Can You Do This In Great Britian? We Can Do this in America.

[Chris Copeland]

You *could* always edit the game data file, produced by the 3rd parties in no way associated with Lone Wolf, to include the details of the reference files, for your own personal use. Obviously, if you were to give that personalised list to someone else then you'd be in breach of the personal use of that data, like in a tournament where you exchange lists and could face legal challenges.

The above quote by Wolfshade got me thinking: how different ARE American and British laws? There are things that I take for granted as an American:


I can make a Mix Tape for myself
I can make a Mix Tape for my friend
I can make a back-up copy of any book, movie, or piece of software that I have...
I can write a book ABOUT someone else's book. For example, I could write an Un-Authorized Encyclopedia of the Works of Stephen King and I wouldn't need any license or blessing from Mr. King...
I can use a bit of software to build an army list. I can also pass said list around to anyone I want to
I can catalog another person's creation
I can get a tattoo of a Dark Angel sword without asking GW
I can draw a cartoon mocking someone else's IP
I can print a t-shirt saying that we are having a Warhammer tourney
I can make a custom hood for a '97 Ford Must and SAY THAT IT IS A HOOD FOR A '97 FORD MUSTANG without asking for Ford's permission
I can make a "health counter" for Magic The Gathering players without licensing ANYTHING from WotC...
I can write a module for Dungeons and Dragons without seeking anyone's permission. I just need to say it is compatible with D&D
I can make a video game cartridge that works in a Sega Genesis without any permission from Sega
I can write a blog and talk about things companies and celebrities do
I can make accessories that can be used with other folks' products


So, is it that different for you Brits? Have you completely ceded Freedom of Speech and freedom in the marketplace over to Corporation? What is going on? Are we truly THAT different?

Cheers. Cope

[Bean]

The above quote by Wolfshade got me thinking: how different ARE American and British laws? There are things that I take for granted as an American:


I can make a Mix Tape for myself
I can make a Mix Tape for my friend
I can make a back-up copy of any book, movie, or piece of software that I have...
I can write a book ABOUT someone else's book. For example, I could write an Un-Authorized Encyclopedia of the Works of Stephen King and I wouldn't need any license or blessing from Mr. King...
I can use a bit of software to build an army list. I can also pass said list around to anyone I want to
I can catalog another person's creation
I can get a tattoo of a Dark Angel sword without asking GW
I can draw a cartoon mocking someone else's IP
I can print a t-shirt saying that we are having a Warhammer tourney
I can make a custom hood for a '97 Ford Must and SAY THAT IT IS A HOOD FOR A '97 FORD MUSTANG without asking for Ford's permission
I can make a "health counter" for Magic The Gathering players without licensing ANYTHING from WotC...
I can write a module for Dungeons and Dragons without seeking anyone's permission. I just need to say it is compatible with D&D
I can make a video game cartridge that works in a Sega Genesis without any permission from Sega
I can write a blog and talk about things companies and celebrities do
I can make accessories that can be used with other folks' products


So, is it that different for you Brits? Have you completely ceded Freedom of Speech and freedom in the marketplace over to Corporation? What is going on? Are we truly THAT different?

Cheers. Cope

Actually, Chris, you're basically just wrong on most of those. Distributing a mix tape to your friend? Not covered by fair use. That's copyright infringement and has been for your entire life. You can make a mix tape for yourself, so long as the original media doesn't have any DRM on it that you have to get around.

Writing books about other people's books can go either way. It kinda depends on how you market it and how much of its content is borrowed.

You could, sort of theoretically, build a piece of army-building software and distribute it, but if that software contains the text of any rules written by someone else, that would, again, be copyright infringement.

Creating a catalog of other's works should be okay.

The tattoo is also a potential problem. If you copy an image to some (somewhat arbitrarily) sufficient degree, though, it doesn't matter if you change the medium. Inking it into your skin is no less a potential violation of copyright than drawing it on paper. Key, though, is distribution. If you just draw it for yourself, you're probably in the clear. If you pay someone else to draw it for you (or ink it on you), then both of you have potentially violated a copyright, depending how closely your version mimics the original.

Criticism generally does fall under fair use, as does humor about something--so a comic about someone's IP is usually fair game.

The t-shirt is probably fine--but not if you copy their logo image.

Aftermarket parts are fine.

the Health counter should be fine, as long as you don't use any copy-righted art to decorate it.

You can write and even publish your own DnD module, but you have to be careful to avoid using their text or images--as well as some of their concepts. Illithids and beholders, for instance, are copyrighted, so if your module includes those, you might get into trouble.

I have no idea bout the Sega thing. I really don't. If you copy code from another cassette, though, that could potentially be a problem.

The blog and accessories are fair game.

Still, it looks like your grasp of fair use is...flawed. Sorry. You seem like a nice person, but your sense of what is acceptable, here, does not line up well with the actual law. That, I think, is the source of the disparity that you perceive--though it is certainly true that England's copyright laws are different from those in the US. I've read both, though, honestly, I didn't read the UK one carefully enough that I could tell you what the differences really are.


Oh, I do recall (and I haven't verified this) hearing that UK copyright laws include a bit about the copyright degrading if it is not enforced. That's total hearsay, though, so take it for what it's worth.

[Chris Copeland]

Still, it looks like your grasp of fair use is...flawed. Sorry. You seem like a nice person, but your sense of what is acceptable, here, does not line up well with the actual law. That, I think, is the source of the disparity that you perceive--though it is certainly true that England's copyright laws are different from those in the US. I've read both, though, honestly, I didn't read the UK one carefully enough that I could tell you what the differences really are.
Sorry, Bean. I'm pretty solid on all of these things. I don't know what else to say. I like ya but yer wrong... Cope

[Chris Copeland]

Here (http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/technology/articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd) is a Us News & World Report that explains why it is legal to makes copies of DVDs and CDs.

[Bean]

That article doesn't actually contradict anything I said. It doesn't address distribution to friends (clearly illegal) or the DRM issue.

Sorry, Chris. You're just wrong. Go read the law again. It's actually not that unclear.

Though, to be fair, my "most" was incorrect. You're clearly wrong on one, and two or three more kinda depend on the context (though building a piece of army builder software that doesn't violate copyright seems likely to be impossible, at least from a practical standpoint).

You're right on more than you're wrong on.

But copying your music and giving it to your friend is clearly, in-arguably illegal (and you're missing at least one critical detail on the copying-for-yourself issue).

[Chris Copeland]

Here (http://www.ehow.com/how_7253785_legally-share-music.html) you will find a straightforward explanation of how it is legal to make a mix tape for a buddy...

[Bean]

Here (http://www.ehow.com/how_7253785_legally-share-music.html) you will find a straightforward explanation of how it is legal to make a mix tape for a buddy...

That article is not correct (except with regard to the public domain part). It offers no sourcing and no rational for its claim, and its claim is explicitly contradicted by the text of the relevant laws.

You shouldn't be relying on an unsourced wiki entry. go read the law yourself. Again, it's quite clear. Fuzziness really only comes up as a result of case law (and if you can find an instance of case law that supports your position, I'll certainly give it the weight it's due).

[Chris Copeland]

Bean, I've done a LOT of searching and the best referenced article I can find is from the LA Times. It indicates that the issue is grayer than I thought but NOT black and white. You can find the article here (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/09/business/fi-pollmusic9). The article mentions a $1000 threshhold before legal problems kick in.

So, I concede that "making a mix disc for a friend" issue isn't as clear as I thought it was but that is the only concession I'll make at this time, sir. :) Please provide any references necessary to change my mind. I'm a reasonable man open to reasonable arguments. I'd like to note that it isn't entirely clear that I am entirely wrong on the mix-tape-for-a-friend issue... I DO acknowledge the grayness, however... cheers, bro!

[Bean]

From that article:

"Actually, attorneys say, copying a purchased CD for even one friend violates the federal copyright code most of the time."

"Distributing free copies of a purchased CD or DVD is only a federal copyright crime if the value of the copied discs exceeds $1,000, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Elena Duarte."

But giving away even one copied disc may be a civil violation or break a state law.

"A strict interpretation of the law says that if making a copy robs the marketplace of a sale, it is prohibited," said attorney Mark Radcliffe, a copyright expert at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. "So anyone giving a copy to a friend could technically be sued. But there is some sentiment that as long as people are only giving copies to families and a few friends, it's probably OK. But how many friends should one person have?"

Seems pretty clear to me. Now, there're a couple of important distinctions made in there. First, it only becomes a Federal crime, at a certain value. That's certainly worth knowing, but we're generally not talking about crimes when we're talking about IP infringement--we're talking about civil matters. The Chapterhouse and Army Builder scenarios are not criminal cases, they're civil ones. So, noting that there is a limit that must be reached before the federal government can take it upon itself to file criminal charges doesn't actually speak to the issue that most people are concerned with--for the most part, we're looking at civil suits.

So, sure--lots of people make mix tapes for their friends without any repercussions. this is not because it is legal to do, but because the damages are so low that it's not worth it, for the rights holders, to file a suit--and because the damages are low enough that it hasn't hit the federal criminal-charges bar. (also, likely, because no-one who cares ever finds out about most mix tapes).

This is not terribly uncommon, actually, that people do things which are illegal (whether because they are crimes or suit-worthy, or both) but never suffer consequences either because no-one finds out or because the damages were too trivial to bother with. I imagine most of us speed all the time, for instance--far, far more than we are ticketed for it. In fact, I would say I have an expectation that I can speed and get away with it--but I do not conflate this with the belief that speeding is not actually against the law (because it clearly is, actually, against the law).

I'm gonna post the text of the legislation that I feel is relevant here in a bit, but I actually feel that your article explained it pretty well--and that it basically supports what I've been saying almost perfectly.

[Bean]

And, sure--of course it's not black and white. A lot of it comes down to arbitration by a judge--does the particular case in question violate the statute, and whatnot.

But, at the same time, it's not so grey that you can say, "I can make a Mix Tape for my friend." Not only is that not true in the absolute, it's not true in general--in general, it is not legal to make a mix tape for your friend. There may be specific instances where it's allowable--and a broad category of instances in which you'll get away with it even though it's not actually legal--but it is almost always illegal whether you get away with it or not. (and your article says pretty much the exact same thing).

[Bean]

From USC Title 17, section 106:

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;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.



I mean, that really spells it out. The rights-holder has the exclusive right to copy, distribute copies (including by way of lending) perform or display the copyrighted work.

"Fair Use" is defined in section 107 (same title)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.



Again, seems pretty clear. "so your friend can have a copy" doesn't fall under fair use.

"So I can build armies without having to use the codex" also doesn't fall under fair use.

In fact, since both affect the the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, you can bet that neither come anywhere near "fair use."

[eldargal]

I think the difference is 'what is technically legal/illegal' and 'what I can get away with'. The chances of being prosecuted for making a mix tape is extremely low.

As for Britain, we would be in a similar position. Various things may or may not be legal/illegal but people do it and won't get prosecuted because it isn't worth anyones time/no one knows etc.

[Bean]

I think the difference is 'what is technically legal/illegal' and 'what I can get away with'. The chances of being prosecuted for making a mix tape is extremely low.

As for Britain, we would be in a similar position. Various things may or may not be legal/illegal but people do it and won't get prosecuted because it isn't worth anyones time/no one knows etc.

Right, exactly. It's technically illegal, but you'll get away with it because basically no one cares.

Still, it's good to know the law (at least a bit) in case you accidentally stray into the realm where people start to care!

[Psychosplodge]

When it comes to music,I think we can make as many copies as we want for personal use, but you can't distribute them, and you can't change the format.
So ripping that cd to pc to make a mix cd technically illegal.
but like EG and Bean say, nobody cares, as long as you dont then stick them on ebay...

I think it depends how you define fair use.

If an author lists his previous titles in the front a book by a different publisher ie like Dan Abnett at the front of Embedded, and probably Triumff, that's fair use.
If he released a Gaunt's Ghosts encyclopaedia on a none black library publisher without GW's permission he'd be using their IP without permission (assuming he wasn't licensing it) and probably in breach of contract-but that's a separate issue. A third party author doing the same would probably I believe just be in breach of IP/copyright. I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

When it comes to cars, I think Wolfie pointed out we have legislation that says you have a right to ensure the safe functionality of your car which overules the manufacturers exclusivity rights. But it still comes with rules on how they let you sell these 3rd party parts. Not the kind of thing that apply to products that don't require maintenance.

[Bean]

Also worth noting is that circumventing digital rights management or other anti-theft mechanisms is illegal--which means that copying media which is made and distributed with the intent that it be un-copiable is illegal--even if you're just copying it for your own use. This was part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which, if I recall, was 1998).

[Wolfshade]

The above quote by Wolfshade got me thinking: how different ARE American and British laws? There are things that I take for granted as an American:
First of all I am not sure I appreciate being quoted for a serious debate


I can make a Mix Tape for myself/friend. This falls under unauthorised reproduction, even if you recorded from the radio, distributed or not it is an issue


I can make a back-up copy of any book, movie, or piece of software that I have... This should fall under the fair use of data, but, it has recently it has been seen that it is still a breach of copyright, since you are buying the product in the format you have brought, for instance I could not convert a region 1 dvd to a region 2 just because I brought it for the wrong area. Interestingly, with some software and some digital products (think things brought from itunes) you don't actually own the item, you have brought the license for the content but you do not own it, Bruce Willis is currently trying to take Apple to court so that his digital music collection can be inherited by his children.


I can write a book ABOUT someone else's book. For example, I could write an Un-Authorized Encyclopedia of the Works of Stephen King and I wouldn't need any license or blessing from Mr. King...
This is certainly true that you can, look at the number of book reviews that appear in various newspapers.
Works about this sort of thing are more tricky, the Harry Potter Encylopedia was banned because it appropriated far too much material for JK Rowling's books. If it were to be written so that there was much more original content then that would be fine. It is the balance of trying to quote one source (either directly or indirectly) and adding content. For instance I could not write a book that reads "This is what happens in the Dark Tower: " then quote the entire book. I know this is an extreme but that is what it is to prevent.


I can use a bit of software to build an army list. I can also pass said list around to anyone I want to
This one you may have mistaken my meaning, you can build any list, but if you were to include the specific details of special rules/weapons profiles or similiar you could be in breach of GW IP, the chances of them ever finding out would be remote, and if you were playing in an obvious GW setting then you might even get away with a "fair use" defense, since one would expect your opponent to have brought at least the core rule book.


I can catalog another person's creation
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I assume that in this instance that you are not asserting any rights over this.


I can get a tattoo of a Dark Angel sword without asking GW
I can draw a cartoon mocking someone else's IP
I can print a t-shirt saying that we are having a Warhammer tourney
These would all fall under personal/fair use. If you were to cut off your tattoo and sell it you might have some issues, the least of which would be IP/TM/C infringement ;)


I can make a custom hood for a '97 Ford Must and SAY THAT IT IS A HOOD FOR A '97 FORD MUSTANG without asking for Ford's permission
Firstly, it's a bonnet ;). Secondly, you can do this as it is reasonable (or demonstratable) that bonnets wear out (i.e. during a head on collision), such use is defended under English and US law (two different doctorines, both with the same thing). The other thing is that as part of that you can make replacement parts without license as long as the product is 5 years old (or at least that is the case in England, I had an interesting chat with a mate who is a patent lawyer, his example used Dyson Vaccums). This would also not be a copyright/IP issue, but a patent issue. In this case you have to say it is for car X because that is a descriptor.


I can make a "health counter" for Magic The Gathering players without licensing ANYTHING from WotC...
I don't know enough about M:TG to really make a comment, but I imagine that MTG have never made a health counter or your product is dissimiliar enough so that it would not confuse the average customer.


I can write a module for Dungeons and Dragons without seeking anyone's permission. I just need to say it is compatible with D&D
This is not an issue, an add-on is a sperate work that requires your own ideas, which are compatable with an existing system. Similiarly, when the Stock Exchange was first made for Monopoly it was made by a seperate company.
Similiarly in 40k you can create your own rules, similiarly to those house rules made in tournament.
You also have the murkier issue that this is part of D&D's development strategy is to enable people to make their own rules and has an open game license (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html)


I can make a video game cartridge that works in a Sega Genesis without any permission from Sega
But why would you, do people even have those things? More seriously, with a lot of game development, the language of the console is unique and requires a methodology to be decrypted and interprited. So certainly you might be able to do it, but you would require license to do it.


I can write a blog and talk about things companies and celebrities do
This is public domain, not an issue here. What they do in private would (or could be) considered an invasion of privacy, hence the Leveson enquiry.


I can make accessories that can be used with other folks' products
Your accessories have to be original however. They need to be distinguishable from originals, so making a shoulder pad with a circular saw and blood drop, that is either passing of or a direct copyright infringement. If you were to make generic rubber symbols, that could be stuck to a certain well known shoulder pad, that would be fine as long as your originals did not copy existing examples. Hence, you can make model cases without GW becoming angry with you, but you can't make Clones (from the clone wars) to be used in 40k.


So, is it that different for you Brits? Have you completely ceded Freedom of Speech and freedom in the marketplace over to Corporation? What is going on? Are we truly THAT different?
Freedom of Speech is an illusion, it does not exist, if you truely did then you could not have incitement crimes.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't think the tattoo one is fair use, but I think it's the tattooist/artist making the money that's infringing any IP/copyrights, not you personally for having it.

[Wolfshade]

It is a hazy one and I see where you are coming from I had not considered that, I was thinking about the person recieving the tattoo, but the tattooist is making money from the unlicensed use of the (c) material, hmm.
But when I've printed Tshirts I've never been asked who holds the original rights to the art work.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh I have for taking a pic off deviant art of a crossover between ff and god of war, and having it on a single tshirt lol, but if the tshirt had been available I'd have just bought that...

[Wolfshade]

Just been poking around and found two things, it is the bearer of the tattoo who would be liable.

The tattooist who did Tyson's facial sued Warner Bro for their reproduction of his tattoo on the character Stu Price in the Hangover II
The second involves a tattooist who did a design and then that design was used by nike for an advert (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1992812)

I suppose the other thing is that they a trademarks registered or otherwise so not technically a copyright thing. But as a registered mark the owner of the mark can choose what is and isn't acceptable use.

[Psychosplodge]

That's surprising the first one, I thought it would be the person making the financial gain at fault.
But yeah the others if they designed it and it was reproduced, not surprised.

[Wildeybeast]

Oh man, I thought this was the Oubliette, seems I've stumbled into the rules thread by mistake. :rolleyes:

[Chris Copeland]

No. The Tyson and Nike things both involve commercial uses. I could cover myself from head to toe in Nike "swooshes" and Nike couldn't say "Boo" to me nor my tattoo artist.


Just been poking around and found two things, it is the bearer of the tattoo who would be liable.

The tattooist who did Tyson's facial sued Warner Bro for their reproduction of his tattoo on the character Stu Price in the Hangover II
The second involves a tattooist who did a design and then that design was used by nike for an advert (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1992812)

I suppose the other thing is that they a trademarks registered or otherwise so not technically a copyright thing. But as a registered mark the owner of the mark can choose what is and isn't acceptable use.

[lattd]

Well theres an inherent problem in the title, Great Britain is 3 countries: England, Wales and Scotland. Scotland has a different jurisdiction and as such different laws to England and wales.

But in England and wales, you cannot put music from a CD to your laptop, as it creates a new form of a copy, and its something that Europe has allowed but we disagreed, which means technically the ipod is illegal, however cos of agreements with WIPO, and the dasonvile formula (if its sold in one EU country it can be sold in all, save for certain reasons). But English law is very out of date, and we are looking to change it.

[Chris Copeland]

... in England and wales, you cannot put music from a CD to your laptop, as it creates a new form of a copy, and its something that Europe has allowed but we disagreed, which means technically the ipod is illegal...

Holy crap! Really?!

[Psychosplodge]

Oh man, I thought this was the Oubliette, seems I've stumbled into the rules thread by mistake. :rolleyes:

It's escaping, one section can not contain the rules style mass debating


Well theres an inherent problem in the title, Great Britain is 3 countries: England, Wales and Scotland. Scotland has a different jurisdiction and as such different laws to England and wales.


wales isn't a country it's part of England. but yes Scotland and England have different legal systems.

[Wildeybeast]

It's escaping, one section can not contain the rules style mass debating

I would question whether people saying the same thing over and over and not taking on board anything anybody else says counts as debate.



wales isn't a country it's part of England. but yes Scotland and England have different legal systems.

#They're not even a real country anyway!# Though I'm fairly sure they are (after a fashion).

[Psychosplodge]

Nope, we annexed them in 1542. They are a part of England, within the United Kingdom.

[Bean]

No. The Tyson and Nike things both involve commercial uses. I could cover myself from head to toe in Nike "swooshes" and Nike couldn't say "Boo" to me nor my tattoo artist.

Yeah, again, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually true.

Look back at the text of the statute (and remember that there's an even more restrictive registered trademark statute that you also have to worry about).

The Nike Swoosh is copyrighted. If you replicate it, you have violated their exclusive right to produce copies of it. Use as a tattoo is not protected under fair use.

Now, a judge may determine (this may already have happened) that your use of the logo as a tattoo doesn't affect the potential market value of the image, that (as a result) there are no damages and that (as a further result) the matter isn't suit-worthy.

But, it'd still be a copy-right violation--and both you and your tattoo artist would be responsible, having conspired in the creation of the copy.

[Chris Copeland]

Sorry, Bean ol'boy! The statute doesn't negate my First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression. I'm not sure that I'd need to go all the way to First Amendment to win this one but it would certainly trump the statute as long as I was not engaging in commercial speech. The First Amendment is one of the most precious birthrights we have as Americans and it is nearly impossible to circumvent. Cheers! Cope



Yeah, again, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually true.

Look back at the text of the statute (and remember that there's an even more restrictive registered trademark statute that you also have to worry about).

The Nike Swoosh is copyrighted. If you replicate it, you have violated their exclusive right to produce copies of it. Use as a tattoo is not protected under fair use.

Now, a judge may determine (this may already have happened) that your use of the logo as a tattoo doesn't affect the potential market value of the image, that (as a result) there are no damages and that (as a further result) the matter isn't suit-worthy.

But, it'd still be a copy-right violation--and both you and your tattoo artist would be responsible, having conspired in the creation of the copy.

[Uncle Nutsy]

until such time as money exchanges hands for said mix-tape, it's still covered under fair use.


but if you want to say i'm wrong.. then cite your legal experience (including cases argued in front of a judge) on these matters.

[Bean]

until such time as money exchanges hands for said mix-tape, it's still covered under fair use.

Not true. Read the law again.



but if you want to say i'm wrong.. then cite your legal experience (including cases argued in front of a judge) on these matters.

Back atchya--the text of the law is clear, and it does not support your position. If you want to say you're right, cite some case law--because in the absence of relevant case law, you are not right.

That is to say, I've offered you more than sufficient reason--in the text of the relevant laws themselves--to believe that mix tapes are not fair use. You've offered...nothing.

What's your experience? Why do you presume your word alone (especially when it obviously contradicts the text of the statute) to be so overwhelmingly valuable?

Edit:
Look up the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that it specifically criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control--where access control (commonly called DRM) is any mechanism the publisher employs to prevent the property from being copied. So, if your mix tape is copied from an original with some type of access control, that's an entirely different crime.

Note that this was upheld in Universal v. Reimerdes, 2001.

[Bean]

Sorry, Bean ol'boy! The statute doesn't negate my First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression. I'm not sure that I'd need to go all the way to First Amendment to win this one but it would certainly trump the statute as long as I was not engaging in commercial speech. The First Amendment is one of the most precious birthrights we have as Americans and it is nearly impossible to circumvent. Cheers! Cope

Selling a tattoo is commercial speech.

Also, free speech doesn't extend to copyright violation.

This isn't even an argument. It's just...nothing. There's no relevant content, here.

Seriously--again--the law is clear. Unless you've got some case law--an instance where this actually came up and a judge ruled that it fell under fair use--you really have no argument at all.

[Chris Copeland]

No Problem, Bean. You can find can a very succinct summary of where I am coming from here (http://www.trademark-education.com/firstamendment.html). Case law is cited. Here is the paragraph that I really love:

There are many cases supporting that negative consumer commentary is core speech protected by the First Amendment. Another case supporting this is, Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) Many other cases treat criticisms of a company, their business practices, products and services, as speech protected by the First Amendment. Criticism would be pointless if the person cannot name the company they are bashing by using its trademarks. The Fourth Circuit explained that just because speech is critical of a corporation or company and its business practices, it is not a sufficient reason to prevent or enjoin the speech. If a trademark owner could “enjoin the use of his mark in a noncommercial context found to be negative or offensive, then a corporation could shield itself from criticism by forbidding the use of its name in commentaries critical of its conduct.” CPC Int’l., Inc. v. Skippy Inc., 214 F.3d 456, 462 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting L.L. Bean v. Drake Publishers, 811 F.2d 26, 33 (1st Cir. 1987)).

[Bean]

That speaks to use of copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism--which is actually addressed under fair use. (by which I mean section 107, which I posted earlier)

We're talking about mix tapes and army builders--neither of which are criticism.

This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at all.

I mean, if you want to argue that it's acceptable to use the words "Games Workshop" to say, "Games Workshop is a bad company," then of course it is--and that observation says absolutely nothing at all about whether it's legal to buy a tattoo of a copyrighted image or give a copy of a cd to a friend or copy those portions of Games Workshop's rules necessary to create army-building software.

[dwez]

The above quote by Wolfshade got me thinking: how different ARE American and British laws? There are things that I take for granted as an American:


I can make a Mix Tape for myself
I can make a Mix Tape for my friend
I can make a back-up copy of any book, movie, or piece of software that I have...
I can write a book ABOUT someone else's book. For example, I could write an Un-Authorized Encyclopedia of the Works of Stephen King and I wouldn't need any license or blessing from Mr. King...
I can use a bit of software to build an army list. I can also pass said list around to anyone I want to
I can catalog another person's creation
I can get a tattoo of a Dark Angel sword without asking GW
I can draw a cartoon mocking someone else's IP
I can print a t-shirt saying that we are having a Warhammer tourney
I can make a custom hood for a '97 Ford Must and SAY THAT IT IS A HOOD FOR A '97 FORD MUSTANG without asking for Ford's permission
I can make a "health counter" for Magic The Gathering players without licensing ANYTHING from WotC...
I can write a module for Dungeons and Dragons without seeking anyone's permission. I just need to say it is compatible with D&D
I can make a video game cartridge that works in a Sega Genesis without any permission from Sega
I can write a blog and talk about things companies and celebrities do
I can make accessories that can be used with other folks' products


So, is it that different for you Brits? Have you completely ceded Freedom of Speech and freedom in the marketplace over to Corporation? What is going on? Are we truly THAT different?

Cheers. Cope

We can drink alcohol when we're 18, you can keep your list of 15 :D

because in reality that meant I was going to rock clubs and bars from 16!

[Psychosplodge]

16? pffft, I managed it from 14...

[Chris Copeland]

I'm not really talking about GW (although I guess I could replace the Nike swoosh with the GW eagle for the purpose of my example). My example was about how I have the right to use a trademark or copyrighted image in non-commercial free speech as an American. That is what the article I was directing everyone to see earlier is about. America is very good about making sure that Americans have almost complete freedom to engage in free speech. I used the example of getting Nike swooshes tattooed all over my body. In America, this would clearly fall under the category of Free Speech.

I've already ceded that mix tapes made for other folks aren't as black and white as I thought they were at the beginning of this thread. I still think that, if push came to shove, that a chap could win such a case. I do concede that it's not as clear as I used to believe it to be.

Under the First Amendment, however, no company gets to tell any American what kind of tattoo they can wear even if said American is wearing said company's logo... once the individual steps into commercial speech that changes, of course. :)



That speaks to use of copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism--which is actually addressed under fair use. (by which I mean section 107, which I posted earlier)

We're talking about mix tapes and army builders--neither of which are criticism.

This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at all.

I mean, if you want to argue that it's acceptable to use the words "Games Workshop" to say, "Games Workshop is a bad company," then of course it is--and that observation says absolutely nothing at all about whether it's legal to buy a tattoo of a copyrighted image or give a copy of a cd to a friend or copy those portions of Games Workshop's rules necessary to create army-building software.

[Bean]

I'm not really talking about GW (although I guess I could replace the Nike swoosh with the GW eagle for the purpose of my example). My example was about how I have the right to use a trademark or copyrighted image in non-commercial free speech as an American. That is what the article I was directing everyone to see earlier is about. America is very good about making sure that Americans have almost complete freedom to engage in free speech. I used the example of getting Nike swooshes tattooed all over my body. In America, this would clearly fall under the category of Free Speech.

We do. We take free speech very seriously. Not all speech, though, is protected--there are a number of exemptions, and copying someone else's work is clearly one of them.

Even here, there are instances in which you are able to copy someone else's work--and many non-commercial instances are protected by the fair use clause (whether or not a copy is commercial in nature is one of the specifically listed tests, though it's not, necessarily, a make-or-break test). But not all copies are protected as free speech. This should be obvious, since, if all copies were protected as free speech, there would be no copyright laws at all.

There are copyright laws. Some copies are illegal. Free speech is not a blanket "I can copy whatever I want," and you don't seem to be offering anything that differentiates tattoos from other copies in a way that renders free speech relevant.



I've already ceded that mix tapes made for other folks aren't as black and white as I thought they were at the beginning of this thread. I still think that, if push came to shove, that a chap could win such a case. I do concede that it's not as clear as I used to believe it to be.


Perhaps. My guess is that if anyone bothered to bring a case against someone for a mix tape, they'd win--largely because no-one would bother to bring such a case if they weren't pretty sure they were going to win, and the law here is pretty straight-forward.

But, hey--again--I'd love to see a case in which it went the other way.

(The one you quote earlier does not speak to this at all)



Under the First Amendment, however, no company gets to tell any American what kind of tattoo they can wear even if said American is wearing said company's logo... once the individual steps into commercial speech that changes, of course. :)


I really don't think that's true, and I really don't think you've actually offered any justification for the assertion that tattoos differ from other media in a way that renders them protected by free speech.

Certainly, the act of selling someone a tattoo is commercial.

If you did all the tattoos yourself, they may get a pass, but don't you at least agree that selling someone a tattoo is a commercial act? That if the content of that tattoo is trademarked or copyrighted, the sale of the tattoo violates the rights-holder's exclusive right to reproduction (even if that right only extends to reproduction for commercial purposes)? I mean--tattooing a Nike Swoosh onto someone for money is, very explicitly, reproducing a copyrighted work for a commercial purpose. How could it not be?

[Chris Copeland]

I mean--tattooing a Nike Swoosh onto someone for money is, very explicitly, reproducing a copyrighted work for a commercial purpose. How could it not be?
Bean, my man: that is the beauty of the First Amendment. I could justify it in any number of ways that would in no way be commercial:
*Perhaps I'm wearing it to protest the rampant commercialization of our culture
*Perhaps I'm being ironic about branding being so dominant in the media
*Perhaps it's on my butt and I'm indicating that I think poorly or them
*etc, etc, etc

I could claim ANY of those things. The source I reference makes it clear that commercial trademarks may be used in non-commercial speech without the consent of the owner. Please go read the analysis of the case law I presented.

As for having to pay a tattooist to put the swoosh on my body: that is merely an artifact of engaging in free speech. It would be akin to paying to have a billboard made or some flyers printed. There is no law against me spending money to say what I want to say. Cheers, brother-man! Cope

PS: The Supreme Court has recognized the threat to freedom of speech (http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity). In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), it was decided that the right to speak freely that is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) includes the right to criticize others, voice highly controversial opinions, and comment on public interest matters. The First Amendment also protects free speech (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/standing-up-for-first-amendment-with-1.html) of extreme statements and intentional exaggeration when it is clear the statements are insincere and done to frustrate the target, and is not defamation but opinion, satire, or parody (http://www.trademark-education.com/opinion.html).

[Chris Copeland]

There are copyright laws. Some copies are illegal. Free speech is not a blanket "I can copy whatever I want," and you don't seem to be offering anything that differentiates tattoos from other copies in a way that renders free speech relevant. Yes I am, my good sir. I am pointing out that our country hold free speech HIGHER than it holds copyright as long as you aren't engaging in commercial speech and as long as you aren't just slandering someone. That is the whole point of the cases referenced in the article I pointed to. The First Amendment trumps copyright law OUTSIDE of the commercial realm. Now, I agree that copyright is king once one dives into commercial speech... Cope

http://www.trademark-education.com/firstamendment.html

[DrLove42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19597429

I feel this is relevant to this discussion

Also freedom of speech is a myth. A guy stood up and said he didn't approve of gay marriage. The result of his ability to say what he liked was his business was restricted and complained about and attacked, in words and in some cases physically. If freedom of speech exists, why is someone not allowed to say that?

[Bean]

Bean, my man: that is the beauty of the First Amendment. I could justify it in any number of ways that would in no way be commercial:
*Perhaps I'm wearing it to protest the rampant commercialization of our culture
*Perhaps I'm being ironic about branding being so dominant in the media
*Perhaps it's on my butt and I'm indicating that I think poorly or them
*etc, etc, etc

I could claim ANY of those things. The source I reference makes it clear that commercial trademarks may be used in non-commercial speech without the consent of the owner. Please go read the analysis of the case law I presented.

As for having to pay a tattooist to put the swoosh on my body: that is merely an artifact of engaging in free speech. It would be akin to paying to have a billboard made or some flyers printed. There is no law against me spending money to say what I want to say. Cheers, brother-man! Cope

PS: The Supreme Court has recognized the threat to freedom of speech (http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity). In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), it was decided that the right to speak freely that is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) includes the right to criticize others, voice highly controversial opinions, and comment on public interest matters. The First Amendment also protects free speech (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/standing-up-for-first-amendment-with-1.html) of extreme statements and intentional exaggeration when it is clear the statements are insincere and done to frustrate the target, and is not defamation but opinion, satire, or parody (http://www.trademark-education.com/opinion.html).

This is an interesting argument. It'd be interesting to see if anything like it had ever come up.

As a corollary, of course, I flatly reject that any of the examples you've offered so far bare any substantial similarity to any of the instances we're talking about.



Yes I am, my good sir. I am pointing out that our country hold free speech HIGHER than it holds copyright as long as you aren't engaging in commercial speech and as long as you aren't just slandering someone. That is the whole point of the cases referenced in the article I pointed to. The First Amendment trumps copyright law OUTSIDE of the commercial realm. Now, I agree that copyright is king once one dives into commercial speech... Cope

http://www.trademark-education.com/firstamendment.html

Selling someone a tattoo, again, is clearly within the commercial realm.

Anyway, you're still missing the point. My question was what separates selling a tattoo from, say, selling a ripped CD? The most obvious flaw of the argument you offer above, is that I could use a virtually identical argument to validate any copyright violation imaginable in the same way.

"Oh, these ripped dvds? I'm selling them to people who play them as a method of expressing criticism. That's free speech--I'm just facilitating freedom of expression."

Clearly, this wouldn't fly. Again, we know it wouldn't fly, because people do, in fact, get in trouble for copy-right violations.. If this were a legitimate argument in general, no-one ever would--free speech would trump copyright every time.

Since free speech doesn't trump copyright every time, the conclusion that there must be something else at play is unavoidable. I'm asking you what you think that something else is--what further criteria distinguishes those situations in which you think this argument would work from those in which it obviously would not.

I think it's probably fair to say that we could clearly show some uses of copyrighted material as being employed for the specific purpose of criticism or commentary--again, this is specifically allowed under section 107--but, while this might extend to some tattoos, it would not extend to tattoos in general, and it certainly wouldn't extend to mix tapes and army-builder software.

[Bean]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19597429

I feel this is relevant to this discussion

Also freedom of speech is a myth. A guy stood up and said he didn't approve of gay marriage. The result of his ability to say what he liked was his business was restricted and complained about and attacked, in words and in some cases physically. If freedom of speech exists, why is someone not allowed to say that?

I think you misunderstand what "free speech" means. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to say whatever you want with no consequences. It means that you're allowed to say (mostly) whatever you want without the government imposing consequences on you.

If you say something I don't like, I have the right to boycott your business--my boycott doesn't constitute a violation of your right to "free speech."

If I decided to punch you in the face or burn your business down, those would both be crimes--but neither would be a violation of your first amendment rights, because the first amendment does not (and does not attempt to) protect you from your fellow citizens. It only protects you from the government.

So, if a guy says something stupid, and people make his life hell for it, he doesn't get to complain about "free speech." If he does, that just suggests that he is even stupider than his original comment let on.

Of course, no-one should get their businesses attacked (physically) for voicing an opinion, but that's an entirely different matter--not related at all to free speech.

[Psychosplodge]

I think you misunderstand what "free speech" means. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to say whatever you want with no consequences. It means that you're allowed to say (mostly) whatever you want without the government imposing consequences on you.



Then you don't have free speech anymore than we do, if you can't air you views because they run counter with your societies views and will get you ostracised. At least we're honest about it :p

[Wolfshade]

Free speach is free speach unless, it is imminently inciting lawlessness or you have a gag order ;)

[DrLove42]

So you have free speech as long as you say what society wants to hear?

[DarkLink]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19597429

I feel this is relevant to this discussion

Also freedom of speech is a myth. A guy stood up and said he didn't approve of gay marriage. The result of his ability to say what he liked was his business was restricted and complained about and attacked, in words and in some cases physically. If freedom of speech exists, why is someone not allowed to say that?

Did he get arrested? Was his business shut down by the government? Free speech.

If you don't think we have it, don't ever go to the middle east, china, russia, or any of the other authoritarian governments scattered around the world that don't respect human rights. You'll be in for a rude awakening.



So you have free speech as long as you say what society wants to hear?

If you want to see how overly simplistic this is, consider two recent cases. One; Chic Fil a's president openly condemns gay marriage. Two; a random real life troll creates an anti-Islamic film, and half the middle east erupts in riots.

The former is a case in which free speech is respected, even though many people disagree with Chic Fil a's stance.

The latter is a case in which free speech is ignored. Now, it's ignored because the rioters grew up in a place that never allowed free speech, and so they don't really understand the concept in the first place, but that's not the point.

Free speech is the right to express your opinion publicly, or at least that's a simple enough version for our purposes. Whether people like your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with your right to express that opinion. That's the flaw in your argument. You are assuming people have to like what you say just because you said it.

[Chris Copeland]

Bean, I'm not sure what else you are looking for. Perhaps we're talking past each other instead of to each other.

I've already demonstrated that in America you can use copyrighted iconography freely in non-commercial speech. I've cited case law and, quite frankly, the First Amendment itself.
I've given simple examples of what I could say if Nike ever came after me for a swoosh tattoo. Art IS free speech. I am allowed to use my body as a canvas for free speech.
I've already shown that the First Amendment right to free speech trumps all other statutes as long as said speech isn't commercial in nature or defamatory.
I've already laid out how paying to have the tattoo put on my body isn't anymore commercial speech than having placards printed is commercial speech. It's an artifact of engaging in free speech

Given all of the above, I think that I've laid out (as clearly as possible) why no corporation gets to have any opinion about any tattoo worn by any American. I've sewn it up in an airtight manner so I'm not sure what is still in contention.

I will agree that a tattoo artist would be breaking the law (in a minor manner) if he kept the swoosh design as flash to purchase on his studio wall. My example doesn't trod that path: my hypothetical tattooed person brings the design to the tattooist and says, "I'm making a statement about Nike. Tattoo this on my body." Again, this is akin to having political handbills printed... a cost of free speech but NOT commercial speech.

You ask, "What separates selling a tattoo from, say, selling a ripped CD?" My answer: in my example no one is selling the swoosh. I am engaging in protected First Amendment speech. The artist is not selling it. I'm paying to have the work done for First Amendment purposes. I am making a statement. Again, the installation of the tattoo upon my person is akin to having a broadside printed, not akin to buying a bootleg CD.

Cheers. Cope

PS The above is about the tattoo part of my OP. Army builder would have to be a separate discussion. Army Builder is legal under general Fair Use... it's a platform to catalogue multiple game systems. Cataloging and referencing stuff is completely legal in America under Fair Use... again, right now I am just talking about tattoos as Free Speech.


This is an interesting argument. It'd be interesting to see if anything like it had ever come up.

As a corollary, of course, I flatly reject that any of the examples you've offered so far bare any substantial similarity to any of the instances we're talking about.




Selling someone a tattoo, again, is clearly within the commercial realm.

Anyway, you're still missing the point. My question was what separates selling a tattoo from, say, selling a ripped CD? The most obvious flaw of the argument you offer above, is that I could use a virtually identical argument to validate any copyright violation imaginable in the same way.

"Oh, these ripped dvds? I'm selling them to people who play them as a method of expressing criticism. That's free speech--I'm just facilitating freedom of expression."

Clearly, this wouldn't fly. Again, we know it wouldn't fly, because people do, in fact, get in trouble for copy-right violations.. If this were a legitimate argument in general, no-one ever would--free speech would trump copyright every time.

Since free speech doesn't trump copyright every time, the conclusion that there must be something else at play is unavoidable. I'm asking you what you think that something else is--what further criteria distinguishes those situations in which you think this argument would work from those in which it obviously would not.

I think it's probably fair to say that we could clearly show some uses of copyrighted material as being employed for the specific purpose of criticism or commentary--again, this is specifically allowed under section 107--but, while this might extend to some tattoos, it would not extend to tattoos in general, and it certainly wouldn't extend to mix tapes and army-builder software.

[Chris Copeland]

Doc, as others have stated, Free Speech in America doesn't mean you can say anything you want without paying social or economic consequences. It means you can say what you want without the government coming down on you. That is all. Cope


Also freedom of speech is a myth. A guy stood up and said he didn't approve of gay marriage. The result of his ability to say what he liked was his business was restricted and complained about and attacked, in words and in some cases physically. If freedom of speech exists, why is someone not allowed to say that?

[Bean]

Chris:

I don't see any relevant difference between paying to have someone else's logo painted on a billboard, paying to have someone else's logo tattooed on your skin, and paying to have someone else's cd burned--they're all reproduction of protected work. (and none of the case law you've offered suggests that there is a difference, either--in fact, none of the case law you've presented seems relevant to anything we're talking about at all--you're extrapolating way, way far afield.)

I think that some billboards and some tattoos of copyrighted works would probably be defensible as criticism or commentary, but I still don't see that you've offered any grounds to think that all tattoos or billboards would be.

Second, "cataloguing" is not protected under free speech or fair use. Some catalogs might count as commentary or acceptable reference material, but, again, that certainly isn't a blanket permission that would necessarily cover army builder software.

Again, I've got a pretty strong textual case for both of these assertions, and you really don't have either a textual basis or a case law basis for most of what you're saying--your case law has been way off topic and...you haven't really even tried to offer textual support.

You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe, but it's still pretty clear that your grasp of the matter is flawed. So, for your own good, I would strongly suggest consulting an actual lawyer before you rely on this particular set of beliefs.

[Bean]

Then you don't have free speech anymore than we do, if you can't air you views because they run counter with your societies views and will get you ostracised. At least we're honest about it :p

I really disagree, actually, and I think you would, too, if you gave it some thought. There's a big difference between social consequence and legal consequence.

Example:

A social consequence (borrowing from the current example) might be my decision to boycott a business because I disagree with something its owner said.

A legal consequence, on the other hand, might be the Federal Government arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning the owner because the President disagrees with something the owner said.

If you really feel those two are equivalent...then I don't really know what to say. You're wrong. There are substantial moral, ethical, and practical differences between being the target of a boycott because of your opinions and being arrested and imprisoned because of your opinions.

The first amendment protects you against the latter. It does not protect you against the former.

Here's what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The fact that it restricts the behavior of Congress and not the behavior of other people really couldn't be more clear.

What "free speech" means in the US is actually pretty straightforward, at least in this regard, and if you are upset because you believed that it meant something else, you have only yourself to blame. Anyone who is even marginally English literate can go to the actual text (which is published all over the place) of the Constitution and see that, in fact, the law only protects freedom of speech from infringement by the government, and any expectation beyond that was never warranted. If you didn't know that, the conclusion that either you are not English literate or that you didn't take even the tiny modicum of time necessary to actually read the First Amendment is inescapable--and, either way, the corollary that your opinion on the matter is essentially worthless is similarly unavoidable.

[Chris Copeland]

:p
Chris:

I don't see any relevant difference between paying to have someone else's logo painted on a billboard, paying to have someone else's logo tattooed on your skin, and paying to have someone else's cd burned--they're all reproduction of protected work. (and none of the case law you've offered suggests that there is a difference, either--in fact, none of the case law you've presented seems relevant to anything we're talking about at all--you're extrapolating way, way far afield.)

I think that some billboards and some tattoos of copyrighted works would probably be defensible as criticism or commentary, but I still don't see that you've offered any grounds to think that all tattoos or billboards would be.... You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe, but it's still pretty clear that your grasp of the matter is flawed. So, for your own good, I would strongly suggest consulting an actual lawyer before you rely on this particular set of beliefs.

Bean, I don't know what to say. From where I sit it looks like you've got it wrong and I don't know how to explain it any more simply. It's basic civics course stuff that First Amendment free speech trumps almost everything else and long as you stay away from slander, economic speech, and libel. I've pointed you to excellent analysis covering this as well as relevant case law. I agree that one of us has a POV that doesn't match reality but I suspect it's you, my friend. The fact that I'd have to spend some money to express a viewpoint with a tattoo doesn't mean I'd be crossing over into commercial speech any more that if I was printing up political flyers at Kinkos. The US Courts have long held that folks can discuss, display, criticize, mock, and otherwise us trademarked items, logos, and images in non-commercial speech.

We seem to be at an agree-to-disagree moment. If anything pops up in the media that touches on this (and re-enforces either of our positions) we can revisit this. I've certainly enjoyed the discussion. Unfortunately, I feel that we're both starting to repeat ourselves. Oi vay.

Cheers! Cope

PS Billboards? Did I ever mention billboards?

[Bean]

:p

Bean, I don't know what to say. From where I sit it looks like you've got it wrong and I don't know how to explain it any more simply. It's basic civics course stuff that First Amendment free speech trumps almost everything else and long as you stay away from slander, economic speech, and libel. I've pointed you to excellent analysis covering this as well as relevant case law. I agree that one of us has a POV that doesn't match reality but I suspect it's you, my friend. The fact that I'd have to spend some money to express a viewpoint with a tattoo doesn't mean I'd be crossing over into commercial speech any more that if I was printing up political flyers at Kinkos. The US Courts have long held that folks can discuss, display, criticize, mock, and otherwise us trademarked items, logos, and images in non-commercial speech.

We seem to be at an agree-to-disagree moment. If anything pops up in the media that touches on this (and re-enforces either of our positions) we can revisit this. I've certainly enjoyed the discussion. Unfortunately, I feel that we're both starting to repeat ourselves. Oi vay.

Cheers! Cope

PS Billboards? Did I ever mention billboards?

Yeah, seems that way. The only relevant analysis I remember you posting disagreed with you pretty much explicitly on the matter of mix tapes. Everything else has either been irrelevant or not analysis, while all of the case law you've offered is irrelevant--failing to even approach the issues at hand--and your assertions still pretty much explicitly contradict the text of the statute.

So, yeah. Basically just repeating ourselves. Good luck with that. I suggest you take a law class sometime--might clear some stuff up for you. Until then (or, as you say, one of us finds something else that addresses the issue more directly), yeah. Agree to disagree, I guess. (Though I'll be over here, knowing that I'm obviously right. =P)

[Psychosplodge]

I really disagree, actually, and I think you would, too, if you gave it some thought. There's a big difference between social consequence and legal consequence.


I never said there wasn't all I was saying was you have to watch what you say, or you incur social consequence.
Your legal right to free speech is unaffected.

[dwez]

16? pffft, I managed it from 14...

I was a late bloomer ;)

[Uncle Nutsy]

Back atchya--the text of the law is clear, and it does not support your position. If you want to say you're right, cite some case law--because in the absence of relevant case law, you are not right.

That is to say, I've offered you more than sufficient reason--in the text of the relevant laws themselves--to believe that mix tapes are not fair use. You've offered...nothing.

What's your experience? Why do you presume your word alone (especially when it obviously contradicts the text of the statute) to be so overwhelmingly valuable?

Edit:
Look up the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that it specifically criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control--where access control (commonly called DRM) is any mechanism the publisher employs to prevent the property from being copied. So, if your mix tape is copied from an original with some type of access control, that's an entirely different crime.

Note that this was upheld in Universal v. Reimerdes, 2001.

simply more armchair lawyering. thank you.

[Bean]

simply more armchair lawyering. thank you.

Sure--and yet, it is of infinitely greater value than the nothing you have contributed to this thread so far. So, I'm not really sure what your point is.

[Uncle Nutsy]

A wise man once told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, you make yourself look worse by writing more than you should.

Just because you wrote a lot, doesn't mean you actually made a significant contribution.

you might also be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect