Internet Downloads

[Alarick]

Each song on an album is copyrighted, not just the complete album.
[right][snapback]78414[/snapback][/right]

What I was trying to say is that it is definitely legal to make a compilation. You are allowed to collect songs from albums you pay for and put them on a new CD.

It's typically called legal to give such a compilation to a friend.

I was attempting to point out where a grey area exists in this situation. It's legal to make a compilation, but maybe not a direct copy of a CD. It's legal to give a compilation away to friends, but maybe not a direct copy.

Even more complicated, if it's legal to give a compilation to one friend, is it still legal to give it to 100 friends? 1000?

A lot of the copyright law is just incredibly vague, and is, in my opinion, a poorly designed law in general.

[jahcs]

I have been reviewing some of the copyright laws and about the only one that is specific is regarding copying of software for the purposes of acrchiving.

Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is "archival" copy, not "backup" copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:
the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
you are the legal owner of the copy; and
any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.
You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).
    It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy.

After much searching I am unable to find anything saying you can or can't form a compilation of works and give it away. It does state the material contained in a compilation is protected by the copyright present on that original material. Reproducing a song for distribution is illegal so I fail to see the difference in reproducing many songs for distribution. These laws are a bit of a mess.

[Alarick]

I have been reviewing some of the copyright laws and about the only one that is specific is regarding copying of software for the purposes of acrchiving.
After much searching I am unable to find anything saying you can or can't form a compilation of works and give it away.  It does state the material contained in a compilation is protected by the copyright present on that original material.  Reproducing a song for distribution is illegal so I fail to see the difference in reproducing many songs for distribution.  These laws are a bit of a mess.
[right][snapback]78486[/snapback][/right]

I agree wholeheartedly that the copyright laws are a mess.

As for distribution, it depends on the definition. There are many, including the RIAA and other similar groups, that would like to define this as any sort of distribution, be it a single copy or thousands. On the other hand, there are large groups that have a more lax definition, and much more vague. Gifts given among friends may not be distribution, though there is no definied line to these people.

I know there are parts of copyright that allow for things such as compilations and other things. I believe it falls under the Fair Use laws, but I'm not 100% sure how those work. Those are a even more complicated section of laws.

Maybe some day I'll have to ask some pre-law major friends about the concept. I don't know how much that will help, as there are law school devoted to copyright and trademark laws. It may be a bit over all of our heads.

[jahcs]

Maybe some day I'll have to ask some pre-law major friends about the concept.  I don't know how much that will help, as there are law school devoted to copyright and trademark laws.  It may be a bit over all of our heads.
[right][snapback]78509[/snapback][/right]

I wish you luck in the search, for all our sakes. Even The U.S. Copyright Office website says that the fair use laws are unclear and not easily defined:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. 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 distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

[the Langolier]

It's typically called legal to give such a compilation to a friend.

Perhaps it is accepted as 'legal', but it is not. As soon as you give one copy away to a friend you have infringed on the rights of the artist to profit from that copy.

Even more complicated, if it's legal to give a compilation to one friend, is it still legal to give it to 100 friends?  1000?

It is illegal to distribute 1 copy, 100 copies, or 1000+ copies. There is no grey area.

It's legal to give a compilation away to friends, but maybe not a direct copy.

Still illegal.

But there is a problem. How can there be a law, save there be a punishment? If there is no punishment, would a man be afraid to break a law? Where is the punishment when an individual distributes one pirated CD? 100? 1000? Thus the grey area isn't in the ethics or in the law - it is more with the individual.

For instance, it is illegal to travel 1 mph over the speed limit, but there is very rarely a cop will issue a speeding ticket for it. In fact, the cop would probably pass you. Now, how much pirating/distributing would an individual or group have to do before they will be punished? Anything before the punishment the individual considers legal (because there is no punishment and therefore no law).

The law is crystal clear, but there is only one way to truly enforce it - we must as individuals enforce it on ourselves.

[Alarick]

Perhaps it is accepted as 'legal', but it is not.  As soon as you give one copy away to a friend you have infringed on the rights of the artist to profit from that copy.
It is illegal to distribute 1 copy, 100 copies, or 1000+ copies.  There is no grey area.
Still illegal.
[right][snapback]78653[/snapback][/right]

The information I could find is out of the law writings of the Copyright law.

The right a copyright owner has includes the right

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.

However, note that no where is the phrase "transfer of ownership" actually defined, and in legal speak, this may not include the process of giving it to someone else with no cost and not expectation of anything in return. They do define "financial gain" officially, but not "transfer of ownership," and as I'm not a lawer, I don't know the implications of this lack of definition.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that the law is sufficiently grey that one could make a case saying that, without financial gain, copies may or may not be 100% illegal or legal. The law is not well definied in respect to non-financial situations and situations involving "close family."

I do realize that this is a poor argument, and am not saying I believe it to be 100% reliable. However, it does point out some of the problems with the law.

The law is crystal clear, but there is only one way to truly enforce it - we must as individuals enforce it on ourselves.
[right][snapback]78653[/snapback][/right]

The law is far from crystal clear. As stated before, the fair use statutes just in the few paragraphs they contain are among the least clear laws that exist. They essentially say that you can use a copyrighted work if it's for a "fair" purpose. In particular, it's possible for a teacher to make copies of songs to give to the students for a class, and this could fall under the fair use clause.

The other problems with the law are that, first, the actual idea of copyright is something "made up" and have a bearing only on US hearings, and second, the law is dependant on the copyright owner pressing charges.
A copyright is "granted" as soon as a piece is created, and all one has to do is show that they created it first. Filing the copyright with the government only makes it "official" and allows it to be on record right away, so you can use that filing as proof. To further complicate the situation, a piece of music is copyrighted both in the actual music, and further in each specific recording of the song. The owners of these can be different people, too. In a situation where a recording of a song is played publically, there is little to determine which of the copyright owners of these two copyrights is the one that has the right to file charges.

In addition, because the law is based on the idea that it only grants the right for the copyright owner to file charges if he or she chooses, it leaves the question of whether something is really legal up in the air. Many artists want their work copied and shared to a small degree. How is the user supposed to know which pieces are legal and which are not? How is the user supposed to know if something advertised as "open source" truely is open source? These issues are not handled by the law.

All I want to point out is that the law is not well done, and in many cases it needs to be completely overhauled. In the current digital age, the long length of copyrights and the ability to transfer them means that pieces of software are literally being destroyed because no one has the right to keep an official back up, even if there is no company that exists to support it.

[jahcs]

The law is not as specific as it could be.

One small problem with your argument though:

You do not own the copyright. When you buy a CD that does not make you a copyright owner. It makes you the owner of copyrighted material.

The copyright owner has the right to make copies of his work and distribute it as he sees fit. The consumer does not. The consumer is normally allowed to transfer the ownership of his copy, not new copies of the work.

The right to make copies of a work is rarely granted to 3rd parties, which would be you as a consumer.

When in doubt about whether a copyrighted work is meant to be shared or regarded as "open source" the best course of action is to obtain permission from the copyright holder.

See my post on the specific application of the law towards backup copies of software. You, as the consumer, are allowed to make copies of software you own for archival purposes (a backup copy).

[Darian]

The other problems with the law are that, first, the actual idea of copyright is something "made up" and have a bearing only on US hearings[right][snapback]78669[/snapback][/right]

This would come as a complete shock to the 158 other countries who are signatories to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (which is, in terms of international law, a treaty).

[Jarulf]

Filesharing is perfectly legal.  The content that people usually share, however, is not legal.
[right][snapback]78135[/snapback][/right]

Actually, content can't be legal or illegal at all. It is the action one do with it that at times can be illegal. Some type of copying is illegal. Some type of offering of the content to the public is illegal.

From what I can gather, sharing any copyrighted material is illegal.

Anything at all that says that you can share anything you want as long as it is private is telling a pretty bold-faced lie.

I did a quick search, but found nothing official that says the truth in either direction.  On the other hand, I have a slightly higher than basic knowledge of copyright laws, and I know one of the protections of the copyright law is that the material cannot be distributed without permission of the owner.  This is where the legal issues sit.

[right][snapback]78141[/snapback][/right]

You do realise that copyright law differ between countries don't you? Many countries have limitations on the exclusive rights the copyright holder has, and exceptions. For example, in Sweden it is allowed to make copies to family and close friends so yes, I can share it among my family for example.

I suppose it is the US copyright laww you have read? You do know that it also contain several exceptions and such that makes an otherwise infringing activity to not be so.

Heh, is possession of a copy of stolen property nearly the same as possession of stolen property?  In the case of software, movies, and music I would think so.
[right][snapback]78355[/snapback][/right]

First of, software, movies and music if you look at it as the "work" (which you get copyright to) is not property, so you can't make any such comparisions. They can be fixed into a tangible, physical, material form (a copy, see for example US copyright law linked below), that is property. Ownership of those copies is completely unrelated to ownership of the copyright. I can own a book, yet not the copyright to it. As for copyright, most every country that has such a law has no exclusivness of "ownership" to copies of the work, hence possession of a copy (no matter in what way it was done, infringing or not, is not infringement either.

It's an interesting twist in the way copyright law is constituted.  When you buy recorded media -- let's use Windows XP as an example -- there are two ways to look at it which are mutually exclusive.  The first is to look at is as "I have just bought these CDs, which contain software.  The CDs are mine to do with as I please."  Obviously, Microsoft wants nothing to do with this view of things, so they accept the second view: "I just bought a license to use Windows XP.  The software is on these CDs.  I can do whatever I need to do to ensure that I continue to have the use of the software I've licensed, so they can't stop me from copying the discs in case I lose the originals."
[right][snapback]78354[/snapback][/right]

You are confusing "sales" which are covered by sales or consumer sales laws, and copyright laws. Copyright only handles a few exclusives rights of the copyright holder and related things. Typically they cover copying, distribution and making it available to the public. That is is. Normal "use" is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. hence you don't need any permision or license to use something. Sure, software creators might want you to believe differently, but that does not change the laws.

I have been reviewing some of the copyright laws and about the only one that is specific is regarding copying of software for the purposes of acrchiving.

[right][snapback]78486[/snapback][/right]

Your quoted section regards backups only (as part of the section 117). However, that is ONE of the cases only, clause 2. The first one allows it if it is "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". This removes the otherwise stupid (in my opinion), requiring special permision for copies created while running, installing or otherwise using a computer program. Many other countries have similar provisions, the swedish copyright law has and I can quote it if anyone is interested.

As for distribution, it depends on the definition.  There are many, including the RIAA and other similar groups, that would like to define this as any sort of distribution, be it a single  copy or thousands.  On the other hand, there are large groups that have a more lax definition, and much more vague.  Gifts given among friends may not be distribution, though there is no definied line to these people.
[right][snapback]78509[/snapback][/right]

But then, the important thing is what the LAW defines it as. In general, I would say that in most countries, it is distribution to the public that is not allowed, that it is often allowed to family and friends. It is often irellevant if you distribute 1 or 1000 copies though (although the peanlties and such can vary). COuntries that allows it for family and friends may also have restrictions on the number of copies, so even if you have a 100 member family, it would be to much.

The copyright owner has the right to make copies of his work and distribute it as he sees fit.  The consumer does not.  The consumer is normally allowed to transfer the ownership of his copy, not new copies of the work.
[right][snapback]78683[/snapback][/right]

Not completely true (about the copying), almost any countries copyright law allow some copying in various cases that are not considered infringement. So one can't make a blanket statement that "no copying allowed by consumers".




As promised, a link to US copyright law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

And for your swedish lurkers out there, here is the current swedish one:

http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19600729.HTM

[Raelynn]

Actually, content can't be legal or illegal at all. It is the action one do with it that at times can be illegal. Some type of copying is illegal. Some type of offering of the content to the public is illegal.
[right][snapback]78867[/snapback][/right]

I'd have to disagree here. If a site has a piece of content that is an unreleased work, i.e. film still in the movies or a game before public release, that content is in fact illegal. You do not have any right to own that content and just having it can get you in a lot of trouble. It doesn't matter if you share it at all.

[Jarulf]

I'd have to disagree here.  If a site has a piece of content that is an unreleased work, i.e. film still in the movies or a game before public release, that content is in fact illegal.  You do not have any right to own that content and just having it can get you in a lot of trouble.  It doesn't matter if you share it at all.
[right][snapback]78873[/snapback][/right]

I don't think it matters if it has been released or not. You also say that just "owning" it is illegal (from a copyright point of view). Could you please find some reference to were in the copyright law it states so! And what country you refer to. I am not aware of any such, although I admitadly don't know every copyright law of the world.

[Darian]

You are confusing "sales" which are covered by sales or consumer sales laws, and copyright laws. Copyright only handles a few exclusives rights of the copyright holder and related things. Typically they cover copying, distribution and making it available to the public. That is is. Normal "use" is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. hence you don't need any permision or license to use something. Sure, software creators might want you to believe differently, but that does not change the laws.
[right][snapback]78867[/snapback][/right]

Uhh... my quoted comment didn't even address your right to use material for which you have purchased license to. Not in any way. If you purchase media which is protected by copyright, you are entitled to use it (personally, at any rate; you cannot legally buy a copy of a movie on DVD and then charge people to come watch it on your gigantic big-screen TV, for instance) in any way you see fit. That has absolutely nothing to do with the laws regarding making copies of that material, which is the only thing I was addressing in my comment -- so I'm completely lost as to what you think I'm confused about.

[Jarulf]

Uhh... my quoted comment didn't even address your right to use material for which you have purchased license to.  Not in any way.

The quote contained among other things:

"Obviously, Microsoft wants nothing to do with this view of things, so they accept the second view: "I just bought a license to use Windows XP. "

Which clearly mentiones "license to use".

My point is that there is no such thing as "license to use" under copyright laws since copyright laws does not forbid ordinary "use" or give it as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. You need licenses or permision to do things you would not otherwise need, like to make new copies.

If you purchase media which is protected by copyright, you are entitled to use it (personally, at any rate;

Yes, but you do not need any special license to be able to do that.

you cannot legally buy a copy of a movie on DVD and then charge people to come watch it on your gigantic big-screen TV, for instance) in any way you see fit.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the laws regarding making copies of that material, which is the only thing I was addressing in my comment -- so I'm completely lost as to what you think I'm confused about.
[right][snapback]78928[/snapback][/right]

Yes, for making public display of works you do indeed need such a license as well. I was refering to "use" which was one of the things you commented on, even in this second post by refering to "for which you have purchased license to"!! My first reaction when seeing that, I ask, license for what??? My normal reaction is to reply saying there is no need for a license to use from a copyright perspective. It is the sale which transfers ownership of things, in this case a copy of the program, that gives you all the rights needed.

Hope you understood me better now.

[Darian]

The quote contained among other things:

"Obviously, Microsoft wants nothing to do with this view of things, so they accept the second view: "I just bought a license to use Windows XP. "

Which clearly mentiones "license to use".[right][snapback]78931[/snapback][/right]

Actually, it clearly mentions "just bought a license," with the main key word being "just." It's very helpful to take an entire sentence within its own context rather than nitpicking a word which is sort of semantically null. When you purchase a software license, just what is it you think you're licensing it for? To NOT use?

Of course, that's not even relevant, as your argument's actually incorrect; as the copyright owner, Microsoft can most certainly license the use of their software as a condition for distributing the software to a consumer -- because the method of distribution is completely under the control of the copyright holder. That's why there's legal boilerplate on every piece of software you've ever purchased which basically says, "You agree that you're only purchasing a license to use this software." And I'm pretty sure Bill Gates didn't get rich hiring dummies to work in his legal department.

Hope you understood me better now.

[Jarulf]

Actually, it clearly mentions "just bought a license," with the main key word being "just."  It's very helpful to take an entire sentence within its own context rather than nitpicking a word which is sort of semantically null.

I quoted and commented on your whole section of text (in the first post). You then posted saying you had not mentioned license to use, so I quoted more specifically and now you say I should not have done that???????

  When you purchase a software license, just what is it you think you're licensing it for?  To NOT use?

You purchases a copy of the software, there is no need for any license at all to use it (although a whole lot of software makers want you to believe so, but please feel free to find in the copyright law were there is a requirement for it or any place that makes it not possible to use software without a license or permision from the copyright holder. That is all I have pointed out.

Of course, that's not even relevant, as your argument's actually incorrect; as the copyright owner, Microsoft can most certainly license the use of their software as a condition for distributing the software to a consumer

Again you are mentioning "license to use". There is no need for such a thing to use software though. If I have bought or otherwise got hold of the software (in most countries in a legal way) I can use it at will without needing a license at all since there is nothing that forbids me to do it to start with!!! If you know about such a thing in any copyright law (or other law) feel free to point it out since it would be interesting to know about it.

[Darian]

I quoted and commented on your whole section of text (in the first post). You then posted saying you had not mentioned license to use, so I quoted more specifically and now you say I should not have done that???????[right][snapback]78934[/snapback][/right]

Quoting and commenting on an entire section of text does not in any way imply that the commenter has understood the section of text in question. I note that you completely ignored the explanation of why you misread the meaning, which sort of means to me that you're just looking for someone to argue with and are unable to say, "Oh... sorry, misunderstood."

Nice.

You purchases a copy of the software, there is no need for any license at all to use it

In the sense that there's no freakin' point buying software you CAN'T use, that's accurate in a logical and sensible sense -- but it has nothing to do with law.

(although a whole lot of software makers want you to believe so, but please feel free to find in the copyright law were there is a requirement for it or any place that makes it not possible to use software without a license or permision from the copyright holder. That is all I have pointed out.

Unnecessary. You don't have the right to do anything with any copyrighted material except those things which are explicitly granted to you by the copyright holder. Certain rights are implied, obviously, but while you're sitting here asking me to tell you where in copyright law you are "required" to be given a license to use material, you're missing one very important point.

The only place in copyright law (US copyright law, anyway) where the consumer's "right" to "use" any copyright material whatsoever is addressed at all is in the "Fair Use" clause... which, of course, doesn't even specifically refer to the rights of someone who's purchased a copy of a copyrighted work anyway! "Fair Use" covers you even if you haven't purchased the material, and has very specific limitations.

There is not one single statement in US copyright law which describes what rights you, as the consumer, have when you purchase copyrighted material; there is not one single statement in US copyright law which restricts how the copyright holder may distribute their work.

If I have bought or otherwise got hold of the software (in most countries in a legal way) I can use it at will without needing a license at all since there is nothing that forbids me to do it to start with!

Yeah, legally, there is. The copyright holder controls the work, and controls the means of distribution, and additionally has the right to determine the means of use of their work.

(For example, a software company can sell you a license to use their software, such license being revocable if you use that software to do... well, pretty much anything they don't want you to do with it. If you were to violate that agreement, the software company would not come and demand that you turn over the installation CDs, ya know. They'd get a court order forcing you to cease... doing what with the software? It's a three-letter word...)

Now, on a practical level, as I've already previously acknowledged, if you go buy a piece of software it's implied that you're going to use it. But the copyright holder most certainly can impose restrictions on your use of that software, and that is why they can most certainly require you to agree to license terms.

[Raelynn]

I don't think it matters if it has been released or not. You also say that just "owning" it is illegal (from a copyright point of view). Could you please find some reference to were in the copyright law it states so! And what country you refer to. I am not aware of any such, although I admitadly don't know every copyright law of the world.
[right][snapback]78916[/snapback][/right]

Own is a bad word. I really meant something along the lines of possess, because the material is never really owned by anyone except the copyright holder.

I'm not sure of the charge that can be put against you, but in America, possessing unreleased material is illegal. I think it's similar to getting a moving violation ticket if you parallel park on the left side of a two way street here. You may not be parking illegally, but you had to cross to the the wrong side of the road to park that way.

Since the material has not been released at all in any legal capacity, possessing it means you had to come across it through illegal means.

[Alarick]

The only place in copyright law (US copyright law, anyway) where the consumer's "right" to "use" any copyright material whatsoever is addressed at all is in the "Fair Use" clause... which, of course, doesn't even specifically refer to the rights of someone who's purchased a copy of a copyrighted work anyway!  "Fair Use" covers you even if you haven't purchased the material, and has very specific limitations.

There is not one single statement in US copyright law which describes what rights you, as the consumer, have when you purchase copyrighted material; there is not one single statement in US copyright law which restricts how the copyright holder may distribute their work.
Yeah, legally, there is.  The copyright holder controls the work, and controls the means of distribution, and additionally has the right to determine the means of use of their work.

(For example, a software company can sell you a license to use their software, such license being revocable if you use that software to do... well, pretty much anything they don't want you to do with it.  If you were to violate that agreement, the software company would not come and demand that you turn over the installation CDs, ya know.  They'd get a court order forcing you to cease... doing what with the software?  It's a three-letter word...)

Now, on a practical level, as I've already previously acknowledged, if you go buy a piece of software it's implied that you're going to use it.  But the copyright holder most certainly can impose restrictions on your use of that software, and that is why they can most certainly require you to agree to license terms.
[right][snapback]78935[/snapback][/right]

Darian is right here. The Copyright Laws are designed to tell what rights the copyright holder has over those articles which he or she has created. In defining these rights, certain rights are not given to those who purchase or otherwise acquire those works.

I speak about US law, since that is where I have most of my experience in relation to copyrights. The law soecifically states that only the copyright holder can create copys, unless specific permission is given from the holder. As Darian stated, the holder of the copyright has the right to determine how a work is distributed.

In regards to licenses, this means the copyright holder has the right to say everyone must purchase and renew licenses in order to use the software. This is less common is things such as Windows, but if you use high end software such as SAS or SPSS, you do lose the ability to use the software without renewing the license. This is the right of the copyright holder to do.

[Jarulf]

Quoting and commenting on an entire section of text does not in any way imply that the commenter has understood the section of text in question.  I note that you completely ignored the explanation of why you misread the meaning, which sort of means to me that you're just looking for someone to argue with and are unable to say, "Oh... sorry, misunderstood."

Nice.

So, instead ot telling me that I should not quote all of itt after having told me to not quote a too small part just to end up meaning I don't understood what you wrote, why not instead telling me what you actually meant though and what I missunderstood?

In your post I replied to, you said that copyright had an interesting twist and mentioned two ways to look at it. I wanted to comment on the part you called "Microsoft's view" stating that it is not a particular bad or correct view since the "use" part of their view has nothing to do with copyright. Any such thing is related to sales and transfer of ownership though. To this you reply that your comment didn't even address the right to use, so I quoted again a smaller part just showing that. Now, tell me what I have missunderstood!

In the sense that there's no freakin' point buying software you CAN'T use, that's accurate in a logical and sensible sense -- but it has nothing to do with law.

I assume we talk about the copyright law, since all other discussions has been about it. My question from previous posting stands though, show WERE in copyright laws use is forbidden and given as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. It would be interesting if you found such a new hidden exclusive right of the copyright holder.

Unnecessary.  You don't have the right to do anything with any copyrighted material except those things which are explicitly granted to you by the copyright holder.

I have seen many erroneous statements about copyright, but this one takes the price. Have you ever read any copyright law? Or just a few text or information regarding copyright law at all? It is pointless discussing something with someone that doesn't even know the basics. I have allready posted a link to the US copyright law since I believe you might live there. Let me quote the part of the law though that tells what rights are given as exclusive to the copyright holders. It is found in chapter 1, §106:

Code:

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.

That is it. Anything not listed above is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder and can be done by ANYONE! Notice particulary how "use" (or any related action) is not listed.

Some comment to the above though. First of, the exclusiveness is not completely exclusive, there are many exceptions were you can actually do some of the above without it being infringement. That is told about in other parts of the copyright law.

The part about derivative work deviates from how it works in many other countries and is more restrictive in favor of the copyright holder in USA.

Certain rights are implied, obviously, but while you're sitting here asking me to tell you where in copyright law you are "required" to be given a license to use material, you're missing one very important point.

The only place in copyright law (US copyright law, anyway) where the consumer's "right" to "use" any copyright material whatsoever is addressed at all is in the "Fair Use" clause... which, of course, doesn't even specifically refer to the rights of someone who's purchased a copy of a copyrighted work anyway!  "Fair Use" covers you even if you haven't purchased the material, and has very specific limitations.

You have missunderstood how the copyright law is structured and worded. As I mentioned above, it works the other way arround from what you think. The paragraph i quoted above is the one that give rights to the copyright holder. All other things you do is free to do by anyone. The fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It covers cases when you do one of the actions exclusive to the copyright holder and which would otherwsie have been infringement. For you to apply the "fair use" there first have to be an infringing action and the fair use is a defense to that infringement turning it into a non infringement. For anything you do that is not an infringement, there is no point at all to go to fair use.

There is not one single statement in US copyright law which describes what rights you, as the consumer, have when you purchase copyrighted material; there is not one single statement in US copyright law which restricts how the copyright holder may distribute their work.

Agreed, and the reason is that without the law, any action would be OK by anyone. So the copyright law works the other way arround, gives some rights exclusively to the copyright holder (and thus anything else is OK to everyone else). There is no need to list the basically endless number of things a consumer can do since he can do anything not specifically given as exclusive to the copyright holder.

How you distribute things have nothing to do with copyright (it doens't cover it either in case you want to search), it is typically coverd by for example (consumer) sale laws or contract laws.

Yeah, legally, there is.  The copyright holder controls the work, and controls the means of distribution, and additionally has the right to determine the means of use of their work.

(For example, a software company can sell you a license to use their software, such license being revocable if you use that software to do... well, pretty much anything they don't want you to do with it.  If you were to violate that agreement, the software company would not come and demand that you turn over the installation CDs, ya know.  They'd get a court order forcing you to cease... doing what with the software?  It's a three-letter word...)

Now, on a practical level, as I've already previously acknowledged, if you go buy a piece of software it's implied that you're going to use it.  But the copyright holder most certainly can impose restrictions on your use of that software, and that is why they can most certainly require you to agree to license terms.

I have allready commented this and how it is wrong above, several times actually, just not cutting it away to avoid confuctio and being accused of cutting things out or missquote.

[Jarulf]

Darian is right here.  The Copyright Laws are designed to tell what rights the copyright holder has over those articles which he or she has created.  In defining these rights, certain rights are not given to those who purchase or otherwise acquire those works.

See my reply above to Darian were I quote the law on what rights are given to the copyright holder. Use is not one of them. Feel free to search for it though and post if you find anything.

I speak about US law, since that is where I have most of my experience in relation to copyrights.  The law soecifically states that only the copyright holder can create copys, unless specific permission is given from the holder.  As Darian stated, the holder of the copyright has the right to determine how a work is distributed.

We were neither discussing the copying, nor the distribution but the use. It was the text about use I commented about in Darians initial post, nothing else.