VolvoHeretic
Well-Known Member
Same as above, can I download anything from the inernet for my only personal use?
Question; If it's on the Internet, is it legal to downloan for personal use?
- Thread starter VolvoHeretic
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
VolvoHeretic
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't be for personal money gain, just personal use.
fotno
Lunatic Member
Legally that doesn't matter. It belongs to someone else. Publicly profiting from the use of these properties makes you a lot easier to catch, but simple possession of intellectual property is enough to get you in trouble if the owner is so inclined.
To keep it simple: If it belongs to someone else, and you haven't paid for it, or requested and been granted permission to use/possess it, then it's not legal for you to use/possess it.
To keep it simple: If it belongs to someone else, and you haven't paid for it, or requested and been granted permission to use/possess it, then it's not legal for you to use/possess it.
pilotprose
Active Member
This same issue came up back in the early 70's, prior to there being any real internet. The problem arose, when a college, rented out tapes with a news broadcasts recorded on them. They was a huge court issue where the college simply stated that the rental fee was for the upkeep for the tapes. No go, the transferr of money was involved in it and royalities were not being paid for the rebroadcast. Had they just given out the tapes, there would have been no problem, even if the material was copy righted. You see this warning even now a days on the photo copy machines in Walmart and Rite Aid informing you that copyrighted material cannot be copied for commerical use, period. Therefore, if you download something off of the internet and use it at home for personal entertainment, no problem or if it is old enought to be in the public domain and it is no longer "owned" by anyone. I had a heck of a time when it came to looking for music to back up a commerical when it came to its production. There is, of course, folks out there that will supply you what you need, with no legal hassles involved, for a fee. A CD with generic, no descript, non-owned music cost us anywhere from $35 to $70, depending on the type of music you wanted. Worst of all, you don't get the whole score, only soundbites of a predetermined length. The same applied to screen shots of well known artists and photos of prominent people. Hope this answers your question. Home use, no monies involved, no problem. Just don't put anything together and have a crowd over to view it and there may be an issue since that may be considered commerical use.
The other caveat would be stuff that's legally provided for free by the copyright owner - such as a manufacturer's web site having owner's or service manuals available for download.
That said, the likelihood of a copyright holder getting upset about a 50 year old schematic is rather low. Proceed with caution, and YMMV.
(not legal advice, BTW. just an opinion based on observation.)
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
By and large, without proper license to do so (and typically these are only licenses, granting usage rights and not ownership per se), no, you probably have no right to download it.
Information specifically in the public domain (e.g., expired copyrights or uncopyrighted content, expired patents, etc.) should be free of usage restrictions. Some companies (apparently) deliberately did not copyright their owners manuals, e.g., presumably to ensure access to the information in perpetuity while not requiring the company to do anything. Dynaco and EICO manuals, e.g., were not copyrighted and are available in the public domain. Heathkit has maintained its ownership of its manuals and other intellectual property - some years ago, the large stockpile of Heathkit information on BAMA (Boat Anchor Manual Archive) was removed when the current incarnation of Heathkit decided to enforce its copyright.
Information specifically in the public domain (e.g., expired copyrights or uncopyrighted content, expired patents, etc.) should be free of usage restrictions. Some companies (apparently) deliberately did not copyright their owners manuals, e.g., presumably to ensure access to the information in perpetuity while not requiring the company to do anything. Dynaco and EICO manuals, e.g., were not copyrighted and are available in the public domain. Heathkit has maintained its ownership of its manuals and other intellectual property - some years ago, the large stockpile of Heathkit information on BAMA (Boat Anchor Manual Archive) was removed when the current incarnation of Heathkit decided to enforce its copyright.
Last edited:
If there's a valid copyright, the holder has the right to make copies, authorize others to do so, sell them (or whatever he wants to do with them). You DON'T have that right, though there's a limited and vague "fair use" exception for excerpts to be used for educational purposes.
Copyrights on printed material previous to 1964 have expired unless they were renewed. Later ones have a much longer life... Heatkit's copyrights have NOT been renewed to the best of my knowledge, despite claims of "ownership" by certain parties...
Copyrights on printed material previous to 1964 have expired unless they were renewed. Later ones have a much longer life... Heatkit's copyrights have NOT been renewed to the best of my knowledge, despite claims of "ownership" by certain parties...
sebrof
Super Member
What are you talking about downloading?
If its not copyrighted there is a good chance that you can copy/download for your personal use with no worries. depends on what you're talking about.
fotno
Lunatic Member
Folks, word of warning.
This thread should not be viewed as an opportunity to share techniques and strategies for "getting away with doing something illegal." That goes against the AK spirit of "No Attitude" and our policy against supporting or endorsing illegal activity. I've already edited one such post, no more please.
This thread should not be viewed as an opportunity to share techniques and strategies for "getting away with doing something illegal." That goes against the AK spirit of "No Attitude" and our policy against supporting or endorsing illegal activity. I've already edited one such post, no more please.
MWalt
Super Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but here in the US it is illegal to offer material for download (fileshare), but not illegal to actually download. For example, if one were to offer an MP3 for download, and then others downloaded it, then that person would be held liable. Those that did the download and did not fileshare would not have participated in illegal activity.
If I am understanding this correctly (and that is a big "if") then a torrent is illegal to share, but not to download. If I am out to lunch please correct and educate me.
If I am understanding this correctly (and that is a big "if") then a torrent is illegal to share, but not to download. If I am out to lunch please correct and educate me.
fotno
Lunatic Member
Both sides of the activity are illegal. That's why they're called "illegal downloads." Now you won't go to the electric chair if you get caught with a few thousand music files that you illegally downloaded, but you'll damn sure miss the money the judge makes you pay the copyright owners and the court in fines.
Not to mention, at the root of the issue, taking what ain't yours is theft.
Not to mention, at the root of the issue, taking what ain't yours is theft.
fotno
Lunatic Member
Yes. Artists rarely solely own their copyrights. Look at some sheet music sometime. The artist(s) name will be there, but so will the name of the publishing company. And even when an artist is the sole holder, upon their death their copyrights then belong to their estate like any other piece of real property.
FYI - For those who might be contemplating waiting till these works become public domain, don't hold your breath. In the U.S., copyright extends 120 years from the date of creation.
FYI - For those who might be contemplating waiting till these works become public domain, don't hold your breath. In the U.S., copyright extends 120 years from the date of creation.
drknstrmyknight
Addicted Member
Both those offering copyrighted material for download and those downloading it (or their parents) have been prosecuted. The vast majority of music files available for 'free download' are pirated. Thought there are some bands which offer up some material to the public, if you're not getting from their site, you don't know.
You can make a copy of music or videos that you have obtained legally for your own use, but you cannot distribute those copies to anyone else. If you sell or otherwise dispose of the original media, legally you must destroy any copies made from it.
In addition to some bands, Itunes and some of the HiRes music vendors make some cuts available for free from time to time, which are perfectly legal to download.
You can make a copy of music or videos that you have obtained legally for your own use, but you cannot distribute those copies to anyone else. If you sell or otherwise dispose of the original media, legally you must destroy any copies made from it.
In addition to some bands, Itunes and some of the HiRes music vendors make some cuts available for free from time to time, which are perfectly legal to download.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
First, I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. This is not legal advice, this is my opinion.
If I leave my bicycle in my front yard, and you walk by, can you take it? Not legally. It's my property, even if I didn't lock it up. If it's in the trash can, can you take it then? Sure, I've abandoned it. What if someone else takes my bike from the front yard and puts it in the trash and THEN you come by, see it in the trash, and take it? Technically, it's still illegal; I did not abandon it, even if you do not know that.
Well, let me put it this way. I am a photographer. I post many of my photographs on Flickr, with a 'Creative Commons' copyright (mine is listed as 'Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs'). That means I am giving everyone the right to use my photographs for 'non-commercial' use, if they give me attribution and do not make other images using my images as a starting point. That means you could put one of my photos in your blog, for example, as long as you say you got it from me (attribution) and you don't make money on it (you do not sell my image) and you don't alter my image.
Since it's my image, I have the right to put whatever conditions I want to on the use of it. I could, if I wanted to, make it a standard copyright, no use at all. That means no, you can't use it, not even for personal use, without my permission. It doesn't matter where you found it.
There have been a couple of misleading statements in this thread about copyright. First of all, in the USA, a work is copyrighted automatically. When I take a photograph, it is copyrighted by me, and I don't have to do anything. It belongs to me, it's my property. And I can enforce my copyright in court; I do not have to file a copyright registration with the government in order to do so.
However, copyright law in the USA says that if I want to sue for punitive damages and not just actual damages, then I have to have registered my copyright prior to the infringement. It's easy to do and doesn't cost much, but most copyright lawyers won't take a copyright case unless the copyright is registered. If you don't register, you still have the copyright, that's automatic. I've had a few arguments with people who think if you don't register your copyright, anyone can use it. They are wrong.
And I can prove they are wrong, and I can prove how well I can defend my copyright. Every couple of weeks, I scan Google using a special tool that finds people using my photographs from Flickr. If it is a commercial site, I send what is called a DMCA Takedown Notice to the service provider of that website. You know what happens next? The website goes DOWN. The owner of the website it informed of the claimed infringement and is told what they have to do to get their website back (remove the image or pay me for the use of my photo on my terms). If they remove the image or write me a check, then I give the ISP permission to bring the website back up. I don't have to go to court, I don't have to sue, I don't have to file a police report. Use my photographs commercially without my permission, and I'll shut your website down (assuming it is in the USA).
So when it comes to what you find on the internet, I don't think you can automatically assume that whatever you download is yours legally. I can think of many cases where that is not the case. Sometimes it depends on how you use it, but sometimes it is just not allowed, period. It all depends.
If in doubt, consult an attorney. No one here, to the best of my knowledge, and including myself, is qualified to dispense legal advice.
If I leave my bicycle in my front yard, and you walk by, can you take it? Not legally. It's my property, even if I didn't lock it up. If it's in the trash can, can you take it then? Sure, I've abandoned it. What if someone else takes my bike from the front yard and puts it in the trash and THEN you come by, see it in the trash, and take it? Technically, it's still illegal; I did not abandon it, even if you do not know that.
Well, let me put it this way. I am a photographer. I post many of my photographs on Flickr, with a 'Creative Commons' copyright (mine is listed as 'Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs'). That means I am giving everyone the right to use my photographs for 'non-commercial' use, if they give me attribution and do not make other images using my images as a starting point. That means you could put one of my photos in your blog, for example, as long as you say you got it from me (attribution) and you don't make money on it (you do not sell my image) and you don't alter my image.
Since it's my image, I have the right to put whatever conditions I want to on the use of it. I could, if I wanted to, make it a standard copyright, no use at all. That means no, you can't use it, not even for personal use, without my permission. It doesn't matter where you found it.
There have been a couple of misleading statements in this thread about copyright. First of all, in the USA, a work is copyrighted automatically. When I take a photograph, it is copyrighted by me, and I don't have to do anything. It belongs to me, it's my property. And I can enforce my copyright in court; I do not have to file a copyright registration with the government in order to do so.
However, copyright law in the USA says that if I want to sue for punitive damages and not just actual damages, then I have to have registered my copyright prior to the infringement. It's easy to do and doesn't cost much, but most copyright lawyers won't take a copyright case unless the copyright is registered. If you don't register, you still have the copyright, that's automatic. I've had a few arguments with people who think if you don't register your copyright, anyone can use it. They are wrong.
And I can prove they are wrong, and I can prove how well I can defend my copyright. Every couple of weeks, I scan Google using a special tool that finds people using my photographs from Flickr. If it is a commercial site, I send what is called a DMCA Takedown Notice to the service provider of that website. You know what happens next? The website goes DOWN. The owner of the website it informed of the claimed infringement and is told what they have to do to get their website back (remove the image or pay me for the use of my photo on my terms). If they remove the image or write me a check, then I give the ISP permission to bring the website back up. I don't have to go to court, I don't have to sue, I don't have to file a police report. Use my photographs commercially without my permission, and I'll shut your website down (assuming it is in the USA).
So when it comes to what you find on the internet, I don't think you can automatically assume that whatever you download is yours legally. I can think of many cases where that is not the case. Sometimes it depends on how you use it, but sometimes it is just not allowed, period. It all depends.
If in doubt, consult an attorney. No one here, to the best of my knowledge, and including myself, is qualified to dispense legal advice.
fotno
Lunatic Member
FYI - Several of our members are indeed qualified to dispense legal advice, although most of them wisely choose not to. I am not one of them, but they do exist.
- Status
Similar threads
