A question on legality

[(ProteanThread)]

Because you see those recommendations and you don't question them?

I don't follow threads about codecs much; I didn't know it was being
recommended as freeware. Plenty of times in the past here, it has been
pointed out that K-Lite and its codec packs are warez.




I'm not aware of anybody cracking Adobe products and trying to pass
them off as freeware.

i never follow the codecs threads either, i install qt and rp and then
minimize their use by programs and simply don't use it unless i have to.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair
use of copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way.
Generally, an expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not
the idea itself. The question should be whether a particular
CODECS is copyrightable.

The above comment, "Generally, an expression of an idea is
copyrightable but not the idea itself."

STOP! Think about that!

In the context of this discussion, "expression of an idea" means
implementation of the idea, not merely telling someone about the idea.

Without the expression is there an idea?

There can be an idea without that idea being implemented.

If so what difference, if any, does it make?

Software implementations are copyrightable, but not ideas for software.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant copyright
infringement in these packages, as they seem to redistribute codecs
from commercial products without permission.
This is not the software police and I don't care what anybody uses,
nor is this an invitation to a flame war about general views on all
freeware matters. Is it not a bit misleading though, to present as
freeware, software that has piracy written all over it? Or am I wrong
in the examples I cited?

I'm not getting involved in a silly struggle to control the ability to play
old, free, and widely distributed media.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone should be able to decode any free media.

If the CODEC authors want to make a buck, let them create and hawk
commercial media, not the means to decode it. As far as I'm concerned, the
people who try to corner the market on certain widely distributed media
types such as AVI, TIF, JPG, GIF Etc. are villains. All they do is create
pandemonium among casual computer users.

-- Bob

 

[The Six Million Dollar Man]

Oh no! It's another Janet Jackson circus.

Wouldn't that actually be a "language malfunction"?

 

[Bernard Peek]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone should be able to decode any free media.

Anyone can. Nobody is stopping anyone from writing a CODEC for any media
format they want to decode.

 

[Helen]

Actually no, that would not fall under fair use since no attribution
was given.

WRONGGO BONGO Davy boy! Stanford has no copyright on
the laws of the United States. Go back a little further for your
source before you start making false allegations. Go to any law library
and do some reading before you start making false assumptions. Stanford's
use of it ...therein is your quibble with 'Fair Use' not with me.

FWIW, 'Fair Use' is whatever any given court on any given day says it is!
What is copyright infringement? See the sentence immediately preceeding this
question!

Keep FREEware FREE! All concerned are benefitting!

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

WRONGGO BONGO Davy boy!

Good one!

Stanford has no copyright on the laws of the United States. Go
back a little further for your source before you start making
false allegations.

You didn't quote any laws of the United States. You quoted a
Stanford website's commentary about fair use. That site has clear
and viable copyright notices displayed.

FWIW, 'Fair Use' is whatever any given court on any given day says
it is!

I suppose you could say that about any body of law.

What is copyright infringement?

I'm sure you can find a website.

 

[David]

Wouldn't that actually be a "language malfunction"?

We are talking about the USA, aren't we? Yes. ;-)}}}

 

[dkg_ctc]

WRONGGO BONGO Davy boy! Stanford has no copyright on
the laws of the United States.

*snip*

You, ma'am, are an idiot of epic proportions. You are as stupid as
your namesake was beautiful.

You see, you did not copy and paste the laws themselves.

No, you copied and pasted Stanford's write ups on those laws, which IS
copyrighted. In fact, the following text is at the bottom of every
page: "Copyright © 2003 Nolo".

Additionally, if you click that text, you are taken to
http://www.nolo.com/copyright.cfm which states the following:

"Use by Individuals

As long as it is for your own personal use only, you may print copies
of this information, store the files on your computer, and use
hypertext links to reference the information. Any other use or
redistribution is strictly prohibited."

Hmm..."any other use or redistribution is strictly prohibited"...and
what you did doesn't fall under any of the exceptions they gave.

Your grasp of fair use is so lacking in actual knowledge, that I'd
just recommend you stop speaking on the subject lest you play even
more of a fool.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

WRONGGO BONGO Davy boy! Stanford has no copyright on
the laws of the United States.

I seriously doubt that Stanford *used* the wording of the actually
legislation in their article. Nobody in their right mind quotes
Acts of Congress unless they have to. They quote the USC or the
USCA which are NOT law (some exceptions), but are presumed to
represent its present form unless challenged. The USC and USCA are
copyrighted compilations of US law.

Go back a little further for your
source before you start making false allegations. Go to any law library
and do some reading before you start making false assumptions.

And you yourself. Congress writes laws as a search and replace
exercise. "Substitute for the current language the following
language". I assume Stanford has done their homework. Either cited
with permission, or their own expression of what Congress meant.

 

[Helen]

My legal studies and degree along with experience of decades says you're mistaken.
Reporters don't understand the law...they merely want to sell papers, thus their words
get your blood pressure up over nothing and ninety percent of the time what's reported
isn't what the court held anyway.

FWIW:
" In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to
any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work. "

YES - US law!

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

My legal studies and degree along with experience of decades says
you're mistaken.

Mistaken about what?

Reporters don't understand the law...they merely
want to sell papers, thus their words get your blood pressure up
over nothing and ninety percent of the time what's reported isn't
what the court held anyway.

Dewey didn't mention reporters; why do you bring them up?

FWIW:
" In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied
in such work. "

It was Dewey himself who first brought that point up in this thread.

YES - US law!

w00t!

 

[Dewey Edwards]

My legal studies and degree along with experience of decades says you're mistaken.

In what area, if not copyright law, you may as well be a layman.

Your earlier answer -

"> A. What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of
copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative"
purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted
work."

NO relevence to the OP's question.

Reporters don't understand the law...they merely want to sell papers, thus their words
get your blood pressure up over nothing and ninety percent of the time what's reported
isn't what the court held anyway.

??? This is over your reporting of "faire use".

FWIW:
" In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to
any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work. "

And I earlier said that succinctly. Since you're quoting, why not
citations?

YES - US law!

You completely snipped my prior post, here's what US law actually
looks like -

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105NqXfxH:e2082:

 

[Dewey Edwards]

You completely snipped my prior post, here's what US law actually
looks like -

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105NqXfxH:e2082:

There's a time out period there, use
http://home.nycap.rr.com/dewed/dmca.htm

 

[Helen]

You completely snipped my prior post,

WRONG AGAIN! I didn't see this! Thus until I do, it doesn't exist!

here's what US law actually

looks like -

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105NqXfxH:e2082:

Her's what that give you: LOL! Apropos indeed!
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have
either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

 

[Helen]

There's a time out period there, use
http://home.nycap.rr.com/dewed/dmca.htm

HERE is what US law looks like: (whatever the above iste is, I've no idea)

Section 3013. Federal agency cooperation
(a)(1) The Assistant Secretary, in carrying out the objectives
and provisions of this chapter, shall coordinate, advise, consult
with, and cooperate with the head of each department, agency, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government proposing or
administering programs or services substantially related to the
objectives of this chapter, with respect to such programs or
services. In particular, the Assistant Secretary shall coordinate,
advise, consult, and cooperate with the Secretary of Labor in
carrying out subchapter IX of this chapter and with the Corporation
for National and Community Service in carrying out this chapter.
(2) The head of each department, agency, or instrumentality of
the Federal Government proposing to establish programs and services
substantially related to the objectives of this chapter shall
consult with the Assistant Secretary prior to the establishment of
such programs and services. To achieve appropriate coordination,
the head of each department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government administering any program substantially related
to the objectives of this chapter, particularly administering any
program referred to in subsection (b) of this section, shall
consult and cooperate with the Assistant Secretary in carrying out
such program. In particular, the Secretary of Labor shall consult
and cooperate with the Assistant Secretary in carrying out title I
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.).
(3) The head of each department, agency, or instrumentality of
the Federal Government administering programs and services
substantially related to the objectives of this chapter shall
collaborate with the Assistant Secretary in carrying out this
chapter, and shall develop a written analysis, for review and
comment by the Assistant Secretary, of the impact of such programs
and services on -
(A) older individuals (with particular attention to low-income
minority older individuals and older individuals residing in
rural areas) and eligible individuals (as defined in section
3056e (FOOTNOTE 1) of this title); and
(FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below.
(B) the functions and responsibilities of State agencies and
area agencies on aging.
(b) For the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, programs
related to the objectives of this chapter shall include -
(1) title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
2801 et seq.),
(2) title II of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 5000 et seq.),
(3) titles XVI, XVIII, XIX, and XX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., 1395 et seq., 1396 et seq., 1397 et
seq.),
(4) sections 1715v and 1715w of title 12,
(5) the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et
seq.),
(6) section 1701q of title 12,
(7) title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.),
(8) title I of Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.) and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C.
9201 et seq.),
(9) sections 5309 and 5310 of title 49,
(10) the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.),
including block grants under title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C.
300w et seq.),
(11) the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 8621 et seq.),
(12) part A of the Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings
Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.), relating to weatherization
assistance for low income persons,
(13) the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et
seq.),
(14) demographic statistics and analysis programs conducted by
the Bureau of the Census under title 13,
(15) parts II and III of title 38,
(16) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.),
(17) the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.), and
(18) the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs, established under part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3750-3766b)).

 

[Dewey Edwards]

HERE is what US law looks like: (whatever the above iste is, I've no idea)

A copy of the "thomas" page, because of the time out problem, I
temporarily placed it on my web space. It's a portion of the DMCA
as passed by Congress. *Actual* US Law as it *actually* reads. I
happen to *know* what the U.S.C. looks like, I am aware of the
current positive codification project by the House and the U.S.C.
It's not finished yet, and until it is, what you've quoted below is
NOT US law, it's just has the presumption of being US law. A subtle
difference pointed out earlier, but you chose to ignore. Any court
will accept it as law, barring a rebuttal using the United States
Statutes at Large.

This is getting so way beyond off topic that I won't reply further.

EOD on my end.

<snip>