WizarDru said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could you clarify this point? I don't think I'm following you, here. How do copyrights, in general, foster innnovation? Are you saying that, by preventing blantant plagarism, copyright law forces artists to create less derivative works? As a side to that, do you feel there should be no professional artists, or are you just saying that the law was not intended to get involved in the process of income at all?
The US Constitution allows Congress to levy taxes and tariffs, and one of the reasons for doing so is...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
From
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
"WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians."
"Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney.
In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained."
In the case of the bold (emphasis mine) text, it answers my assertion that copyright is a civil case, not a criminal case. That is what everyone on this thread and in general does not understand - despite what the RIAA and MPAA *want*, the majority of "piracy" and "theft" is a civil case due to the fact that most people do not profit off of downloading illegal music, pdfs, or whatever.
