- Aug 6, 2011
- Reaction score
All of those are covered under private use.But once I download the bundle, where is the link that guarantees me such right granting applies to me?
If the bundle was by some personal, non legal reasons dropped from OHM, I still have the rights to keep using that bundle?
Its defensible under the Copyright Act such kind of implicit licensing? Or in other words, The TOS of the site I download something can be used a licensing terms of the material I downloaded from them? It's this licensing terms still valid if the content is withdraw from the site?
And, this is the most important part, on what grounds you uphold your responses for my questions?
(links, quotes, anything - please educate me)
Yes.By your means, you are implying that as long I do not distribute, it's perfectly ok to use Software under Copyright infringement?
Am I allowed to use a Pirated Copy of Microsoft Windows to run Orbiter, as long as I do not further distribute it?
Why do people get in trouble for torrenting? Is it because that Game of Thrones episode sitting on their hard drive is illegal? No. People get in trouble for distributing copyrighted material, which happens whenever you torrent.
For an example, I had to agree that I read the following for college:
Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material...is a violation of US civil and criminal law under the federal Copyright Act
Not unauthorized use, not seeing Emilia Clarke without subscribing to HBO, but unauthorized distribution is what is illegal.
For another example, see this article on pirated Windows 10.
Microsoft clearly knows which copies of Windows 10 are pirated, they have the ability to put watermarks on your screen. If it really was illegal to use copyrighted products, wouldn't Microsoft just find your IP address, report to the police (who would find your house through your ISP), and arrest you instead of just putting a watermark?
In that article there's a quote from the Microsoft executive vice president of operating systems:
Not "non-genuine Windows has a chance of you getting arrested or sued", but just non-support and higher chances of viruses.Non-Genuine Windows has a high risk of malware, fraud, public exposure of your personal information, and a higher risk for poor performance or feature malfunctions. Non-Genuine Windows is not supported by Microsoft or a trusted partner
Moreover, as the US Government site on copyright points out:
That was the original definition of infringement, which hinged on how many copies were made.Infringement is a crime only where it is done “willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 17 U.S.C. § 506(a). The penalties for criminal infringement, set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, are determined by its extent: if the infringer has made, in any 180-day period, ten or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of $2,500, the crime is a felony entailing up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.
The No Electronic Theft act amended this to:
The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" (17 USC 101), and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. In addition, it added a threshold for criminal liability where the infringer neither obtained nor expected to obtain anything of value for the infringement – "by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000
All of these definitions hinge on reproduction.
No idea. I put the burden of proof on you, to find a case where someone got sued because of private use. I doubt it exists, but prove me wrong :thumbup:And, more important, the paper you link (interesting reading) is Law Abiding? Ms. Jessica Litman interpretation of the Law is usable over USA borders?
Now, and IMHO, we need to address the use rights from people from other countries too. Such law interpretation is valid on EU?
They don't have to grant you the right to private use.
As to later, yes, that doesn't grant you the right to "fork" or create a derivate work. Github's TOS lets you create a "Github fork" which is different than what we generally mean with "fork".
That is an example where a clause in the TOS can allow a website to operate (everyone needs to grant the write to push the fork button).
I'm starting to feel like this is just trolling. So many arguments have been answered and countered. So I'm sorry to OF for feeding the trolls, if that is the case.