From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c42dbf68f5320193 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-11 05:28:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: More on copyright Date: 11 May 2002 05:28:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205110428.67d1cdd8@posting.google.com> References: <3CDAA2DA.4526E848@san.rr.com> <5ee5b646.0205100932.279fb402@posting.google.com> <3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org> <3CDC1BA0.4010102@mail.com> <3CDC8F3F.16D71C00@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1021120080 16969 127.0.0.1 (11 May 2002 12:28:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2002 12:28:00 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23891 Date: 2002-05-11T12:28:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote in message news:<3CDC8F3F.16D71C00@acm.org>... > The right of individuals to make copies of copyrighted material for > their own personal non-commercial use has been established by the courts > as fair use. Some examples include recording TV shows and backing up > software. No, that's misleading and wrong, as is your previous post. Please don't invent. It sounds like you have not even read the copyright statute. The right to make backup copies is NOT fair use, it is a statuory provision, see section 117 of the copyright code. This section at least is something everyone should read, see the previous message in the thread for a link to the statute. The right to record TV shows on conventional VCR tapes for the purpose of time shifting was indeed estanlished by the Sony case, but for example, the right to record on digital apparatus that includes a mechanism for skipping commercials is not clearly covered and is currently being contested. The Sony case decision is really quite limited, and does not for instance clearly cover making a VCR tape of a show for a friend. That might be fair use, but I don't think you can find a specific case that says it is. Of course in practice things that individuals do on a sufficiently small scale does not get onto the radar screen (that does not mean it is legal or fair use, just that no one will bother to sue in practice, the most you might get is a cease and desist, for example if you put up a personal web site with some star trek images, Paramount will probably tell you to close down your site, but probably will not sue). So if you bleep your own Titanic tape, who knows whether that is OK, and probably who cares. But when you offer a service for bleeping other people's Titanic tapes, that's another matter. Similarly, MP3.COM provided a service to enable people to do something that lots of people assume is fair use (ripping a CD you own to put on your own MP3 player), but as a service, it was found illegal, with damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Fair use is one of the very few cases where doing something once can be legal, but doing it more than once may be illegal (I know of only one other example, marriage!) Fair use is a particularly tricky part of the law, as MP3.COM discovered! One general point to acquire from a thread like this is that copyright law is quite complex, and that you can't rely on common sense as to what is reasonable and what is not. Nor can you rely on other people's pronouncements since many of these come from limited knowledge, mixed in with such common sense :-) This thread is of course not particularly relevant to Ada, but some awareness of copyright is important. That's particularly true when using freely downloaded software. If you download a file that has a GPL notice in it, this does not mean you have a right to use it. It might be that the GPL notice was written by someone who did not have the rights to do so (as in the event that started this thread), or perhaps the software contravenes someone elses patent rights, in which case you can end up responsible. Nothing special about freely downloaded software here of course, the same is true for commercial software, although in that case you presumably have a formal license from some company which does take responsibility. Again, what you do for your own private use is unlikely to be a problem in practice, but as soon as you go outside this (e.g. by selling or widely distributing, or widely announcing on a news group etc), you are definitely raising the stakes.