Log in

View Full Version : Copyright law


Ghitulescu
8th July 2009, 14:21
I think we all had once a problem with Rule 6 (http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm), which says: No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature, asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.

I will not explain what warez, cracks etc. are but what is the copyright and how it involves Rule 6 provisions. These are by no means the authorised opinion, they cannot be used as a defense in a copyright infringment case (they might serve as a general guidance though), they are not exhaustive and may be anytime superseeded by a new EU directive or US law (BTW, we have a new directive as of April.2009 that prolongues the copyright term to 70 years instead of 50). Also I'm not a native English speaker, those of you who are I'm sure you already know that.

A bit of history
The copyright is by no way a modern invention, although the term was coined first some 150 years ago. The idea of copyright appeared only after the scientific world regained its importance, after the Dark Age. Then, like now, it was not very uncommon for some scientists or literats to steal from others works, pretending to be the owner. Although the first dispute known to history led to a battle with about 3000 casualties (557 AD; Cúl Dreimhne; Irland), it was not until the invention of the printing when the copyright became an issue. Copying a book was possible in several days instead of months maybe years. The iluminists brought people to the art of reading and the libraries and bookshop grew, soon bookprinting became a real business.
So in 1710 the first copyright act in the modern sense appeared (Statute of Anne), followed a century later by the Bern convention (1886). The latter one is the mother of all intellectual properties treaties and conventions since then, as it laid the basic principles that govern the copyright. Notice that US joined the Bern convention only in 1989.

The basic principles:
1. the copyright is automatically given to everything produced by the human mind
2. the copyright allows the owner to use his/her creation as s/he likes, the rest of the world need however an approuval or a licence to be paid.
3. the copyright expires after a certain period
4. under certain conditions anyone can use the copyrighted creations without approuval or licence

Let's translate the items:
1. it simply implies that everything is copyrighted, that means that copyrighted content (Rule 6) is a pleonasm (a repetition, like young child - forget Benjamin Button ;)), because you don't have to do anything (pay fees, ask for a registration, or simply say explicitly my creation is copyrighted or similars) to have your rights established (US has a special law here).
2. solely the owner has the right to copy/multiply/sell his/her creation, all others need a permit/licence - hence the common name of copyright. In other words, everything you created is yours and only yours, everything someone else created is not yours, but you may be allowed to use it under item 4. below. You may sell your right (as most musicians do today), that's why you'll find the term "copyright holder" where author should otherwise be found
3. there is "best before" date, otherwise the copyright would impede the research and/or the cultural progress. After "expiring date" the creation becomes public domain, ie everyone can use it without any restriction and free of any charge
4. one can use copyrighted creations even if the owner forbids it, if one or several conditions are met. The most known one is Fair Use, there are also several others, however they are country/jurisdiction dependent.

What's illegal?
Illegal is the opposite of legal. But what's legal, so one can derive the opposite? Legal is everything that conforms to the law. What law? Nowhere in this doom9.org domain is mentioned the jurisdiction under which the site and its participants are.
The subforums of Decrypting are therefore completelly illegal in the States and EU because they spread the knowledge and the tools of circumventing the technical measures used to protect copyrighted works (DMCA+EU latest directive). On the other hand many posts have been closed as their content implied downloaded of copyrighted bits (sounds, video, subtitles etc.), which is permitted in EU for private use, provided no "decryption" occured. In some countries you are allowed to do what you want with a DVD you bought, provided some conditions are observed.
Since the jurisdiction under which doom9 falls is located neither in USA nor in EU, it must be located then somewhere in an undisclosed zone in the Solar System, where you can crack the protections but you can't download anything. As I've already told this to the owner, not mentioning the contact data (real postal address included) is illegal in Germany, as in The Netherlands as well, and in many other countries.

So what's legal and what's illegal? As we cannot study ourselves the law, we have to believe that the moderators know it and they are able to discerne all the legal subtilities in order to assess the [il]legitime use of a material. There is also no possibility to appeal against a decision.

Finally, questionable.
Questionable is when one cannot assess neither the veridicity of a fact nor the opposite. The civil law has here in most countries if not in all the basic principle of "in dubio in favour of the suspect", since it implicitly derives from the ancient law principle of one has to prove that someone is guilty and not vice-versa. The Spanish Inquisition is history, at least since 1918 ;) ...

Final observations
It's irrelevant if the forum rules match or not the civil/criminal laws of the outside world. What counts however is that the forum as such does not offend the laws valid in the jurisdiction under which it activates. It can be more restrictive, it is however not allowed to be more permissive (if the applicable law says don't copy and the forum rules allow it then the forum can be on trial under this ground). That means that if one is allowed to do something in the real world but one forum rule forbids him/her to do it, then he's forbidden to do said action (within the forum), unless that rule offends the applicable law. You don't like the rules, quit. Don't argue that in your country this is allowed: you're not in your country, you're in a virtual city called forum.doom9.org. You have to obey the rules that govern that city (given by the mayor ;)), but also the laws of the country wherein the city is placed. You may however challenge the rules insofar they are not fully understandable. To me, illegal and questionable are the 2 major issues with Rule 6.

Pure fabricated examples:
1. Let's assume one lives in another country and part of his large family remained in place. He wants to share with them various family video (weddings, holidays, parties etc.). The internet is the cheapest medium (sometimes the most expedient too) to transmit a home DVD converted into a DivX one for the sake of space and band consumption. The designee cannot play the Divx for various reasons and asks the forum for help. Moderator: -it appears that you're not the owner of this downloaded movie. thread closed.
2. Some movies are now in public domain, mostly in EU. Public domain works can be used without restrictions, no licences to be paid, no agreements, almost completely free. Since it's impossible for a private person to own this kind of movie (it may be that s/he was not yet born in those days) it has somehow to be obtained, most usual nowadays using the internet. You want to "rework" it, ask for a hint. Moderator:-it appears that you're not the owner of this downloaded movie. thread closed.

Guest
8th July 2009, 14:52
There is also no possibility to appeal against a decision. False. There is a well-documented appeal process here.

1. Let's assume one lives in another country and part of his large family remained in place. He wants to share with them various family video (weddings, holidays, parties etc.). The internet is the cheapest medium (sometimes the most expedient too) to transmit a home DVD converted into a DivX one for the sake of space and band consumption. The designee cannot play the Divx for various reasons and asks the forum for help. Moderator: -it appears that you're not the owner of this downloaded movie. thread closed. If you state that the content is private and not protected, and do not give evidence of it actually being protected content, then there is no problem.

2. Some movies are now in public domain, mostly in EU. Public domain works can be used without restrictions, no licences to be paid, no agreements, almost completely free. Since it's impossible for a private person to own this kind of movie (it may be that s/he was not yet born in those days) it has somehow to be obtained, most usual nowadays using the internet. You want to "rework" it, ask for a hint. Moderator:-it appears that you're not the owner of this downloaded movie. thread closed. The policy is that for downloads the onus is on the user to show that the material is legitimate (a movie in the public domain is considered legitimate). If you show that, your thread will not be closed.

You appear to be poorly informed on our policies.

Ghitulescu
8th July 2009, 15:54
False. There is a well-documented appeal process here.

If you state that the content is private and not protected, and do not give evidence of it actually being protected content, then there is no problem.

The policy is that for downloads the onus is on the user to show that the material is legitimate (a movie in the public domain is considered legitimate). If you show that, your thread will not be closed.

You appear to be poorly informed on our policies.
I might be uninformed, despite I use to search the domain :(, no link was provided though ;) and I don't think there is one, at least not a direct accessible one.
1. There is no private when we are talking about copyright. You are the copyright holder or not. The content is always protected, unless there's a notice saying this work is public domain (or CR expired). End of story. To let others do use your work you need to fill in a licence contract, which for non-important issues may also be a confirmation email, provided the email genuinely originates from the copyright holder. The moderators cannot confirm a verbal agreement ;) which a valid contract form eg in the Netherlands or some Austrian cantons to name a few. There are also movies that can be freely downloaded from the net, yet they are protected. You can download the most protected movies from net and use a tiny bit of them under fair use clause - still legal (as long as you don't watch it in full ;)).
2. Where is that policy? and nevertheless this is not binding by registration since it's not a part of the rules ;) Even that, what says the copyright law that the moderators use to assess the legit of a file? Are there any exceptions, like in real life?

I'm not against you or any other moderator or god forbid the forum. I wanted to clarify some issues since it occured to me that the moderators in general have a very strict view on intelectual property, which is not always backed up by the laws. I was for long a reader of this forum although I joined it not too long ago. Too much rigidity may spoil the fun :)

Guest
8th July 2009, 17:46
I don't think there is one, at least not a direct accessible one. See the last paragraph in this page, linked at the bottom of the forum rules page:

http://forum.doom9.org/sanctions.htm

We state strict guidelines and relax them in practice when the user reasonably shows that the activity is legitimate. That is the de facto policy that you can see by reviewing what actually happens here. The boss, Doom9, believes that the published rules and guidelines are adequate and working as he wants them too.

setarip_old
8th July 2009, 17:56
@Ghitulescu

Hi!

Two very brief points, if I may:

1) In addition to Rule #6, I'd suggest you read the "ANNOUNCEMENT" at the top of the "Newbies" sub-forum here.

2) The Doom9 Forum is a privately owned entity - and, as such, the owner has established a set of rules by which all of us who are accepted as members must abide. Although some of the rules MAY COINCIDE with perceptions of legality, they are in no way limited by such perceptions. We, upon being accepted as members, agree to abide by these rules.

Doom9
8th July 2009, 19:51
Just what exactly didn't you understand about me shutting exactly this discussion down (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1302763#post1302763)?

Ghitulescu
9th July 2009, 08:26
Just what exactly didn't you understand about me shutting exactly this discussion down (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1302763#post1302763)?

Because I need to understand what is illegal and what is not. If I don't, I may commit the same offence again. Even in the Dark Age some public announcements were made to inform the subjects what happens if they do this or that.

You think that Rule 6 is ok, because you're assuming a lot. You have a background idea of what's illegal and what's not, so for you this rule it's clear. I am resident in Germany and "my illegal" might be different from "your illegal". Some are located in Spain (relaxed CR laws), Holland (various "user friendly" laws), Latin America (relaxed CR laws), China (do you have these laws there ;)?) etc. The user has to know that your rules are different that his/hers, consequently they have to behave like crossing the border (my comparison with city/state). That would avoid a lot of frustration among the users that are bona fide but raised in a different law environment.


2) The Doom9 Forum is a privately owned entity - and, as such, the owner has established a set of rules by which all of us who are accepted as members must abide. Although some of the rules MAY COINCIDE with perceptions of legality, they are in no way limited by such perceptions. We, upon being accepted as members, agree to abide by these rules.

I fully agree with this, that's exactly what I said in the last part, under The final observations.. It is not my intention to break these rules.

See the last paragraph in this page, linked at the bottom of the forum rules page:

http://forum.doom9.org/sanctions.htm

We state strict guidelines and relax them in practice when the user reasonably shows that the activity is legitimate. That is the de facto policy that you can see by reviewing what actually happens here. The boss, Doom9, believes that the published rules and guidelines are adequate and working as he wants them too.

Exactly, but what is legitimate? Since no definition whatsoever is given, I have to go in the civil/criminal law to find that definition. And as I noticed lately, there are a number of posts coming from different corners of the [round] world, arguing about the legitimity of their actions.

The fact that you may live in the same country and have the same knowledge about how the law works, it doesn't automatically mean that your "legitimate" applies everywhere so it must be known by everyone. Well, they work on copyright harmonization, but this is still far away.

Under Bern convention it's still allowable to pick fragments of copyrighted works in order to create a new work on which you own the copyright. And it's not Fair Use (which is extremely similar, but has other conditions).

-=-

That's why I wrote a bit about copyright in it's broadest sense that people here (the users mainly) to understand that "every little thing" they didn't create themselves or is not PD is actually copyrighted and they have to be careful about dealing with such things, even if their particular law might allow it. Elsewhere it doesn't (remember http://www.freesklyarov.org/).

Because the studios like to induce people in error, stating eg that only they produce copyrighted works and similar false statements like if it's copyrighted then it's protected (eg Arccos) with the corolar: if it's not protected then it's not copyrighted (which is false at least in EU). What's written on the first web page of RIAA is plainly false. You also have rights, you know. That's also why Hollywood movies in EU do not have the same warning text as in the US, because that would be fully illegal in EU. Even in US copying a DVD is not a federal crime as they "advertize" it but a civil offence ;) it's simply a theft.