Wocka-Wocka... He's at it again!

[Mistersuperstar]

It's down to the fact that copyright is there to protect the creator of whatever the copyright is holding. If the person who created something and then copyrights the idea, it is up to the person themselves to make sure that their idea isn't being stolen and if it is, to report it to the appropriate authorities. Most of the people using this forum have broken some kind of copyright law whether it is downloading a copyrighted picture, downloading an MP3 file (if you have been to Sylinde Bren's "Muppet Music" site), if you have ever borrowed a VHS or DVD movie or CD from a friend, if you have ever uploaded a video that you haven't made yourself to YouTube or another video host or if you have recorded something that was on TV and kept it for longer than 1 week.

 

[Bear Man]

To me, it's no different than buying a cd, ripping it onto your computer, and then burning a copy to keep and listen to in your car. Shouldn't you have to buy another copy if you want to keep one in your car?

There are provisions within copyright law that allows for back-up copies and copies for just this sort of reason to be be made (dependent on your country of residence)

Say Joe bought a $2.00 Matchbox car at Wal-Mart. If he sells it on eBay for $3.00 (plus s&h), isn't he technically breaking the law? He's making a dollar profit on something that isn't his.

Joe is re-selling merchandise he owns. His dollar profit IS on something that is his, a physical piece of property. If he were to cast the car and sell copies of it, for any price, he is breaking the law, since he is profiting from research, development, and design that is not his.

The arguments about mp3 and YouTube etc are (surprise, surprise) going around in circle. Kevin the Frog, no one is arguing that others aren't breaking copyrights, and I've said myself that I think the trading of mp3s that go on on this board is wrong. But just becasue one form of copyright violation is tolerated on this board doesn't mean that it's ok - and I'm talking about ANY copyright violation. I don't know how Muppet Radio gets away with playing these songs - they might have an agreement with Henson/Sesame/Disney, they might be blatently breaking copyright, there may be some legal loopholes that allow it. Copyright law is exceptionally complex, there are provisions around fair use, parody, etc. I don't think that anyone here knows the full intricacies, even copyright lawyers aren't sure of them (which is why there is legal action between Google/YouTube and various entertainment companies - each believe they are within their rights). I think what we can all agree though, is that it is very clear that selling copies of a copyrighted property is prohitbited under the law.The distribution of a copyrighted property without a license is illegal. It doesn't matter whether you are making a profit, loss, or breaking even. That's why this thread frustrates me so much - it's not a discussion, merely people restating the same things over and over (myself included!)

 

[Mistersuperstar]

It's occured to me that even out Avatar's are breaking some copyright policy. Using an edited and copyrighted image without the consent of the licence holder.

 

[spcglider]

Some people like name-brand merchandise and some don't. Sorry...that's supposed to be a joke to lighten the mood.

This brings something else to my mind....
How can eBay be legal AT ALL? What I'm getting from this conversation is that these people are breaking the law by making a profit off something that they don't hold the liscense to?

Say Joe bought a $2.00 Matchbox car at Wal-Mart. If he sells it on eBay for $3.00 (plus s&h), isn't he technically breaking the law? He's making a dollar profit on something that isn't his.

Well, right there you have the crux of the sitaution.

Joe bought the car. He bought a brand-name item and has re-sold it as that self-same item. No problem. That's the passing of tangible property.

If Joe had bought the materials, tooled up a mold, manufactured a car, and sold his fake car under the name "Matchbox", he'd be breaking the law.

If Joe had bought the materials, tooled up a mold, manufactured a REPLICA of an existing Matchbox car, and sold his rip-off car under the name "Matchbox", he'd be breaking the law.

What you're talking about above is commerce. It's what every retailer does every day. They buy from a wholesaler and mark up the price and sell to a consumer.

What we're talking about is making fake items that appear to be the real thing or "steal" a copyrighted design.

If Joe had manufactured HIS OWN design and sold it under the name "Joe's Toy Cars", he's be creating HIS OWN copyrighted, trademarked intellectual property. And if the Matchbox company tried to copy his designs, HE could sue THEM for IP infringement.

-G

 

[Mistersuperstar]

But how about if he used the same design as the original "Matchbox" but didn't advertise it using the "Matchbox" name, is he still breaking the law? In other words, this guy who is creating rip-off Muppet relicas, if he created an exact replica of a Muppet but didn't advertise it as a Muppet but gave it his own name, would he still be breaking the law?

 

[JHartnow]

Avatar's for sale...

It's occured to me that even out Avatar's are breaking some copyright policy. Using an edited and copyrighted image without the consent of the licence holder.

Not unless you are trying to sell your avatar, Mister. It's okay, though...I know that grasping copyright law, infraction and infringement can be super stressful. There is much at stake when judging other people's ethics and moral viewpoints. The great thing about this nation is that we're the land of the free. The bad thing about this nation is that we're the land of the free. Sorry, Sam.

 

[spcglider]

It's down to the fact that copyright is there to protect the creator of whatever the copyright is holding. If the person who created something and then copyrights the idea, it is up to the person themselves to make sure that their idea isn't being stolen and if it is, to report it to the appropriate authorities. Most of the people using this forum have broken some kind of copyright law whether it is downloading a copyrighted picture, downloading an MP3 file (if you have been to Sylinde Bren's "Muppet Music" site), if you have ever borrowed a VHS or DVD movie or CD from a friend, if you have ever uploaded a video that you haven't made yourself to YouTube or another video host or if you have recorded something that was on TV and kept it for longer than 1 week.

Being from the UK, your copyright and trademark laws may differ from those of the US.

Now, if our replicator of Muppets was living in, say, Singapore this all would be for nothing. American IP laws are NOT international. And many foreign nations do not officially recognize them.

And you are completely correct, Mistersuperstar. All of the above is illegal.

But just because one person breaks the law doesn't mae it okay for another to do so. And just because we cannot possibly address or solve the problem of copyright infringement on all fronts and in all cases simultaneously does not preclude us from doing the right thing when we can.

-G

 

[Mistersuperstar]

Now, if our replicator of Muppets was living in, say, Singapore this all would be for nothing. American IP laws are NOT international. And many foreign nations do not officially recognize them.

Okay, pretend this guy lives in Singapore, if someone in the US decided to buy one of his replicas and have it sent to himself in the US, who would be commiting the crime?

 

[Mistersuperstar]

But just because one person breaks the law doesn't mae it okay for another to do so. And just because we cannot possibly address or solve the problem of copyright infringement on all fronts and in all cases simultaneously does not preclude us from doing the right thing when we can.

But how far can each of us be expected to go out of our way to prevent these things from happening? It would be like individuals policing the streets because the Police can't cope with all the work. I wouldn't expect somebody else to do my job, that I get paid for, just because they liked me.

 

[spcglider]

But how about if he used the same design as the original "Matchbox" but didn't advertise it using the "Matchbox" name, is he still breaking the law? In other words, this guy who is creating rip-off Muppet relicas, if he created an exact replica of a Muppet but didn't advertise it as a Muppet but gave it his own name, would he still be breaking the law?

The rights that Disney owns over the Muppets include their liknesses. Or any likeness that a normally ignorant observer would mistake for the original. And that would be a decision for a court to make. But when the replicator proudly represents his "product" as being so very similar in appearance to the original, it's not too much of a decision.

In answer: yes. He's breaking the law even if he calls it "The famous green frog variety show host" or "The comedian Bear". He'd be breaking the law even if he called them "Puppets of no particular copyrighted character".

-Gordon