Interesting Copyright ruling in US Court

Quote:


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/judge-copyright.html

Interesting case that talks a bit about the removal of copyrighted works online. Most of the time the discussion of sharing is about how uploaders are in the wrong, and anyone removing content is in the right, but the law is quite a bit different than that.

Hmmm... So if we make a sarcastic comment about the content we are posting, is that considered a parody and legally protected? Cause if so I am so golden.

Just joking of course, Svinto... And I am referring to any content that is posted here (which is all technically a copyright violation), not any of the prohibited list content in particular.

^_-
_________________
[URL=http://www.casimages.com][/URL]

I thought it was interesting that the copyright holder is the only entity that can legally get something removed -- not the model, or some fan of the model, the model's mom, or some company paid to find the links.

Well I don't think that's new, though. The other people are usually merely the proxies for the actual copyright holder, who is probably off on his yacht somewhere in the 3rd world buying sex from und3r@g3 locals. If it comes to a legal action it will of course be the head honcho's name on the docket.

But I would guess that many of the more prominent models eventually work their way up to contracts where they hold at least partial copyright, giving them a direct legal interest in file sharing.

I find this part interesting:

whether the market for the original work was harmed

I have an old Beavis and Butthead screensaver with a lot of video clips of the duo. One of the clips is of them getting buzed from the gas on a stove which was shortly thereafter cut from the TV show and I assume isn't released on the DVDs (along with the fire fire fire stuff that was also taken off the air). There might be more clips of their banned stuff on the screensaver, I haven't looked at it for a long time so I can't say for sure.

So if I posted any of the removed from the TV and not on DVD banned clips I guess I wouldn't be harming the market for the original work since you can't view or get it anywhere now. I suppose the same would go for material from defunct web sites.

Now I here their theme music in the back of my head (which is also on the screensaver in both short and a 2 minute complete song) and I'm getting hungry for some nachos......

otiscleotus wrote:
You know what's funny? I actually interpreted that 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I would think that if something has been available for purchase for a certain minimum amount of time (like the 7 year window on patent exclusivity, for example) that it would be fair game, and posting would not represent damage to the market because you could make the argument that if someone wanted to buy it they would have already.

On the other hand, something that has not yet been released for sale that was posted could be viewed as killing the potential market for future sales of that content. Funny how a simple phrase can result in completely opposite interpretations by two different people. I guess this is why copyright law is so confusing.

billyellis wrote:
And why America is great
But it's also the reason OJ is out there tirelessly searching for the killers of his ex wife and "friend"; well, until he goes to the pokey for his Las Vegas actions...