Copyright

[Dandy1]

Does anyone know what part is illegal with copyright. Is it the downloading of the files or is it the selling or uploading of them.

[fo3nix]

Depends what the copyright is on. If you read the small stuff on the back of an album or something, it'll probably say unauthorised distributing is not allowed. I.e. downloading and uploading. And of course selling isn't allowed either.

Then again, copyright laws as they stand are a load of rubbish, so why follow them?

[SaxyJag]

Downloading is tricky. If the person who's offering the download is the owner of the work and no one else has any claim over it (like a publisher they've signed a contract with, for instance), then it's usually OK for you to use it for the purposes they specify - eg for your personal use, for study or teaching purposes etc.

If they don't own the copyright, then you're as liable as the next person unless they have specific permission to distribute.

It's the same with printed material - the copyright belongs to the creator (unless they've passed it on or sold it) and you need their permission to reproduce or distribute it (bookshops and libraries enter into special contract arrangements with suppliers that allow distribution rights).

For photographs, the photographer is automatically the copyright holder, no matter who appears in the photo.

[SaxyJag]

fo3nix, copyright laws are NOT a load of rubbish. They're there to protect writers, artists, songwriters, musicians, photographers etc. A friend of mine once sued a well-known music publisher because they produced transcipts of his songs and sold them without crediting him. He won back several thousand pounds in lost royalties - money he badly needed when he was out of work and in danger of becoming homeless.

The laws are complex, admittedly, and have some distinctly grey areas, but I for one am glad we have them. I wouldn't like to think of someone else getting rich through my hard work - too much of that going on as it is.

[fo3nix]

My point is that they're not doing what they're supposed to do. They should be protecting the individual who's work it is (such as your friend's). However, current laws do more to protect the publisher of such work. Copyrighted music (i.e. most commerical music) is there to protect the publisher, not the artist that spent the time creating the music. Same with DVDs.

The original idea behind copyright was to promote advances of mankind. Copyright now doesn't do this, it helps big companies like Disney to make more money.

[SaxyJag]

I'm sorry you feel this way, fo3nix. I get the impression you've had a bad experience at the hands of a big publisher. But really, they are there to protect those who create the stuff (my mate, for instance - you've probably never even heard of him - not many have).

I'll admit some publishers push it a bit, like the tripartite embargo Bloomsbury slapped on the latest Harry Potter book, but most of the time the law works for the little man who cares enough to take advantage of it.

Publishers have a right to protection as much as authors. If I've agreed my book can be published by publisher A, then it's not really on for publisher B to make a lookalike. And if publisher A wants paperback rights for two years and will promote and sell my book during that time, then it's not really fair for publisher B to ride on the back of that.

I'm not the 'goodest' little girl on this earth, but I certainly wouldn't advocate deliberately flouting copyright laws, and I would have no sympathy for anyone who was prosecuted for doing so.

[fo3nix]

Oh dear, you've been brainwashed by the big corporations too.

Copyright is meant to, as I said, further the knowledge and development of mankind (this is how it was originally defined). It's also there to give credit where credit's due (such as to your mate). It's not there to try and make as much money out of consumers (the role it mostly plays today).

[Mortartube]

Music copyright laws are a nightmare and desperately need revising and the grey areas, legally defined. A mobile DJ is supposed to pay PRS & PPL fees to play records in public (why not just use one organisation, talk about job creation). The DJ has bought and owns the CD etc and never claims to be the copyright owner. Everyone knows that the DJ would not be the copyright owner of an Elvis Presley record for instance. That same DJ could buy a painting by a famous artist (Van Gogh etc), and exhibit it to the public without the same problems. Whether they charged a fee to enter the building and view the painting or not.The purchaser of the painting owns it and can publicly show it. In fact under tax laws, you can get a tax break exactly for doing this as the work is considered to be publically accessable. It seems that only music copyright can get away with being so aloof and arrogant, book publishing and picture artwork can't get away with it to the same extent.

Let us assume that I go to my local shop and buy a CD single that is No1 in the music chart. What EXACTLY do I own to do with as I wish? Not the music or the artwork on the cover. So what?

[tomd]

Technically, you don't even own the right to play it back. That's where the Campaign for Digital Rights comes in, trying to get you the right to time, space and media shift (ie play it back whenever, wherever and from whatever (CD, MP3, Tape)) you want.