The TRUTH about copyright law

[Crazy Tejano]

Though the RIAA and the United States government would have you believe that using winamp skins is illegal, let me resoundingly tell you that its not. The same goes for software backups. If I copy the Windows XP CD and make 100 copies and give them away as free(must be free), it is legal, though Microsoft would undoubtably sue. However, after demonization and perhaps some cover up, I would inevitably win. Administrative Law, which is the scope of most current copyright law, is subject to overrule (not in a strict sense) by the Supreme court, Constitution, and early copyright statutes. To make a long story short, if an individual uses the correct definitions in their case, and they indeed gave away the material in question for free (meaning no ads were on a website that people downloaded it from...could be construed as commerical involvement), then the typical administrative laws won't apply - constitutional law will- this includes the preemptive assumption in ANY licensing agreement, which is that the user engage in commerical use. You see, copyright law and licensing, despite being heavily bastardized by administrative agencies, still retain their most important aspect; that it is illegal to copy copyrighted material if and only if commerical use is made of it. THAT is the truthful conclusion that is utterly irrelevant in the courts due to their opening assumptions and unknowing acceptance of administrative rules.
From a realistic standpoint, I have indeed practiced what I am preaching - unforunately, the cases are never won or lost as the judges unconstitutionally concern themselves with judicial precedent rather than the ACTUAL statute and common law, thus, they merely dismiss the case with no charge, and then complain to the BAR that the lawyer is causing trouble. Its unfortunate that our court systems have become similar to France's, but doubly so when considering the average lawyers ignorance of true law.
I challenge anyone versed in the law to attempt to refute my claims - though I hope you don't mind being incorrect.

[Xerxes]

I think he's a Crazy Tejano...

[Crazy Tejano]

In answer to the first question, yes, I am an attourney of constitutional law. Though I am currently practicing, most of my time is spent teaching seminars to lay people on how to defend oneself in court on charges regarding constitutional, administrative, or criminal law. My law degree focus was tort law; I shifted gears to constitutional my last year of law school.
To respond to he who thinks I'm crazy; well, many judges think so as well. But my case record says otherwise. "I am one of those guys who tells you not to pay your taxes"...I don't know where to begin to respond to such brainwashing tripe. The IRS loves you my boy. But Joe Banister, an ex-IRS agent who runs a website questioning the constitutionality of income tax finds your naivity repulsive. Perhaps I could direct you to the We the people foundation, with membership in the millions , who also are actively involved in reforming tax law.
But that is merely a tangential note, and not the point of my post. I find it very unfortunate that the youth are so ill-informed on legal issues. But I suppose thats why so much money is extracted from them, and why their message board replies (why I waste my precious free moments here I know not) are merely rejective and insulting rather than thought oriented or thought provoking. Please understand my friends, that when companies sue for copyright, the government is eager to invoke criminal law as well, for the simple reason that they can make you pay a fine, which means income. I've been practicing law for over 10 years and have fought companies, police departments, government agencies, and individuals. The section that lies and deceives the most, especially in the public sphere, is government agency; for those iniated in studies of law, they know that these are undoubtably extra-constitutional. If you wish to have a TECHNICAL legal argument for the issues surrounding copyright law, feel free to email me as I have tons of informational packets.
My final point is almost apathetic. If today's youth classify ANYONE, including lawyers (like myself), laypeople, legal counselers, judges, farmers, gun-shop owners, small business owners, large business owners...etc as a loony, simply for invoking the constitution in their affairs, then why should I even take the time to show them their error. I suppose the public schools of today have done a wonderful job in creating the ignorant, consumption oriented, mob mentality, "international citizen". The more unaware you are of your legal surroudings, the easier it will be to control you (and don't expect our plethora (read:2) of news company conglomerates to actually inform you of the truth.)

[Bilbo Baggins]

How much do you charge for your services?

[Bilbo Baggins]

Am i the only one to sense a cynical air after Watadoos post? ;)

[fwgx]

Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
How much do you charge for your services? Steady on there, that was a bit up front wasn't it? ;):p

[Xerxes]

I personally think the guy got fired from that "Texas Justice" courtroom show and he's just venting :p

[Bilbo Baggins]

Originally posted by watadoo
Before during and after, Baggins. I just hate arrogant fuckwits.

Ok, me scared now..


Originally posted by Phily Baby
Steady on there, that was a bit up front wasn't it?

Hey, you know me :D

[Bilbo Baggins]

Plenty do :D

[Bilbo Baggins]

I know that. I won't get a complex, but if i randomly assault you in the near future (and bodily fluids are not exchanged between us) then I am not to be held responsible :D

[Bilbo Baggins]

No no! Mercy! I beg you not to send that Craaaaaazy Tejano round!

[firewire]

The range of intelligence in these forums amazes me.









Yes I did have to check the spelling of intelligence.

[fwgx]

The ammount of knowlege the people here poses amazes me. Dont ever make fun of these guys they'll answer any question you ask as long as you ask nicely.

Heck i just read someone talking about quantum physics.

Oh and if you ever need any help with guitars or overclocking and computer cooling, I'm yer man :)

[jolujogat]

But can you overclock my guitar?

Heh, just kidding.. shame I bumped this thread up, the post before this one is the only good one :) (and mine of course heheh)


P.S. I don't even own a guitar, I just couldn't resist :)

[fwgx]

My mate ended up crying after his attempt at overclocking his monitor by 2" didn't work ;)

[earthsound]

originally posted by Crazy Tejano
considering the average lawyers ignorance of true law.
I challenge anyone versed in the law to attempt to refute my claims - though I hope you don't mind being incorrect.

originally posted by watadoo
If lawyers with your pov actually start winning some cases and allowing people to NOT have to pay taxes you can start making arrogant claims such as that.

FWIW, CT's original claim had nothing to do with paying your taxes, but, rather, concerned constitutional/administrative/copyright law wrt copying copyrighted material for non-commercial use. When he did reply to your paradigm of not paying income taxes, he mentioned "reforming tax law", and never said you could get away with not paying taxes. IMO, his logic was clear and concise, which hardly qualifies him as a "fuckwit". :rolleyes: Maybe you should reread the first few posts...

PS: Learn to stick to what is said. Your disputation will be much more cogent. :)

[mindofka]

All that you write i think is relative to the topic, but not of the copyright about skins, maybe law in general.
All Right, there are all the faces of the coin.
I know, as diplomated in visual communication and illustration recently and met some guru as teachers, that everything that is published is of public domain (not know about sites, i think here the law is still uncertain..), photos on magazines and articles are free to be citated or reproduced as work of talent(genius), as collage or graphical and video works, i think a skin is something of a kind.The question is how far can be this right in the cause you just take a photo on which someone spent bloody hours and put it as it is on a skinner, or you really create something different using a photographic or image in general source in a personal context far away from the original .There is too the question of the fanart, and the fact that all this is true in Italy, but I'm not 100% sure of this for the USA .
Did Andy Warhol paid the royalities to Campbell......maybe....

[Bilbo Baggins]

Lets all play the "Revive dead threads" game!

[DJ ANTarctic]

And your point is...?

[Bilbo Baggins]

The point is that this thread died many moons ago. To bring it back from its grave could prove an untimely mistake that will seriously alter the world that we live in. This is only the beginning of a long long path.

[mindofka]

we all shiver in fear:D

[DJ ANTarctic]

ouch. we need an entmoot 'bout it.

[josti]

Lets return to the topic: what if he's right? if they cant catch you on giving away something totally free??? I wonder if this is true, because the MPC project (musepack, mp+) is going shareware, because they must pay for their use of the iso-mpeg standards. stupid if they want to give it away free, and they whould be able to, according to our craaaazy loved one...

another 2 cents, this time on topic :D

[Naamloos]

Originally posted by josti
Lets return to the topic: what if he's right? if they cant catch you on giving away something totally free??? I wonder if this is true, because the MPC project (musepack, mp+) is going shareware, because they must pay for their use of the iso-mpeg standards. stupid if they want to give it away free, and they whould be able to, according to our craaaazy loved one...

another 2 cents, this time on topic :D

No this isnt true because you are not allowed to share your copy with someone else without having the permissions

[DJ ANTarctic]

prove it. tell me the law, and the exact words, that say that you are not allowed to share your copy for free without permissions.

[Naamloos]

Originally posted by DJ ANTarctic
prove it. tell me the law, and the exact words, that say that you are not allowed to share your copy for free without permissions.

I've only got the dutch version of it :)

[josti]

what our craaazy friend says is that, although they are forbidding you to share it, they actually CANT! because, als long as you give it away totally free, even without banners on a site or whatever, it is allowed. according him...


To make a long story short, if an individual uses the correct definitions in their case, and they indeed gave away the material in question for free (meaning no ads were on a website that people downloaded it from...could be construed as commerical involvement), then the typical administrative laws won't apply - constitutional law will- this includes the preemptive assumption in ANY licensing agreement, which is that the user engage in commerical use.


whould be nice :)

[DJ ANTarctic]

Originally posted by Naamloos
I've only got the dutch version of it :)

:rolleyes: post it anyway. i have a translator. :D

[josti]

Originally posted by DJ ANTarctic


:rolleyes: post it anyway. i have a translator. :D

and I'm dutch myself... quite sure I can read it ;)

[DJ ANTarctic]

so post it in dutch and i'll translate it so the whole world can see it.

[Nat_roy]

So, whos up for a game of monoply? Lets see if that Crazy Tejano can swindle the bank of all its money.

[DarthBoettcher]

Hey Tejano, perfect examples of the lack of education and proper thought. I didn't ever attend law school, yet I still find it important to do things like browse the Michigan Compiled Laws database, and other such things, looking for the laws that apply to my actions. Reading some of the comments in this thread has completely pissed me off at how little people actually look beyond there nose...

[mikm]

If you are agreeing with Crzy Tejano, I would LOVE to see a copy of a law that states I can legally make copies of Windows XP and give them away for free. I just checked the Microsoft EULA, and it seem to state that you can only make one (1) copy of the CD for backup purposes only. It also states that you may only install it on ONE computer (except if you have a site license).

[DJHotIce]

LOL, this was quite an essay, Noval type material if it was written slightly longer!

[SkyDaemon]

Hmmm. Think way back to the original challenge from "fuckwit". I would add two things.

First, I would ask you to prove to me that giving something away free does not constitute "a commercial use". Especially if done in a mass manner. Not that I want to waste much time thinking about it, but I wonder if a clever lawyer could find another definition loophole to bring you back under the original law. Especially when you've got a court that wants your opponent to succeed. I wonder if you could be deemed to be taking on a non-profit organization status by opening up full distribution on the internet to unknown parties, essentially providing a service even if it is free, and whether that would be commercial involvement consistent with the activities of a non-profit organization. If so, and the courts let that slide, any non-profit org would even be free to charge to cover their costs of administration and sell copies of pirated software. I suspect you'd get absolutely killed in a courtroom through some other definitional argument. Admitting the above would be opening the US to total decimation in the softare and probably *******eutical industries etc. Picture china wiping out all software sales legally overnight. You'd have to be damn solid on every word, you wouldn't be getting any benefit of the doubt. If not, I wonder if your argument would skirt whatever passes for contract law in the states. Generally you agree to a license agreement of some sort which generally prohibits copying as part of the usage agreement. So while offering copies for free may be legal, your continued usage of the software in violation of the license agreement (after giving away free copies) would be illegal.

(Tip: Judges like it when you dance in like a prick, stomp on the spirit of the law with technicalities, put entire high profit industries at great risk for ideological reasons, and then dare them to prove you wrong.)

Second, I'm uncertain about the US, but in Canada it is perfectly valid for judgements to base themselves on precedent. Here they are considered every bit as much a part of the law as the formally written laws. A carryover from our England roots I believe. Basically it is another arm of evolving justice that in theory attempts to adjust to match what the current wisdom "of the people" is on what constitutes reasonable application of the laws. Then again, Canada's laws are littered with catch-all clauses and vague references to decisions that any "reasonable person" would make. As I understand it, the US is more prone to sticking to the letter of the law, and if you find a loophole that allows you to legally shoot someone, then you're allowed to open up a business doing that.

PS fuckwit: You're exactly the type of lawyer that all the jokes were made about. A real gem in your profession. I wonder if you could get disbarred from numerous public complaints about your blatant public advertising of apparent rampant injustices and widespread use of technical loopholes to avoid proper justice which are apparently all supported by the legal system. All the while flaunting your legal credentials as proof that it is true. Inciting public distrust in the legal system by posting unsolicited inflammatory remarks on a public forum isn't the kind of thing I'd expect to go over well with your bar association or whatever you have down there.

[whitie6969]

u realize no is goin to respond this thread is dead, crazy probably hasnt been here for two years

[rfc1394]

The original poster has no idea what he's talking about.

There is a statute on the books created by Congress called the "No Electronic Theft Act" which adds criminal penalties for copyright infringement even where there is no commercial gain in the copying.
17 U.S.C. § 506
§ 506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
2. 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, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

18 U.S.C. § 2319

§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000;

Actually, three or four years ago his statement would have been correct, but now, copying more than a small number of copies of a work, or making copies of a work exceeding a certain monetary threshhold in value, is a criminal infringement even though the party copying makes no money off the copying.

This came out because some guy had a website where he posted warez and allowed people to download various programs. Someone sued him or they tried to prosecute, but it was discovered that if the works are not sold, there is no criminal infringement.

That is no longer the case.

Paul Robinson

[nesNYC]

There are a lot of laws that were illegally imposed on the American populace, one such giving the U.S. government the right to directly tax your "income." The constitution says they can't unless done with apportionment relative to population and expire every year. These laws must then be re-introduced and go through the legislative process to stay in effect. So why do we have the IRS and why are their statutes enforced when the U.S. government has NO jurisdiction in any of the 50 States?

Go here for answers:
http://givemeliberty.org