the use. Churches (being non-profit) do not fit this.
b) According to this: (http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html)there are 4 factors
1) purpose: although not educational... a church is not commercial; yet they will let sports bars profit.
2) nature: a tv broadcast is meant to expose the public to advertising... this is happening. I believe it is their problem that they limit themselves to Nielson ratings for thier economics.
3) Not sure how this one applies..
4) Effect on the market... The same people are still watching the commercials.

c) According to this (http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html)
Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.
Churches fall somewhere in the middle here, but my own opinion is that a church is more of "friends" than public.

d) 55 inch? where the heck does that come from?

[hhEb09'1]

Churches fall somewhere in the middle here, but my own opinion is that a church is more of "friends" than public.Only one church, and that's with a capital F :)

[Doodler]

d) 55 inch? where the heck does that come from?

Beats the stuffing out of me, NEO, but damned if that doesn't make criminals out of their biggest fans, though, doesn't it?

[Moose]

Is there really a law that specifies the size of the TV screen?

I don't think so. I think it's a matter of the NFL claiming that they're enforcing licensing on any public performance (paid or otherwise) above 55inches.

What it means is that while the laws governing licensing technically apply to, say, having the TVs tuned to the superbowl in your local sports bar, the NFL basically says that ordinary viewing rights cover it.

But in the case of the church (who'd been wanting to charge admission at first!), it's actually a public performance for which they haven't obtained the proper licensing and paid the appropriate fees.

The NFL is basically saying that 55 inches for a public performance is the point above which they'll actively defend their licensing as a copyright holder. The sports bars are still technically violating the license, but the NFL appears to be expressing permission below that point.

They don't care if you have a hundred incher in your den and have invited the neighborhood (and their dogs) for a superbowl party.

[Moose]

Just to add, none of this, of course, has been tested in court, so everyone's mileage will vary.

[Fazor]

d) 55 inch? where the heck does that come from?

The "NFL Official" that spotted the ad only has a 55" tv, so therefore no one with a better tv should be allowed to watch the game. ;)

As for sports bars profiting from the super bowl, I think they're suppose to pay the NFL a fee to show the game, but I'm not sure. Is the church charging admission to this showing? That does violate copyright rules for the transmission. But if they're simply hosting a place to watch the game for free, then that's different. Oh well, we're living in the era of overzealous intelectual property rights guardianship-amentism (i tried to make that as long as i could).

No one knows where the line is or how to enforce the copyrights. Unfortunately a few people jump the gun and go too far with it. which, in my opinion, is what they are doing here. "Let people watch the superbowl? for free? Sure it's broadcast. What? they want to watch it *with other people*? NO WAY!"

[SeanF]

I believe it is their problem that they limit themselves to Nielson ratings for thier economics.
How else are they supposed to do it? Specifically, how do broadcasters, in general, convince the advertisers to pay x number of dollars for a commercial spot if they can't somehow demonstrate the number of viewers that commercial spot will reach?

Question about the Nielsens for anybody who is a Nielsen Viewer - are you told to only mark down that you watched something if you watched it in your own home? If you go to the neighbors house and watch a movie on HBO, do you put that in your book?

[NEOWatcher]

How else are they supposed to do it?
Partly up to the advertisers themselves. They have ways of knowing how customers come into thier stores (or whatever) by questionaires, using multiple phone numbers, casual questions, etc.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] As for sports bars profiting from the super bowl, I think they're suppose to pay the NFL a fee to show the game, but I'm not sure.
I suspect that they do, just as radio stations and live-music venues must pay ASCAP/BMI for songs they perform. I'm sure ASCAP and BMI would just love to charge you for hearing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" on the elevator's Muzak system, but the backlash from consumers would lead to legislation that would put them out of business, so we're safe. (For the time being, ;) )
Is the church charging admission to this showing? That does violate copyright rules for the transmission. But if they're simply hosting a place to watch the game for free, then that's different.
Maybe they should say they're charging a fee for refreshments. Yeah, that's the ticket! ;)
Oh well, we're living in the era of overzealous intellectual property rights guardianship-amentism (I tried to make that as long as I could). [Snip!]
Why do I find it oxymoronic to speak of a sporting event as "intellectual property"? :lol:

BTW, the phrase "Super Bowl" is trademarked, so maybe we should not use it. Instead we should call it "Overrated Sporting Event #41". (Time to ditch the Roman numerals!)

[Squashed]

..., it's actually a public performance for which they haven't obtained the proper licensing and paid the appropriate fees.

...

Someone in my town hosts a "Movies in the Park" during which they play kids' movies for whoever shows up.

I have never been to one (don't want to get caught in the sting) but I can hear 'em (volume is quite high).

Is there any non-lawyerly (sign here, here, here, and here) way of doing this and correctly following the law?

[NEOWatcher]

Partly up to the advertisers themselves. They have ways of knowing how customers come into thier stores (or whatever) by questionaires, using multiple phone numbers, casual questions, etc.
...and...
The NFL could take a sampling of the numbers of superbowl parties and get a pretty good number of how many people have been taken out of the Neilson stream.
There is a certain percentage of salesmanship to sell an ad anyway, it's not 100% Nielson.

[Fazor]

BTW, the phrase "Super Bowl" is trademarked, so maybe we should not use it. Instead we should call it "Overrated Sporting Event #41". (Time to ditch the Roman numerals!)

Lol oh yeah I forgot. One local radio station was making fun of that, they kept saying "you could win tickets to the supe--err, we can't say that. Lets just say "to the big game". :) I think i'd fit in well on that radio station staff.

[hhEb09'1]

BTW, the phrase "Super Bowl" is trademarked, so maybe we should not use it. Instead we should call it "Overrated Sporting Event #41". (Time to ditch the Roman numerals!)You can use it, in print, as long as you indicate it is a trademark. If you use it to promote something (say, one of your own promotions), you might need permission.

The REALTOR(T)s used to be very vigilant about this. Do not use "realtor" or "Realtor", it's a trademark violation. :)

[SeanF]

Partly up to the advertisers themselves. They have ways of knowing how customers come into thier stores (or whatever) by questionaires, using multiple phone numbers, casual questions, etc.
...and...
The NFL could take a sampling of the numbers of superbowl parties and get a pretty good number of how many people have been taken out of the Neilson stream.
There is a certain percentage of salesmanship to sell an ad anyway, it's not 100% Nielson.
Right. So the NFL says, "We're finding x number of people will see your ad on our Super Bowl, so you need to pay us $x," but the advertiser says, "We're finding only y number of people will see our ad on your Super Bowl, so we're not paying you more than $y," and neither is willing to take the other's word for it - nor should they.

Then they both say, "Gee, it sure would be nice if there were some kind of independent, unbiased, third-party organization that could tell us how many people watch a show..." :)

[NEOWatcher]

...Then they both say, "Gee, it sure would be nice if there were some kind of independent, unbiased, third-party organization that could tell us how many people watch a show..." :)

Or more ironic yet...they would use the exact same statistic/argument to convince a jury how many people are not included in Nielson.

By the way, there's no mention of the extra viewers they gain from people going to these parties, rather than staying home and doing something else.

Anyway, I'm not going to any SB party that is serving 3 foot subs. That seems to be a major problem in these parts because the news is going to expose the subs that are less than 3' :eek:

Tonight's Special Reports On NewsChannel5: Are 3-foot subs really 3-feet? NewsChannel5 exposes subs that don't go the distance. (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10901890/detail.html)

[Fazor]

Anyway, I'm not going to any SB party that is serving 3 foot subs. That seems to be a major problem in these parts because the news is going to expose the subs that are less than 3' :eek:

Tonight's Special Reports On NewsChannel5: Are 3-foot subs really 3-feet? NewsChannel5 exposes subs that don't go the distance. (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10901890/detail.html)

LoL! Those kind of stories rank as a tie in the "things I hate about nightly local news" catagory, right up there with the common tactic of "This common house-hold item that you probably are touching right now has a 50/50 chance of killing you in the next 10 minutes!!!! tune in in 30 to find out what it is" ;)

[Swift]

BTW, the phrase "Super Bowl" is trademarked, so maybe we should not use it. Instead we should call it "Overrated Sporting Event #41". (Time to ditch the Roman numerals!)
I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but you might actually be correct. This is from the OP article
Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.
The radio station I was listening to this morning was half-kidding about the "big sport event on Sunday" because they said the SB words were copyrighted and so they couldn't use them (they were doing a fund raiser for the local foodbank, at a bowling alley, calling the fundraiser the "Soup -n- Bowl").

This copyright/license nonsense is out of control. I don't much care about either team (I figured I wasn't allowed to type the names as they are trademarked), I was only going to watch the stupid thing for the commercials. I think I'll sit at my computer and just play games. :evil:

[pghnative]

Question about the Nielsens for anybody who is a Nielsen Viewer - are you told to only mark down that you watched something if you watched it in your own home? If you go to the neighbors house and watch a movie on HBO, do you put that in your book?I don't know about the Nielsons, but I participated in the radio equivalent (Arbitron, I think), and they didn't care whether I listened at home, or in the car.

[mugaliens]

That was a ridiculously stupid thing for the NFL to do, as they'll probably have 150 less people watching the Superbowl commercials (which make money for the teams, the NFL, via the money paid by the sponsors...)

Instead, they'll all be at the church social.

...

...

I just e-mailed the NFL, telling them that I was eager to watch the Superbowl until they pulled this ridiculously stupid stunt.

I'll bet they get 10,000 additional responders now that it's hit the news.

[SeanF]

Or more ironic yet...they would use the exact same statistic/argument to convince a jury how many people are not included in Nielson.
To convince a jury? We're talking about a broadcaster and an advertiser reaching an agreement on how much an ad during a particular show is worth. The Nielsen Ratings were created specifically to give them an unbiased way to do it.

By the way, there's no mention of the extra viewers they gain from people going to these parties, rather than staying home and doing something else.
Because it's not relevant (apparently - that's why I asked about how Nielsen Viewers treat out-of-home viewings). Advertisers will only pay for viewers that the show is verifiably delivering. The NFL knows that those viewers are there. And, quite frankly, the advertisers know it, too. But advertising rates are based on Nielsen ratings - not just for the Super Bowl, but for television broadcasting in general - and that's as much the fault of the advertisers as it is the broadcasters.

Based on the NFL's understanding of Nielsen ratings (again, apparently), viewers at those parties don't count. That means the advertisers will not pay for them. The NFL is operating under the understanding that Nielsen viewers watching the game at a big party instead of at home will cost them money. And they may be right.

Anyway, I'm not going to any SB party that is serving 3 foot subs. That seems to be a major problem in these parts because the news is going to expose the subs that are less than 3' :eek:

Tonight's Special Reports On NewsChannel5: Are 3-foot subs really 3-feet? NewsChannel5 exposes subs that don't go the distance. (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10901890/detail.html)
Ah, don't ya love hard-hitting journalism? :D

[NEOWatcher]

That was a ridiculously stupid thing for the NFL to do...

It could also be a publicity ploy. Look at all the press they are getting. And they will look like a hero in the end when they turn around and say "we are letting the churches show it, and this church will get a donation of X". By the time they are finished with the sentance, the public will forget about what caused the problem in the first place. Now everyone is happy and the NFL gets some publicity.

[Fazor]

It could also be a publicity ploy. Look at all the press they are getting. And they will look like a hero in the end when they turn around and say "we are letting the churches show it, and this church will get a donation of X". By the time they are finished with the sentance, the public will forget about what caused the problem in the first place. Now everyone is happy and the NFL gets some publicity.

I kinda think that about any of these rediculously stupid stories that come out of the daily news. Think about it: Hot topic item that everyone will discuss, national coverage of said story, and costs you zero dollars and zero cents. what's better than that?

[Moose]

"This common house-hold item that you probably are touching right now has a 50/50 chance of killing you in the next 10 minutes!!!! tune in in 30 to find out what it is" ;)

Yeah. ATV news is notorious for this. "Is your husband or wife planning to murder you in your sleep with a rusty ice pick? Find out how you can tell in tonight's exclusive story. Don't blink or you'll miss it. But first, twenty-six minutes of puppies!

[aurora]

If there is a limit to how big the screen can be, then just do what all the bars and restaraunts do -- scatter several smaller units around the room.

Maybe someone already mentioned this, I'm too lazy to read the first page of comments.

Anyway, dumb rule with a dumb measure -- easily circumvented.

[Chuck]

Even if a church isn't charging admission to watch the game, they still collect money from their members every week and church activities are used to boost and maintain membership. It's hard to say how much money they make from any one event but they are making money.

Maybe the NFL figures that if the church weren't showing the game then some of those people would go to sports bars which are paying the NFL to show the game.

We should all boycott football until they lighten up. Of course, my home team is the Arizona Cardinals so that's easy for me to say.

[tlbs101]

I showed that article to my friend, who is having me and some other friends over to his house, as he does every year, to watch the super-duper bowl 101001(binary)

He has a 60" LED HTDV whiz-bang TV for our viewing pleasure. What he is going to do (as a joke, in protest of this "ruling") is to make us sign waivers, before entering his TV-room -- including using hand-stamps after signing. Funny!

[Gillianren]

As I recall, the Neilsen ratings care whether you're at home or not. But it's been a long time since I was part of it, so I couldn't say.

[SeanF]

As I recall, the Neilsen ratings care whether you're at home or not. But it's been a long time since I was part of it, so I couldn't say.
I thought there was somebody on this board who had mentioned being a Neilsen Viewer! Thanks, Gillianren! :)

So, assuming you do remember correctly, then the NFL actually does stand to get reduced profits if people (read: Neilsen Viewers) watch the games elsewhere than their homes.

[publius]

So, assuming you do remember correctly, then the NFL actually does stand to get reduced profits if people (read: Neilsen Viewers) watch the games elsewhere than their homes.


And that's a fault of their own system. So the thinking is that since our system is faulty, we'll use the power of the state (always boils down to deadly force) to *force people* to act in a manner that is convienent for our faulty system. That is more of this slave-owner mentality. We own our customers, and they'll do darn well what we say do.

Once they broadcast an open signal, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. They've lost all control. If they want that kind of control, don't broadcast it openly.

And I've got a big problem with potential losses vs real losses. The former are about calculations that *if* this happened and that happened, I would've made $X, but since it didn't I only made $Y, therefore I lost X - Y dollars.

That the same things as going out and buying a bunch of crap because it's on sale, then talking about how money you saved, even as you're going in the hole.

The way I see, if "I were the law and courts", if A is claiming that B is repsonsible for some loss, then A's loss had better be real, not potential, otherwise I don't waste my time with it.
-Richard

[HenrikOlsen]

Guys, favorite gripe here. It's Nielsen (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/), not Neilsen (http://www.neilsen.com/). I wouldn't have expected that of you Gillianren:)

Remember the rule, I before E in Niels and Tolkien, and forget about that other rule it's wrong 25% of the time.

[sarongsong]

Big biz all the way around---one talking head mentioned a total of $6B in wagers will be made, legal and illegal combined.

[SeanF]

Once they broadcast an open signal, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. They've lost all control. If they want that kind of control, don't broadcast it openly.
Do you think that if somebody leaves their keys in their car, it ought not to be illegal for somebody else to take it?

[publius]

Do you think that if somebody leaves their keys in their car, it ought not to be illegal for somebody else to take it?

Bad analogy. If I leave the keys in my cars, and put a sign up that says, "Free car, first come, first served!", well, I'd be hard pressed to complain if someone took me up on that offer. Broadcasting open signals over the airwaves, recievers for which are as a numerous as grains of sand on the beach, is such an open invitation.

And your scenario offers another case in point. I can simultaneously say one who steals it is certainly guilty of a crime, and the one who left the keys in is guilty of being incredibly stupid and almost begging for it to be stolen. Neither one negates the other. And imagine, the car owner does it not once, not twice, but actually chronically leaves his keys in his car all the time and has had about 10 cars stolen from him. At some point, you've got to say, "dude, quit leaving your keys in your car, or were not going to help you anymore!"

And further what copyright holders do is equivalent to me demanding I be allowed to leave my keys in the car all the time, and expect the state to protect me from my own stupidity by not just tracking down a real thief who actually stole the car, but going around and stopping every citizen driving a car and making them prove they own the car and did not in fact steal in from me, proactively protecting me from my own stupidity before it can be taken advantage of.

-Richard

[publius]

And actually, thinking about your car with the keys in it example reminds me of something. There are (local/state) laws about this. If a car is left sitting for so long, and the owner hasn't made any attempt to get it, it is considered legally abandoned.

And, if someone is trespassing on your property with a vehicle (the conditions for which the law allows you to say "that person knows he is obviously trespassing" get tricky, but assume the standard is met), you can take that vehicle away and hold it.

I've done that a time or two myself with some hunters who seem to think they own the world and go wherever they please without permission. Charged a couple of 'em $200 a pop to get their vehicles back out of my "impound".

-Richard

[publius]

Actually, a better analogy is the following: If I'm walking down the street and take off my watch and throw it in a dumpster, should it be considered theft if someone else comes along and takes the watch out of the dumpster?

Broadcasting content over open channels is just that, throwing it into the dumpster of the four winds.

And that illustrates the basic common sense predicate for theft. I must take something that any reasonable person, using their reasonable faculties, would conclude belongs to someone else and that person has not renounced ownership. If that someone throws something away, they are obviously renouncing their ownership of it.

Leaving a car for so long in a public area is considered "throwing it away". And putting something you own in someone else's property that you do not have a legal right to also forfeits your ownership to some extent as defined by law.

ETA: And what the NFL is doing here is if I throw my watch, no heck my car keys with the title to the vehicle in the dumpster, and saying only women with a bust size of 40" or greater can take this car, anyone else may not. :lol: And further, they may only use it for one week, and by taking it, they agree to bring it back to me, and be naked when they do and agree to provide certain 'favors' -heh, heh, heh - to me for the use of it.

Now, you're the judge, there. Do you enforce my ridiculous "contract" or do you shoot me right then and there for bringing such nonsense before your court and wasting the taxpayers' time and money?

-Richard

[Musashi]

I disagree.

[Neverfly]

Yeah..
i agree with your Principle Publius
But i dont agree either.
They are SELLING a product essentially
and you dont want to buy it.
i dont either- i dont watch- i dont care.....
BUT it IS their product. I think the Church example is one case where they got RIDICULOUS. But they arent throwing their product in a dumpster for anyone to grab.

[publius]

Yeah..
i agree with your Principle Publius
But i dont agree either.
They are SELLING a product essentially
and you dont want to buy it.
i dont either- i dont watch- i dont care.....
BUT it IS their product. I think the Church example is one case where they got RIDICULOUS. But they arent throwing their product in a dumpster for anyone to grab.

What they are selling is *advertising*, not the product, "the game feed". By broadcasting that over the public airwaves, on open channels, they are obviously not selling that feed, but giving it away. What they are selling is portions of that feed to advertisers to use to hawk their own wares.

If you and your friend communicate with each other over some distance by hollering through megaphones, you have obviously gone way beyond any expectation of privacy of your communication, and can't complain about anyone eavesdropping.

By broadcasting that feed over the open channels, they are doing the same thing. They have absolutely no right to control who tunes in at all and in what manner. If they want that control, stop broadcasting, and go to some pay-per-view, closed distribution system where it is obvious they are not giving it away.

-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

Now, you're the judge, there. Do you enforce my ridiculous "contract" or do you shoot me right then and there for bringing such nonsense before your court and wasting the taxpayers' time and money?
I'm the judge? 30 days, posting while impaired. :)

[publius]

I'm the judge? 30 days, posting while drunk. :)


:lol: What is the legal limit for posting?


-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

60 seconds, right?

[publius]

I just heard on the radio that Anheuser-Busch is (once again) the largest purchaser of ad time during the Super Bowl, with a total of 5 minutes. That is some serious dough.

So, I think we can conclude that the NFL is playing and broadcasting while drunk. :)

-Richard

[Chuck]

By law, it is stealing to use copyrighted content without paying for it, but the content providers are making it easy for people to steal it and expect the taxpayers to pay to protect it by maintaining a court system with which they can sue. What if other people conducted business like that? If I'm selling computers and put them out on the sidewalk unattended along with an address for people who take one to send payment, should the taxpayers provide funds to guard them or track down anyone who steals one? What if everyone conducted business that way? Taxes would soar as police had to be stationed in every business in the country.

Guarding intellectual property is more difficult than guarding physical property, but so what? It's not my duty to provide funds to protect it while its owners get rich. If its owners find that they can't protect it and can't tolerate its theft then maybe they'd be happier in some other business.

[sarongsong]

...By broadcasting that feed over the open channels...They have absolutely no right to control who tunes in at all and in what manner...That was also the thinking of a supplier of decoder devices for TV-satellite signals that 'fell' on his property, a few years back. Don't know what, if anything, happened to him later, but he had racked up quite a fortune at the time of the interview.

[publius]

That was also the thinking of a supplier of decoder devices for TV-satellite signals that 'fell' on his property, a few years back. Don't know what, if anything, happened to him later, but he had racked up quite a fortune at the time of the interview.


That is actually a bit different -- I've got some views on that, too :) -- but here, I'm not talking about encrypted or otherwise restricted feeds. I'm talking about open to the world broadcasts -- where no active tapping, no decryption is involved in receiving the signals, just plain open channels which are the equivalent of me going out and shouting at the top of my lungs.

If I put something on that, I'm giving it away.

-Richard

[publius]

I'll give another analogy, one that actually happens. Ever noticed these little newsletters, usually real-estate listings and other advertisments, that are put up for free in restaurants? Well, the publishers of those are just advertising, and they want access to the public and restaurants and other public places are a good way to gain that access. And usually, the restaurant owners charge a fee for the privilege of using their property to *give away free newsletters to the public*.

Now, most of the time, that's just a monthly fee or other flat rate. As it is, the restaurants don't make that much money off that, so they don't need it and the advertisers are completely at their mercy. But suppose it wasn't that way, the owners needed the advertisers and so they got to negotiating. We'll pay you a fee based on how many copies of our newsletters are taken. So they start counting.

Now suppose the restaurant owner learns that some of his customers are taking those newsletters and giving them to other people, or even making copies. The restaurant owner *then sues you if you give your copy of that free paper to someone else*. He claims that free newspaper is his property and he can control what you do with it after you take it.

-Richard

[Neverfly]

THAT one IS much better... :think:

[Musashi]

So what about television shows that air on network television? I should be able to record and distribute them? For money? Or charge people to come to my house and view them? I mean, they are giving the content away, right? I should be able to take the high-def feed and press it onto dvd and sell it if I want, no problem, right? How about those books I can read for free at the library? I'll just start making copies, binding them up and selling them. Those songs on the radio, I can record them into albums and sell them to people too I guess. I mean, who cares that people worked hard to develop all of these things and expect to be compensated. Art should be free man.

[publius]

So what about television shows that air on network television? I should be able to record and distribute them? For money? Or charge people to come to my house and view them? I mean, they are giving the content away, right? I should be able to take the high-def feed and press it onto dvd and sell it if I want, no problem, right? How about those books I can read for free at the library? I'll just start making copies, binding them up and selling them. Those songs on the radio, I can record them into albums and sell them to people too I guess. I mean, who cares that people worked hard to develop all of these things and expect to be compensated. Art should be free man.

You see that's an example of the argument these copyright tyrants make to justify their draconian measures. I am in no way arguing for willy nilly copying *and re-selling* of "content" that is sold. That's an entirely different thing.

A library buys *a book*. It lets you and all members of the public come in and read it for free. Just like if you buy a book and loan it out to your friends. Now, how about if the copyright holder of those bought-and-paid for books decided he should be paid every time someone read that book. The library would have to keep track of every time that book was read and pay a licensing fee.

And they come in to your home and demand that you pay them a fee or adopt a one book per person rule where no more than one person can read the content of the book. It is illegal for your spouse or children to read the book. You must buy a "license" or another book for each person who reads it. If you don't, they sue you. The book itself is just the relatively inexpensive medium the "content" is printed on.

And furthermore, they do that after giving millions of copies of the book away for free. They didn't charge you for the book, but they turn around and say a library can't lend that book out anymore because they can't count how many people read it.

And by the way, I wouldn't say Britney Spears worked hard or had any talent whatsoever for her "art". Just a bunch of hyped up marketing that convinced millions of teenagers to waste money on crap. But that's just my opinion.

-Richard

[sarongsong]

...I'm talking about open to the world broadcasts...just plain open channels...Hee-hee! (envisioning NFL's world-wide enforcement and World Court proceedings... http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

[Gillianren]

Guys, favorite gripe here. It's Nielsen (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/), not Neilsen (http://www.neilsen.com/). I wouldn't have expected that of you Gillianren:)

We used to be Nelsens, back in the Old Country; it never came up! (Okay, you got me. I was too lazy to look it up. I hang my head in shame.)

[Jeff Root]

We used to be Nelsens, back in the Old Country
You have Norwegian in you? I'm 1/4 Norwegian.

Editing to add:

Come to think of it, I'm not sure which is Norwegian and which is
Swedish: Nelson versus Nelsen. I have relatives whose names
end in both -son and -sen.

Nielson promised me something a few days ago, but nothing has
shown up in my mailbox yet. The person on the phone convinced
me that they still value my opinion even if I don't have a TV.
(I told her truthfully that my TV was working so poorly on the
first day of the Gulf War that I gave up on it, and never replaced
it or had it repaired. That's the first day of the First Gulf War,
under the First George Bush.) Maybe she misunderstood what to
do in a situation like mine, or maybe there will be something in my
mailbox today besides the usual Saturday junk mail. (BTW no
BAUT-generated mail at all. Not even a check from Doodler. I'll
keep looking.)

Richard,

I haven't been following this thread (since I have zero interest in
football), but I did read this page (since I saw that Gillian was the
most recent poster and I like to read her posts), and saw your
posts above with the restaurant flyer analogy and library book
analogy. Those were very clear, very graphic, and well-stated.
I like a good analogy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[mugaliens]

Does the 55" rule apply to projection? Does this mean that I must move my video projector closer to the wall so that the image is smaller than 55"?

Hmmm... I think I'll project it on the wall of the building next door and watch the game that way, piping the sound through my speakers, conveniently located on my balcony. That way the 55 foot image is certain to stir the NFL's ire. Since I live in Germany, however, they can't touch me, legally!

[Gillianren]

You have Norwegian in you? I'm 1/4 Norwegian.

Editing to add:

Come to think of it, I'm not sure which is Norwegian and which is
Swedish: Nelson versus Nelsen. I have relatives whose names
end in both -son and -sen.

Danish, actually. (Note that Henrik, here on this board, says that "Nelsen" isn't a Danish name. Still, we know he was Danish, and I'm fairly sure someone in the family has seen the paperwork. His was an Ellis Island name change, and we're "Nelson" now.) I think the relevant line comes from my three-greats grandfather, but I don't want to disturb my sleeping roommate by going into the other room to look it up.

[Chuck]

I'm sure that book publishers would charge per view if they could but that's impractical now. Intrusive future technology might make it possible. When the government can closely watch all of us at all times they can use the capability to enforce new laws. Then when you buy a book you'd have to agree that it's for personal use only and you'd have to buy a license to let someone else read it. If you don't agree then you can't buy the book. It would be the same with any intellectual property. If you play a CD where someone else can hear it your bank account would automatically be charged a small royalty. Maybe you'd have to pay each time you listened to it even if were alone. If you don't agree to those terms then they wouldn't sell it to you. And you'd better not hum or whistle a copyrighted tune where someone else can hear you. That would be an unauthorized live performance.

[boppa]

What if other people conducted business like that? If I'm selling computers and put them out on the sidewalk unattended along with an address for people who take one to send payment, should the taxpayers provide funds to guard them or track down anyone who steals one? What if everyone conducted business that way? Taxes would soar as police had to be stationed in every business in the country.

Guarding intellectual property is more difficult than guarding physical property, but so what? It's not my duty to provide funds to protect it while its owners get rich. If its owners find that they can't protect it and can't tolerate its theft then maybe they'd be happier in some other business.

actually as nobody actually owns the radiowaves( some places have tried and lost)


id think its more along the lines of selling computers and paying someone to deliver them to your home(paying for the transmitters,electricity, building its in etc) with a note on the box that `oh by the way ill expect your cheque in the mail

dont hold your breath waiting for that cheque my friend

now if it was encoded and you physically had to `hack' it to see it

thats different

(but as ive never seen a superbowl(well i saw some of THAT one with janet jackson lol about 5 secs worth..) on any tv)...


its all rather academic to me anyway......

;-)

(is that the football one or the baseball one?)

[hhEb09'1]

Now suppose the restaurant owner learns that some of his customers are taking those newsletters and giving them to other people, or even making copies. The restaurant owner *then sues you if you give your copy of that free paper to someone else*. He claims that free newspaper is his property and he can control what you do with it after you take it.Wouldn't it be the publisher that would sue, to make the analogy, I mean?

I seem to remember some cases like that, in fact.That is actually a bit different -- I've got some views on that, too :) -- but here, I'm not talking about encrypted or otherwise restricted feeds. I'm talking about open to the world broadcasts -- where no active tapping, no decryption is involved in receiving the signals, just plain open channels which are the equivalent of me going out and shouting at the top of my lungs. You can receive TV signals with your teeth? :)Does the 55" rule apply to projection? Does this mean that I must move my video projector closer to the wall so that the image is smaller than 55"?The OP says that the church is using a projector, so yes I think that that is what this thread is all about.

[mugaliens]

You see that's an example of the argument these copyright tyrants make to justify their draconian measures. I am in no way arguing for willy nilly copying *and re-selling* of "content" that is sold. That's an entirely different thing.

A library buys *a book*. It lets you and all members of the public come in and read it for free. Just like if you buy a book and loan it out to your friends. Now, how about if the copyright holder of those bought-and-paid for books decided he should be paid every time someone read that book. The library would have to keep track of every time that book was read and pay a licensing fee.

And they come in to your home and demand that you pay them a fee or adopt a one book per person rule where no more than one person can read the content of the book. It is illegal for your spouse or children to read the book. You must buy a "license" or another book for each person who reads it. If you don't, they sue you. The book itself is just the relatively inexpensive medium the "content" is printed on.

And furthermore, they do that after giving millions of copies of the book away for free. They didn't charge you for the book, but they turn around and say a library can't lend that book out anymore because they can't count how many people read it.

And by the way, I wouldn't say Britney Spears worked hard or had any talent whatsoever for her "art". Just a bunch of hyped up marketing that convinced millions of teenagers to waste money on crap. But that's just my opinion.

-Richard

Sadly, the Music and Video Recording industries' Digital Millineum Copyright Act...

Er, sorry. That should have been Congress' Digital Millineum Copyright Act...

My bad.

Anyway, this piece of crap legislature turned common sense on it's head, shot it, blew it up, drew and quartered the remaining pieces, burned them until nothing was left but ash, then sent the ashes by nuclear rocket and a special cooling system straight into the core of the sun.

Otherwise, publius, the NFL wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Thankfully, libraries aren't going away anytime soon, and they're so entrenched in our societal framework that they're able to loan out music CDs and movie DVDs and all the music/movie industries can do about it is lower their heads in greedy shame.

Is it apparent to everyone that this is absolutely nothing more than an attempt by the production companies to line their pockets with every last dollar you and I have worked so hard to earn just so that we can listen to some music and watch some movies.

I really think the only viable solution here, all things considered, is to return to the "make one copy for personal use" clause that existed in the 80's.

Hey, it worked. If there's a technical solution to enforce it for digital music and videos that prohibits violating this, I'm not aware of it.

Then again, I'm not aware of a technical solution which prohibited the illegal copying of movies back in the 1930's, either...

Either the RIAA and others are going to have to hire some REAL experts, or they're just plain out of luck on all fronts. What's to prevent me from playing a copy of Count Basie, digitizing the stream, and releasing it?

Nothing.

And no, I don't do that, because it's wrong.

But preventing the sharing of legitimately "open source" music is as wrong as denying a band the right to play at a summer festival because they refuse to sign a contract granting the city full rights to all songs played during that festival (that actually happened to me, a decade back...).

My take: If you can hear it, you're free to copy it. Control access to music either physically (clubs, concerts), or not at all.

[SeanF]

Publius, you're right that the car stealing analogy wasn't perfect - but then, analogies never are. :)

But your newsletter analogy has flaws, too.

And, last night, I thought of a much better one.

Badastronomy.com uses Google ads. Those ads appear on the the website, and Google pays Phil based on either hits to his website or click-throughs on the Google ads through his website. I'm not sure which, but it doesn't matter for the analogy.

Now, let's say someone out there caches badastronomy.com and serves it up from their servers. The customers get the exact same webpage - all of Phil's text, Phil's name, Phil's copyright notice, the Google ads, nothing different - except there's no badastronomy.com hit nor a badastronomy.com click-through for the Google ads, so Phil doesn't get paid for those customers.

Phil's own fault for "openly" putting his page on the Internet? No legal remedies?

[publius]

Badastronomy.com uses Google ads. Those ads appear on the the website, and Google pays Phil based on either hits to his website or click-throughs on the Google ads through his website. I'm not sure which, but it doesn't matter for the analogy.

Now, let's say someone out there caches badastronomy.com and serves it up from their servers. The customers get the exact same webpage - all of Phil's text, Phil's name, Phil's copyright notice, the Google ads, nothing different - except there's no badastronomy.com hit nor a badastronomy.com click-through for the Google ads, so Phil doesn't get paid for those customers.

Phil's own fault for "openly" putting his page on the Internet? No legal remedies?

Sean,

The trouble here is we're throwing in "third parties" who actively "copy and rebroadcast" (an exact defintion of just what that is would be tricky, but assume we have it and know what it is) content.

Suppose I have a bunch of friends and family who come over and read the BAUT board on my computers here. They see some ad for something they like, but go home and act on that ad by indepedent means. Phil and Fraser get no "hit count" or click-throughs for that either.

So what if Phil and Fraser then said that no one can host "BAUT parties" -- everyone must use the board from his own computer.

That's what this all about, trying to control private behavior that messes up one's little business model. Heck, if some of these characters (not Phil and Fraser, of course!) thought they could it pull it off, they would force you by law to watch commercials, and have you arrested for not watching them. They're already trying to get enough control over TIVOs and what-not to give them the option of disabling the user's ability to jump over commericials.

-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

The trouble here is we're throwing in "third parties" who actively "copy and rebroadcast" (an exact defintion of just what that is would be tricky, but assume we have it and know what it is) content. But in the OP wouldn't the church be that third party? OK, we may have to haggle over the tricky parts. That's the job for the lawyers :)

[Chuck]

Maybe advertisers could show their commercials up front and give the viewer a little quiz about them. If you pass the quiz you can watch the programming. If you fail they resend the commercials. That would require an interactive television environment but I'm sure it could be done.

[publius]

But in the OP wouldn't the church be that third party? OK, we may have to haggle over the tricky parts. That's the job for the lawyers :)

I would say the third party thing here would be if the church copied the feed of Overated Sporting Event #TooMany (c), stripped out the commercials for the Demon Budweiser and other content they found objectionable, then distributed that to their members and charged for it, the NFL (and Demon Budweiser) would have a case. [Actually, and while most of my ire here is directed at the NFL and copyright commissars, I do have criticisms of churches doing this sort of thing, but that's not the point. Suffice it to say I find it humorous that a church provides a forum for Budweiser. :lol: Well, it isn't a Baptist church like I know locally, but that's how I picture it -- if those Baptists practiced what they preached, Budweiser wouldn't be doing much business]

And back to the broadcast thing. I do consider broadcasting over open channels to be the equivalent of shouting. While it's true we have no direct sensory apparatus to detect those signals, we have indirect natural means. Practically, receivers for those signals are as easily available, as well, Demon Budweiser :lol:, but that is not the main reason.

Decoding those signals is a matter of the use of simple electrical raw materials along with knowledge. One's brain is the sensory apparatus that can detect those signals by building a receiver.

-Richard

[publius]

I was wrong -- they are indeed Baptists.

But this gets very interesting. I've been reading about this. The NFL is completely within their legal rights granted by federal copyright law (since where I don't know -- they've been sneaking at changing all sorts of stuff, putting in more nonsense all the time -- one big thing I remember was an extension to the copyright time limit. After so long, usually after the author is long dead, the work goes public. But they extended that time limit to allow copyright holders to continue to make as much money as possible. Imagine if Shakespeare were still copyrighted!).

However, legal minds (that's what these guys do -- lawyers are hired guns, taking whatever side pays them. Why do think they make so many laws that are so complicated? Why, to make work for the lawyers) are going over this.

There may be grounds for a religious discrimination suit here against the NFL, and maybe even a challenge to the law itself. The NFL allows sports bars to do the same thing, but decided to go after the church. Another thing I wasn't aware of that the NFL objected to was the church was going to play some religous testimony of some of the NFL players as part of the show. There is a religious discrimination angle here: the object to the church's message, but not the message of sports bars.

The NFL objected to that -- it did not want its content associated with religious messages. And the copyright law gives it that legal right to do so.

Folks, think about this. Our congresscritters have passed a law that gives a broadcaster power to control what you say while his broadcast, freely available on ubiquitous hardware, is going on.

Read the Declaration of Indepedence, and note the list of offenses our pitchfork peasant revolutionaries considered King George III to be guilty of. These are nothing compared to that kind of stuff. This country has become a bunch of sheep happilly being led to the slaughter. *sigh*


-RIchard

[hhEb09'1]

I would say the third party thing here would be if the church copied the feed of Overated Sporting Event #TooMany (c), stripped out the commercials for the Demon Budweiser and other content they found objectionable, then distributed that to their members and charged for it, the NFL (and Demon Budweiser) would have a case. yahbut in SeanF's example, there was "nothing different", kinda like the case in the OP in that sense.

[publius]

yahbut in SeanF's example, there was "nothing different", kinda like the case in the OP in that sense.

"Nothing different" -- **except** he said, and that exception was the third party was indeed modifying things so the click counters wouldn't properly register that path taken to get to those ads. That is a big difference.

What the NFL is doing, and taking into the account the new information about objecting to religious co-content, would be if Phil said that no astrologers can be in the room when you're viewing BAUT on your own computer, and no more than x people can view the site and forum on one computer, etc, etc.

-Richard

[Musashi]

I like the connection between being led to slaughter and television broadcasting. Brilliant I say.

[hhEb09'1]

"Nothing different" -- **except** he said, and that exception was the third party was indeed modifying things so the click counters wouldn't properly register that path taken to get to those ads. That is a big difference.All they would have to do is put it on a different website, they wouldn't have to modify anything, would they? Sure, the clicks are coming from a different website, but that's not a "modification".

Unless you mean the only way they could keep from modifying content would be to let Phil alone. :)

[SeanF]

"Nothing different" -- **except** he said, and that exception was the third party was indeed modifying things so the click counters wouldn't properly register that path taken to get to those ads. That is a big difference.
And in the case of Super Bowl parties, the third party is modifying things so that the Nielsen Viewers don't get properly registered. Same difference.

I would like to, if we could, go back for a minute to your analogy about the free newsletters and discuss it in itself, without trying to reference it back to the Super Bowl.

Do you believe that it should be (not is, but should be) legal for one to go to a newstand, pick up an issue of Time magazine, photocopy that magazine, and distribute the copies to people?

If so, can you explain why it shouldn't be equally illegal to do that with the free, advertiser-funded newsletter?

I mean, the impression I get from that is that the end user somehow gives up their right to copy and distribute by paying for the content? Or that the provider gives up their right to control distribution by choosing not to charge? I don't understand that.

The alternative, of course, is that you believe it should be legal to photocopy and distribute Time magazine - but if that's the case, I would have no idea where to go next with this conversation! :think:

[publius]

Sean,

What is the difference between a library having a copy of Time magazine and allowing scores of people to read it for free, and someone making 10 copies of Time *and giving it away"? What is the difference, there? The only thing there is "physical copies", but if that is important, you undercut the whole principle that the physical medium is not important, but the content thereon.

Smoke over that. And that question is something I haven't fully worked out myself. I'm undecided on that. :)

In the case of the Superbowl broadcast, or the free newsletter at the restaurants, the whole thing, content and medium is being freely given away, thrown to the four winds for the consumption of whomever gets it. That negates everything.

It is a question of contract. When someone gives something away freely, throwing it to the four winds, they are giving up their right to control it. I will not say giving up complete rights, but pretty close to it.

If you and I buy something, a contract can exist there, of the form, in exchange for this copy of content, you agree to pay me $X plus agree not to make copies and sell them or even give them away. But that better be clear.

But what does that involve? You and I sitting down and doing a deal. Now, if you broadcast your stuff, or leave copies of your newsletter out in the open for anyone to take, that notion of a contract is not there.

If you're going to attach strings, it'd better be crystal clear that such strings are attached. A transaction where money is charged makes it much more obvious that the seller is not giving up control of his content.

Now, suppose you and I buy a bunch of candy and go to a playground and just throw all that candy away to the children. But, in microscopic fine print on the wrapper we say, "EULA: By taking this candy, you agree to give Richard and Sean 25% of all future income you make. Eating this candy constitues agreement to these terms."

How about that? The NFL's broadcast of the S----Overated Sporting Event #Too many is giving that particular candy away. They are saying that by watching it, we are agreeing to draconian restrictions on how and where we may watch it -- heck, even agreeing not to engage in speech during that broadcast the NFL does not wish associated with its name.

Now, if rather than broadcasting that to the four winds, they had some sort of pay-per-view or other thing, where it was obviously not "thrown away", but you explicitly agreed -- that is you had to do something that indicates you are consciously aware that you are enterting into a contract agreement with another party -- to pay for the feed, then I would say they could do this sort of control.

But they won't do that, because few would watch it under those terms, and everyone would loose money. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to give it away, broadcast it wide open to ensure millions see it, but still want to control it. And I say take your choice: Control or money? {ETA: For me and my house as the saying goes, I've already taken that decision for them: *neither* -- I'm not gonna watch their content or buy what they're selling}

The idea that a private party can force me to do something that makes his business scheme more convienent for him, by claiming that I'm agreeing to some fint print EULA on the wrapping of candy he's throwing all over the playground is repugnant.

-Richard

[Doodler]

What is the difference between a library having a copy of Time magazine and allowing scores of people to read it for free, and someone making 10 copies of Time *and giving it away"?

Give me a scanner and paper and I'll do the same thing to Time magazine that a guy with a CD burner and blank CDs can do.

Same thing, just a slightly more in demand media format.

[hhEb09'1]

And I say take your choice: Control or money? Control is money, of course. And money is power, hence the laws of the land.

You're trying to base a logical outcome on your personal perspective, but laws aren't made like that. There is a huge convergence of forces that go in to creating those laws--one person's perspective often conflicts with another's. For instance, one person's right to smoke vs. another's right to not smoke. Why do we have anti-monopoly laws in this country, but also a law to legalize major league baseball? It's impossible to make the laws consistent.

Personally, I think they should do away completely with the idea of "intellectual property" (how can you "own" a story once you've given it to someone to read? do you "own" it in their head?), but that's not going to happen. :)

[SeanF]

What is the difference between a library having a copy of Time magazine and allowing scores of people to read it for free, and someone making 10 copies of Time *and giving it away"? What is the difference, there? The only thing there is "physical copies", but if that is important, you undercut the whole principle that the physical medium is not important, but the content thereon.
Let's say you spent decades of your life developing the theory behind a revolutionary method of transportation - a new "car."

After you begin building and selling them, somebody buys one of your "cars" and rents it out to people.

Somebody else reverse engineers your design and begins selling copies - without doing the decades of work.

The latter is clearly of greater harm to you than the former, isn't it? If anything, the guy renting your vehicle is going to help your sales.

And without intellectual property laws prohibiting the latter, would anybody bother to do the decades of research? Why?

[Neverfly]

Putting work and effort into an idea IS money- and you want to profit from your labors.

Intellectual property IS property- and rightly so.

[Gillianren]

Personally, I think they should do away completely with the idea of "intellectual property" (how can you "own" a story once you've given it to someone to read? do you "own" it in their head?), but that's not going to happen. :)

Ye Gods, I don't. I want to make a living off my intellectual property someday. Even leaving that out, I want recognition that it's mine. Taking the intellectual property rights away would also mean people could take my name off it and put theirs on, and that's not right.

[publius]

Sean,

Now you're getting more into patents than copyrights. There are similarities and differences. Knowledge, ideas, information, can't be patented (at least not yet, but it wouldn't surprise if they managed to buy that law as well). What you patent is a particular device, process, "assemblege of matter" with some innovative design or purpose that has commerical/industrial potential.

So, one cannot patent the concept of "wheeled vehicle" in general, only a particular instance of it. If someone independently comes up with another type of wheeled vehicle, that's okay if he didn't "reverse engineer" or otherwise copy your design. And a vast gray area where lawyers feed is thus created.

Let me ask, should General Relativity, Maxwell's Equations, and the laws of physics be patented or copyrighted?

Or even better, should a cure for cancer be patented? There has been an ongoing controversy about Pharma's patents on drugs making the cost of live-saving treatment in 3rd world countries cost prohibitive. Should "intellectual property" be used to deny life-saving drugs, when, once the formula has been derived, can be produced be everyone cheaply? They finally cut some deal where cheap generics could be produced if needed, but the rest of us over here can't buy 'em, we have to pay full patented price.

And another thing to realize. In most these examples, we consider the "artist" or the "inventor", an individual to be the one we're protecting and allowing to reap profit from his invention or work.

In most cases, those rights go not to the "little guy" but to corporate entities. Go to work for Acme, and a condition for your employment is you grant all patent rights to Acme. You don't get squat, Acme does.

And that's pretty much the way it is for recording artists and authors until they become big enough to write their own ticket. As a condition of their publishing your work, you sign away your life to them. Those slimy reptile lawyers make sure all that's in the fine print.

So the very ones who justify their copyright tyranny by claiming they're protecting the inventors/authors are actually stealing blind from those little guys they claim to protect.

-Richard

[Sam5]

So the very ones who justify their copyright tyranny by claiming they're protecting the inventors/authors are actually stealing blind from those little guys they claim to protect.

-Richard



There have been some famous court cases in the farm community lately. Some company invented a special corn that has certain non-natural DNA genetic characteristics. This type of thing is now patentable. The company that owns the patent has been going around checking the crops of farms located near ones that are filled with their patented corn, and if a farmer is growing some of that patented corn but had not paid for the rights, the farmer is taken to court and sued.

The farmers clam that wind can blow the pollen from one field into someone else’s field and they aren’t responsible for how nature mixes the corn types and all the various DNAs.

The general trend in the future is believed to be a situation where big corporations will own patents to all plants and no one can grow anything from any seed saved from last year’s crop (which farmers have been doing for thousands of years). So that in the future to plant any kind of corn, beans, squash, etc, a fee must be paid to a company for that right, since all crops will be genetically patented and owned by major companies.

[Sam5]

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

[publius]

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

Sam5,

Believe or not I'm something of gentleman farmer. "Born and raised" on a farm as the politicians like to say. :lol: First was the "Roundup Ready" stuff, which was a wonderful genetic invention. Here's the basic deal with herbicides. You have "broad spectrum" which basically kill a wide range of plants, vs narrow spectrum.

So, you have a crop and you'd like to spray something that kills everything but the crop. That's a problem, not so easy to do, and required several herbicides for different kinds of weeds. The Roundup Ready idea was rather than tailor the herbicide to the crop, tailor the crop to the herbicide by a putting in a gene that allowed it to resist a broad spectrum herbicide like Roundup. (Roundup has gone off patent and generics are available now, but Monsanto owns the "Roundup gene").

Now, what they do is not sell you the seed but "license it", and if you regrow seed, you are indeed up cripple creek. Monsanto has actually has their own little "mercenary force", all legal mind you, usually law enforcement officers working on the side that look for anyone growing illegal seed. There was one famous case I can't remember. Basically, the "Monsanto Goon Squad", armed with SUVs and ATVs descended on some farm operation (it was fairly large, 10,000 acres or so), and basically did a SWAT team style operation. The guy was guilty as sin, no question about it. But what I didn't like was the fact that this was not the state doing this "police action", but essentially a force of a private corporation acting just like a police force. I learned the law completely allowed them to do this. That is law in the United States was allowing a corportation to use its own goon squad.

Later genetic engineering breeds insect resistance and other chemical resistance traits.

The cost of Roundup Ready seed was almost doubled in some cases, but it actually was cheaper. Well, that was for soybeans. Hybrid seed cord has always been expensive, so the additional fee didn't double the cost. But, hybrid corn isn't suitable for replanting. The seed looses all the hyrbid traits and reverts -- no yield potential at all.

From what I gather, they *claim* they developed ways to detect crops with the protected genes from aerial surveillance. That may be more of a scare tactic than anything else, but they claim Monsanto and other patent holders are contracting out to fly over croplands and look.

-Richard

[publius]

Sam,

I've been looking for more on this, and found something interesting -- Thomas Jefferson's writings have informed much of my political opinions and I found something he and agreed on. He didn't believe seed should be patented, and actually smuggled seed out of Europe for planting here in America while he was abroad!

Just some "food" for thought on what the Man of the Millenium, the author of "life, liberty and the ownerhip of propety, uh pursuit of happiness" thought about stuff like this!

Reading some more: Jefferson smuggled rice seed of out Italy while he was ambassador to France, and also hired Turkish spies to smuggle *hemp* seed out of China............The penalty for doing so was death under Chinese law.
-Richard

[Neverfly]

Ye Gods, I don't. I want to make a living off my intellectual property someday. Even leaving that out, I want recognition that it's mine. Taking the intellectual property rights away would also mean people could take my name off it and put theirs on, and that's not right.

I'm in complete agreement with Gillianren on this.
What motivation is there to have an idea and especially if you spend a lot of time and effort in its creation if its not yours? Only to later have it plaguerized or to not recieve due credit or profit for it?
If Gillianren were to be an author for example and i stop by the book store- its Her name i will see on the cover. It is Her work..

Some ideas people willingly throw out to the public for them to play with and modify or improve on and that is fine. But some ideas are meant to be appreciated.
As it is most of what i write is locked away in my desk somewhere simply because i dont WANT to publish it. I dont know but the idea of other people putting their grubby hands and minds on it disturbs me. I remember a friend remarked something sexual in a piece i had written that was not sexual in anyway and i made certain he never read anything of mine again :p (yes it seems absurd i know..)

[SeanF]

Now you're getting more into patents than copyrights. There are similarities and differences. Knowledge, ideas, information, can't be patented (at least not yet, but it wouldn't surprise if they managed to buy that law as well). What you patent is a particular device, process, "assemblege of matter" with some innovative design or purpose that has commerical/industrial potential.
What's the difference? You've patented the knowledge to build that device. At least, other people can have the knowledge, but they can't build the device, so the knowledge itself is useless.

But it's still all intellectual property. Copyrighting a magazine is no different than copyrighting a painting, and copyrighting a painting is no different that patenting an invention - no matter the knowledge, it's illegal for someone else to reproduce the item.

And, I bet if you patent an item and then announce that you're going to build them and give them away to anybody who wants them, it would still be illegal for someone else to reproduce them!

Or even better, should a cure for cancer be patented? There has been an ongoing controversy about Pharma's patents on drugs making the cost of live-saving treatment in 3rd world countries cost prohibitive. Should "intellectual property" be used to deny life-saving drugs, when, once the formula has been derived, can be produced be everyone cheaply?
Yes. Because otherwise they would never have been produced in the first place. The money that was spent in developing that latest life-saving drug is money that company made selling the last one. If you deny them that money, the next wonder drug doesn't come.

They finally cut some deal where cheap generics could be produced if needed, but the rest of us over here can't buy 'em, we have to pay full patented price.
And I have no problem with that. In fact, that's the way it ought to be.

And another thing to realize. In most these examples, we consider the "artist" or the "inventor", an individual to be the one we're protecting and allowing to reap profit from his invention or work.

In most cases, those rights go not to the "little guy" but to corporate entities. Go to work for Acme, and a condition for your employment is you grant all patent rights to Acme. You don't get squat, Acme does.
I don't know about "squat." I'm pretty sure if I work for Acme, Acme is paying me.

And that's pretty much the way it is for recording artists and authors until they become big enough to write their own ticket. As a condition of their publishing your work, you sign away your life to them. Those slimy reptile lawyers make sure all that's in the fine print.

So the very ones who justify their copyright tyranny by claiming they're protecting the inventors/authors are actually stealing blind from those little guys they claim to protect.
Publius, I've got to be honest here. A lot of your comments are coming across a lot like Danscope's in the Aspartame thread - and that's not a good thing.

[publius]

Publius, I've got to be honest here. A lot of your comments are coming across a lot like Danscope's in the Aspartame thread - and that's not a good thing.

Oh, I see, I'm going off the reservation. Fine, conversation over.


-Richard

[Gillianren]

If Gillianren were to be an author for example and i stop by the book store- its Her name i will see on the cover. It is Her work..

Heh. Though of course, it won't say "Gillianren" on the cover. Though if I do get published, you'll hear it here first!

[Moose]

Publius, I've got to be honest here. A lot of your comments are coming across a lot like Danscope's in the Aspartame thread - and that's not a good thing.

Sorry Sean, but I have to disagree. Unless you really hit it big, and I mean Britney Spears massive, artists struggle to keep their feet under them. Very few musicians can make a career of it. Even fewer can "afford" to sign up with a label.

The RIAA just makes it worse in so many ways.

A good friend of mine is a musician. He's pretty good. He tells me he's starting work on his third album. All self-published, so he has to do his own promotion. He makes most of his money off concerts (and the full-time journalism job he holds on the side to make ends meet.)

He told me a few years ago that his Nova Scotia Weather Song had been getting some airplay at a radio station in Michigan. The RIAA collected the fee for playing the song. Did my friend see a dime of that? Nope. The RIAA doesn't go out of their way to track down the artists. My friend would have to register with the RIAA ($$$) to get his (literal) dime. The dime they've collected on his "behalf" and kept for themselves. How many other struggling artists, too small for a label, are they ripping off?

The current structure is broken, Sean. Only a very rare few artists can do well, and they're mostly manufactured and very nearly indentured by the labels. The RIAA isn't part of the problem, they very nearly are the entirety of the problem.

If anybody's curious, PM me and I'll get you the URL to his site. He's set up three of his songs for streaming. (And he's using some of my photos as promotional posters. I'm kind of proud of those. :) ) I'd post it, but that's a bit too close to a rules violation for my likes. (Unless the admin want to okay it?)

[SeanF]

Oh, I see, I'm going off the reservation. Fine, conversation over.
Hey, I'm just saying that I think we could discuss copyright/patent law without calling people "slimy reptiles" - that just serves to pull the conversation in the wrong direction. But if you can't, you can't.

The current structure is broken, Sean.
Believe it or not, Moose, I agree. I think the extensions of copyright law that have been enacted this past century, as well as some of the RIAA's methods of trying to control things through DRM, are ridiculous. In fact, I read recently that the RIAA is planning on starting to sell for download music in technically unrestricted mp3 format. Good for 'em, and I hope it's not too late.

But just because I don't think it's right that Gillianren (and her heirs!) get to control the rights to her book for the next 80 years(!), I'm not going to accept Publius' assertion that it ought to be legal for somebody else to copy it and give it away the day after she finishes writing it.

[sarongsong]

February 4, 2007
...countless troops stationed around the world, will view the NFC-AFC battle from tents, jam-packed hangar bays aboard ship, Air Force bases and conference rooms in Iraq and Afghanistan..."We plan on using full screen wall projection with a 5'x 6' image in our district conference room, that will also include full dynamic surround sound for the full effect."... military.com (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,124021,00.html)http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[publius]

Oh, it was "slimy reptile lawyers" that made you mad. Sympathy for the Devil, indeed. Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand by that description of the lawyers involved in all this mess. That is my assesment of someone who would actually go and commence "cease and desist" proceedings against a church (or a brothel or anybody) for simple exercising their freedom to watch a broadcast program. How anyone can look themselves in the mirror after doing that, I don't know.

And that also my general assesment of the "hired gun" mentality behind lawyering in general. Take whichever side hires you. One day, position A is right when the proponents of A are paying you, but next week, the opponents of A are right when they are paying you. And be sure and make the laws as complex and ambiguous as possible to ensure there will be lots of conflict, and lots of questions that have to be decided in court. More work for you.

This country is getting to be the most litigious mess I've ever seen -- "Have you been injured in an accident? Call 1-800-SUE-'EM today!" When the RIAA starts suing teenagers, a billion dollar Goliath going after some little David, I will use "reptile" to describe it, and consider that charitable. The "litigation industry" is nothing but a parasite. You can't do anything much any more without hiring some lawyer to make sure you're in compliance with tons of regulations and make sure you don't do anything in the process where some other lawyer can sue you. And, down the road, the same lawyer who was working for you might be the very one who sues you when he switches side to the higher bidder. I'm getting sick of the whole thing. The cost of the litigation industry, not to mention the aggravation and heartache to society is staggering.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of someone copying Gillianren's novel as you describe. What I'm against is Gillianren being able to dictate how I may read her novel, how many people I may have over when I'm reading her nove, and what kinds of converstations I may have about her novel.

That's what the NFL is doing here. And I will use "slimy reptile" to describe the legal hired guns, who without batting an eye, will commence legal proceedings against people for such ridiculous "offenses".

-Richard

[Sam5]

Sam5,

Believe or not I'm something of gentleman farmer. "Born and raised" on a farm as the politicians like to say. :lol: First was the "Roundup Ready" stuff, which was a wonderful genetic invention. Here's the basic deal with herbicides. You have "broad spectrum" which basically kill a wide range of plants, vs narrow spectrum.
-Richard

Thanks for the information, especially about Thomas Jefferson.

[SeanF]

And for the record, I'm not in favor of someone copying Gillianren's novel as you describe.
But you are in favor of someone copying that advertiser-funded newsletter in the same way.

Why is Gillianren's novel different?

[Sam5]

You could be subject to prosecution.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

I'm just gonna put that there, and let y'all comment on it. I'd offer my opinion, but I fear that the V-chip I had installed in my brain would probably melt down under the onslaught and subject y'all to language that would render an aircraft carrier full of sailors shamefaced.

This story has been retold so many times on the internet, the story is bigger than the “event” itself.

How all of this started was years ago, either in the ‘50s or ‘60s, which some guy figured out a way to use closed circuit TV to broadcast a heavyweight championship fight to certain movie theaters, and then use a special early TV projector to show the fight on the theater screen. Then this guy charged a lot of money for people to see the fight “live”.

Later, when satellite TV was invented, the satellite companies made deals with the boxer’s managers etc and broadcast the fight on a “pay per view” basis, with each live fight costing as much as $35 to view.

The NFL has always had a public notice sometime during the Super Bowl game announcing that the game can not be used by individuals or non-approved companies for mass distribution such as in a auditorium with the game being shown on a big screen. The whole idea is that if anyone makes any money on showing the game, the NFL must approve that and get a cut of the income.

There have been some legal cases regarding “sports bars” since, in a way, a sports bar makes extra money by showing big football and baseball games to their customers on large-screen TVs.

The thing with the church was that they advertised it on their website and that’s what got them into trouble. Some secretary at the NFL was probably assigned to search Google for any commercial showings of the game to an audience in an auditorium. Not that one showing in one little church will cause any harm, but the idea is that if this becomes a widespread trend around the country, local small theaters could do the same thing and charge $5 for the public to see the game on a giant screen, and other people could rent little auditoriums for private parties in towns all over the country.

The general attitude among many businesses today is that they always want to find more ways to make money on their product and they don’t want individual entrepreneurs to make money on their product.

This is why all DVD recorders sold for the home have a built in circuit that will not permit the copying of commercial video or DVD movies.

I’ve got a rare movie here that I want to send to a couple of people, but there is no way I can make VHS or DVD copies of it, except by setting up a video camera in front of my TV and photographing the movie right off the screen. And the quality of that kind of copy is not very good.

[publius]

Thanks for the information, especially about Thomas Jefferson.

There's a lot of hysteria about genetically engineered crops. Most of it is hysteria -- it's not "Frankenstein" stuff as some fear. But there are some long-term worries. Basically, "life will find a way", and various balls get rolling that you have no idea where they're eventually going.

Take herbicides. Weeds will build resistance over time. They fight back. :) A weed has to scrap and fight for survival and they are tough little buggers. But, crop plants are babied, and we pamper and coddle them, and so they loose the toughness of the wild.

Roundup resistance is already showing up in the wild. It's funny. You can use too much as well as too little herbicide. Too little and it's like an "immunization shot". The local population is exposed to small concentrations of the antagonist, but not enough to kill them, and so the whole population "learns" how to fight it. Too much herbicide and you get a wide kill, but there will be a plant or two with some natural genetic mutation or other difference that will survive. ANd those are the ones that reproduce and their offspring all have the resistance. :)

Too much or too little and you quickly introduce herbicide resistance into the local weed population. The right amount and it takes longer, but that resistance will still creep in.

And the same thing with the insect resistance traits (the basic idea is something like splice in a gene from some bacteria that makes a substance that is toxic to the problem insect population). And the same thing applies there against the insect population.

And for that reason most states (and the feds may be in the act as well -- all these regulations are so lengthy and complex it takes, well, a slew of lawyers to keep track. :) ), have restrictions on the use of the anti-insect GE traits.

You don't want to plant all GE crop because that will quickly introduce resistance into the insect population. So buffer zones of regular non-GE crop species are usually required to give the insects something to eat that won't kill 'em.

And "cross pollenization" concerns are there as well. That genetic trait may get out and spread in the wild. And recent research is showing that happens faster and farther than originally suspected. And ironically, that is the issue with Monsanto's lawsuits against those farmers you cited.

So if you're interested in investigating all this GE stuff, don't confuse Monsanto, et al' "patent goon squad" activities with other regulatory actions that try to contain the GE "genie", such as enforcing the buffer crop, and anti-wild pollenization measures.

And again, that "genie" is not the Frankenstein that some of the hysteria claims, but it does need to be watched closely. And a problem is Monstanto and other big agribusiness getting into the university and extension service agronomy research/science.

I know several agronomists in the state here who are very concerned with that. Monsanto or someone comes in with offers of big grants and money for argi-research, but there are strings attached, such as maybe not asking too many questions and doing much research into the ill effects of this particular "genie". :) That is a problem. Their lobbying power is *enormous*.

Agriculture isn't too high on the public radar, and they can do a lot of stuff that nobody even bothers to report. Only those in the business care.

-Richard

[SeanF]

This is why all DVD recorders sold for the home have a built in circuit that will not permit the copying of commercial video or DVD movies.

I’ve got a rare movie here that I want to send to a couple of people, but there is no way I can make VHS or DVD copies of it, except by setting up a video camera in front of my TV and photographing the movie right off the screen. And the quality of that kind of copy is not very good.
Yeah, and that's exactly the kind of thing that they try to control but can't. There are devices you can buy to go between the VCR and the DVD recorder that strip out the Macrovision protection - the DVD recorder can't tell that it's not just a home movie you're copying.

It's still illegal to provide copies for other people, though. The only reason the Macrovision stripper technology itself isn't illegal is because the courts have held that personal backup copying is allowed. :)

[Doodler]

The difference between the Super Bowl and just about every other example here is the distribution.

Music, magazines, books and all the others have some level of control on distribution to the world at large. Once its out, its out of control, but to get it out, there is some level of restraint on access.

The Super Bowl is transmitted on a publicly accessible broadcast.

What the NFL is doing is the equivalent of Time magazine telling a doctor's office they can't put the magazine in their lobby for patient's to read because they gave the doctor the magazine with the understanding that only he would ever read that particular copy.

You throw something out on the public airwaves, the public owns it. Its like MySpace. Nothing put in the public eye is sacred. If the NFL wants to rigidly control viewership, they can pay-per-view it. Let's see how their direct revenue stream compares to the kind of money they get out of advertisers for their business. If anything, the companies paying a million dollars a minute for their advertising time should tell the NFL where it can take its "controlled" distribution and shove it, because every person the NFL says can't watch the game in a large crowd is sending a message to advertisers that the NFL could care less if people actually see their commercials (which, FYI, are a good chunk of the reason I would even consider watching the game). If I were shelling out that kind of money for a spot in the premier venue for my marketing campaign, a distributor of such who thinks THEY control who can watch might find a check bouncing.

[SeanF]

The difference between the Super Bowl and just about every other example here is the distribution.
It's a difference, but it's not a meaningful difference. :)

Here's another analogy where the distribution isn't a difference. There are lots of software companies that provide their software on their website for free download - with the caveat that you can only use it free if you're using it for personal use. If you're downloading it for use at your business, you're required to pay a license fee.

I fail to see why they should be told that they have to either:

1) Charge everybody for using it;
2) Charge nobody for using it; or
3) Figure out some way for themselves to prevent business customers from downloading the software without paying the fee;

Because putting it out there but saying, "You're only allowed to access it for free if you meet certain criteria," is somehow unacceptable.

And that's all the NFL is doing.

What the NFL is doing is the equivalent of Time magazine telling a doctor's office they can't put the magazine in their lobby for patient's to read because they gave the doctor the magazine with the understanding that only he would ever read that particular copy.
And they would be well within their rights to do so.

You throw something out on the public airwaves, the public owns it.
Nope. No matter how much people think this should be true, it's not.

And public broadcasts would disappear if it were.

If anything, the companies paying a million dollars a minute for their advertising time should tell the NFL where it can take its "controlled" distribution and shove it, because every person the NFL says can't watch the game in a large crowd is sending a message to advertisers that the NFL could care less if people actually see their commercials (which, FYI, are a good chunk of the reason I would even consider watching the game). If I were shelling out that kind of money for a spot in the premier venue for my marketing campaign, a distributor of such who thinks THEY control who can watch might find a check bouncing.
Well of course. The advertisers would love it if they could get viewers without paying for them. But I don't see why the NFL would agree to that.

[Chuck]

The church shouldn't have announced that it would show the game. It should have announced that it would have its big screen TV tuned to a certain channel at a certain time. It will be up to the broadcaster to decide what the parishioners see. If the NFL chooses to air its game at that time on that channel then they're choosing to let the congregation see it.

[sarongsong]

Heard somewhere (http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9972871) (noting disclaimers at bottom of every site-page) 41 is showing in over 230 countries with a potential billion viewers, including some via "terrestial TV"...

[Doodler]

I see it as a meaningful difference because I'll be damned the day a mass mailer tells me I have no right to throw his advertisements away because that's not how he intended me to use them. ;)

[publius]

I see it as a meaningful difference because I'll be damned the day a mass mailer tells me I have no right to throw his advertisements away because that's not how he intended me to use them. ;)


:clap: That is the best analogy yet. Bravo, bravo. :clap:


-Richard

[SeanF]

Well, it would be a good analogy, if the NFL were telling people they couldn't turn off the Super Bowl. As it is? Not so much.

Allowing that the law can restrict your behavior in certain ways does not mean it can control your behavior in all ways.

EDIT: Publius, I'd still like to know why it's okay to copy and distribute that newsletter but not Gillianren's book.

[publius]

Well, if Gillianren is selling her book, which means there is an obvious contract involved, where I "go out of my way" to do something to get her book, not to mention pay a fee for it, then it is pretty obvious that she values her work, and is not giving it away.

However, if she goes through the neigborhood stuffing mailboxes with copies of her manuscript, or even pays a restaurant owner for the privilege of using his space to place free copies of her work, then it is a different story.

By doing that, Gillianren is saying she doesn't place much value on her work, doesn't expect much payment, because she's giving it away to whoever will take it. In this case, her work can be copied willynilly, or thrown away in the trash or whatever as anyone desires.

If I give something away, I'm saying I don't expect much from it. So if I want copyright protection on something, I'd better not be so silly and naive as to just give it away for free.

-Richard

[publius]

Well thanks to this thread I've been reading all about copyright law. First of all this is something (in the US, furin mileage will vary -- although with all this globalization stuff, and treaties and agreements, they are all sorts of questions about just where things stand) that is called a "statutory right". It is not common law, or "natural", it is something that exists only as it defined by law. And the wording comes, naturally enough form "rights to copy".

And it does not appy to knowledege and ideas, only the express form of a particular idea/whatnot that is put down to paper (or equivalent). So, Maxwell's equations and General Relativty cannot be copyrighted, only the original text in which they were first written down. One can freely use the idea, theory, or knowledge. So for the most part is about rights having to do with making copies of works.

Different types of works are handled differently (this is a consequence of the statutory nature of the right -- it is only what the law defines it to be).

At any rate, relative to this thread:

Time magazine has no legal right whatsoever to prevent a doctor from allowing his copy to be freely read. This is part of what is know as the "First Sale Doctrine". You may freely display any legal copy you have of a work in its physical location. And you may also rent, sell, or otherwise dispose of your copy in any way you wish. The copyright holder has no rights here. However, there are exceptions here to "sound recordings" (I assume this applies to video as well). You may sell or give away copies here, but may not rent them out unless permission is obtained. I'm not sure of all the details here. But this does not apply to literary works. You can buy a book and then rent it out.

Second, libraries and certain non-profit organizations are granted many exceptions to this. The sound recording limitations do not apply to libraries. They may freely lend or rent recordings.

So Time Magazine has no legal right to stop a doctor from displaying his copies of magazines in the waiting room. Period.

The First Sale Doctrine is the main reason why software companies claim that you do not buy and therefor own a copy of their software, but are merely granted the license to use it. :) They do not want you to have First Sale rights. This is under active dispute and contention. It may turn out their actual rights are actually restricted even more by licensing rather than selling, because all sorts of anti-trust provisions seem to apply. If you have exclusive rights to sofware, and no one "owns copies", then you are actually a type of monopoly...............or so some active legal theorizing is going.

-Richard

[publius]

Now, the doctor's waiting room has been disposed of, let's look at the case of freely giving copies away.

Now, there are two "levels" of copyright. The most "severe", where you gain all rights the law provides is obtained by *registering* the work with the copyright authority, which is actually the Library of Congress here in the US.

A work is automatically copyrighted even without registering, but your legal rights of enforcement are somewhat restricted. If you register, you are eligible for "statutory damages", which is sort of a fine per illegal copy. Without registering, you are not entitled to these damages, only 'acutal damages'.

"Actual damages" essentially amounts to the "lost revenue" you must demonstrate the copying actually cost you, the owner. That is you don't necessarily get so much per copy or anything like that. You have to prove damages. So, if you don't register a work, and can't prove actual damages (by civil standards), you don't get anything.

And finally, the trump card. These damages are based on the *COST OF THE LEGAL COPIES*.

If you give your Magnum Opus away for free, and someone copies it, they may well be guilty of infringement, but your damages amount to $0 per illegal copy because that what you were charging for the legal copies.

IOW, don't charge for something, don't get no damages. Just as our common sense demands. End of this story.

Now, all that is the copyright law for stuff like the printed and recorded word. Broadcasting is a whole 'nother kettle of legal fish, with its owns set of laws.

-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

IOW, don't charge for something, don't get no damages. Just as our common sense demands. End of this story. If I followed what you wrote, that's "actual damages", right?

[publius]

If I followed what you wrote, that's "actual damages", right?

Yes. I've been looking for how any statutory damages might work here (go to Wiki, type "US copyright" in and start reading -- they will have links to the relevant sections of the USC there so you see what the horse's mouth actually says).

If someone wanted to be able to get statutory damages for a work they gave away, they would have to officially register it and explicitly put a copyright notice on it (so the reader knows copyright is actually being claimed).

There's something there about when the work is "published". And I just wonder how giving away free copies of something you typed and printed on the computer would actually work there.

Anway, there's a range of damages there, from as little as $200 up to $750,000 per work. This is on a "per work", not per copy basis actually, here -- just the range of damages per given work. Basically the court has wide lattiude in calculating statutory damages.

Generally, that would be based on some so much per copy calculation, and if someone was freely giving something away, and the infringer was not selling the copies he made, I doubt any judge would assess too much of penalty, unless there were other factors.

Say our Magnum Opus author is giving his work away, and has registered and printed the notice and all that, and someone starts making copies and giving them away himself. All it would first amount to is the copy right holder would give the "cease and desist" order. If they stopped, that would be the end of it, I'm sure. There's not much there.

However, if they continued to do it, in defiance of a court order, that might make a judge start ka-chinging some statutory damages. :)

And, if the infinger was himself charging for it, something that was originally free, I'm sure the ka-ching, ka-chaging would get quite severe.

One notable case of statutory damages was some investement firm was making in-house copies of some ($$$ specialized) financial newsletter with some "high value" information therein. Each issue was a "work", the violation met the full "willfull infringement" standard, and the statutory damages came to $30 million.

-Richard

[publius]

And not everything can be willy-nilly copyrighted. There are standards there. A work has to be "original" and have literary or artistic, etc value.

The phone book cannot be copyrighted, for instance. There was some case of yore about that, and the court ruled that stuff like phone books cannot be copyrighted. Simple "compilations of facts" don't count, but there's leeway there.


-Richard

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

All Thiis Talk About Thomas Jefferson and his Views on Patenting Crops, Especially in Liight of Recent Revalations on his, Liberal at The Tiime, Views on Slavery, is Making me Very Glad Slavery Didn't Survive into The Current, EVERYTHIING Is Patentable, Era ...

Important Announcent from The NFL (N-Word Farm Labourers) Company Inc., All-New for 2007, The Slave you Always Wanted But Never Knew it, Wiill Do All The Work you Never Knew you Needed Done, and Wiill Come Complete wiith The Following Features:

Guaranteed Not to Try to Run Away
Guaranteed Not to Foment Rebellion Whenever your Back is Turned
Guaranteed Not to Kiill you in your Sleep
And, for No Added Cost, Guaranteed Not to Try to Sleep with your WifeHmmm, On Second Thought, I Thiink I Want Some of Those Features for My Kids!

[Maksutov]

All Thiis Talk About Thomas Jefferson and his Views on Patenting Crops, Especially in Liight of Recent Revalations on his, Liberal at The Tiime, Views on Slavery, is Making me Very Glad Slavery Didn't Survive into The Current, EVERYTHIING Is Patentable, Era ...

Important Announcent from The NFL (N-Word Farm Labourers) Company Inc., All-New for 2007, The Slave you Always Wanted But Never Knew it, Wiill Do All The Work you Never Knew you Needed Done, and Wiill Come Complete wiith The Following Features:
Guaranteed Not to Try to Run Away
Guaranteed Not to Foment Rebellion Whenever your Back is Turned
Guaranteed Not to Kiill you in your Sleep
And, for No Added Cost, Guaranteed Not to Try to Sleep with your WifeHmmm, On Second Thought, I Thiink I Want Some of Those Features for My Kids!Next thing you know, Zaphod, someone will get a copyright/patent/trademark for Capital Letters, and we'll never read a complete thought from you again!

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Next thing you know, Zaphod, someone will get a copyright/patent/trademark for Capital Letters, and we'll never read a complete thought from you again!

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif
So Very True ...

In FACT, I Miight Apply for That One, Myself Someday ...

Actually, I Got The Idea for The Above Post from The Short Story, "Abraham Lincoln at a McDonald's", Which Along wiith Having Good Ol' Honest Abe Dining at The Afforementioned Restaurant, Also Goes Into How Modern Society Would Have Developed if The Southern States Had Rejoined The Union on The Condition Slavery Would Be Left in Place in Perpetuity; Amoung The Many Oddities, Were Slaves Chained to Computers in Order to Soak Up Knowledge, Bostonian Highway Slaves Being Watched Over wiith an Automatic Assault Rifle, Pet Stores Selling Slave Children in Those Lil' Glass Enclosures, and a Man Who is Forced to Put his Slave, wiith an Unfamiliar Illness, But Undoubtably HIV, Down wiith his Gun!

[Maksutov]

Capital idea, old man! Capital idea!

[hhEb09'1]

Say our Magnum Opus author is giving his work away, and has registered and printed the notice and all that, and someone starts making copies and giving them away himself. All it would first amount to is the copy right holder would give the "cease and desist" order. If they stopped, that would be the end of it, I'm sure. There's not much there.

However, if they continued to do it, in defiance of a court order, that might make a judge start ka-chinging some statutory damages. :)It seems to me that the situation in the OP has a lot of that flavor--the NFL has stepped in and given the cease and desist. No?

[SeanF]

If I give something away, I'm saying I don't expect much from it. So if I want copyright protection on something, I'd better not be so silly and naive as to just give it away for free.
But, see, you're making assumptions there. That newsletter is not being given away, in the sense that the publisher is not getting any money for it. They're just getting paid by the advertisers and not the end reader.

So, maybe the advertisers agreed to advertise in the newsletter on the condition that it would only be displayed/distributed in certain types of establishments. Maybe the establishment only agreed to display the newsletter in the hopes that it will bring customers in, and they don't want to waste the counter space if people can get it just anywhere.

The point is that, regardless of how the publisher is choosing to distribute their work, it is not your place to determine that they don't care how their work is distributed, and then redistribute it on your own terms.

EDIT: Basically, by making her book available for purchase in bookstores and not for free on the streetcorner, Gillianren is explicitly stating, "I want my book sold in bookstores and not given away free on the streetcorner." By putting that newsletter on the Burger King counter and not handing it out on the streetcorner, the publisher is explicitly stating, "I want my newsletter available at the Burger King counter and not handed out on the streetcorner." You have no right to override their choice and hand it out on the streetcorner just because you can.

It seems to me that the situation in the OP has a lot of that flavor--the NFL has stepped in and given the cease and desist. No?
Yes, that's been my read on it all along.

But, nonetheless, all this talk about the current laws is really moot, isn't it? I had taken it as a given that the NFL's actions were allowed by current law, and we were discussing whether or not they should be allowed by law.

Weren't we? :)

So, in that vein - Publius, if you copied that advertiser-funded newsletter and redistributed it, you could be jailed and/or fined for breaking the law, even if you would still not be dinged for any damages payable to the publisher. Do you think the law should be that way, or do you still think you should be able to redistribute any way you see fit?

Do you think the NFL should be allowed to restrict viewership of the Super Bowl in the way they did in the OP, or not? And, just to clarify, I'm not asking if you think they should do it, just if you think the law should allow them to do it.

[hhEb09'1]

So, in that vein - Publius, if you copied that advertiser-funded newsletter and redistributed it, you could be jailed and/or fined for breaking the law, even if you would still not be dinged for any damages payable to the publisher. Not dinged for actual damages, but possibly dinged for statutory damages, right? I mean, according to Publius's research.

[pghnative]

We should all boycott football until they lighten up. Of course, my home team is the Arizona Cardinals so that's easy for me to say.Yeah, the Arizona Cardinals have been boycotting football for many years...

[SeanF]

Not dinged for actual damages, but possibly dinged for statutory damages, right? I mean, according to Publius's research.
Yes, if the work was officially registered and copyrighted. If it's not, all they can do is order cease & desist.

So I guess my example to Publius should've been that the publisher could still tell you stop, and you could be arrested if you then didn't stop.

[hhEb09'1]

Yes, if the work was officially registered and copyrighted. If it's not, all they can do is order cease & desist.Most of those free publications are registered, as near as I can tell. It's easy enough, and not that expensive.

Some people even use the procedure as a way of registering priority of ideas--submit an article to the copyright office and bingo it's timestamped and on file at a government agency. No need to wait for the peer-review process to complete. :)

[SeanF]

Most of those free publications are registered, as near as I can tell. It's easy enough, and not that expensive.
True.

And I believe that even if they don't register, they can still put a "(C) Copyright" notice on it as well as a "No copying without consent" notice, which I suppose would constitute a preemptive cease & desist order.

If you give a cease & desist order and the person doesn't cease or desist, can you then get statutory damages even if the product was not officially registered?

And you know what? I'm going to change my signature. :)

[publius]

Sean,

Jailed? Not all. There is a big difference between criminal law and civil law. For the most part, copyright law is civil, which is just about one party suing the other party for damages. Now, there is a criminal copyright law, and that applies to what would be called mass piracy. That is, an operation making bootleg copies of CDs or DVDs, or books, and selling them on the black market.

The criminal law would not apply to copying some free newsletter.

AFor there to be even the possibility of infringement, that newsletter would have to be officially registered with the Library of Congress and a clear statement of copyright on the thing itself. And even the content of that newsletter would have to be copyrightable in the first place, and the LoC would decide that as part of the registration. The example I gave was of these real estate listing things and similiar. Real estate listings would not be copyrightable, not being an "original work" with "literary or artistic" value, anyway.

And just how far advertising in general comes under that may be restricted as well. Some Madison ave. commerical would probably fall under "original work", but the mere announcement "Hey, I've got you a deal on some used cars" would not be copyrightable.

And finally, the (ridiculous) rights the NFL is exercising here do not derive so much from the copyright law, but come from broadcasting laws.

The idea that you have a right to control my behavior to conform to some business scheme just because you gave me something for free is repugnant.


-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

AFor there to be even the possibility of infringement, that newsletter would have to be officially registered with the Library of Congress and a clear statement of copyright on the thing itself. And even the content of that newsletter would have to be copyrightable in the first place, and the LoC would decide that as part of the registration. OK, but it seems that (in our parallel NFL case), those things are probably in place. It looks like the analogy is good.

[SeanF]

The criminal law would not apply to copying some free newsletter.
Well, then I'm going to assume that statutory damages would be applicable after a cease & desist even without registering. Because if you can't be fined or jailed for failing to comply with a cease & desist, then it's meaningless.

And, of course, if you refuse to pay the damages, then you get to go to jail. :)

The idea that you have a right to control my behavior to conform to some business scheme just because you gave me something for free is repugnant.
I can't "control your behavior" unless you are going to accept the free gift and use it, and even then the control is exceedingly limited.

And I certainly don't understand why, if you feel this way about things I give you, you would think it's okay for me to control your behavior if you had to pay me for it, too.

[publius]

Well, then I'm going to assume that statutory damages would be applicable after a cease & desist even without registering. Because if you can't be fined or jailed for failing to comply with a cease & desist, then it's meaningless.

And, of course, if you refuse to pay the damages, then you get to go to jail. :)




No, no registration, no statutory damages, only actual damages. To be eligible for that, you've got to register. And the actual damages for something you give away for free are trivially zero.

Failing to comply with a court order is something else, contempt of court or whatever they would call it. So I would be fined or jailed for that definance of the court, not the original civil tort.

And no, if I refuse to pay damages, or can't pay damages, I don't go to jail either. OJ Simpson still hasn't paid too much of that civil judgement against him! You can garnish wages, commence other legal proceedings to try to get someone to pony up, etc, but they certainly don't go to jail. If they can't put OJ in jail, don't expect someone who copies a little free newsletter to go jail.

-Richard

[SeanF]

No, no registration, no statutory damages, only actual damages. To be eligible for that, you've got to register. And the actual damages for something you give away for free are trivially zero.
Okay, so wait a minute. You're saying that, as the law is now:

1) I'm giving away something for free.
2) You begin copying my content and also giving it away for free.
3) I can (and do) tell you my content is copyrighted and issue a cease & desist order (even though it's not registered).
4) You refuse to acknowledge my cease & desist order.
5) I cannot get statutory damages; I can't get actual damages, because there's no monetary value; and I can't have you arrested if you continue to do it.

Then what exactly is the cease & desist order for? :think:

[publius]

Okay, so wait a minute. You're saying that, as the law is now:

1) I'm giving away something for free.
2) You begin copying my content and also giving it away for free.
3) I can (and do) tell you my content is copyrighted and issue a cease & desist order (even though it's not registered).
4) You refuse to acknowledge my cease & desist order.
5) I cannot get statutory damages; I can't get actual damages, because there's no monetary value; and I can't have you arrested if you continue to do it.

Then what exactly is the cease & desist order for? :think:

Well, here's how it would work. First, if you're giving away some trivial newsletter that you haven't registered, you're going to have go before a judge. And you better have a lawyer in toe with you who knows how the game is played, because no judge is going to waste his time with a private individual who doesn't know the law for something so trivial. Assuming you can find a lawyer who doesn't laugh you out of his office for trying to waste his time with something so trivial, too, that is. The fee you'll have to pay the lawyer is probably going to be orders of magnitude greater than anything you'll get out of it in the very best case.

But assume you do find a lawyer willing to go before a judge. Now, you're going to have to convince that judge this unregistered copyright claim about a trivial *free* newsletter is worth his time. He may laugh you out of court right there, and if I were the judge, I threaten you with a frivilous lawsuit charge for even thinking you could come in and waste my time for some trivial unregistered free newsletter complaint.

Now, assume you do, and the judge issues a restraining order. That gets served on me and I continue to do it in defiance of that order. Now, the judge, seeing me defying his order, might get a little miffed, and start doing stuff abou that on his own, that might result in me *paying the court* fines, not you. And if I got really snotty with that judge, he might let me cool my heels in the local pokey for a night or so.

And all the while you'd be getting nothing, because that part of it has nothing to do with you or your claim at all.

-Richard

[NEOWatcher]

Has anyone talked to the advertisers?

Radio was alway thought as a good way to produce advertising. From the early days it was an advertising medium with the advertiser providing additional programming to give the public a reason to listen to the advertisment.

This has grown into a huge and complex business but it boils down to this... The advertiser is paying the NFL to provide programming for the public to hear but not use thier commercials or programming product.

[publius]

Oh, and Sean, about your little copyright notice on the bottom of your posts. You don't own your posts here, Phil and Fraser do... :) This is their board, their content, not yours, actually. You freely post here on their forum. Now, start your own forum with your own publishing resources, and you're good to go.

-Richard

[Moose]

Oh, and Sean, about your little copyright notice on the bottom of your posts. You don't own your posts here, Phil and Fraser do... :) This is their board, their content, not yours, actually. You freely post here on their forum. Now, start your own forum with your own publishing resources, and you're good to go.

No, that's not true. And I seriously doubt any such claim (even if it were being seriously made) would stand in court if anybody was going to get really, REALLY tetchy about it.

Each poster retains his copyright to his/her own words. What gets transferred by our posting here is the non-exclusive right to distribute our words. If we do not wish to transfer that right to Fraser and Phil, we simply don't post our words here.

Phil and Fraser couldn't, say, pull a gem article out of ATM (hey, it could happen... maybe... in the abstract anyway...), and then publish it as their own work. They could, however, publish that gem (properly attributed) on UT or the BABBLog without seeking that author's express permission.

[sarongsong]

...Now, what they [Monsanto] do is not sell you the seed but "license it", and if you regrow seed...No seeds to worry about with what they'd really like to do:April 23, 2003
Despite its 1999 pledge not to commercialize Terminator technology [no seeds at harvest], Monsanto has recently adopted a positive stance on genetic seed sterilization... OCA (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/promise042403.cfm)

[publius]

No, that's not true. And I seriously doubt any such claim (even if it were being seriously made) would stand in court if anybody was going to get really, REALLY tetchy about it.

Each poster retains his copyright to his/her own words. What gets transferred by our posting here is the non-exclusive right to distribute our words. If we do not wish to transfer that right to Fraser and Phil, we simply don't post our words here.

Phil and Fraser couldn't, say, pull a gem article out of ATM (hey, it could happen... maybe... in the abstract anyway...), and then publish it as their own work. They could, however, publish that gem (properly attributed) on UT or the BABBLog without seeking that author's express permission.

Okay, "own" is wrong. But by posting here, we're certainly giving Phil and Fraser the rights to "make copies" and publish as they like? And they could charge for it as well, and we wouldn't be entitled to any proceeds unless we had an explicit agreement, either. So, while we might get Phil or Fraser for plagirism, they otherwise can pretty much use our words as they see fit as long as they give attribution, no?

And wait a minute. They have rules for posting here, including something about editing posts to change content is "frowned upon"; ie say something, then come back and try to erase the fact you said it.

Now, that sounds like they've got some control over our words themselves, editorial control or whatever we'd call it. So, really, I'd say what we say here is pretty much at their pleasure because they own this particular stage. It's their board and their stage. And we agree to that by posting here.

-Richard

[Moose]

Okay, "own" is wrong. But by posting here, we're certainly giving Phil and Fraser the rights to "make copies" and publish as they like?

Pretty much, or at least that's my understanding of what's being claimed. It's been a while since I've read the agreement.

And they could charge for it as well, and we wouldn't be entitled to any proceeds unless we had an explicit agreement, either.

No, I'm pretty sure there's no language in the user's agreement that would explicitly permit that. This would need to be re-agreed to by both parties, or there's a risk of a successful lawsuit. To be honest, I couldn't even begin to predict how a judge might rule on such an issue.

[SeanF]

Oh, and Sean, about your little copyright notice on the bottom of your posts. You don't own your posts here, Phil and Fraser do... :) This is their board, their content, not yours, actually. You freely post here on their forum. Now, start your own forum with your own publishing resources, and you're good to go.
I'm not sure about that. At any rate, that's neither here nor there. The intent of the sig is humor, anyway, so I'll keep it, regardless of its accuracy. :)

Back to the issue at hand:

Newsstand Operator: Sir, you can have this newsletter if you give me $2 and agree not to copy and redistribute it.
Publius: Why, that's perfectly reasonable, young man.

Newsstand Operator: Sir, you can have this newsletter if you agree not to copy and redistribute it.
Publius: What?! Good Lord, man, that's repugnant!

I still don't get it.

[publius]

No, I'm pretty sure there's no language in the user's agreement that would explicitly permit that. This would need to be re-agreed to by both parties, or there's a risk of a successful lawsuit. To be honest, I couldn't even begin to predict how a judge might rule on such an issue.


Hypothetical: Phil publishes another one of his "bad, bad astronomy" books, and uses ATM postings here as an example of that bad astronomy and bad science and bad thinking in general.

Can Phil not publish that book, and charge for it without first securing consent from the ATM posters? And there's a level of anonymity here as well. "Publius", "Moose", etc, not "John H. Doe, Anywhere USA". So how they heck do you even know who really owns the words in the first place?

Anyway, suppose one of the ATM posters gets mad for being ridiculed in print, and tries to bring any and all legal action he can to get back at Phil for ridiculing him. Does he have any serious claim that Phil cannot use his words, freely posted on Phil's own property/stage, without giving him some share of the proceeds?

"Laughed out of court" is how I think that would go.

Wait a minute, there's something about "conversations" as well. No one party of some "conversation" can claim rights of that conversation over the other parties. Might our little activity here be considered just one big conversation between all the posters, with Phil and Fraser being pretty much the ringmasters of that show?

-Richard

[publius]

I'm not sure about that. At any rate, that's neither here nor there. The intent of the sig is humor, anyway, so I'll keep it, regardless of its accuracy. :)

Back to the issue at hand:

Newsstand Operator: Sir, you can have this newsletter if you give me $2 and agree not to copy and redistribute it.
Publius: Why, that's perfectly reasonable, young man.

Newsstand Operator: Sir, you can have this newsletter if you agree not to copy and redistribute it.
Publius: What?! Good Lord, man, that's repugnant!

I still don't get it.

Sean,

No the latter is an express agreement. In reality it goes like this:

Little newstand sitting around some public place with noone around with a sign that says, "Free copy of the Hooterville Cultural Happenings". I pick up a copy. I see something about the recent Hooterville Hootenanny at Fred Ziffle's barn where Arnold the Pig gave a performance of "I can bring home the bacon". I think that's cute and make several copies with scanner and give to my friends.

Now, Mr. Haney, the publisher of the Free Hooterville Cultural Happennings, decides he'll try to make buck and get damages out of me.

That is what I find repugnant.

-Richard

[Moose]

Can Phil not publish that book, and charge for it without first securing consent from the ATM posters? And there's a level of anonymity here as well. "Publius", "Moose", etc, not "John H. Doe, Anywhere USA". So how they heck do you even know who really owns the words in the first place?

No. Distribution rights exist separately for each medium. Just because Random House has the rights to publish Gillianren's future book most explicitly does not mean they can go off and make a movie about her work.

Internet distribution is a fairly new right now, and I'm not sure if it's boundaries are legally recognized yet. Goodness knows the RIAA's been trying very hard to make sure it falls under the same distribution rights as audio CDs. If the rights are recognized as different, and the labels don't explicitly own those rights, then the RIAA's standing to sue over downloading might well be non-existent.

The short of it is, since print media is almost certainly held to be different than internet distribution, Phil and Fraser would not be able to publish a book called "Jerry's Finest" without additional negotiation.

Not only is copyright not the same thing as distribution rights, distribution rights are many and quite separate.

[publius]

No. Distribution rights exist separately for each medium. Just because Random House has the rights to publish Gillianren's future book most explicitly does not mean they can go off and make a movie about her work.

Internet distribution is a fairly new right now, and I'm not sure if it's boundaries are legally recognized yet. Goodness knows the RIAA's been trying very hard to make sure it falls under the same distribution rights as audio CDs. If the rights are recognized as different, and the labels don't explicitly own those rights, then the RIAA's standing to sue over downloading might well be non-existent.

The short of it is, since print media is almost certainly held to be different than internet distribution, Phil and Fraser would not be able to publish a book called "Jerry's Finest" without additional negotiation.

Not only is copyright not the same thing as distribution rights, distribution rights are many and quite separate.


Here's the thing. A book called "Jerry's Finest" with nothing but Jerry's posts with maybe a smattering of comments here and there would be one thing. I'm thinking more of "Greatest ATM Hits on My Forum", which would be "an original work" by Phil using examples of ATM posts here to make various points.

I just can't believe Phil would have to secure permission and negotiate with everyone he wishes to quote who posted on his own board, even at some length to publish a book. I mean "fair use" would surely allow him to publish a little bit.

-Richard

[hhEb09'1]

Does he have any serious claim that Phil cannot use his words, freely posted on Phil's own property/stage, without giving him some share of the proceeds?There's also a reasonible use--sorta like we have here on the BAUT. We can quote snippets from outside references, properly attributed, but the mods frown on whole copies inserted into posts.

We can copy other's post content into our posts to provide context for our reply--but that's how the board works, so consent is implied.

[SeanF]

Sean,

No the latter is an express agreement. In reality it goes like this:

Little newstand sitting around some public place with noone around with a sign that says, "Free copy of the Hooterville Cultural Happenings". I pick up a copy. I see something about the recent Hooterville Hootenanny at Fred Ziffle's barn where Arnold the Pig gave a performance of "I can bring home the bacon". I think that's cute and make several copies with scanner and give to my friends.

Now, Mr. Haney, the publisher of the Free Hooterville Cultural Happennings, decides he'll try to make buck and get damages out of me.

That is what I find repugnant.

-Richard
That's different than what you said before:

The idea that you have a right to control my behavior to conform to some business scheme just because you gave me something for free is repugnant.
So there's an explicit expression of the terms by the newsstand boy in my post, but he's still controlling your behavior. Same with the NFL in the OP; they called the church and said, "You can only tune into the Super Bowl if you're not going to use the broadcast in that manner." Express agreement.

And - at least in the case of the newsletter - the fact of the matter is that the right to copy and reproduce is implicitly denied and "express agreement" is needed to allow it. Although, someone's failure to be aware of that should, I suppose, be considered mitigating in considering any after-the-fact punishment.

Still - if the Hootenanny publisher called you up and said, "Hey, Publius, cease & desist redistribution of my copyrighted material," you would do so - allow him to "control your behavior" - and not consider it repugnant?

And if there had been an explicit notice on the newsletter that said, "The contents of this newsletter are not to be copied and redistributed without permission," you would never do so in the first place - allow him to "control your behavior" - and not consider it repugnant?

[Moose]

Here's the thing. A book called "Jerry's Finest" with nothing but Jerry's posts with maybe a smattering of comments here and there would be one thing. I'm thinking more of "Greatest ATM Hits on My Forum", which would be "an original work" by Phil using examples of ATM posts here to make various points.

Fair Use allows limited quoting of published works.

Have you considered doing some research on copyright law, Richard?

[hhEb09'1]

Have you considered doing some research on copyright law, Richard?Don't encourage him! that's what he has been doing! :)

[Moose]

Oh. Heh. Carry on, then.

[NEOWatcher]

And if there had been an explicit notice on the newsletter that said, "The contents of this newsletter are not to be copied and redistributed without permission," you would never do so in the first place - allow him to "control your behavior" - and not consider it repugnant?

Along the lines of this analogy, I would think it would be more like showing the newsletter on an overhead projector so you and your friends can talk about the paper at the same time.

But, aren't we all just speculating here? No matter what the fine points are in the law are, and no matter how right or wrong the NFL is, they are still using strongarm tactics where the church is at a disadvantage no matter how right or wrong they are.

[SeanF]

Along the lines of this analogy, I would think it would be more like showing the newsletter on an overhead projector so you and your friends can talk about the paper at the same time.
I don't think it's worth taking it that far. :) There are enough inherent differences between a printed sheet and a live broadcast that you can't truly analogize from one to the other.

But, aren't we all just speculating here? No matter what the fine points are in the law are, and no matter how right or wrong the NFL is, they are still using strongarm tactics where the church is at a disadvantage no matter how right or wrong they are.
As far as I'm concerned, we're not discussing what the law is - we're discussing what it should be. :)

As for the OP, if the NFL does have the right to restrict usage of their broadcast (and I believe they do), then it seems to me that calling up the potential violater and saying, "Sorry, we don't allow that," doesn't really qualify as "strongarm."

[mugaliens]

As for the OP, if the NFL does have the right to restrict usage of their broadcast (and I believe they do), then it seems to me that calling up the potential violater and saying, "Sorry, we don't allow that," doesn't really qualify as "strongarm."

You may very well be right in that it doesn't qualify as "strongarm."

But I would argue that it does qualify as "ridiculously stupid and shoddy PR work and unsound business tactics."

Remember - this game is broadcast. It makes money from the commercial endorsements. The more people who see it, the more money it makes, and limiting it's distribution in any manner simply reduces one's profits. Going after a church really reduces one's profits, and I've hear rumors of entire church populations boycotting the Superbowl next year.

The only way their response makes any sense at all is if they have some legal contract with the network which bought the rights to record and distribute the game which stated the 55" limitation, or that it not be "re-broadcast" to groups larger than x number of people, etc., as a way of protecting the network's incentive to lure ever-increasing numbers of people to pay $45 a month for cable instead of flocking to their church to watch the big game on a big screen.

Seeing as how the enforcement of such a rule wouldn't change the behavior of but a very tiny fraction of the population, but that the botched PR is probably going to change the behavior of a much larger fraction of the population down the road, it still falls under the category of "ridiculously stupid," and I wonder how long it took before the first corporate exec at the network (or in the NFL) was fired over this incident for being so ridiculously stupid to as to go after a church group which was actually increasing NFL and corporate profits by increasing the distribution of the game.

[NEOWatcher]

As for the OP, if the NFL does have the right to restrict usage of their broadcast (and I believe they do), then it seems to me that calling up the potential violater and saying, "Sorry, we don't allow that," doesn't really qualify as "strongarm."
I'm not sure that is true. They are ceding the restriction based on what the broadcaster can control.

[SeanF]

But I would argue that it does qualify as "ridiculously stupid and shoddy PR work and unsound business tactics."
That, I'm not going to argue with. :)

Seeing as how the enforcement of such a rule wouldn't change the behavior of but a very tiny fraction of the population, but that the botched PR is probably going to change the behavior of a much larger fraction of the population down the road, it still falls under the category of "ridiculously stupid," and I wonder how long it took before the first corporate exec at the network (or in the NFL) was fired over this incident for being so ridiculously stupid to as to go after a church group which was actually increasing NFL and corporate profits by increasing the distribution of the game.
I'm not convinced that church showing would really increase the NFL's profits, nor the network's. Those profits are based on Neilsen ratings, and the viewers at that church wouldn't get counted.

The advertisers, I'm sure, don't mind that kind of thing.

I'm not sure that is true. They are ceding the restriction based on what the broadcaster can control.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, I don't think we want to go there. A book publisher can't physically stop you from photocopying and distributing "Harry Potter 7" right after it comes out - they have to count on the law to do that. This is no different.

For that matter, there's nothing you could do to prevent someone from driving a bulldozer into your house. That doesn't mean you can't count on the law to tell them they can't and punish them if they do.

And if I misunderstood what you meant by "what the broadcaster can control," I apologize. :)

[NEOWatcher]

That, I'm not going to argue with. :)
I think we may be at some basic line of agreeing. It's just that the analogies are giving me a headache.
Yes; A publisher does have some control because of the availability of the print, history of what is allowed, and lasting physical proof of the copy. And, the original intent was to sell something physical.

The broadcasters aim is to expose as many people as possible, and use that exposure volume as the incentive.

(Sorry; but another analogy... somebody reads the book aloud to a group)

I am personally drawing the line at the fact that there are no lost gains in the public viewing of a production no-matter how you measure it. But; if you recorded it and showed it later, then you have lost gains because the re-transmission could have been an entirely new set of advertising.

[publius]

Sean,

Now let me ask something, fully in the mode of how things should be, not how they actually are.

Should Time magazine be able to prevent the doctor from displaying copies in his waiting room? Should they be allowed that much control?

And back to Mr. Haney ceasing-and-desisting me for copying the Hooterville Happenings. There is a line between what's legal and what's morally acceptable. And that has become a big grey area in this
1-800-SUE-EM-FOR-ANYTHING country of ours.

Just because of some technical precise letter of the law, someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean it's right. Suing someone for making copies of a dinky free newsletter is one of those.

And what the NFL did in the OP that started this whole mess is another example. I couldn't look myself in the mirror for suing a church, or just about anybody for doing that. It justs reeks.

-Richard

[SeanF]

I am personally drawing the line at the fact that there are no lost gains in the public viewing of a production no-matter how you measure it.
Yes, but the NFL can only charge the advertisers based on verifiable viewers.

They can't just say, "Oh, we figure x number of people were watching it on big screens at churches, so we need you to pay us more for an ad," without the advertisers having some way to independently verify that number. The whole point of the Neilsen Ratings was to have that independent verification.

So maybe the whole Neilsen shebang needs to be modified to try and take this kind of thing into account.

Now let me ask something, fully in the mode of how things should be, not how they actually are.

Should Time magazine be able to prevent the doctor from displaying copies in his waiting room? Should they be allowed that much control?
My initial response would be to say that I would have no problem with that. But I'm willing to listen to reasons why I should. :) Part of the reason why I say it wouldn't bother me is because I'm not sure that Time magazine would see any real advantage in it, nor do I see any real disadvantage if they did do it.

And back to Mr. Haney ceasing-and-desisting me for copying the Hooterville Happenings. There is a line between what's legal and what's morally acceptable. And that has become a big grey area in this
1-800-SUE-EM-FOR-ANYTHING country of ours.

Just because of some technical precise letter of the law, someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean it's right. Suing someone for making copies of a dinky free newsletter is one of those.
There's certainly a problem with excessive litigation in our country today, no doubt. But I would say there's also a problem with an attitude of "if I can do it, it's okay for me to do it."

And you didn't really answer my question. Mr. Haney didn't call you up yelling and threatening to sue. He called you up and politely told you that he'd prefer you not copy and distribute his newsletter. Do you accommodate him, or do you tell him it's repugnant of him to ask, and suggest that he start spending the extra bucks for high-tech non-copyable paper in the future?

[publius]

Don't encourage him! that's what he has been doing! :)


Yes, and he's getting confuseder and confuseder the more he reads.:D Big Time Horses Mouth: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

The main site there has tons and tons.

Apparently, registration is required for an infingement suit to even be filed in federal court in the first place. Copyright protection extends to unregistered works, but if you want to make a case, you must first register. And no statutory damages if the infringement was before registration. But it's got to be registered to even begin legal proceedings.

And second a big Johnny Carson, "I did not know that" moment for me, was "mandatory deposit". Federal copyright law required that two "best copies" of all works be deposited with the Library of Congress. This includes just about everything. And this requirement is independent of copyright rights as well. If you publish something and don't intend to claim copyright at all, you are still required to give the LoC two "best copies" of your work. That includes software, from what I understand, and goes so far as to want the source code, apparently. Now, surely the LoC is bound to keep that secret, but apparently they demand 2 copies of just about anything.

Most of this stuff is geared toward "physical publication" from the wording. I'm still looking for the lowdown on electronic "publication". Surely the LoC does not demand or want two copies of the volume of postings on the internet made every day. :) I mean, even they wanted it, how the devil could they even receive that kind of volume, much less store it.

And finally, it amuses me that apparently the LoC is receiving two copies of every porno flick made in the US. The LoC is maintaining a store of all works published in the US for posterity no matter what the content. I just wonder how that would play in the Bible belt.............. :)

-Richard

[publius]

My initial response would be to say that I would have no problem with that. But I'm willing to listen to reasons why I should. :) Part of the reason why I say it wouldn't bother me is because I'm not sure that Time magazine would see any real advantage in it, nor do I see any real disadvantage if they did do it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, whether that's a yes, no, or maybe. I'll take as a maybe.

And you didn't really answer my question. Mr. Haney didn't call you up yelling and threatening to sue. He called you up and politely told you that he'd prefer you not copy and distribute his newsletter. Do you accommodate him, or do you tell him it's repugnant of him to ask, and suggest that he start spending the extra bucks for high-tech non-copyable paper in the future?

Well, (and I assuming you and most of the members here are familiar with _Green Acres_ and the cast of characters -- if you're ever feeling down, just watch a few episodes of that, you'll be laughing out loud in no time), Mr. Haney wouldn't ask me nicely or otherwise, he'd do something sneaky. And I'd have to retain the services of Oliver Wendall Douglass, in his Noted Hooterville Pig Lawyer role to out-sneak Haney.

Now, if Sam Drucker asked me not to, I'd certainly stop. Now, if County Agent Hank Kimball was publishing, he'd call me to ask me to stop, but then forget what he was even talking about during the middle of the conversation, and tell me to get to the point of whatever I called him about because he was busy.

-Richard

[Chuck]

The lenses of your eyes are reproducing my work on your retinas! I want royalties!

[Jeff Root]

I like Hank Kimball. I always call him for advice about my apple trees.
Or is it Richard Kimball? Come to think of it, they're not actually apple
trees, they're rose bushes. Same family, though. Closely related.
Well, not closely related, but related. You wouldn't think so to look
at them, would you?

Hope that helps!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[davidlpf]

I like Hank Kimball. I always call him for advice about my apple trees.
Or is it Richard Kimball? Come to think of it, they're not actually apple
trees, they're rose bushes. Same family, though. Closely related.
Well, not closely related, but related. You wouldn't think so to look
at them, would you?

Hope that helps!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
clear as mud. :D

[sarongsong]

Sounds like someone has been chatting with the little girl in that Volvo commercial (http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/other/11/21/21greig.html)..."On the Way Home---Rosie"

[SeanF]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, whether that's a yes, no, or maybe. I'll take as a maybe.
Yeah, it's a definite maybe.

Give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. :)

Well, (and I assuming you and most of the members here are familiar with _Green Acres_ and the cast of characters -- if you're ever feeling down, just watch a few episodes of that, you'll be laughing out loud in no time), Mr. Haney wouldn't ask me nicely or otherwise, he'd do something sneaky. And I'd have to retain the services of Oliver Wendall Douglass, in his Noted Hooterville Pig Lawyer role to out-sneak Haney.
Oh, I know Green Acres. Only ever saw it in reruns though. For some reason, I was always a little partial to Petticoat Junction. Lots of curves, you bet.

So...if you were asked nicely to cease & desist, you would (and I'm assuming if there was a copyright notice on the publication itself, you'd preemptively cease & desist).

But if the publisher asks nicely, and the unauthorized copier refuses to cease & desist...the publisher pushing the matter is going over the line? Rather than the copier being over the line for not stopping when asked?

[publius]

I like Hank Kimball. I always call him for advice about my apple trees.
Or is it Richard Kimball? Come to think of it, they're not actually apple
trees, they're rose bushes. Same family, though. Closely related.
Well, not closely related, but related. You wouldn't think so to look
at them, would you?



No, you wouldn't think so. Well, you might if you looked really close. Well, you really wouldn't have to look *that* close, maybe 10, 50 feet away. No, you can't really tell 'em apart. Strange, 'cause they're not related.

[Interjection by exasperated straight man: But you said they were related!]

Who?

Straight man: Hank Kimball!

Where?! Oh, glad he's here, almost forget I need to ask his brother Richard about my rose trees.


I'm glad I'm not the only member of the Hank Kimball fan club around here. Well, it's not really a club, we don't meet. And I wouldn't really call us fans either...................{and I walk off in the wrong direction, mumbling something about the club house}

-Richard

[Gillianren]

Oh, I know Green Acres. Only ever saw it in reruns though. For some reason, I was always a little partial to Petticoat Junction. Lots of curves, you bet.

And Sharon Tate in a black wig as an occasional extra, too!

[hhEb09'1]

And second a big Johnny Carson, "I did not know that" moment for me, was "mandatory deposit". Federal copyright law required that two "best copies" of all works be deposited with the Library of Congress.Thanks for digging this out, I did not know this either: Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#mdw)Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties This includes just about everything. And this requirement is independent of copyright rights as well. If you publish something and don't intend to claim copyright at all, you are still required to give the LoC two "best copies" of your work. That link says "Certain categories of works are exempt entirely from the mandatory deposit requirements, and the obligation is reduced for certain other categories." You can order the circular. :)

[Doodler]

The idea is pretty straightforward. If you ever come forward with a copyright challenge, someone plagarizing or whatnot, it would be nice if the body intended to investigate the matter had a source on hand to go to not subject to alteration by either the accuser or the accused.

[SharkByte]

You could be subject to prosecution.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes



I'm just gonna put that there, and let y'all comment on it. I'd offer my opinion, but I fear that the V-chip I had installed in my brain would probably melt down under the onslaught and subject y'all to language that would render an aircraft carrier full of sailors shamefaced.

Granted I didn't read the linked artical but from what I heard the problem wasn't with the size of the TV, it was that the church was going to charge admission to get in to watch the superbowl.

If the size of the view screen matters I guess I should go turn myself in because I watched the superbowl in my home theater on a 98 inch screen and a few of my friends "paid" for admission by providing beer and chips...

[sarongsong]

"You have the right to remain silent..." http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gifFebruary 2, 2007
...The original complaint was first that the church was charging people, but also that they used the term "Super Bowl" (as if people would somehow believe that the church was associated with the NFL?). After the church agreed to let people in for free and not use the term, the NFL continued to complain, saying that showing the Super Bowl on a screen larger than 55 inches represents copyright infringement (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories). While we, at first, doubted the reality of this, Ben Austro sent in the fact that it is, indeed, spelled out in copyright law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html) that once you get above 55" [AND, "...a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space..."], you may be talking about a "public performance,"... techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml)