The problem in the U.S. is that the 'finite amount of time' listed in the constitution has been growing longer, retroactively, since the Fifties. Copyrights that were created under a 14 years + 14 years regimen have been updated, retroactively, three times now so we have a copyright in excess of a century on these same items.

So, is it 'finite' if the time copyright expires is always "Someday Soon" but never "Today"?

"Tomorrow, Tomorrow, this copyright expires . . . Tomorrow, it's always a DAY A WAYYYYYYYYYY!"

Jonnan

This is basically determined by the contract between you. Some firms might allow reuse with permission, they are not obligated to do so unless the contract specifically permits you to reuse. This exact situation happened here a few years ago over a set of plans for a high school being built from the same plans as another one a couple miles away. IIRC the archetect settled out of court for a somewhat reduced fee on the second use.

As for the contracts, I'd be willing to bet the contract your lawyer is working under very specifically allows this. Most likely your company paid him to purchase the rights to that work, not just for permission to use it.



I seem to remember a court ruling that shot that particular claim down. I'll try to look it up for you when I get home, I might be remembering it incorrectly. On the other hand, if iTunes allows me to do it, it can't be illegal, right?

Drawings are done for a specific project...and your paying for them is 'for the rights to use them as necessary to complete that project'.

If you use them in ANY WAY what-so-ever outside of that process you violate their copyright.

Example....If it is deemed totally unnecessary for you to show those drawings to your brother [he has nothing to do with the building project/further documentation/quantity surveying/etc] then you are making use of those drawings outside their ststed purpose.

"This drawing is the property of Paul Martin and shall not be used or communicated in any form without his prior written consent".

I've used that line for 35 years.

1. The Architect can rightly sue for a second fee.

2. Much the same as 1., but there may be dispensation/release for multiple usage.

Typically you pay for the rights to use the plans once.

The purpose of use is to construct the project.

Generally speaking that does not even extend to the rights to re-sell the plans [to someone who buys the property and wishes to complete the project you have paid for].

Joe Sixpack building two houses in rural nowhereville would just laugh to himself and say "OK, whatever." and do it anyway. I know because I'm Joe Sixpack and I've done it.

Just like Joe Pirate will say "OK, whatever." and share files over the sneaker-net if the media companies get even half of their bought-and-paid-for legislation passed into law. At least until the public outcry from Little Johnny getting sent to prison for ripping songs to his ipod results in said laws being overturned.

Seriously, Stardock has the right approach to combating piracy, nothing else will work EVER. In contrast, laws such as this will probably create more pirates than anything,
(much the same as draconian DRM does) as the easiest way to ensure that someone WILL do something, is to tell them they CAN'T.

Good for you.  Fortunately you haven't 'done it' with my drawings....and you won't be.

Not in this lifetime.

Just illustrating the fact that laws are useless and impotent if they don't have public support. In cases where the number of people not in favor of said laws are vastly larger than those in favor of them, it would seem to me that there is a problem with the laws and not the people.

I always felt that if I paid for something, I get to use it (for personal purposes) how I want. Not distribute to others. I want to be able to listen to my music whenever I want, whether I have the CD or not.

Recently I lost the contents of my HDD, including my Guild Wars soundtrack and the DRM encryption keys for it due to no fault of my own. Is that fair to me to now be deprived of the music I paid for? Similarly I scratch my DRM-disk of Civ4 or a music CD I purchased - can't I use the fact that I already purchased it and get a new disc at a reduced cost? After all, I cannot play the game without the CD any more, so I am deprived of something I paid for. Do I need to re-license the software because the copyright holder makes more money that way?

The OP said "where suspected copyright infringers". Does this include me making my own content and distributing it? Or downloading something that is indeed completely legal via BitTorrent? Is the fact that I "may" be infringing enough to brand me a pirate? BitTorrent has encryption built in. I download a Linux ISO. Given that they cannot easily determine what I transfer, how is this different from me downloading via the same client a copy of Sins, from a traffic point of view? Will I first be sued by Stardock and then cut off, or will I be cut off and then have to go to court to prove my innocence?

You want the Music company...or game company to compensate you when you 'lost the contents of your HDD'?

Why should they?  THEY didn't 'lose the contents', you did.

How is this any different from...'I did a clean-out and inadvertently chucked out my Music/game....that I owned/paid for...so I want the companies to replace them for me'?

The solution is simple...in BOTH instances...you kick yourself in the arse for being an idiot...and go out and buy it/them again....

No, I don't want compensation. But I ALREADY paid the games company (I have the original scatched disk). Is it now unfair to ask for a replacement for the cost of the disk + shipping and a recovery fee? How is that compensating me in any way?

What if the music CD is no longer available (a 90's CD), or a 3-yesr old game. Now I am just out of luck, I suppose. After all, they have my money and have no need to worry about my purchase ever again. I will just spend more of my money on them.

In this I think Stardock is correct. If you lose the CD you should be able to re-donwload the game you paid for before again. At least that's my understanding of Impulse.

Which is exactly whats wrong with the entire scenario, as you should by default have the morals to respect other people, and not be some asshole looking to do as you please.

I would expect kids to grow out of the rebellious attitude by college, not to keep it up! But then, in the 50's, kids were spanked, were told what to do, and listened. Our lovely hippies who let them do what they want are honestly responsible for millions of murders by kids.

Millions? Wow. I didn't know you have massive Murdering Kid Armies roaming the countryside, wiping out entire cities! Man! That's horrible! And here I thought that hippies actually were about, you know, make love not war, no guns, just flowers, such things.
I didn't know they were actually secretly training their children to form death squads of mass destruction...

Not having read all the comments, and just commenting on this statement, I agree. I think this is a case where the lobbyist have gotten more power than they merit based upon public support.

That is not to say Pirating should be legal, only that the DRM group has gone too far in trying to ferret out pirates. To the point that they are making criminals of law abiding citizens. The hope by the DRM group is that this will go unnoticed. Fortunately they are wrong.

I think his point is that lack of discipline, due to said hippies, has had a major effect on delinquency. I think he was also using a literary device known as "exaggeration", so your sarcasm neatly cancels his out

sounds like darchknight2008 has some moral issues of his own taking in others OPINIONS and slandering them looks like to be one of your major hotspots. This whole topic is opinion based.

But anyways, arguing this topic is like trying to argue about politics, religion, and abortion (which are the 3 top things you NEVER argue about, as they have no resolution). Every person has there own opinions. This is exactly how laws come into effect, by opinions. The opinion (or bill) works its way up the chain by finally getting ratified into a law. BUT as has happened before, laws do get changed and ammended. (for those of you that are older im sure you remember schoolhouse rock and "The Bill" episode )

Simply stating that a law is right doesnt make it right, its just a majority summation of what your countries/government decided on. Also what alot of governments dont do is enforce the current laws they already have. Instead they come up with new ones to try and cover up the loopholes in the current system.

Considering that the US government is flawed all to hell, theres no real law that can stay in effect without finding a loophole in the system (i.e. finding a non-educated judge in the topic, current rulings that have already been upheld etc). When a guy falls through a sky light of the house he was trying to rob, sues the owner of the house, and WINS the judgement, that right there tells you that there are major flaws in our so called "Court System".

As for the law, its going to be more time wasted than what they get out of it. Theyll just have to write several other laws that companies have to abide to, companies will then have to adhere to certain rules and data retention policies, and personal privacy is then washed out the door for good.

And also, I for one download games via bittorrent, I try them out. If I like them, I buy them, same goes for music. If I dont, I deleteit, does this make me a thief, again, its all from a personal, opiniated perspective .

And as for the missing music, CD getting scratched post:

If I already paid for the game, I WILL download another copy from bittorrent or some other ways of getting it. What you buy a is a personal license to hold said property/Intellectual Property, not that you can only own 1 physical disk.