Copyright Infringement

[Desert_Seg]

(This thread is a continuation of thread http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=14605&page=2)

That is my point Steven.
You can sue anyone for anything. You don't even have to have a good case to get someone into court. I do not know of a set amount that is automatically awarded to plaintiffs for just copyright infringement.

There is no set amount. This is up to the judge and/or jury

I do know of a case recently (last week) where the plaintiff was awarded one dollar because their work was being used in a commercial without consent. As it turned out, it was great for the plaintiff's business and he profited from the exposure. There was no doubt that the work was used without consent and so the plaintiff prevailed. He was awarded 1 dollar.

He would also have gotten attorney fees but your point is taken

I hadn't heard about the MySpace litigation but I seriously doubt if anything will come of it. As soon as they find a filter, someone will figure out how to get around it. You can't keep teenagers (or anyone else) from sharing and posting copyrighted material because the numbers are just too large to deal with.

MySpace lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and could lose more. MySpace has indicated they will now go after the violators, even taking them to court. YouTube has the same problem but a bigger issue in that they don't necessarily know who is posting.

RIAA has successfully collected money from individuals too. Amounts range from a few thousand dollars to more than $25K. In some instances the parents of the offenders had to pay.

There has to be a compelling reason to single someone out for litigation, like money or damages. That's what I meant by complicated. It's enforcement that is complicated. And all bets go out the window when you infringe from, say, China.

Of course there is a compelling reason. Every time you use copyrighted material without the approval of the owner you are taking money out of their pockets, food out of their mouths, and so on and so forth. The story I hear often is "well I only did it once so how much did it cost them?". But what people tend to forget is that there are 6.5 Billion people in the world and if even .1% violate a specific copyright, and each violation costs the owner $1, then the owner is out $6.5 million.

Big dollars each and every day.

Steven

[Segway Shawn]

Steven,

I understand the copyright issue. We have professional Artisits in the family that own art galleries. I also have a son that plays music professionally and is working on a new CD that they will want to sell.

I guess its more of a moral issue in our case. I know "safety 1st" mentioned it in a moral way. As if we are bad people or something for making a the video with the music we chose. Or that we are teaching our children to cheat. I think that is a bit deep.

Although its not much but we did send a link to the groups website "proudly" hoping they would endorse it in some way. At the very least we hope and think we will put a smile on their face when they watch it. It's a good video...

If they asked, of course we would change it. I am not the attorney but I think they would have to send me something in writing that says the music needs to be removed because of the copyright. Maybe not....

I don't think we are taking any money or food out of anyones mouth or pocket. As I said, I do understand the issue and feel that although we may be a small part of a huge problem, we are not harming anyone.

That said,

I think the use of phrases like " the stories I here" or " the word is" or " some people say" is one of the ways used to scare people. Fox news is really good at using those phrases.

As I said before,

I refuse to be scared. :mad:

PS: I have been reading the boards alot this evening and have noticed that there is a general feeling that the Segway PT has not been marketed in the best ways. Maybe we are doing something good....

Maybe we are the "Bad Boys" of Segway but we are trying to help in our own way. People mention how they may not be legal next year or next month. We better have a plan for this......ours is selling to a different market and we must appeal to them in some way if they are going to buy.

[Desert_Seg]

Shawn,

Agree with almost everything you posted except

...As I said, I do understand the issue and feel that although we may be a small part of a huge problem, we are not harming anyone...

You are harming the owner of the copyright and (in effect) the band too. Yes, it might be only one instance but my point of the $6.5M was that each instance adds up.

Estimates of losses vary between $8B and $18B, each a few pennies at a time!

Anyway, you are doing all of us a service, although it did take me a while to accept that. There are many markets out there that aren't being tapped. It may be up to us to "force" the issue if we want this great product to succeed.

Steven

[iRwheelman]

There are tens of thousands (familiar segway term) of videos on youtube with soundtracks featuring almost every artist you can think of. If you seriously believe that someone will go to youtube and watch a segway video to hear a particular song, rather than buy their CD or go to their concert.. You are seriously mistaken. No one is LOSING any money, no food from anyones mouth, no harm to anyone. In fact, i bet you there are some segway enthusiasts that will now BUY a Tool cd after seeing the video, because they never had the opportunity to hear some Tool, and might just like it. If anything this will HELP the band.

Think it over.

my 1 1/2 cents.

the other half was disabled jumping segways.

[iRwheelman]

Why havent i heard anything about copyright laws before on this MB? Ive seen a few videos on youtube that have been discussed here, one in particular stands out. The dealer from portugal on his "Radical ride on a segway" video used a widely popular song, but no one mentioned copyright "pet peves" to him. Sounds political to me.

btw, where do you get your information from? Google searches? this 8b 18b garbage. You're talking about file sharing, not youtube video soundtracks, you can't download them, you can't put them on an mp3 player or ipod. Makes no sense.

[drmarty]

iRwheelman and others,

It matters not whether anyone is losing any money. It is theft. It is wrong. It is simple.

It is theirs, not yours. If someone got on your Segway and rode it away you might be a tad miffed, right. You might say "Stop, Thief." You can say it is not the same. Well not to you, the thief. But to the owner it is. And Steven's numbers are probably low ball. The music industry is in crisis. It is because of theft.

The artists making money now have to do it by touring because of this problem.

Justify it in your mind all you want, however you want.


iRwheelman it is YOU that are seriously mistaken and very naive when you say no one is losing any money, no food from anyones mouth. I don't know what industry you are in but I find it appalling that you dismiss this the way you do. You say some Segway owner may even buy a Tool CD because of this. That is not the point.

The point is it belongs to them. They get to decide how they want to entice people to buy. You do not. Period.

As much as I like the video, Seg of NM is doing this as a commercial venture, to promote their product. I think this was innocent but now that the issue has been brought up it should be resolved correctly.

I do not know what that is. Maybe their method of notification is OK. But there are people that do know.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

There are tens of thousands (familiar segway term) of videos on youtube with soundtracks featuring almost every artist you can think of. If you seriously believe that someone will go to youtube and watch a segway video to hear a particular song, rather than buy their CD or go to their concert.. You are seriously mistaken.

Did I say that people went to YouTube in order to hear a song? Not at all.

No one is LOSING any money, no food from anyones mouth, no harm to anyone. In fact, i bet you there are some segway enthusiasts that will now BUY a Tool cd after seeing the video, because they never had the opportunity to hear some Tool, and might just like it. If anything this will HELP the band...

Oh are you seriously mistaken. Every one of those YouTube videos that use copyrighted information are committing theft, and that theft takes money from somebody's pocket, and that theft harms the person who owns the copyright. You may not see it that way but it is the truth.

Sure, somebody might buy a Tool CD because of the video but that isn't the point and that doesn't forgive the theft.

Theft is theft, no matter how you try to coat it.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

Why havent i heard anything about copyright laws before on this MB? Ive seen a few videos on youtube that have been discussed here, one in particular stands out. The dealer from portugal on his "Radical ride on a segway" video used a widely popular song, but no one mentioned copyright "pet peves" to him. Sounds political to me.

Not sure what video you are talking about. However, the topic only came up recently, which is why the discourse. Nothing political here.

btw, where do you get your information from? Google searches? this 8b 18b garbage. You're talking about file sharing, not youtube video soundtracks, you can't download them, you can't put them on an mp3 player or ipod. Makes no sense.

The $8B to $18B is the estimate for copyright infringement within the music industry, regardless of how it is done. And yes, file sharing is one of the forms. However, it doesn't matter if you can download something, or if you put it on an mp3 or iPod. Copyright infringement is the illegal use of another's product, no matter how you do it.

All makes sense to me.

Steven

[ArtL]

Not sure what video you are talking about. However, the topic only came up recently, which is why the discourse. Nothing political here.



The $8B to $18B is the estimate for copyright infringement within the music industry, regardless of how it is done. And yes, file sharing is one of the forms. However, it doesn't matter if you can download something, or if you put it on an mp3 or iPod. Copyright infringement is the illegal use of another's product, no matter how you do it.

All makes sense to me.

Steven
Steven -

Again IANAL, but could there be a "fair use doctrine" exemption for the video in question? They probably used too much to be considered under that exception to copyright law, but just in case anyone is thinking of using that as an excuse...

[Desert_Seg]

Steven -

Again IANAL, but could there be a "fair use doctrine" exemption for the video in question? They probably used too much to be considered under that exception to copyright law, but just in case anyone is thinking of using that as an excuse...

Hmmm, interesting point but I doubt it.

As I remember "fair use" is limited to a narrow set of uses such as criticism, reporting, and / or research (there might be more) and, furthermore, you must clearly identify your source.

There is a specific section to the copyright laws regarding this and it does make it clear that any "fair use" defense has to be clearly non-commercial and the courts have upheld this more than once.

The big problem is that there is no clear demarcation between “fair use” and copyright infringement. Who determines "fair use"? Since infringement isn't dependent on a specific number of words or lines, and even one word can be construed as infringement (although that would be hard to prove!), it then comes down to the courts to determine "fair use"

BTW, identifying the source / owner of copyrighted material does not absolve you of infringement, even under the "fair use" doctrine.

Steven

[Segway Shawn]

iRwheelman and others,

It matters not whether anyone is losing any money. It is theft. It is wrong. It is simple.

It is theirs, not yours. If someone got on your Segway and rode it away you might be a tad miffed, right. You might say "Stop, Thief." You can say it is not the same. Well not to you, the thief. But to the owner it is. And Steven's numbers are probably low ball. The music industry is in crisis. It is because of theft.

The artists making money now have to do it by touring because of this problem.

Justify it in your mind all you want, however you want.


iRwheelman it is YOU that are seriously mistaken and very naive when you say no one is losing any money, no food from anyones mouth. I don't know what industry you are in but I find it appalling that you dismiss this the way you do. You say some Segway owner may even buy a Tool CD because of this. That is not the point.

The point is it belongs to them. They get to decide how they want to entice people to buy. You do not. Period.

As much as I like the video, Seg of NM is doing this as a commercial venture, to promote their product. I think this was innocent but now that the issue has been brought up it should be resolved correctly.

I do not know what that is. Maybe their method of notification is OK. But there are people that do know.

Marty


The crap is getting way to deep on this subject. If Tool or VanHalen has a problem with the videos then they will contact us. Until then....it stays up!

Say or post what you wish, be negative, call us thieves, bad people, etc. Post negative remarks on our Reputation if it makes you feel better.

Negativity takes its toll on the people spreading it regardless of the reason.

[pam]

Please step back and allow tempers to cool or I will have to lock this thread. This is simply a discussion about copyright infringement. If someone disagrees with you, that is simply that, a disagreement.
Pam

[KSagal]

I find this posturing interesting. People are making statements as if their opinion is some sort of policy, law, or stone carved doctrine...

I believe that the video maker sending a copy to the bands involved, and expecting them to react and give instructions as they see fit is at least reasonable if not absolutely proper.

I believe that name calling and title assigning can be counterproductive, and having been accused of it a time or two, can attest to the fact that once people dig in, it rarely goes well.

I also believe that there are large differences between a theif and a person who does take some intellectual property, but does not do it with the intention to defraud. Thevery is and active sport. I do not believe this qualifies.

I only recently even noticed the reputation blocks. (I believe it was PLO that brought it up to my attention, but I could be wrong) At the time it came into my awareness, the suggestion was made that people should give their identity, and I have done so ever since. I believe it should be required if you want to leave a lasting mark on another person's post...

Lastly, the music industry may be in a state of flux, and surely some will see that as a negative, but it is not alone. All things in the public eye, and especially those things that are available electronically, are changing drasticly. We are talking all things from information, to personal records, to custom software, as well as... well, everything else.

I do not believe that this video could rise to anything higher than a possible example of a symptom of the problem, surely not the cause.

These are just my own views. I speak for no others with this post.

[Desert_Seg]

My last post on this subject.

It matters not if there is malicious intent when one is infringing on a copyright. It also doesn't matter if there is commercial intent.

All that matters is if a copyright has been violated.

YouTube and MySpace had NO form of intent when they allowed users to upload videos with copyrighted songs. Neither made money from these uploads. Yet MySpace has already agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars as penalty and YouTube is expected to follow suit soon.

Who violated the copyright? Why the persons who posted the videos. Who has paid the fines? The hoster, who assisted in the violation.

Just because it seems harmless doesn't mean it is.

Steven

PS - Shawn also mentions Segway of NM in the video...therefore it is a commercial, not family, video.

[JaredHT]

Steven,

I was actually deleting my post while you were posting your response. So, if anyone's curious, that what Stevens comments were addressing.

Why did I remove my post? Honestly, I don't see a big deal here... but I'm also not even close to knowing enough about this topic to form an opinion that would in any way advance the discussion.

So, I'm just posting this so people can read Stevens post in the proper light. He was addressing inaccuracies in my post!

My last post on this subject.

It matters not if there is malicious intent when one is infringing on a copyright. It also doesn't matter if there is commercial intent.

All that matters is if a copyright has been violated.

YouTube and MySpace had NO form of intent when they allowed users to upload videos with copyrighted songs. Neither made money from these uploads. Yet MySpace has already agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars as penalty and YouTube is expected to follow suit soon.

Who violated the copyright? Why the persons who posted the videos. Who has paid the fines? The hoster, who assisted in the violation.

Just because it seems harmless doesn't mean it is.

Steven

PS - Shawn also mentions Segway of NM in the video...therefore it is a commercial, not family, video.

[hellphish]

So, am I allowed to make a music video for my own entertainment using a signed artist's music?

[Five-Flags]

So, am I allowed to make a music video for my own entertainment using a signed artist's music?

Technically, if you have legally purchased a CD with that track on it, you are allowed to store archival copies of that track or tracks in any form you desire. If that happens to be in an .avi file accompanied by moving pictures THAT IS NOT PUBLISHED, you are legal. However, publishing it in any way voids the archival protection & you are liable. IANAL, however this has been hashed over by RIAA before.

[hellphish]

I'm not allowed to show said archive to friends?

[gbrandwood]

Steven, this copyright thread isn't why you've changed your avatar is it? ;)

http://forums.segwaychat.com/gallery/albums/userpics/12974/grumpy.jpg

[Five-Flags]

I'm not allowed to show said archive to friends?

That's publishing it. You are no longer covered by the archival protection.:(

[hellphish]

What if someone looks over my shoulder while I'm creating it? You don't see what I'm getting at here, do you? There is a difference between a public performance, publishing, and personal use. Showing it to your friends is personal use. Printing flyers and having everyone come over is a performance. Publishing would involve making many many copies and spreading them around.

I'm sorry, but when I bought that CD, there was nothing in the license that said I was the only person who could listen to it. It doesn't matter if I play them the original or play them the archive.

[Five-Flags]

I'm sorry, but when I bought that CD, there was nothing in the license that said I was the only person who could listen to it. It doesn't matter if I play them the original or play them the archive.

That's an interesting point. I don't recall seeing that explicitly in the RIAA discussions. My take would be (reasonable man theory, I hope) that as long as you don't exceed the original license, you'd be okay. However, RIAA has been getting heavier handed (along with MPAA) as long as they get the rulings. Most people (even those that can afford Segways:) ) can't afford to fight the fight even when they're completely in the right. Multiple appearances, attorney's fees, continuances & tons of paperwork make it tough to persevere.

[hellphish]

Yes, I know how hard it can be to fight the record company. It is basically a suicide mission. Are you familiar with big-name producer Timbaland? This is a guy who makes his record company alot of money, which is interesting because it has been proven that he steal other people's music as the basis for his own. Not sampling, he uses a 20 second clip from a previously written song and repeats it, adding only drums. He failed to get the permission from the original author.

Funny that the record company complains about how copyright infringment is harming their business. With Geffin, it might be the BASIS for their business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4KX7SkDe4Q

When the basis of your business is stolen material, you are a pirate.
I wouldn't quite say the same of someone who is a fan and makes a homemade video.

When you put something on youtube, you haven't published it. You have shared it with your friends. Someone has to actively seek it out. It is impossible to 'walk by' and see a video playing, so it isn't a public performance. You have to request the data be sent to your computer.

[polo_pro]

I only recently even noticed the reputation blocks. (I believe it was PLO that brought it up to my attention, but I could be wrong) At the time it came into my awareness, the suggestion was made that people should give their identity, and I have done so ever since. I believe it should be required if you want to leave a lasting mark on another person's post.

Thanks for crediting me. I motivates me even further when people publicly mention how I've helped them learn something. In this case, it isn't the most pleasant topic, but I do think negative rep is a more constructive (and hopefully private) way of handling the politically nature of a forum. Otherwise we just end up sniping at each other in thread after thread.

I also agree that negative rep shouldn't be anonymous. But then recently I was dinged with an "I disapprove" on this very topic of educating people about how to do negative rep. Of course, the coward who wants everyone to remain ignorant also chose to remain anonymous. But because of the large number of rep that I lost, I've narrowed it down to a list of 10 or so people who could have done this. And your above post shows it wasn't you, so that list is now one shorter! Thanks Karl!!

ps - I imagine I could get Pam or another admin to dig around and reveal the identity of the person. But I like the challenge of figure it out for myself.

[drmarty]

The crap is getting way to deep on this subject. If Tool or VanHalen has a problem with the videos then they will contact us. Until then....it stays up!

Say or post what you wish, be negative, call us thieves, bad people, etc. Post negative remarks on our Reputation if it makes you feel better.

Negativity takes its toll on the people spreading it regardless of the reason.

Well you seem to be addressing me. As was mentioned earlier, you do not know whose property you stole. You assume it was the artist and that by sending it to them you were/are OK. But any number of people could be the actual owner. I do not know what you sent the artist. You may have said "We thought you might like this" but you may and probably should have said "Is this OK with you?" I doubt you did. Now if what you sent them was couched in terms like "Here this is" and they are not the owners I would think it more than likely that they did not forward it to the actual owners. Therefore your presumed permission gained only by sending a copy to them, is nothing of the sort.

So even if it could be claimed that you are in the clear because you furnished them a copy I would submit that only holds if you actually submit the copy to the real (legal) owner.

I said in my post I thought what was done was done innocently. You don't seem to believe me. Your choice.

It does make the distinction difficult because theft is theft. It is not yours. If you pull into a gas station and the pump lets you fill your car and does not register would you just fill up and take off? That is theft. Their product is gas. How about at the bank? You go up to the ATM and find it will give you $40 each time you press the buttons even without your card. Do you empty the machine? Hmm. That is theft. You can probably think up better analogies but you get the point. Their product is what? Music.

And I like your statement: "If Tool or Van Halen has a problem with the videos then they will contact us." Yeah, right. I am sure they are hanging on your every word. It reminds me of the joke. It has to do with how someone decides how much money to donate to the church. He says "I take all my money and throw it up. God can keep what he wants." Yeah, right.

My son in law is a Vice President at a recording label. The money that iRwheelman says is not coming out of anyones mouth is coming out of my grandson Isaac's mouth. And my little girl's mouth. And many others. It seems easy to be cavalier since it is just music. You can't touch it. But it is property and it is someone else's property. Try to think how you would feel if someone gave what you do away and dismissed doing it for whatever reason.

I do think the use was innocent. I don't know how to get permission if permission is needed. I didn't start this thread. I only added my personal feelings. I liked the video and think it is helpful from a Segway point of view. I was not calling anyone a thief but only pointing out what I think are moral issues with this topic so that we all can think about them. These remarks are not meant to be negative or positive toward anyone. I was hoping to use this as a stepping off point so in the future people will at least think these issues through.

Things seem to have gotten heated and that is unfortunate. Let's all relax and support each other and Segway.

Marty

[Timezkware Tim]

It matters not if there is malicious intent when one is infringing on a copyright. It also doesn't matter if there is commercial intent.

All that matters is if a copyright has been violated.



I thought I'd add something from my own experience. My wife is a musician and performer and a member of 4 unions associated with the performing and recording arts. I have heard the copyright issue addressed many times over the years.

Steven makes a very good point (see quote above). Copyright protection is not just about record sales. The artist who performs a song along with the writer and owner of the song have certain rights to their voice, image, and the material they create. It is their personal property. They may not want their material, voice or image on certain websites or recordings, and they have the right to have that protected.

If someone is recorded in a public place or their image is taken in a public place like the street, you can publish that photo anywhere, but a recording in a studio or theatre is protected material, and may not be reproduced without permission. You may even play a radio in your restaurant or store as background music, but if you play the artist's CD, you have to have permission from the owner/artist, which usually involves a fee paid to ASCAP/BMI.

Tim

[hellphish]

snip.. The artist who performs a song along with the writer and owner of the song have certain rights to their voice, image, and the material they create. It is their personal property. They may not want their material, voice or image on certain websites or recordings, and they have the right to have that protected.
snip..
Tim

I think it is important to note that the artist and the copyright holder are seldom the same person when a record company is involved. It is the copyright holder who has the 'right' to 'copy' or the right to put the material on websites, in CDs, on itunes store, etc. Not the artist.

[Timezkware Tim]

I think it is important to note that the artist and the copyright holder are seldom the same person when a record company is involved. It is the copyright holder who has the 'right' to 'copy' or the right to put the material on websites, in CDs, on itunes store, etc. Not the artist.

True. Thanks for that clarification, phish. Sometimes the artist is the copyright holder, but sometimes not. Anyway, the idea is the same. It is personal property.

Tim

[KSagal]

I can't help but feel there is some hipocracy going on here. I have never said that anyone should steal someone else's intellectual property, and I will not.

I have said that people here are using terms like theif, stealing, and others, yet no one knows if those are accurate, no one even knows if the owners are the artists or not, and who it is that should have been asked for permission.

It sounds to me like the self appointed jury has already come in with a guilty verdict, before the balif has announced if there was a crime or not!

Now, let's put this into a new perspective. There were some great examples offered by drmarty to help us do this. I will offer some more.

I have seen multiple threads on this forum about fishing the info key for codes to break into the segway and access information. I have seen multiple threads of all sorts of information leaks and other intellectual material that is clearly the property of segway, and no one here that is so outraged at a sound track behind a cool video stepped up to say that we should not steal segway's property!

It seems that we have a muti level standard when it comes to taking that which the owner has made clear they do not want out.

I also happen to believe that some things fit more into a grey area than others, as is the case with all things that are released into the public arena. Is music recorded off the radio still copywrited? I personally don't know, and no one need tell me. Is the chip in my car's computer full of GM's personal property? Or does that software belong to me because I bought it? I don't know that either. Formally speaking, if I sing a song in the shower, and my neighbor hears it, and is impressed (not likely) and signs me up on a professional tour, where I make lots of money, did I not inadvertantly make money by singing another person's intellectual property?

The world if full of these interesting delemas. It just seems to me that this particular topic of music copywrite is out of proportion to that we here on this forum have expressed on segway's right to their property, or to many other's rights.

I am not offering this to incite more negativity, just to point out that we all, myself included, sometimes go much further on one topic or another, and it may seem unfair to the person at the bottom of any particular heap. It would seem unfair because it is.

[Desert_Seg]

Karl,

Sorry but you are way off base here. I'm dissecting your post piece by piece and then, once again, I'm backing out.

...I have said that people here are using terms like theif, stealing, and others, yet no one knows if those are accurate, no one even knows if the owners are the artists or not, and who it is that should have been asked for permission.

Yes we do. Shawn stated that they sent a link of the video to the band, and, therefore assumed they had permission. Regardless of who is the owner (and unless Tool is an indie band it is the recording company) the band did not give permission to use the song.

It sounds to me like the self appointed jury has already come in with a guilty verdict, before the balif has announced if there was a crime or not!

By using somebody's property without their written consent it is copyright infringement. So, let's follow the bouncing ball here:

1. They used somebody's property
2. They don't have permission
3. Ergo, they are guilty of copyright infringement

It really is black and white.

Now, let's put this into a new perspective. There were some great examples offered by drmarty to help us do this. I will offer some more.

I have seen multiple threads on this forum about fishing the info key for codes to break into the segway and access information. I have seen multiple threads of all sorts of information leaks and other intellectual material that is clearly the property of segway, and no one here that is so outraged at a sound track behind a cool video stepped up to say that we should not steal segway's property!

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

One you purchase the Segway it, and all its internals, belong to you (much as when you buy a piece of software).

Any and all information generated by the Segway also belongs to you. Copyright protection does NOT extend to information generated by use. If it did Microsoft would have the right to almost everything posted on the Internet as the majority is produced on a computer that has Microsoft Windows on it, or generated via a Microsoft product.

I can try to snoop the key code all I want, or try to figure out how to read the logs. There is no problem with that, none whatsoever. What the owner / user of a Segway doesn't t have the right to do is to try to use the software so as to create their own Segway-type device using the original software (even slightly modded is a violation)

...I also happen to believe that some things fit more into a grey area than others, as is the case with all things that are released into the public arena. Is music recorded off the radio still copywrited? I personally don't know, and no one need tell me.

Well I'm going to tell you. Yes, if it was originally copyrighted and you record it (regardless of the source), then yes, it is a copyright violation. Do you know that radio stations pay a royalty every time they play a song on? They don't get to play them for free! (and if there weren't copyrights they wouldn't have to pay royalties, so I hope you see the tie in!)

Is the chip in my car's computer full of GM's personal property? Or does that software belong to me because I bought it? I don't know that either.

The software does, the data generated does not. (now you know)

Formally speaking, if I sing a song in the shower, and my neighbor hears it, and is impressed (not likely) and signs me up on a professional tour, where I make lots of money, did I not inadvertantly make money by singing another person's intellectual property?

Not at all...unless you sing another person's copyrighted material while on tour without their consent.

The world if full of these interesting delemas. It just seems to me that this particular topic of music copywrite is out of proportion to that we here on this forum have expressed on segway's right to their property, or to many other's rights.

I am not offering this to incite more negativity, just to point out that we all, myself included, sometimes go much further on one topic or another, and it may seem unfair to the person at the bottom of any particular heap. It would seem unfair because it is.

Nobody here has ever said they wanted to violate Segway's copyright. Yes, some have expressed desire to see the logs generated by their machines but that is their right and their property.

What is unfair is when somebody uses somebody's property, tangible or not, and he / she / others think it isn't a big deal. It is.

Steven

[KSagal]

Steven,

You know I like you, but you are being disengenous.

There have been several posts indicating that people would overwrite the code in segways for more speed, and would make it available to those who want it, if anyone could figure it out...

I'll not comment on the speed issue, just that no one was outraged and posted several pages of indignation about how segway owns that code, and that overwriting it (and offering the new program for profit) is stealing...

That is all I am saying. People are not being equal or fair in their condemnations.

Now, you have stated that the music was stolen or taken without permission, yet I read that the band's camps had responded favorably. Neither of us know exactly what that means. Neither of us know if permission was denied, but the owner nor the band, or both, or both the same.

Where is your statement if it turns out that Tool owns the music, and likes the video and does not consider themselves violated? That is just as possible as any other scenario.

My point may not have been well stated. I am not guessing if a violation occured or not, I am saying that those who have stated that one did occur cannot possibly know either.

The Park bench example is a good one here as well. I still don't understand all the factors in that one, but I like the example.

And like you, I am done with this. You and the rest of the jury can continue to answer questions that no one asks or that have been offered as example, and people told not to answer... All using assumptions and opinion, considering the significant lack of knowledge of the facts. There is no need to ask for the facts to come to light, since the conclusions have already been posted.

[drmarty]

Another thread that never dies.
Steven,

You know I like you, but you are being disengenous.

There have been several posts indicating that people would overwrite the code in segways for more speed, and would make it available to those who want it, if anyone could figure it out...

I'll not comment on the speed issue, just that no one was outraged and posted several pages of indignation about how segway owns that code, and that overwriting it (and offering the new program for profit) is stealing...

That is all I am saying. People are not being equal or fair in their condemnations.

Now, you have stated that the music was stolen or taken without permission, yet I read that the band's camps had responded favorably. Neither of us know exactly what that means. Neither of us know if permission was denied, but the owner nor the band, or both, or both the same.

Where is your statement if it turns out that Tool owns the music, and likes the video and does not consider themselves violated? That is just as possible as any other scenario.

My point may not have been well stated. I am not guessing if a violation occured or not, I am saying that those who have stated that one did occur cannot possibly know either.

The Park bench example is a good one here as well. I still don't understand all the factors in that one, but I like the example.

And like you, I am done with this. You and the rest of the jury can continue to answer questions that no one asks or that have been offered as example, and people told not to answer... All using assumptions and opinion, considering the significant lack of knowledge of the facts. There is no need to ask for the facts to come to light, since the conclusions have already been posted.

Well again I think we need to be more crisp in our logic. I am a doctor, not an attorney. The attornies have sorted all these issues out. Just because we don't kow the answers or because the answers do not seem to make sense to us doesn't mean they have not been addressed and more importantly to this discussion that the nuances have been sorted out to the best possible.

What follows is my opinion, not a legal one.

If someone takes the Segway code and reuses it on their own machine - no problem. If they take Segway code and use it to make modified code and put it on another machine - PROBLEM. If they, however, write new code that allows the segway to go faster - NO PROBLEM. You can put any software you write on your computer or sell it to anyone. You can't take Microsoft software, modify it, and sell it (or distribute it. You probably do not need to sell it to be guilty of Distribution)

Karl, I am sorry but permission is active, not passive (my terms) You say "Where is your statement if it turns out that Tool owns the music, and likes the video and does not consider themselves violated?" We all hope fervently that Tool does own the music and that they are not bothered by it's illegal use. BUT it is the users responsibility to get permission. And I bet you anything the law says very clearly that they need to get said permission before use, not after, and I bet it should be in writing. Earlier Seg NM said something to the effect that if Tool or Van Halen has a problem with what they have done then until they are notified IN WRITING to cease and desist the post stays up. How funny is that? They didn't get permission in writing before doing what they did but are demanding the parties (whose legal ownership has not even been established) and are the ones that are being damaged give them notice in writing before they will stop. Do you see the discrepancy here? They are almost upside down or backwards. It is the other way around.

In a small way this reminds me of the time when I was 16 and I learned that if I left the keys in my car and it was stolen and crashed, I could be held liable for the damage. I thought at the time, it is not their car. They know it is not their car when they get in it and the fact the keys are in it doesn't make it theirs.

This has gotten blown way out of proprtion. I do not want this construed as an attack on Seg NM. I do not know them. They seem to be great for Segway and I applaud that. I didn't start this thread but the issues are impotant to me as I have stated before. More over the logic in issues like this are interesting to me. I like to exercise what I can - my brain - when I can.

So, it seems simple. It (the music) was and is not theirs. They knew it was not theirs. That's it.

I think It really is that simple. Since it wasn't theirs they should have asked for permission to use it. Where is the hole in my logic?

I know everybody has fun making videos and putting music to them. I see them on the internet all the time. (People send them to me.) I don't think that is right but one major difference here is the people are doing it as a commercial venture. They hope to benefit from it. They are promoting their business. I feel no negativity to them and am not asking them to stop or remove the video. I am responding to the concept of copyright infringement and hope that this way too long reply to a way too long thread will clarify the FUTURE for us and help, not hurt.

Marty

I wish I could say I am done but I am probably not. I haven't seen what is in the future so I can't make that promise.