wingnutt said:
"whoa there killer... first off...i only asked a simple question. i do not have, nor have i yet made an opinion on this matter."
OK, it seemed to me that your "12 year old girl is an archive" concept was a obvious attempt to twist the law into something which it is not. If I misread that, I apologize. If you really want to know what the law means, and what it’s intent is, you had only to read the very next line in the code. Why you didn’t do that, and why you didn’t include that line in your post when you quoted the code, I can only speculate. I guess I will have to accept your word that it was an honest omission on your part and not a conscious attempt to misrepresent the law.
The very next line in the code you quoted reads:
"if; (2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and "
If you had read that, it would have been abundantly clear that the code refers to public historical or research archives. Quite obviously, the 12 year old girl’s stolen music is not open to the public nor available to researchers. ( I can’t believe that we’re arguing such an absurd point)
wingnutt said:
"an archive, in its simplest definition, can indeed be defined as a storage place for records, documents, and yes, files. this does not have to mean that in order to "archive" one must be collecting the complete history of the third reich during the WWII years and be locking the papers away in an abandonded underground salt mine in a secret location only known the the highest level FBI agents. a personal archive for any other reason is a completely plausible occurrence."
No, as I have pointed out the code states explicitly exactly what is meant by archive, and "archive" means just the type of archive you describe, except that it can’t be a secret archive, it must be a public archive. This does not include someone’s private music collection, legal or stolen.
Regardless of the definition of "archive", you are missing the point, that the exception applies to copying materials which are already in the library or archive’s collection. This is explained in paragraph d of this same section. :
"(d) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made
from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if —
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation."
That’s the point, even if we accept your absurd suggestion that a 12 year old girl in the projects is an "archive", she is not making the copy from her "collection" she is making it from a copy that she has no legal right to own (or copy)
wingnutt said:
secondly...i gotta ask, who made you defender of the RIAA?
Uhhh, I’m not, I have no particular feelings for the RIAA one way or the other. If you read the whole thread you will notice that in a previous post I stated that it wouldn’t bother me a bit if artists came up with a way to distribute their music and get paid which completely cut out the music publishing industry, resulting in it’s collapse. I wouldn’t shed a tear. Until such time, the artists need the industry to produce, distribute, and publicize their work . As long as music publishers are doing that, they are legally due thier share. Whether or not they are taking more than their share is a separate issue. They may be, I won’t argue that point.
wingnutt said:
...its kinda weird how you criticize a guy for the way he understands a phrasing, then clarify for him how he "should" read it. i see nothing in the original that says anything about "putting a copy on the shelves, saving the original in back, and when its worn out make another copy, and put the new copy in circulation". it sounds to me like you sir, are the one who "made that part agree with what you want to believe".
No, I haven’t twisted a thing. I was explaining in plain English what I believe to be one of the purposes of the library exemption. The "make a copy to use and put the original in a safe place" concept is pretty standard in copyright law. Take a look at the copyright agreement of the last piece of software you purchased, I’d be willing to bet that it includes just such a provision. I suspect that if you were to go to a copyright attorney and ask the purpose of section 108, he would tell you much the same as what I’ve described. If you have some concrete reason to believe that I misunderstand the intent of Section 108, by all means, post it and we can discuss it.
I would be willing to bet large sums of money though that if you ask that same copyright copyright attorney if Section 108 allows little girls to rip off brittany spears from the internet, the answer will be a resounding "no"
wingnutt said:
as of this moment i am unaware as to what rules are being broken...or not being broken.
Here it is:
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
It’s very simple and to the point. The copyright owner has the *exclusive* right to copy the work. Exclusive means that no-one else has the right to copy it.
There are certain exceptions to that, one of which is the Section 108 which we have been discussing.
If you don’t fall under the provisions of one of those exceptions, and you haven’t been given express permission by the copyright holder to copy the work, you are in violation of Section 106
There is no "Section 123; Rights of 12 year old girls to copy Brittany Spears off the internet so they can avoid paying for a legal copy"
, oh, and those blank CDs aren't free neither
whoa there killer...
