Copyright Laws

May I ask how can you make money of it?
By creating something like Napster?

It still sucks though. What incentive is there for an artist, writer, or other form of 'creator' to produce anything worthwhile when they're not going to get paid for it? Yes, yes, I know the whole 'artist's soul drives them to create' argument, but as an aspiring writer myself, I deal with this everyday. I mean, honestly, why spend a lifetime honing a craft only to die in poverty, since once the first copy hits print, it's freely available to every schmuck on the planet with an internet connection?
Personally, I think the internet is contributing the demise of worthwhile art... feel free to disagree, of course.
Cheers.

I think you've addressed part of the conundrum that faces artists... Only a select, worthwhile, loyal, noble few will be willing to pay for art. The rest will download it instantaneously, revel in it's glory for a few short seconds, and then click the next link.

Libraries and the need it being more than just publically sharing something. Chapter 10 that deals with Digital media formats.

The first quote lists what a library needs to be, by the definition of the law. If all of those pre-requisites are met in any form then it is a library.

Chapter 10 is irrelevant since it specifically states that Libraries are exempt from all of the other laws if they follow the stipulations of the law (only one extra copy).

I'm not a lawyer but I was under the assumption when laws are created anything not explicitly stated in them is open to interpretation and thus is not "technically illegal" until shown to be.

Also don't let the RIIC lawsuits prove a precedent since in none of those cases the distributors attempted to defend themselves as a "library".

What are yo utalking about Brian? Stealing peoples work is illegal. The Copyright laws stop books from being available on the internet freely.

Making a copy of something isn't "stealing" anything. If you wrote a book and I borrowed it, wrote it word for word and then gave you back the book, I didn't steal anything. Or heck, if I bought that same book and copied it and then gave my copy to someone, the owner still has the original.

You cannot just place peoples intellectual property on the Internet and allow others to use it/copy it etc. Thats against the law and taking this slight bit of that law out of context does not make it legal.

That's debateable. Let's say my friend e-mails me a hilarious original joke. Do I need his permission to put it on the internet. Under copyright laws the joke is his "intellectual property." Your telling me it would be illegal if I posted this joke on the forum without his explicit approval?

I think you've addressed part of the conundrum that faces artists... Only a select, worthwhile, loyal, noble few will be willing to pay for art. The rest will download it instantaneously, revel in it's glory for a few short seconds, and then click the next link.

I feel that artists should not have to rely on their own devises to make money. Since it will be the agent, the publisher, the distributor who will make the most money off of your work, and you will get pennies on the dollar. Artists shouldn't rely on art as their sole means of income, since art exists outside of the capitalist system. Rather artists should receive patronage and grants in order to continue their craft that they have dedicated years to.

Also it is completely irrelevant that your work is put online "legally" or "illegally" since even if it is illegal people will still do it. People would not copy your work if they didn't like it. Perhaps people have limited funds and cannot afford the 12 dollars for your cd or the 8 dollars for your book or even the hundreds of dollars for your painting. Your saying that you wouldn't want these people to enjoy the work you put so much effort into. Of course there are a select group of people who will just take and take without giving anything back to you. But I think these people are fewer than you think, since if someone has a good product you will support it.

Anyway I find copyright enforcement to be assinine at best and vindictive at worst, it is one of the last bastions of elitism that punishes people for being unable to afford something, and keeps them uneducated by means of denying them information. Also the penalties for copyright violations are ridiculous. I can steal someone's car and if caught will pay less than 10,000 dollars for the violation + the cost of the car if it's irrevocably damaged. But if I download songs that equal the cost of said car, then I will be sued for millions of dollars even though the artist has lost nothing on my copying of songs.

Also I would like to state that I am an aspiring writer as well and feel that copyrights should only indicate that no one else can claim my work as their own. I would be fine if I made no money off of my work as long as others read it and enjoyed it, since writing to me will never be a full-time job. If someone only creates art for profit then it's hardly art at all.

In the case of non copyrightable material, fine.

You do understand that under US laws there is no such thing as non copyrighted material correct. In fact even this post of mine is protected under US copyright, since it covers all intellectual property from the moment "the pen leaves the paper".

This i disagree with. You will find that it is covered in the Law. You just aren't a lawyer.

So using the law at hand prove to me what I'm missing, relevant quotes as I have done in my first post, instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

As for other lawsuits, i think its a bit silly to believe that someone wouldn't have tried this previously as a defence before hand. Or for this to have not been published widely elsewhere, and to find itself ammened.

If it was amended it would appear in the law, since it is the governments website.

So I'm pretty sure in US Law, this is also illegal. You cannot freely give out copies of other peoples work.

But you can give out one copy. And then another library can give out another and then another library can give out one more copy, ad nauseum.

....or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy....