5 ms·

> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied th

> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonable, but that seems like some copyright maximalism trying to rewrite history?

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
- gumby 3y ago
  I think a lot of that has since gone away. I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    IANAL, but I've written a bit about copyright and had it reviewed by a very good IP lawyer. There was at one point some controversy about this point--especially in the context of computer software licensing. But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      > But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work. Not just case law; it's explicit in statute too: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or > (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- cma 3y ago
  How about skip protection in portable CD players? It loads bit ahead of time into a little buffer of RAM.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- terminous 3y ago
  > Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....
    - vGPU 3y ago
      Hence, congress passed a law: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
      - uni_rule 3y ago
        Imagine how bad a judicial take has to be for Congress to actually get up off their hands and legislate about in the current year.
        BaseballPhysics 3y ago
        No. That's not how the law and the legal system work. The law was written prior to the existence of digital computers. That law, as written, made copying a program into computer memory to execute it illegal. The law was dumb. But judges enforce the law. That's their job. They have discretion when laws conflict with each other (including with the Constitution) or provide space for ambiguity or flexibility, but otherwise the law is the law. So Congress did their job (a novel concept these days, I know) and updated the law to reflect the realities in modern technology. You don't want judges legislating from the bench. If laws need to be updated, lawmakers should update them. That's how the system works.
- teddyh 3y ago
  So executing software actually isn’t an infringement of copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit exception is an actual exception (unlike “fair use” which remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK, IANAL.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  If we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a (n analog and transient) copy of it.
t0mas88 3y ago
They can relocate that part to the Netherlands. Copying without public distribution is explicitly legal, and all storage media and smartphones carry a "tax" that's given to the rights holders to compensate them for this. For a long time downloading was legal (uploading wasn't), due to this. But it has changed sometime in the last decade. While the tax is still there and mandatory, so the copyright-lobbyists won on paper. In reality people are moving back from streaming to pirate sites and nothing is being done about it.
- bluelu 3y ago
  You are completely mistaken That fee only covers general piracy. It does not give you the right to copy copyrighted works. In fact, european copyright is much stricter than US copyright. There is no fair use and european copyright (based on the napoleon code) forbids making a copy of copyrighted works except for a few exceptions specifically mentioned in the law (eg a browser displaying a webpage, etc...).
  - lakomen 3y ago
    The new copyright act, I don't know what all changed. All I can say is that analogue copies were permitted. You play it back analogue and record digitally. A youtube copyright claim one of my videos got, from where I filmed fireworks and there was music playing in the background, which was then auto-flagged by the machine, I responded with that video not being about the music and that I can't record fireworks without that music playing and that I had no influence over the person playing that music and that it was technically an analogue recording. The claim was dropped. That is however different from this case of the IA and Sony etc
  - tokai 3y ago
    You are also completely mistaken. Making copies for personal use is legal in the Netherlands and (many/most?) EU countries. > You are permitted to make copies of other people’s texts, music and photographs provided that they derive from a legal source. The copies must be for your own use. It is not permissible, however, to distribute or publish such copies. https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-property/question-and-answer/can-i-use-other-people%E2%80%99s-texts-music-or-photographs https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-property/quest...

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.

gumby 3y ago
I think a lot of that has since gone away. I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
- ghaff 3y ago
  IANAL, but I've written a bit about copyright and had it reviewed by a very good IP lawyer. There was at one point some controversy about this point--especially in the context of computer software licensing. But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work.
  - wtallis 3y ago
    > But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work. Not just case law; it's explicit in statute too: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or > (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cma 3y ago
How about skip protection in portable CD players? It loads bit ahead of time into a little buffer of RAM.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
terminous 3y ago
> Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....
  - vGPU 3y ago
    Hence, congress passed a law: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
    - uni_rule 3y ago
      Imagine how bad a judicial take has to be for Congress to actually get up off their hands and legislate about in the current year.
      - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
        No. That's not how the law and the legal system work. The law was written prior to the existence of digital computers. That law, as written, made copying a program into computer memory to execute it illegal. The law was dumb. But judges enforce the law. That's their job. They have discretion when laws conflict with each other (including with the Constitution) or provide space for ambiguity or flexibility, but otherwise the law is the law. So Congress did their job (a novel concept these days, I know) and updated the law to reflect the realities in modern technology. You don't want judges legislating from the bench. If laws need to be updated, lawmakers should update them. That's how the system works.
teddyh 3y ago
So executing software actually isn’t an infringement of copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit exception is an actual exception (unlike “fair use” which remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK, IANAL.
gcanyon 3y ago
If we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a (n analog and transient) copy of it.

t0mas88 3y ago

They can relocate that part to the Netherlands. Copying without public distribution is explicitly legal, and all storage media and smartphones carry a "tax" that's given to the rights holders to compensate them for this. For a long time downloading was legal (uploading wasn't), due to this. But it has changed sometime in the last decade. While the tax is still there and mandatory, so the copyright-lobbyists won on paper. In reality people are moving back from streaming to pirate sites and nothing is being done about it.

bluelu 3y ago
You are completely mistaken That fee only covers general piracy. It does not give you the right to copy copyrighted works. In fact, european copyright is much stricter than US copyright. There is no fair use and european copyright (based on the napoleon code) forbids making a copy of copyrighted works except for a few exceptions specifically mentioned in the law (eg a browser displaying a webpage, etc...).
- lakomen 3y ago
  The new copyright act, I don't know what all changed. All I can say is that analogue copies were permitted. You play it back analogue and record digitally. A youtube copyright claim one of my videos got, from where I filmed fireworks and there was music playing in the background, which was then auto-flagged by the machine, I responded with that video not being about the music and that I can't record fireworks without that music playing and that I had no influence over the person playing that music and that it was technically an analogue recording. The claim was dropped. That is however different from this case of the IA and Sony etc
- tokai 3y ago
  You are also completely mistaken. Making copies for personal use is legal in the Netherlands and (many/most?) EU countries. > You are permitted to make copies of other people’s texts, music and photographs provided that they derive from a legal source. The copies must be for your own use. It is not permissible, however, to distribute or publish such copies. https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-property/question-and-answer/can-i-use-other-people%E2%80%99s-texts-music-or-photographs https://www.government.nl/topics/intellectual-property/quest...