4 ms·

People like to say that "kids these days" don't understand copyright, but the fact is that hardly anyone of any age understands copyright. Back in the 90's, pe

People like to say that "kids these days" don't understand copyright, but the fact is that hardly anyone of any age understands copyright. Back in the 90's, people in their 40's and older blindly retold the fable that you didn't have to pay for shareware, regardless of what the EULA stated. I had a friend whose father was a lawyer, who had the largest collection of illegally copied VHS tapes I've ever seen. They insisted it was legal because they weren't distributing, which is nonsense. The only thing new about the phenomenon is the ease with which a greater variety of media is now shifted around digitally.

derleth 15y ago
> the largest collection of illegally copied VHS tapes I've ever seen. They insisted it was legal because they weren't distributing, which is nonsense. To expand on this: The only legal way to record copyrighted material is to do it to time-shift, meaning you record it, watch it once, and then destroy the copy. That is it. This was settled in the Supreme Court case Sony v Universal, back when 'Sony' meant 'Betamax', as detailed in this page: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm
- drewcrawford 15y ago
  > The only legal way to record copyrighted material is to do it to time-shift, This is simply not true. It's the same type of ignorance the OP is complaining about. Just to start with, fair use exceptions. Not to mention we've carved out custom exceptions for education, disabled people, etc. etc. Or just read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_c... Granted, they're a lot narrower than normal people believe they are. But they're a lot wider than "only one exception", and both mental models are equally incorrect.
  - Nick_C 15y ago
    Interesting that a format change such as in large print or braille is an allowable exception. My local lending library has a huge number of large print books and I've often wondered why, especially when it seems out of proportion to the size of the aged population. Perhaps the library gets them cheaper.
ugh 15y ago
Exactly. Copyright used to be something that concerned companies or professional creators of content. Normal people didn’t have to deal with it. It just never happened. (I’m guessing that’s one of the reasons why copyright law is so complicated. Companies can afford lawyers. Lawyers can deal with complicated laws.) Copying is cheap now, as is publishing. Everyone can easily infringe copyright now, something that just wasn’t possible only twenty years ago. My hypothesis is that people never understood copyright – they never had to – and now we are living in a world in which everyone can infringe copyright and hardly anyone understands what it is.
- a3camero 15y ago
  It's hardly a surprise that people don't know how Copyright law works. People don't understand any major aspect of our legal systems. The rules are so incredibly complicated that even lawyers who specialize in these areas may not understand them and may even disagree on what the rules are (this is is where at least some litigation comes from, people disagree on what the rules are that applies to the situation). I'd be surprised if most renters knew what the laws about renting are, despite most of the rules being written out and not squirreled away in court cases (re: case law) and renting being a major expense they incur every month.
  - ugh 15y ago
    I think you are generalizing a bit too much. Yes, the details are always complicated, but that’s not the problem. People do understand the broad strokes of the laws against killing people or stealing. People do not understand what the basics of copyright law are all about – and copyright law is so complicated that it’s even hard to find those basics.
    - a3camero 15y ago
      If by broad strokes you mean "don't kill" then sure, but the actual details of how the legal system treats killing people is rather complicated. There are a variety of exceptions and different penalties depending on how the death happened. You might be surprised to find out how complicated the "don't kill" regime really is.
dangrossman 15y ago
My 52 year old mother recently asked me "do you really have a copyright?" after seeing the notice at the bottom of a website I was showing her.
- freehunter 15y ago
  I know it took me a long time to understand that copyright was something you have implicitly compared to something you had to prove and earn.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  You used to have to register directly for a work to be Copyright. The US I gather was one of, if not the, last place to stop doing that when they were added to the already well established Berne countries that under that same convention don't require registration. However, internally I think the US still require registration for US citizens to sue other US citizens for infringement. Why? Must be making someone rich ...
  - derleth 15y ago
    You need to register to get anything more than actual damages, which, in the case of 99% of amateur works, amounts to somewhere between diddly and squat. More information: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-software-online-applications-30039.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-software-on...
uxp 15y ago
> They insisted it was legal because they weren't distributing, which is nonsense. There is some actual truth in this of which I can only explain anecdotally, and am slightly wary of posting this story as last time I did on HN someone personally attacked me as being stupid, but never explained how I was wrong. I've even searched for the truth on the matter, but as I'm not a lawyer I've only found explanations of the grey area that supports both arguments. Anyways, before I became a full time software developer I actually was a watchmaker, trained by a Swiss organization in partnership with a few major Swiss watch manufacturer companies. One of those companies is probably the most well known luxury watch brand in the world, of which they invited our class to their repair facility in Midtown Manhattan. The person that walked us through the facility was the president of after sales service himself. Upon visiting the area where they receive watches for repair, he remarked on how many imitation watches they receive per day (which is quite a bit more than I would have guessed). When asked on what they do with them, he said they usually just send them back to the owner with a letter explaining the watch. But, globally they have a goal to determine origins and production facilities abroad that do make their living off of manufacturing counterfeit goods in order to shut them down. Most counterfeit watches come from very few factories, so when they do receive an imitation for service, they check certain manufacturing marks which easily categorized them into groups they have already seen. (As an aside, this company engraves the word "Switzerland" inside the caseback, where the vast majority of imitations reproduce this word with "Shitinrhand"). If they come across an imitation that is unique, or instead of being produced as an imitation, it is produced to be a "genuine replica" to be sold as original, they try to keep the watch. This is where the story gets controversial. Even though the imitation infringes on both copyright and trademarks, they can't, by US Law, confiscate the watch flat out by refusing to return the watch to it's owner as that is theft. They first have to offer to buy the watch from the owner, and if the owner agrees to sell the watch (usually for a large sum), they can then refuse payment and keep the watch, as the loop hole is that the infringement is the transfer or sale of counterfeit goods, not the possession. I'd also like to debunk or validate this argument, however until someone provides me with case stories or cites laws, I'll go ahead and trust the president of service at a multi-billion dollar company who told me this personally instead of someone on the internet calling me stupid and cite this as true, or at least the story that he told me.
- 15y ago
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
Perhaps it was "legal" but still "unlawful" as personal copying was tortuous whilst distribution was illegal under criminal law? That is the lawyer can claim "it's legal" whilst knowing that they're acting unlawfully? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1609/whats-the-difference-between-unlawful-and-illegal http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1609/whats-the-diff... (Perhaps someone with legal certification could confirm).
davekinkead 15y ago
If anything, Id say its the kids who understand the normative justifications of copyright better than their elders. As has been previously mentioned, there is a growing disjoint between the legal status of copyright laws and their moral underpinnings. "Kids these days" are still acting within a moral framework of do not harm even while downloading.

derleth 15y ago

> the largest collection of illegally copied VHS tapes I've ever seen. They insisted it was legal because they weren't distributing, which is nonsense. To expand on this: The only legal way to record copyrighted material is to do it to time-shift, meaning you record it, watch it once, and then destroy the copy. That is it. This was settled in the Supreme Court case Sony v Universal, back when 'Sony' meant 'Betamax', as detailed in this page: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm

drewcrawford 15y ago
> The only legal way to record copyrighted material is to do it to time-shift, This is simply not true. It's the same type of ignorance the OP is complaining about. Just to start with, fair use exceptions. Not to mention we've carved out custom exceptions for education, disabled people, etc. etc. Or just read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_c... Granted, they're a lot narrower than normal people believe they are. But they're a lot wider than "only one exception", and both mental models are equally incorrect.
- Nick_C 15y ago
  Interesting that a format change such as in large print or braille is an allowable exception. My local lending library has a huge number of large print books and I've often wondered why, especially when it seems out of proportion to the size of the aged population. Perhaps the library gets them cheaper.

ugh 15y ago

Exactly. Copyright used to be something that concerned companies or professional creators of content. Normal people didn’t have to deal with it. It just never happened. (I’m guessing that’s one of the reasons why copyright law is so complicated. Companies can afford lawyers. Lawyers can deal with complicated laws.) Copying is cheap now, as is publishing. Everyone can easily infringe copyright now, something that just wasn’t possible only twenty years ago. My hypothesis is that people never understood copyright – they never had to – and now we are living in a world in which everyone can infringe copyright and hardly anyone understands what it is.

a3camero 15y ago
It's hardly a surprise that people don't know how Copyright law works. People don't understand any major aspect of our legal systems. The rules are so incredibly complicated that even lawyers who specialize in these areas may not understand them and may even disagree on what the rules are (this is is where at least some litigation comes from, people disagree on what the rules are that applies to the situation). I'd be surprised if most renters knew what the laws about renting are, despite most of the rules being written out and not squirreled away in court cases (re: case law) and renting being a major expense they incur every month.
- ugh 15y ago
  I think you are generalizing a bit too much. Yes, the details are always complicated, but that’s not the problem. People do understand the broad strokes of the laws against killing people or stealing. People do not understand what the basics of copyright law are all about – and copyright law is so complicated that it’s even hard to find those basics.
  - a3camero 15y ago
    If by broad strokes you mean "don't kill" then sure, but the actual details of how the legal system treats killing people is rather complicated. There are a variety of exceptions and different penalties depending on how the death happened. You might be surprised to find out how complicated the "don't kill" regime really is.

dangrossman 15y ago

My 52 year old mother recently asked me "do you really have a copyright?" after seeing the notice at the bottom of a website I was showing her.

freehunter 15y ago
I know it took me a long time to understand that copyright was something you have implicitly compared to something you had to prove and earn.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
You used to have to register directly for a work to be Copyright. The US I gather was one of, if not the, last place to stop doing that when they were added to the already well established Berne countries that under that same convention don't require registration. However, internally I think the US still require registration for US citizens to sue other US citizens for infringement. Why? Must be making someone rich ...
- derleth 15y ago
  You need to register to get anything more than actual damages, which, in the case of 99% of amateur works, amounts to somewhere between diddly and squat. More information: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-software-online-applications-30039.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-software-on...

uxp 15y ago

> They insisted it was legal because they weren't distributing, which is nonsense. There is some actual truth in this of which I can only explain anecdotally, and am slightly wary of posting this story as last time I did on HN someone personally attacked me as being stupid, but never explained how I was wrong. I've even searched for the truth on the matter, but as I'm not a lawyer I've only found explanations of the grey area that supports both arguments. Anyways, before I became a full time software developer I actually was a watchmaker, trained by a Swiss organization in partnership with a few major Swiss watch manufacturer companies. One of those companies is probably the most well known luxury watch brand in the world, of which they invited our class to their repair facility in Midtown Manhattan. The person that walked us through the facility was the president of after sales service himself. Upon visiting the area where they receive watches for repair, he remarked on how many imitation watches they receive per day (which is quite a bit more than I would have guessed). When asked on what they do with them, he said they usually just send them back to the owner with a letter explaining the watch. But, globally they have a goal to determine origins and production facilities abroad that do make their living off of manufacturing counterfeit goods in order to shut them down. Most counterfeit watches come from very few factories, so when they do receive an imitation for service, they check certain manufacturing marks which easily categorized them into groups they have already seen. (As an aside, this company engraves the word "Switzerland" inside the caseback, where the vast majority of imitations reproduce this word with "Shitinrhand"). If they come across an imitation that is unique, or instead of being produced as an imitation, it is produced to be a "genuine replica" to be sold as original, they try to keep the watch. This is where the story gets controversial. Even though the imitation infringes on both copyright and trademarks, they can't, by US Law, confiscate the watch flat out by refusing to return the watch to it's owner as that is theft. They first have to offer to buy the watch from the owner, and if the owner agrees to sell the watch (usually for a large sum), they can then refuse payment and keep the watch, as the loop hole is that the infringement is the transfer or sale of counterfeit goods, not the possession. I'd also like to debunk or validate this argument, however until someone provides me with case stories or cites laws, I'll go ahead and trust the president of service at a multi-billion dollar company who told me this personally instead of someone on the internet calling me stupid and cite this as true, or at least the story that he told me.

15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

Perhaps it was "legal" but still "unlawful" as personal copying was tortuous whilst distribution was illegal under criminal law? That is the lawyer can claim "it's legal" whilst knowing that they're acting unlawfully? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1609/whats-the-difference-between-unlawful-and-illegal http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1609/whats-the-diff... (Perhaps someone with legal certification could confirm).

davekinkead 15y ago

If anything, Id say its the kids who understand the normative justifications of copyright better than their elders. As has been previously mentioned, there is a growing disjoint between the legal status of copyright laws and their moral underpinnings. "Kids these days" are still acting within a moral framework of do not harm even while downloading.