"Copyright - excuses to copy" Topic

Often it comes up that someone wants to know if they can copy someone else's work, be it a figure or some sort of book. Generally you cannot copy another persons work, they have what is called Copyright (the right to make copies and it is there in the law, can be Googled easily). There is what is termed 'Fair Use', which again can be found on the net.

No what I want to talk about is the 'excuses' that people come up with for copying other peoples work.

1) Me and my friends think its OK

You can think what you want but its against the law. So you are either going to have to get the law changed or 'you and your friends' are going to have to start a country of your own.

2) I cannot afford it

Yep there are things in life most people cannot afford. Learn to live with disappointments.

3) I am not going to sell it

Makes no difference. Copyright concerns the right to make copies. If you don't have the right you cannot do it.

4) Its out of print and no longer available

Copies will be out there and people will be prepared to sell at the 'right price'. Making copies devalues the worth of the few copies left and is an offence in itself (devaluing someone else's work).

5) I really. really wanna

When people are growing up, they go through this phase. See it, want it, grab it. Most people grow out of it aged 6 or more. So only advice, grow up.

Now the main point, its someone else's work. They put effort in to it, you didn't. Just think when you do something of your own, it will be protected as well. Isn't that nice to know.

Your list is missing one:

6) But others are also doing it, why can't I?

Extremely popular excuse for everything amongst the kids in elementary school.

Griefbringer

I think we get the message. You've said it enough times, that's for sure.

And those TMPers who don't get the message you are wasting your time on anyway, as they're never going to listen.

Don't make me take your flog away and call PETA….

;)

You forgot

7) But the company won't miss the money as it's a big company and I won't buy it anyway.

8) It's a free document so I can make all the copies I want.

9) I'm a complete arseclown.

10) I'm just going to try these rules out, if I use it a lot I will buy a copy.

10) Fair Use exceptions to copying should apply to me.

Very rarely, does it. Fair Use is largely meant to protect a limited amount of copying by news organizations and educational institutions like libraries. However, even they are liable for copyright infringement on many occasions.

There is an instance where it is ok – and that is accessability. It is OK to copy marterials to make it accessable to those with disabilities such as blindness.

First, ask. You'd be surprised on how many copyright holders will let you make copies of their work for legitimate reasons. Second, if they say "no", don't do it. It is that simple. This is someone's hard work here, respect it. Think about how you might feel it if was your labor of love.

You guys might enjoy reading this -
link

Stanford also has some really indepth materials on copyright and fair use also -
fairuse.stanford.edu

Here is the info on accessability -

link

Naw, naw, naw. You don't GET it, guys…

If I REALLY, REALLY wanna break copyright laws, and if I can get some of YOU guys to AGREE with me -- for any reason or no reason -- I can VALIDATE MY POSITION, if only by dint of "all these other guys are dooin' it."

I am confident that this defense will hold up in any court of law.

(in Borat voice) Not.

Doc Bedlam – Sure, why not. It is democracy in action. We the people feel that copyright is wrong and would like to rewrite the laws to state "If the other guys are dooin' it – it is OK"

Yes, but it only incorporates copies of specialized materials made specifically for the blind. I would imagine that would include only braille materials. It wouldn't include your 1st edition 40K rules.

Probably not – BUT – there it is. ;)

Looking at some of the kinds figures who play 40k at my FLGS, I might be lead to believe they are indeed blind. ;)

Looking at some of the kinds figures who play 40k at my FLGS, I might be lead to believe they are indeed blind. ;)

I certainly would doubt their sense of smell :)

How are they at pinball?

"We the people feel that copyright is wrong"

Would that lead to the current copyright legislation being renamed as 'copywrong legislation'?

And I would not recommend 40K for blind people, some of those more spiky models could really get hurty for ones relying on tactile sense.

Griefbringer

2a) That company is nothing but a bunch of greedy bastards, so they deserve o get ripped off.

While it is a good thing to know what copyrights are and how they work – it seems from time to time a situation occurs that someone thinks they have a copyright…but they don't. These can be just as annoying, if not more so (remember the Adobe buildings from not too long ago?).

I know when I was dealing with them on a regular basis, IGDA had a regular set of seminars as well as a column in their newsletter that dealt with the various IP issues – what was covered, what wasn't and how far the protection extended. Might be useful for a similar situation to occur tailored to the miniatures and wargames industries. Maybe bribe one of the IP lawyers around these parts with pewter?

Oh – and for those who are afraid to…you might want to contact the publishers regarding these issues. Back when I was active duty, I deployed a lot to areas that had a lot of down time. In order to have something to do – I contacted a number of publishers to get permission to scan their books to carry with me as opposed to lugging about paper copies. The only one who said no at the time was TSR (yes, I name names). Even one of the most protective companies of their IP was quite happy to agree with my request.

I recall that when I was first getting interested in music, I mostly discovered new bands from my friends making mix tapes- clearly a breach of copyright. However, they were bands that never get radio play and given that there would be no other way I would ever hear of them, would this be reasonable? I doubt the bands would complain, as in most cases I would go on to buy the albums, t-shirts, see them in concert etc.

Has everyone who decries IP infringement, (which I do- piracy is wrong) never, ever been given a tape by a friend and then listened to it? I'm not saying this is right, but for certain music scenes it's always been how word got around and bands got a following. Call it an excuse, but many artists, (Trent Reznor, included as a recent interview revealed) would call it promotion.

Spaceload I think that covers points; 1,3,5,6, 8 and 10.

Yes, I expected it would.

You missed 'It's a backup copy in case I lose/wreck my original'.

Fine, buy 2 copies.

Would taking a QRC for a rules set and blowing it up so that it could be read by everyone at a convention game be a violation of copyright or would that be fair use?

When I say blow up I mean so that it is presentation size and fits on a presentation rack.

I once wanted to model a full size item. Had photos, drawings, etc. Wrote to the designer/builder to ask if I could and got severe letter back from his solicitor. The model never got made! Seriously though, most people/organisations will be reasonable provided you don't go over the top. A once off copy of a plan or photo for personal use is usually accepted, if you ask first.

Thank god… Another thread on copyright law…

I think you all forgot the best reason people have……

It's only wrong if you get caught.

nycjadie has violated my copyright on the post starting "10)". The fact that he has modified 99% of the post has nothing to do with it! He will hear from my lawyer!

:)

Much of copyright law is outdated and in need of revision. The intent of copyright was to promote creativity by protecting the creators ability to generate income from his/her creations. Most copyright is no longer held by individuals, but by corporations. Recent modification has served to crush creativity, and corporate ownership of IP has served to stifle the ability of many creators to generate income from their creations. In the modern age, copyright duration should be shortened to reflect the real world rate of innovation. In the mean time, copyright violation can, at times, serve as a form of civil disobedience.

debate..

In the modern age, copyright duration should be shortened to reflect the real world rate of innovation.

That works on the assumption that older works no longer hold value. While this might be true in situations like patent law (not the same as copyright), it doesn't hold true for copyright law. I still enjoy watching many of the old John Wayne movies as much as I did when I was a kid. Why should those movies no longer be protected? Specifically related to this hobby – is there anything about a Ral Partha or Grenadier mini which make it unusable with current miniatures? No, they still play just fine.

There is no reason that copyright law should matter in relation to innovation. Creative works covered by copyright law are unaffected by technological changes and stand on their own merit.

Now an argument could be made to maintain the link behind copyrights to a life span as opposed to having it be infinitely extendable through corporate ownership – that is an issue that will likely never happen. Does it make a huge difference? Not really. Saying that Disney keeping a hold on Mickey Mouse will stifle creativity is ridiculous. There is nothing that limits you from creating any form of cartoon – even cartoons including talking mice.

In the mean time, copyright violation can, at times, serve as a form of civil disobedience.

Last I checked civil disobedience will still get you tossed in jail (or fined as the case may be).

well, (excellent retort, btw) while I agree with much of that, I still see problems. One is derivative work. When we consider that literature, art, and even mini's and rules systems are developed with earlier works as inspiration, extension of copyright longevity can crush the growth of derivative works. Current copyright can really favor corporate owners in reference to derivitive works.

Your example of John Wayne movies is a good one for my point. current technology makes it possible for even a hobbiest to take an old movie and re edit, blue screen, or otherwise manipulate it to create a new movie. But copyright severely restricts such use.

Certainly, I don't think a new product should be without protection, but I think the duration of that protection needs to be limited both by time and by the actions of the copyright holder. This is just a matter of restructuring some laws, really. But, so long as corporations are allowed to accumulate IP, I agree, it is unlikely to change in favor of individual humans.

Yes, Civil Disobedience can get one put in jail. In fact, that is part of the point.

never mind.. I just found the much more excellent thread on this issue.
TMP link

thanks for reply though.

And those TMPers who don't get the message you are wasting your time on anyway, as they're never going to listen.

It's worse than that.

The sanctimonious nature of some of the postings in the myriad TMP threads on this topic are enough to make me want to go out and copy a set of rules just out of badness.

Much of copyright law is outdated and in need of revision. The intent of copyright was to promote creativity by protecting the creators ability to generate income from his/her creations. Most copyright is no longer held by individuals, but by corporations.

So thats a 1 and a 7.

The sanctimonious nature of some of the postings in the myriad TMP threads on this topic are enough to make me want to go out and copy a set of rules just out of badness.

Heh. It's the little cries for acceptance I like. "Is it OK if I…."

No. You know it's not, we know it's not, you'll be told it's not. Sure, you'll do it anyway. Some of us may, as well. But if you ask if it's OK – no. Live with doing something wrong and shaddup about it.

That was a general point, not for Derek.. :-)

Let's face it. Almost everybody breaks the law at some point in their lives.

For example surveys on UK drivers habits usually show that about 80% of us will admit to regularly breaking the law. Anyone who drives regularly will probably realise the true percentage of drivers who actualy speed is nearer 100% than 80%.

And most of the copyright infringements that people here get on their high horses about are right up there with with doing 80mph on an empty motorway in the serious crime stakes.

The sanctimonious nature of some of the postings in the myriad TMP threads on this topic

Slanted slightly. I find it difficult to understand why obeying the law should be seen as sanctimonious but hey the world is full of people. Some of them believe that they and their friends are right (point 1) and that the rest of the world should dance to their tune. Cannot think of hand of a word to describe that but I am sure there is one out there.

And most of the copyright infringements that people here get on their high horses about are right up there with with doing 80mph on an empty motorway in the serious crime stakes.

Some, maybe. But for the rules produced by the smaller companies, a rogue PDF of their new ruleset could lose them a significant ammount of money.

And I don't drive… ;-)

Cannot think of hand of a word to describe that but I am sure there is one out there.

You'll get dawghoused when you think of it.

From the OED.

sanctimonious, a. "Of pretended or assumed sanctity or piety, making a show of sanctity, affecting the appearance of sanctity."

It's not obeying the law that's sanctimonious, it's the constant preaching.

Some, maybe. But for the rules produced by the smaller companies, a rogue PDF of their new ruleset could lose them a significant ammount of money.

Indeed.

But it's also possible that somebody lending their friends a photocopy of a small company's new ruleset could spark off interest in a group of players and lead to said small company making a significant sum of money.

Or it could have no effect on sales at all.

This is true. The pre-publication PDFs I had from one recent release has prompted at least one person locally to buy the book. If however I'd released the PDFs on the net it may have harmed sales of the book.

If you have the gift of perfect foresight and can tell what effect you'll have in advance, it's probably OK.

I think Derek has a valid point. Can everyone here say that, hand on heart, they've never received a tape or disc of music from another person, or given one? Never made a girlfriend a mix tape? Never taped a programme from the TV then lent it to someone? Never bought a miniature that 'looks just like a predator/Lara Croft/Alien etc' They're all IP infringements.

Just becuase they don't affect a miniatures company doesn't make them less illegal, but you know what, none of the above bothers me- I guess have the flexible morals referred to in another thread. Would I buy a ruleset then hand out copies of it to anyone who asked- absolutely not. Would I copy a pertinent page for someone I'm playing against…let me check with my solicitor.

They're all IP infringements.

Indeed. But people don't start threads here asking for some bizarre form of benediction for their actions when they make a mix tape, etc…

Can everyone here say that, hand on heart, they've never received a tape or disc of music from another person, or given one? Never made a girlfriend a mix tape? Never taped a programme from the TV then lent it to someone? Never bought a miniature that 'looks just like a predator/Lara Croft/Alien etc' They're all IP infringements.

I think that comes under point 6 but is irrevalent, also brought up by people who want to copy. Sure I speed but that does not mean that I don't know its against the law and I don't bitch if I get caught. That does not make speeding right.

Luckily I think I pass your test. I'm clean gov.

BTW I think you can tape TV programmes as they are then in the public domain.

but you know what, none of the above bothers me

I think thats point 5 and 6.

I'm afraid that tv programmes are not in the public domain. You are allowed to tape a programme expressly for personal use or that of your household. You are not allowed to tape something that you are watching at the time, to keep, either.

This is all according to a copyright fact sheet from last year- the only reason you are allowed to copy something from your tv is 'so that you can watch it at a more convenient time', (the so-called timeshift exception) there is no other valid reason. You are allowed to watch it in your home or on a portable device, but only in the presence of members of your household- so don't even think about about taping a film and bringing it round to a friends house.

here's the exact wording:
"This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."

I sure hope that nobody reading this in the UK has an old collection of films that they've taped from the tv, because they're infringing copyright. I'm off to burn all my old Buffy tapes because I'm apparently a very naughty boy.

Justin- you make no excuses for your speeding, that's terrible. At least when I speed I always have a woman in labour in the back of the car :)

"sanctimonious, a. "Of pretended or assumed sanctity or piety, making a show of sanctity, affecting the appearance of sanctity.""

I've always hated definitions that use the word being defined. And the OED! For shame.

"I find it difficult to understand why obeying the law should be seen as sanctimonious….."

Neither can I. Since Christmas, I've removed and banned 3 people from my mailing lists because they believed they could use them to offer PDFs of GW books to anyone who wanted them – I got the usual excuses why they should be allowed to offer the books. Its the same with TMP.

WRT Void Trekker: if GW were informed about what he was trying to do and noticed that nothing was being done about it, they could go after Bill and sue him. Bill does not have the money to fight off GW, and so the end result could be the closure of TMP. I believe that TMPers should be more vigilant and stop people like Void Trekker, but doing so labels us as "sanctimonious". Well, I'd rather be sanctimonious than have no TMP!

"It's not obeying the law that's sanctimonious, it's the constant preaching."

I guarantee that you'll see less preaching when the thieves stop posting about their thievery. And I guarantee that you'll whine less about us sanctimonious TMPers when that happens.

"You'll get dawghoused when you think of it."

Heh! A new TMP rule! "DO not think bad thoughts about another TMP user or you'll get DH'ed!" :-P