Date
1 - 9 of 9
No full-proof copy protection
|
James Eckman
Mike, don't feel bad if you can't figure out a way to make our photo archives viewable without being copyable, it's not possible with the current internet standards. If you find a way to do it, find some venture capitalists and get rich!
Here's more info than any sane person can possibly want: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that any work published before 1923 is public domain, period. Everything else 'depends' but probably any works published before 1949 like corporate reports and stuff are probably fair game as well because it is unlikely that the companies spent the money to renew the copyright a second time. ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff on what constitutes fair use for libraries. Jim Eckman |
|
|
|
SUVCWORR@...
In a message dated 5/12/2006 2:34:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ronin_engineer@... writes: Mike, don't feel bad if you can't figure out a way to make our photo archives viewable without being copyable, it's not possible with the current internet standards. If you find a way to do it, find some venture capitalists and get rich! You can copy anything on the internet with any computer out of the box. Even protected files (HTML coding to turnoff "right click") you can still copy the image. Every keyboard has a key which will copy the current screen into memory (identity withheld . All you need to do is paste the information from the clip board into a graphics program (even works with low end graphic programs like Paint). Then edit the image of the screen to only keep the image you want. The Quality will depend on the screen resolution and the capabilities of the graphic software. The only sure way to stop copying from the internet is to not publish the photo, encrypt all photos or password protect the site (and most of these can be hacked). In the case of STMFC, there is some protection since membership is required and moderated. Rich Orr |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Jim Eckman wrote:
I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that anyIn principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters. ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff onJim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies, whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use. For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more copies become more problematic. I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why "sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes something else when carried out on the internet. Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Pete Brown \(YahooGroups\) <YahooLists@...>
Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't
share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my wife's computer without breaking the law. The most you are typically allowed to do with any electronic media is make one backup copy which cannot be used at the same time. You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a friend. I'm not sure where you got that information. Pete _____________________________________________________ Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis) Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com (wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr) _____ From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Anthony Thompson Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:49 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: No full-proof copy protection Jim Eckman wrote: I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that anyIn principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters. ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff onJim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies, whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use. For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more copies become more problematic. I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why "sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes something else when carried out on the internet. Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Pete Brown wrote:
Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my wife's computer without breaking the law.You are right about files like MP3. That appeared in the 1998 law. But that law did NOT change the rules for print publications, photographs, art, etc. Incidentally, restrictions on copying software are in the contract you accept when you install it. They are NOT copyright restrictions they are contract agreements, and you will find they differ from application to application. You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.Again, you're right, and I don't believe I said otherwise. I was thinking of a Xerox of a photo or magazine article, not a complete book. One rule used by many libraries is that you can only copy a maximum of 10 percent of a publication. That number is not blessed in any legal sense but has become a widespread "safe" number. OTOH, I once asked a librarian, when discussing this issue, if there was a problem in my copying 10 percent now, 10 percent an hour hence, etc. She smiled and said she would not have any issue with that: it would be between me and my conscience. Making paper copies for others HAS been tested in court, and does fall under fair use if a "reasonable" number of copies is made. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
Anthony Thompson wrote:
Whether new copyright rules Indeed. IMO the current term of copyright is an obscenity. These words that I'm writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for the term of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The Cure For Cancer", when discovered, will get 17 years, less however long it takes the FDA to get around to saying it's ok to sell. Somebody explain to my why this posting gets lifespan+75 years and some drug gets fewer than 17. I'll be honest here: I have no respect for any of the recent changes in copyright law, specifically if it is held by the corporations who pressed for these changes. So I download music and I download video and have no guilt whatsoever for doing so (FWIW I also buy music and video). As for other stuff... For me: 28 years, period. I don't give a plugged nickle for the notion somebody can copyright today a creative work that's more than 28 years old. 28-56 years old? Did it have meaningful value at the half way point? If I figure it did, I figure it got renewed (only about 15% of what was copyrighted ever got extended). Otherwise I figure it lapsed and is in the public domain. Moving on to freight cars and such. I do respect the property value of persons/libraries/museums who have found something interesting and want to sell copies to the general public. Doesn't matter to me if it is under copyright or not, I respect the seller for what they're doing and so in this regard, I do follow a different set of rules and so I *do not* go into the replication business using their product. Yeah, hard to square the circle of these paragraphs in any principled way, except perhaps by looking at who is doing the selling, respecting the little guy, and sticking to the law as it was when it made sense. I'm just being open and frank here...getting something off my chest so to speak and not looking to debate anything. Dave Nelson P.S. Shawn, sorry to say it bud, but f*ck Disney for what they did. |
|
|
|
John Patterson <bongomonkey05@...>
Okay Fellas;With few exceptions,I hardly think the "Copyright Police"are
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
gonna do a "David Koresh/Waco"style raid if you download a pitcure by a long dead photographer for your own use!! On 5/12/06, Dave Nelson <muskoka@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
John Patterson wrote:
Okay Fellas;With few exceptions,I hardly think the "Copyright Police"areActually, John, some of us think there are ethical issues involved. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Peter J. McClosky <pmcclosky@...>
What this really boils down to is the respect of the law. Either you
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
choose to obey the law or you break it. You know why railfans have bad reputations, some believe that anything they want is theirs, or it is OK to spike a switch so that they can get the picture they want (this is the extreme, but it happened). These actions give us all a bad reputation! Using copywrited material without permission is the same thing! The law recognizes both, "Fair Use" & "Educational Use", so you can make personal or educational copies. You just can't give them to one hundred of you closest friends! You can choose to steal a copyrighted image, or not, it's up to you! (On a personal note, I do not like the new copyright laws, and I have written my senators and congressman about it.) Peter J. McClosky ------- Anthony Thompson wrote: John Patterson wrote:Okay Fellas;With few exceptions,I hardly think the "CopyrightActually, John, some of us think there are ethical issues --
-- Peter J. McClosky Formerly of Los Angeles, CA Now Living in Eugene, Oregon http://home.earthlink.net/~pmcclosky pmcclosky@... |
|
|