What comes after Dropbox?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted
work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or
made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright
owner.


Nowhere in that paragraph does it deal with possession, or retaining
("keeping") a file. Something must done in violation of the copyright
law with that photograph by someone other than the owner, without
permission by the owner, for there to be any type of copyright
infringement.

and that something includes making a copy.

Your statement that "the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the
law" is flat-out wrong.

nope. it's exactly correct.

You are hopelessly ignorant of the copyright laws.

that would be you.

i know you won't benefit, but maybe others will learn something from
these:

https://davidsontm.wordpress.com/201...tes-copyright-
infringement-and-how-is-it-decided/

Stated briefly, U.S. copyright law provides a copyright owner with a
bundle of rights in a work: he/she has the exclusive right to
reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his or her work,
and to authorize others to do any or all of these things. The
copyright owner also has the exclusive right to create or authorize
the creation of derivatives of that work.

So, since the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do all of
those things (or to permit others to do them), infringement can
happen when someone does any of them without the copyright owner¹s
permission. From a practical standpoint, however, the majority of
copyright infringement suits involve reproduction (as in copying a
work) and/or distributing (as in unauthorized copies of the work).

....

So a finding of copyright infringement requires both of these
elements: substantial similarity and access/copying.
....
There are times when ³substantial similarity² is not an issue.*
Think, for example, of a case involving the reproduction of a digital
image or a recording in digital format.* A digital copy is about as
identical as something can get, so in those cases the only real issue
is whether the defendant had access to the original work so that
copying could occur.

the issue of access can easily be proven with web logs.


https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ug...nt-litigation-
faq
What are the elements of a copyright infringement claim?
A copyright infringement action requires a plaintiff to prove (1)
ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) actionable copying by the
defendant of constituent elements of the work that are original.

To establish ownership of a valid copyright a plaintiff must show
that the material is "original," which in copyright parlance simply
means (i) that the work was independently created by the author, and
(ii) that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.
Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with the statutory
formalities, e.g. timely obtaining a registration.

To prove legally actionable copying, a plaintiff must prove (i) that
the defendant did, in fact, actually copy from the plaintiff's work
(often referred to as "factual copying"), and (ii) that the works,
"when compared as a whole, are adequately similar to establish
appropriation."


tl;dr - your words
You are hopelessly ignorant of the copyright laws.
describes you.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You introduced music downloading into the discussion to cover up your
inability to defend or explain your ridiculous position that
retaining, keeping, a downloaded image is a problem.

there's nothing ridiculous about it and the law agrees with me, not
you.

There is no law that determines the length of time a copyrighted item
can be retained by a person in possession of that item. The laws
pertain only to acquisition of the item and what can be done with it
after acquisition. The length of time it is retained is not covered
by law. Terms of use may determine the time, though.

time isn't and never was the issue. what were you saying about
deviating?

the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the law, unless the owner
of the content permits you to do so.

You've changed your argument, but your new argument is as bogus as the
last one. It is not a violation of copyright to download someone
else's photograph. The fact that you "keep" or retain that downloaded
image is not a violation of the copyright.

it can be.

again, as i said long ago, the owner gets to decide, not you.

The ultimate decision lies in the hands of a judge.

so what? that doesn't change anything.

yet another argument just to argue.

as i said, the owner gets to decide. obviously, if the owner permits
copying, he isn't going to sue anyone when they copy it and a judge
will never hear about it. duh.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


My comments have
nothing to do with music in any way.

yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video,
software, books and more.

I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities
ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills.

then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not.

One of us doesn't.

yep, and that would be you.

But we were
discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of
photographs.

photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the
law. very simple.

How have you affected the owner's rights by keeping a copy?

the mere fact you even ask that shows you don't understand the issues.

if you aren't authorized to make copies, you've infringed his copyright.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a
downloaded image?

ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else.

If I upload an image it is because I want it to be viewed. I have no
idea of how it is going to be viewed without being downloaded. I do
not believe that people will post images to the Internet without the
intention and expectation that others will download them for viewing.

viewing isn't the issue.

The what the **** is the issue?

keeping copies, and you can say **** on the internet.

What is wrong with keeping copies?

that depends on a number of factors. if you don't have permission,
you've infringed. if you've cracked a copy protection mechanism to do
so (and many web sites block copying, even though it's usually easy to
circumvent), add a dmca violation to the mix. it's also unethical.

Tony Cooper:
You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

Bill W:
I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that
means that any one of those things alone counts.

You're quibbling over sentence structure that is not germane.

Mr. Cooper is correct on the subject of fair use. Downloading and
viewing or downloading and printing an image is not a violation of the
fair-use doctrine. It has sometimes been held that wider distribution
by educational institutions, e.g., does not violate the doctrine, but
this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and institutions with
legal departments (that's virtually every college and university)
generally prohibit faculty and students from using material where
rights are in question. The courts are flooded with copyright cases and
I promise you that they will not entertain a case against a person who
uses a copyrighted work as a desktop picture or who prints it and hangs
it on his wall.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


My comments have
nothing to do with music in any way.

yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video,
software, books and more.

I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities
ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills.

then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not.

But we were
discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of
photographs.

photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the
law. very simple.

First of all, define what you mean as 'illicit'.

Second, be aware that copying for certain purposes is permitted by the
doctrine of 'fair use'.





nospam's premise is completely erroneous. Once the image is
downloaded, the length of time it remains on the downloader's computer
is the computer owner's decision to make. There is no deadline for
removal.

also wrong.

And you can't provide a reason that it's wrong.

i can and have.

I knew you would do that and explicitly asked you not to!

You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a
link to the appropriate article.

start he
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted
work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or
made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright
owner.

See again the doctrine of fair use.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:03:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a
link to the appropriate article.

start he
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted
work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or
made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright
owner.


That cite only provides for sharing a copyrighted work: reproduced,
distributed, etc. It says nothing about simply keeping and storing a
copyrighted work that was made available to you in a public forum.

read it again, especially this part:
copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced

reproduced = keeping a copy.

But if it has been given to you ... ?

If you put a photograph online and post a link to it in this (public)
forum, anyone can go to your link and download your photograph.

the issue is not downloading, but keeping a copy without permission.

How long do you need to keep it to infringe the copyright? 10mSec? No.
How about 10 sec? What about 10 minutes? If 10 minutes is OK, what
about 10 hours, or even 10 days? If an artist uploads an image for
viewing how long can it be retained before copyright is infringed?
What is the rule? How do you decide? How do I decide?

The
legal problem starts if they make copies to distribute or display.

nope. the legal problem starts when someone keeps a copy without having
permission to do so.

if they have permission, then there's no issue.

when a site or an app takes steps to block saving a copy (disabling
contextual menus, adding shadow images, etc.), then it's clear that you
*don't* have permission to keep a copy.

Based on your argument that it is illegal to retain the image, many
people could be arrested for the contents of their cache directory!

that's a good example of how the law hasn't caught up with technology.

what's in the cache is technically a copy and violates the letter of
the law. however, that's how browsers work and it's just a temporary
copy, one which the user more than likely doesn't even know is there,
so it doesn't violate the intent of the law.

See the doctrine of fair use.

and if there's something incriminating in the cache or browser history,
even if you never made a separate copy, your day will suddenly become
quite a bit worse than it otherwise would have been.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:36:52 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:22:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that
means that any one of those things alone counts.

I think that sentence needs an Oxford comma.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2...-oxford-comma/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

what's wrong with keeping a copy of a song you downloaded. the riaa has
sued people who did that.

I don;t think they can do that unless you've obtained it illegally.
If you obtain it legally then share it against the owners/publishers
constent then that's when the problems start.

keeping something for which you aren't authorized to keep can result in
possible legal action.

Please explain why it is that a person who downloads a legal copy of
an image is not allowed to keep it on their computer.

i just did. read it again. what part of not authorized to keep isn't
clear?

What is it that makes it not authorised?

(Please just don't say the copyright act. Refer to the relevant part
and explain how it applies).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:09:04 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Tony Cooper:
You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

Bill W:
I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that
means that any one of those things alone counts.

You're quibbling over sentence structure that is not germane.

I'm quibbling over sentence structure, and nothing else. The copyright
issue of this thread is of little interest to me.

Mr. Cooper is correct on the subject of fair use. Downloading and
viewing or downloading and printing an image is not a violation of the
fair-use doctrine. It has sometimes been held that wider distribution
by educational institutions, e.g., does not violate the doctrine, but
this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and institutions with
legal departments (that's virtually every college and university)
generally prohibit faculty and students from using material where
rights are in question. The courts are flooded with copyright cases and
I promise you that they will not entertain a case against a person who
uses a copyrighted work as a desktop picture or who prints it and hangs
it on his wall.