Illegal downloads

[Alidar Jarok]

I see. So if I build a house I can keep it as long as I live and leave it to my descendants in perpetuity; but if I write a novel then it belongs to the collective.

Depending on the state, you can't do that either. And as much as I hated learning the rule against perpetuities, and indeed as poorly as I learned it, the main idea is that it evolved for a reason; the current trend of abrogating it is stupid.

Well, not quite. RAP doesn't apply as long as you just leave something to X and his heirs. It's when you leave it to X's grandson and heirs that you have problems (create, kill, count).

Keep in mind the Rule Against Perpetuities was created because they didn't want powerful Feudal lords to maintain hereditary property without receiving the benefit from the King. It has little to do with modern law. I personally agree that there should be some limit, but RAP was not created for such a limit.

 

[trekkiedane]

VideoPlus

AFAIK it is merely a compression-algorithm of the data concerning when something begins, what channel it's on and when it ends -akin to ShowView.

But, yeah, It would be illegal to manufacture and distribute VCRs with this software AND to publish these numbers (to say nothing of the bar-code of these numbers) in magazines with tv-listings if it were illegal to record TV in the first place.

 

[Jadzia]

VideoPlus

AFAIK it is merely a compression-algorithm of the data concerning when something begins, what channel it's on and when it ends -akin to ShowView.

I don't think the algorithm has been fully reverse engineered, even after all this time. The full algorithm remains a secret known only to VideoPlus. So broadcasters would have to ask them to calculate the codes, and pass those on with the programme descriptions to the people who print the listings.

 

[trekkiedane]

I don't think the algorithm has been fully reverse engineered, even after all this time. The full algorithm remains a secret known only to VideoPlus. So broadcasters would have to ask them to calculate the codes, and pass those on with the programme descriptions to the people who print the listings.

I wouldn't know, but from my point of view It seems like something the publisher of the TV-listing magazine would want to have in their mag -not necessarily something a broadcaster would be interested in paying for.

Really?
Noone's figured it out? -I didn't think it was a secret, I just thought the algorithm (and use thereof) is... wait for it.... copyrighted

I better read the article I linked to!

ETA:
Ah!

The actual algorithms used to encode and decode the TV guide values from and to their time representations were published in 1992, but only for 6 digit codes or less.[1] [2]

Several open source code 6 digit examples are available.[3] [4] An implementation using Excel macros is also available.[5]

One problem found during reverse engineering efforts is that the algorithm seemed to change for seven and eight digit codes.

Although not well known, code that also works with 7 and 8 digit codes was posted anonymously in 2003. The source code[6] for the full 8 digits was written in C and later converted to Perl.

'

My VCR had both ShowViev and PDC!

The latter is the broadcaster sending a signal to start recording whenever the program is about to start and stop recording when it ends - now that would be seriously illegal if recording TV was.

 

[Arrqh]

Recording of a broadcast without consent is a copyright violation. Making a copy of a sound recording without consent is a copyright violation. It might be widely tolerated, but it isn't legal.

As a blanket sentence, this is incorrect. Recording of broadcast content for later viewing in personal use is considered fair use in the US as per the "Betamax case", fair use being defined in the Copyright Act of 1976. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 gives people the right to make copies of sound if it is for personal, noncommercial use.

 

[Myasishchev]

I see. So if I build a house I can keep it as long as I live and leave it to my descendants in perpetuity; but if I write a novel then it belongs to the collective.

Depending on the state, you can't do that either. And as much as I hated learning the rule against perpetuities, and indeed as poorly as I learned it, the main idea is that it evolved for a reason; the current trend of abrogating it is stupid.

Well, not quite. RAP doesn't apply as long as you just leave something to X and his heirs. It's when you leave it to X's grandson and heirs that you have problems (create, kill, count).

Well, yeah. Requiring a house (or rights to a novel) be passed on to your issue in perpetuity would violate it. (Edit: at least, I thought so. Maybe it's just a fee tail, which wouldn't work either mostly.)

Keep in mind the Rule Against Perpetuities was created because they didn't want powerful Feudal lords to maintain hereditary property without receiving the benefit from the King. It has little to do with modern law. I personally agree that there should be some limit, but RAP was not created for such a limit.

Personally, I think the same underlying problem--dead hand control--applies regardless of the specific political motivation for the rule. Feudal lords or rich great-grandparents, no one except a dead guy is particularly well-served by that severe a control over land.

I probably shouldn't have brought it up, though. But it occurred to me when you compared a house and a novel that there's a tenuous commonality with IP law--a dead hand preventing fee simple ownership of a house by remote heirs is a bit like the ability of rightsholders, especially immortal ones, to retain control over works for ungodly periods of time. Both have a core rationale of social good over individual interest, as well.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ The most basic reason for any ownership laws to exist is because if you make something, it's yours. And it's not just a matter of money; it's a matter of protecting the integrity of the work.

While I agree, I was trying to keep it away from the philosophical because people have a hard time grasping this when it comes to intangible property.

Yeah, that's the whole problem. It's too abstract a concept for the common people.

While, in the past, intellectual work would transition from commercial property to a work of art after all the parties in interest had died (works by Twain and Poe can rightfully be said to belong to the masses these days), now there is a fight to keep things forever (essentially, no one wants Mickey Mouse to enter the Public Domain).

Why should he? Will Disneyland ever enter the Public Domain?

I think that people who want to make a living off the creative labors of previous generations, but offering nothing of their own merit, are a liability to the state.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Not at all. One is providing a service by selling things, such as prints of a painting, or a book of stories, even if the essence of those things is public domain.

You'd be making a living from the printing service you'd be providing, not for the poetic/pictorial content (which is historic), ie not living off the creative labours of past generations.

But you said doing so makes one a liability to the State.

If I were to have legally acquired a copy of something at a time when it was possible to do so (say, tapes of The Rockford Files be it something I recorded myself (after all, I did pay for it once through TV-licence (or accepting commercial breaks) and twice by buying a blank tape(/CD/DVD)), there is no illegality in letting any of my friends borrow it -- and -if they feel like it- make copies for themselves.

You can legally make a copy for your own use, but it cannot be distributed or sold (also you can't charge admission for people to watch it and so on).

What seems to be missing is artists getting a percentage of on-line money and/or giving them percentages of the money made from selling hard-disks...

Yes, exactly. If You download something without paying for it, or sell something without paying royalties (and that includes, for example, selling tickets to a play performed without paying royalties), then you're taking money away from the artist.

Once I purchased a VHS movie, why should it be illegal to convert my purchased movie to DVD?

I don't think there's an issue with making a backup. As for stealing a digital copy to replace a theft, two wrongs don't make a right. If your car gets stolen, you can't steal mine to replace it.

The law is weighted to corporate profits rather than moral issues.

The moral issues are what concern me. If I create something, I don't want the government taking it away.

Well, not quite. RAP doesn't apply as long as you just leave something to X and his heirs. It's when you leave it to X's grandson and heirs that you have problems (create, kill, count).

I've never heard of this. What's it about?

I personally agree that there should be some limit, but RAP was not created for such a limit.

What limit? Why? You think that after a certain amount of time private property should become public property?

 

[Myasishchev]

Oh, no, it means that you can't keep property privately encumbered, for centuries after you die. The rule against perpetuities is totally distinct from escheat in American law, although maybe historically it wasn't (I say maybe because of Alidar's good point about the RAP being invented in a time where the English crown was important and land was its source of power, and I'm not sure if the two doctrines interacted).

The rule is: an interest in a devise must vest within 21 years after the end of a life in being at the time of the devise. So you shouldn't, say, write a will that says "My house to my son Alex for life, then to Alex's first son who has issue of his own." If you died and Alex had no grandchildren, that provision would be void, since the interest (in the house) may not vest within the 21 years following Alex's lifetime, if it ever would. The rule gives me strokes, though.

Many states, iirc, have just done a "if it doesn't vest in 90 years, it's void" simplification.

I think I was wrong about the analogy from before involving an RAP problem, but I believe it's still forbidden or unenforceable against recipients in most places as a fee tail, which is an interest in property that passes down the bloodline in perpetuity.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, see, that's what I mean. Intellectual property is real, too.

Oh, no, it means that you can't keep property from being sold (to private actors) forever.

I think you're saying that I can't write in my will that my property must stay in the family forever. That's fine. But I can leave it to my offspring, who can theoretically leave it to theirs forever. Or not. It's their property now.

An interest in a devise must vest within 21 years after the end of a life in being at the time of the devise. The rule gives me strokes, though.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Depending on the state, you can't do that either. And as much as I hated learning the rule against perpetuities, and indeed as poorly as I learned it, the main idea is that it evolved for a reason; the current trend of abrogating it is stupid.

Well, not quite. RAP doesn't apply as long as you just leave something to X and his heirs. It's when you leave it to X's grandson and heirs that you have problems (create, kill, count).

Well, yeah. Requiring a house (or rights to a novel) be passed on to your issue in perpetuity would violate it. (Edit: at least, I thought so. Maybe it's just a fee tail, which wouldn't work either mostly.)

Alright, I hate these things, but let me give it a shot.

RAP Create, Kill, Count

O --> X and his heirs

Create an heir for X, Y. Kill O and X. The property immediately goes to Y without the necessary 25 years having passed. Therefore, it does not violate the rule against perpetuities. If it were O --> X, then to X's grandson, it would violate. But, generally speaking, a direct inheritance never violates the rule.

Oh, and fuck archaic English property Law. Although this is the only time I can kill people as an intellectual exercise and get away with it.

 

[Myasishchev]

Yep, a devise to Y here would always be okay because he would be in a category automatically closed by X's death. What I was finding problematic was "to all of his descendants." Maybe it is an RAP problem, since great-grandchild interests wouldn't necessarily vest in the rule period (even if grandchildren always would, if the only condition was their conception).

But, yeah, sometimes I think "fuck property law in general" and more specifically "the Soviets had the right idea." :x

Like I said, I'm sorry I brought it up...

^^ Well, see, that's what I mean. Intellectual property is real, too.

Oh, I deleted what you were replying to... for folks who didn't see it, I was just pointing out that Disneyland is real property.

Intellectual property is real in the sense that it exists, but it's not realty.

Oh, no, it means that you can't keep property from being sold (to private actors) forever.

I think you're saying that I can't write in my will that my property must stay in the family forever. That's fine. But I can leave it to my offspring, who can theoretically leave it to theirs forever. Or not. It's their property now.

Theoretically, but you can't make them. Except in some states, where you can.

An interest in a devise must vest within 21 years after the end of a life in being at the time of the devise. The rule gives me strokes, though.

I have no idea what that means.

Bah, me either.

 

[Rarewolf]

Recording of a broadcast without consent is a copyright violation. Making a copy of a sound recording without consent is a copyright violation. It might be widely tolerated, but it isn't legal.

Audios of all the missing Dr Who episodes from the 1960s(108 or them) only exist because fans were taping it, with DIY setups from day 1. It's quite amazing really, even one shown on Xmas day exists.

Likewise some colour material from the 1970s only exists in colour since a UK fan sent money to a US fan to record it for him.

The sad things are is the fans who share more modern stuff are wonderful little communities, who don't see the harm they are doing to the product they love. There are people who hear the latest audio stories illegially within moments of release, before I've legally heard them!

On the otherhand I have no moral qualms about downloading digital copies of old magazines I've already bought for real. They are my digital backup, my reference copies thats easier to access than getting boxes out of storage.

 

[RJDiogenes]

An interest in a devise must vest within 21 years after the end of a life in being at the time of the devise. The rule gives me strokes, though.

I have no idea what that means.

Bah, me either.

Anyway, my opinion is that intellectual property is no less important than physical property and the government should protect it, not take it away.

 

[Arrqh]

The problem is that if you take that to it's natural conclusion... that no copyright should ever expire... you've destroyed public domain and with it destroyed derivative works based on shared cultural experiences.

There are over 400 film adaptions of Shakespeare movies. If copyright never expired then if tomorrow someone appeared who could prove they were a direct descendant of Shakespeare, said person could sue to have every one of those movies no longer distributed. A descendent of Da Vinchi could sue everyone who's made a derivative work of the Mona Lisa or anyone who's reprinted it in a book or on a poster. If no copyright owner for a work could be found, artists would shy away from making derivative work for fear that they could be sued in the future... and we'd have no more Shakespeare in Love, Rozencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead or countless other derivative works. And if 300 years from now someone was writing a history textbook about American culture, they'd have to pay royalties to Disney... and if Disney refused to let anyone license an image of Mickey Mouse then part of our shared cultural heritage would be lost.

Copyright ultimately exists to protect and encourage the creation of new works... but if it were to never expire, the result would ultimately be damaging. There has to be a balance struck. I don't think copyright should expire because intellectual property isn't important, I think it should expire because it is.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Oh, I agree there should be a balancing. I personally don't even think it should last beyond the creator's death. People don't make something so, 60 years down the road, their grandchildren can profit from it. But there is no question a person should be able to profit from the fruits of their labor without others piggy backing off of it entirely for their own gain.

 

[bigdaddy]

50 years is longer than enough. The problem is today that they can get around laws and the family can own things forever.

 

[chardman]

Disney wanted this as their copyright on Mickey Mouse was nearing it's expiration at the time the bill was introduced.

I'm no expert on copyrights, though I have done a lot of research and know far more than your average Joe. And it strikes me that the above statement can't possibly be right.

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
• Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)​

Mickey's name and likeness (along with virtually all of Disney's characters) are not protected by copyright alone (if at all), but by trademark, which unlike copyrights, do not expire unless the holder ceases to defend them. Which means, in essence, that they remain in force as long as The Walt Disney Company and their lawyers exist to enforce them.

Granted, everything besides the characters themselves is covered by copyright rather than trademark, and the earliest Disney copyrights would have begun to expire around 2003 were it not for Sonny Bono's work on Public Law 105-298 (which gave the option to renew some copyrights for an additional 20 years).

Thing is, because Mickey and company are protected by trademark, the only way anyone other than The Walt Disney Company could legally distribute these older films, was if they first obscured the name and likeness of any and all of Disney's trademarked characters... which I imagine would pretty much defeat the purpose.

Of course, had the copyrights begun to expire in 2003, the plots of those earliest films would now be up for grabs, and could thereafter be remade freely with new original characters in all the roles. Thing is, I don't believe that there were/are a lot of studios chomping at the bit for a chance to "reboot" Steamboat Willie or any other Disney titles from the late 20s. These stories were very simplistic, and any good bits they once contained have already been rehashed by Hollywood so many times that even the best of the jokes have become tired cliches. They weren't ever anything special save for the trademarked characters they showcased. "Recasting" them would, again, pretty much defeat the purpose.

Anyway, I don't doubt that Disney may have benefited from Sonny Bono's efforts, but it most likely had nothing to do with their rights to Mickey being in jeopardy.
​

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I was just going to post about trademarks and then chardman beat me to it. Saved me some effort.

People often get confused about the different kinds of intellectual property but it's important to know the difference. Although it's implied above, I will make it explicit: computer algorithms are also not copyrighted. Any discussion of an algorithm being copyrighted is just plain bogus. Algorithms can be patented and they may be held as trade secrets but that's it.

Chalk me up as another who thinks copyrights last way too long. The Supreme Court's current interpretation is insane, in my opinion. Congress could say copyrights don't expire for 10,000 years, and since that is a finite length of time (a "limited term" as the Constitution puts it), SCOTUS says that's acceptable.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There are over 400 film adaptions of Shakespeare movies. If copyright never expired then if tomorrow someone appeared who could prove they were a direct descendant of Shakespeare, said person could sue to have every one of those movies no longer distributed. A descendent of Da Vinchi could sue everyone who's made a derivative work of the Mona Lisa or anyone who's reprinted it in a book or on a poster. If no copyright owner for a work could be found, artists would shy away from making derivative work for fear that they could be sued in the future... and we'd have no more Shakespeare in Love, Rozencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead or countless other derivative works. And if 300 years from now someone was writing a history textbook about American culture, they'd have to pay royalties to Disney... and if Disney refused to let anyone license an image of Mickey Mouse then part of our shared cultural heritage would be lost.

If Copyright protection had existed in the distant past and without limit, and had successfully been passed along to descendants or sold or whatever, then I suppose the world would be a somewhat different place. But I hardly think that it would mean the end of the world or of culture. In any case, it could not possibly be retroactive, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Rarewolf]

and if Disney refused to let anyone license an image of Mickey Mouse then part of our shared cultural heritage would be lost.

Actually that's quite easy to work around - you just include a photo of a piece of merchandise - a lunchbox for example. Better yet use someone's personal photo standing next to Mr. Mouse in Disney World. Disney might not have much control over that.

Chalk me up as another who thinks copyrights last way too long. The Supreme Court's current interpretation is insane, in my opinion. Congress could say copyrights don't expire for 10,000 years, and since that is a finite length of time (a "limited term" as the Constitution puts it), SCOTUS says that's acceptable.

That would really bugger up the Holodecks.
'Unable to comply due to copyright restrictions'