[macintologist]

UPDATE last post I made. Keynote DVD no longer being sold.


I'd be willing to send a DVD-R packed full of keynotes and other apple videos to someone here for the cost of shipping and the DVD.

I'm based in Wisconsin, USA.

Will ship to international locations, and adjust the price accordingly.

Code:
Apple Videos
	Apple Ads
		2 Roads
		3 Pizzas
		3 Steps
		1984
		Apple - Big and Small.mov
		Apple 1984 ad.mov
		Apple G4 Espionage
		Beige
		BMW Mac
		Bon Voyage
		Crowd Presentaion
		Cube Ad.mov
		Email
		G4 Tanks
		Hal 9000
		Icon 
		iMac Colors
		iMac Developers
		iMac DV
		iMac Features
		Intel Mac Ad.mov
		iPod - Wild Postings Ad.mov
		Nightmare
		Open Minded
		Power.mov
		Powerbook G4 12 - 17 ad.mov
		Quicktime 3
		Simplicity Shootout
		Snail
		Steamroller
		Think Different
		Toast
		Traffic
		Un PC
	Keynotes
		Apple Event 1999.mov
		Apple Expo London 6/2004.mov
		Apple Expo Paris 9/2004.mov
		Apple Expo Paris 2002 Keynote.mp4
		Apple Presents iPod.mov
		Apple Special Music Event 2005.mov
		iPod Video Keynote 10/2005.mp4
		MW Boston 1997 Microsoft Announcement h264.mov
		MW Boston 1997.mov
		MWNY 1999.mov
                MWNY 2000.mov (only first 20 minutes plays)
		MWNY 2001 Keynote.mov (only first hour and 10 minutes plays)
		MWNY 2002 Keynote.mp4
		MWSF 1/2000.mov
		MWSF 1/2004.mov
		MWSF 2005.mov
		MWSF 2006.mov
		Seybold SF 1999.mov
		The_First_Mac.mov
		WWDC 6/2003.mov
		WWDC 1998 Steve Jobs Keynote.mov
		WWDC 2005.mov
	Other videos
		AppleIntel-vs-PostalService.mp4
		Bill Gates on Macs.mov
		CNBC on Apple Tiger.mov
		iPod 3 ISPEC_web_480.mov
		Jobs Demos NextStep (1992).mov
		mac-crash.mov
		MWSF_06_CNBC.mp4
		Petie Gets His First Mac.mov
		Steve Jobs on CNN 1999.mov
		SteveJobs1997.mov
	Promos
		Apple IIc Promo.mov
		Bondi Blue iMac Promo.mov
		G4 Cube Intro video.mov
		iBook Ice promo
		iLife 04 promo video.mov
		iMac G5 Introduction
		iTMS Launch promo
		original iPod intro.mov
		Panther Intro.mov
		Powerbook G4 12 - 17 promo.mov
		Powermac G5 intro.mov

Those are all the videos I have on the DVD. My price starts at $8.00 which covers the cost of shipping, the dvd, packaging, and my time effort to put this together and the 20 minute walk to the post office in freezing Wisconsin weather. Extra tip is always appreciated

Payment options are wide. I can accept credit/debit card payments since I recently got a Premiere PayPal account. I also accept checks but it will take longer.

PM me if you're interested, or preferably email me directly, xavier86 at mac dot com.

My PayPal email is different from my contact email. Please keep that in mind.

[podman92]

i would buy it if I had any money in my paypal account. How did you get the keynote into a quicktime format?

[bowwowman]

uuummmmm......................

surely you realize that virtually all of those apple videos are copyrighted, yes ?
and therefore cant be legally used/distributed/sold without written permission from the owners..........

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by bowwowman

uuummmmm......................

surely you realize that virtually all of those apple videos are copyrighted, yes ?
and therefore cant be legally used/distributed/sold without written permission from the owners..........

Fair Use.

It's for academic/scholarly purposes. The cost of dvd and shipping is being reimbursed. Tips/donations are encouraged but I do not claim to profit from Apple's work, sorry.

[uicandrew]

do these all fit on one 4.7gb dvd?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

do these all fit on one 4.7gb dvd?

Yes, the DVD has already been prepared in Toast.

[macintologist]

I'm going to the post office tomorrow (Tuesday) at 5pm EST. Last call for anyone who wants the keynote dvd sooner rather than later. PM me for details. PayPal me by the morning and I'll be able to send you the DVD on my post office trip tomorrow.

-Mac

[macintologist]

bumping this for the next wave of interested buyers.

[new newton]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Fair Use.

It's for academic/scholarly purposes. The cost of dvd and shipping is being reimbursed. Tips/donations are encouraged but I do not claim to profit from Apple's work, sorry.

That's not how it works. You're violating copyright laws.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by new newton

That's not how it works. You're violating copyright laws.

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

1) academic/scholarly use, non-profit.

2) none of these videos are commercial products that Apple sells

3) The videos are all complete however again these videos are non-commercial so it's a moot point.

4) Absolutely none since we are Apple fans and Apple does not sell these keynotes to the public. In fact watching these videos makes us even more of an Apple fan and more inclined to buy their products so the Fair Use distribution of these keynote videos has a positive effect on the Apple market. For example, if someone were to watch the latest MWSF 2006 video included in this DVD, they'd be drooling for the new Intel Macs. Additionally, there is no factory making thousands of these things.


I understand your concern however this is Fair Use. Period. The argument you're making is like saying ripping CDs to your iPod is copyright infringement.

[new newton]

You're not making a sound legal argument. You're attempting to justify your behavior. You can't just decide that you're in compliance with the law when you obviously aren't. And $8 to cover a 50 cent DVD and a couple bucks in shipping? Someone is lying...

[macintologist]

new_newton, I have already produced the section of the law dealing with fair use, and have shown how what I am doing is fair use. If you still have problems, please take it up with me in private or with a mod. If a mod disapproves of what I'm doing, I'll take this thread down. Alright?

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by new newton

Someone is lying...

Indeed. You are lying to yourself. You approach his efforts as if it is somehow detrimental to your financial well-being. Which it isn't. So get over it and save your keyboard the punishment of your fingers beating upon its already molested surfaces.

[new newton]

Originally Posted by macintologist

new_newton, I have already produced the section of the law dealing with fair use, and have shown how what I am doing is fair use. If you still have problems, please take it up with me in private or with a mod. If a mod disapproves of what I'm doing, I'll take this thread down. Alright?

You haven't shown what you've done to be fair use. You can't claim it to be educational, because you don't know how the materials will be used. You can't determine the nature of the copyright, as you don't have license to do so. You don't have permission of the copyright holder to make and distribute copies for profit.

Saying something does not make it so.

[TiberiusOsX]

New_newton, what he is doing is perfectly legal, and well within copyright/Fair Use laws. Looking at your posts, it seems as if you are arguing for the simple sake of arguing. And with that, sir, I politely request that you STFU and take your rather significant problems elsewhere.

[new newton]

So it's within copyright law to sell someone else's work without their permission for your own profit, eh? You don't have a clue.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by new newton

So it's within copyright law to sell someone else's work without their permission for your own profit, eh? You don't have a clue.

Actually what I'm charging for the most is the fact that I don't have a car and have to walk 15-20 minutes to the post office in freezing weather which isn't very fun.


(Celsius)


Reported.

[new newton]

As if that matters?

[Lateralus]

new_newton; Shut up. Seriously.

Do you honestly think that this thread has not been viewed by moderators in the month it has been around? If we had a problem with anything Macintologist is doing, the thread would have been locked long ago.

The Marketplace forum is patrolled regularly by the staff. Unless you're asked to police this forum by one of us, don't act like you have been.

[new newton]

Did I say that the thread should be closed? No. I said the guy is violating copyright laws, which he is. You can let whatever go on in your forum that you want, but that doesn't change the nature of what is going on here.

Are we allowed to sell home-made copies of copyrighted material here? If we are, please say so.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by new newton

Did I say that the thread should be closed? No. I said the guy is violating copyright laws, which he is. You can let whatever go on in your forum that you want, but that doesn't change the nature of what is going on here.

Are we allowed to sell home-made copies of copyrighted material here? If we are, please say so.

Ok I'll bite. There's a key difference. If I were to make a copy of iWork '06 and sell it to someone here that would be a blatant violation since that would result in the loss of a sale on Apple's part. Losing a sale goes against the 4th principle of Fair Use which is listed in USC 17-1-107

The difference is that Apple doesn't sell any of these keynotes. Never has, never will. A lot of these aren't even available on Apple's website anymore. Also, once somebody sees the MWSF 2006 keynote, they will be more likely to buy an iMac Intel than if they didn't. Same goes for the iPod video and Nano keynotes. Apple can only gain from more people seeing these. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

[new newton]

Selling a copy of iWork for $8 doesn't mean that Apple is losing a $79 sale. It means that you're selling materials that you don't have permission to sell, nothing more, nothing less.

Claiming fair use doesn't make it so. To say that this is educational is silly, as you're not teaching and you have absolutely no idea how the materials will be used once they leave your hands. This is not fair use, and claiming it to be so only weakens the concept of fair use for those of us that actually make use of it.

A copyright is a copyright. Your justifications for breaking the law don't change the fact that what you're doing is illegal.

[rparke1]

you REALLY REALLY need to grow up nude newton. the first two posts were okay, but than you just kept on moaning and groaning. like Lateralus said already please "SHUT UP ALREADY!" this is the selling forum, not the "mommy he stole my candy!" forum

sell on macintologist

[new newton]

Originally Posted by rparke1

you REALLY REALLY need to grow up nude newton.

I need to grow up, huh? Thanks for demonstrating how it's done.

[rparke1]

thisll be my responce to your thumbs up, and not to anything else you say cause i dont feel like bickering. ya really dont understand the symbolism of what i said do you? (think REALLY hard about it, than respond)

[new newton]

No, but I did enjoy the irony of it. If symbolism is what you intended, you need to work a bit harder next time.

Would a pirated movie being sold on a street corner be symbolic of this thread?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by new newton

No, but I did enjoy the irony of it. If symbolism is what you intended, you need to work a bit harder next time.

Would a pirated movie being sold on a street corner be symbolic of this thread?

Nope since that's a commercial product and would result in the loss of a sale.

[new newton]

I didn't say it was a product that was sold commercially, did I? A copyright violation is immaterial to whether something is being sold or not. The copyright protects the author's right to control the distribution of their work.

Here's an example that might help you bridge that gap. Do you have any CDs that are out of print? I've got a bunch of them. If I were to offer them up on a file-sharing network and say that there were no longer available in stores, I wouldn't have a defense if charged with a copyright violation.

It's not about sales--it's about the integrity of the copyright.

[EFFENDI]

I can only agree, according to the law, indeed this is copyrighted material, and selling it without the permission of the copyright holder is clearly a copyright violation. I am not refuting that. The real issue here is not if this is copyright violation, rather it has raised the question of if this is indeed fair use.

You have to understand the nature of the content that we are dealing with in this specific situation though. The media that macintologist is offering were, as already mentioned and proven, never for sale. The media are basically advertisements for Apple products, and as already stated, even without Apple's permission, in the grand scheme of things, I am positive that Apple could really care less if he is violating their copyright, it is giving them free exposure. The monetary impact to Apple in this situation is zero. If you did want to sell/distribute those out of print albums without the copyright holders permission, the monetary impact to the copyright holder becomes a much bigger issue. When there is money at stake, somehow the law becomes clearer....

Another example; An author has written a book about Apple. The book references, analyzes, and discusses Apple advertisements, Apple's products, discusses the companies history, its employees, etc. The book is descriptive enough that it rivals actual visual imagery, ie. video. The author hasn't obtained any copyright from Apple regarding the content of the book, yet the author sells the book at a profit. Is this copyright violation? No. Is this fair use? What is the monetary impact to Apple?

Take this as yet another example where fair use and copyright are mixed into a grey area; Video podcasts (ie. MacTV) that re-broadcast Apple's older (and surprise, copyrighted) advertisements without Apple's permission, within Apple's own product, iTunes. This video broadcast is still being distributed....Is this copyright violation? According to law, yes. Could it be considered fair use? What is the monetary impact to Apple?

The bottom line is that the copyright holder decides what length they will go to defend/enforce their copyright. The law gives us guidelines, yet there are still instances where it is not entirely clear. The same can be said for fair use....

new_newton, if it the integrity of the copyright is of so much concern to you, you should notify Apple and the United States Copyright Office, and let them handle the issue. If you feel it is your place here to enforce copyright law, your effort would be made more effective not spending your time debating in a forum, instead I suggest that you follow the appropriate legal channels to resolve this, by bringing the matter to the attention of the copyright holder, and letting them decide whether or not they agree with the lawfulness of this situation.

[EFFENDI]

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.

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.

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150, 000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions." Copyright.gov. 13 Feb. 2006. U.S. Copyright Office. 14 Feb. 2006 <http://copyright.gov>.


One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised December 2005

"U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use." Copyright.gov. Dec. 2005. U.S. Copyright Office. 14 Feb. 2006 <http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html>.

[new newton]

And it's simply not fair use as per the statute. It's not possible to reasonably construe it that way. I don't understand why people would try to say that it is fair use. It's a thin rationalization for trying to make a buck off of someone else's material, and doesn't change the facts that this is clearly illegal.

If MacNN wants to allow its site to be used for selling things illegally, that's cool. Lateralus, do I have your permission to start doing that?

Hell, if I was the guy breaking the law here I'd be happy. Lots of free bumps.

[EFFENDI]

Instead of blatantly saying it isn't fair use, explain why it is not fair use. Come on now, obviously you are being vague just for the purpose of protecting your reputation.

Do you really want to discuss this like an adult? Or are you just hell-bent on seeing someone get sued?

As macintologist has alread proven, this case can be clearly considered as fair use.
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the purpose of the use is distribution of educational/information materials
- the character of the use is not morally wrong, and not done to steal potential profits from Apple, rather to give greater potential exposure of these no longer available materials.
- He has clearly shown, he is not profiting from the distribution of this work. The shipping company, blank recordable media manufacturers, envelope manufacturers, marker manufacturers all profit indirectly from it, does that mean they are infringing on copyright and violating fair use?

- It IS being distributed for educational purposes. Whether or not educational purposes are considered to be in a "traditional" classroom educational setting, the law is unclear.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the nature of the work is educational (again, look at consideration 1)
- the nature of the work was always as freely distributed media, never sold for profit.

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

- Again, the law is unclear as to what a specific portion and quantity of copyrighted work is, and what portion and quantity is not considered fair use. Looking at the actual portion and quantity of Apple's copyrighted work that is being distributed here, it is not either a significant portion, or a significant quantity.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

- none

[new newton]

My "reputation" here doesn't mean anything to me. It's not an issue one way or another.

There's simply nothing about this that fits into the fair use doctrine. Educational is a term that the fellow tacked onto this as an attempt to make it appear to be fair use. He's not an educator, this isn't taking place in an educational setting, and it's not educational material. I work in education, so believe it or not I have some small measure of experience with this. Do you?

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student. Read that statute again, and in conjunction with the statutes it references. This clearly does not fit into the category of fair use.

And be reasonable, the guy is selling them at a profit if he's taking $8. That doesn't factor into the issue of it being a copyright violation, but 50 cents for a DVD-R, at most a dollar for a mailer, and at most a dollar in postage. Now, math is not one of my strong points, but that adds up to about $2.50 at most. That's a tidy profit margin there, eh? His not having a car has little to do with that, unless the USPS is charging extra to pick up his mail. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

Where on Earth did you ever pick up the idea that I wanted to see someone get sued? If anything, I've been urging the seller to stop this illegal activity before he has a problem.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by EFFENDI

As macintologist has alread proven, this case can be clearly considered as fair use.

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

- He is not profiting from the distribution of this work. It is being distributed for educational purposes. Whether or not educational purposes are considered to be in a "traditional" classroom educational setting, the law is unclear.

Macintologist is clearly profiting from the resale of this material, despite his claims to the contrary.

Macintologist, moreover, isn't a one-man accredited university handing out degrees. If I can't resell Beatles tunes as part of an "academic" review of Western pop music, then neither can Macintologist. At best, one might label Macintologist as being a for-profit educational organization.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

- the nature of the work was always as freely distributed media, never sold for profit.

You're interpreting this statement in a self-serving manner. In some instances, duplication of copyrighted material is almost impossible to avoid. Think of graphics in webpages. Such images are often replicated in a user's computer in both RAM and in caches. It would be unfair to punish Internet users for unknowingly maintaining copies of such images on their computers. The nature of Internet browsing makes it impractical for users not to cache some copyrighted material.

If ABC broadcasts "The Wizard of Oz" on TV for free, however, I don't have the right to tape it and resell it at a profit.

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

- Again, the law is unclear as to what a specific portion and quantity of copyrighted work is. Looking at the actual portion and quantity of Apple's copyrighted work that is being distributed, it is not either a significant portion, or quantity.

Macintologist isn't incorporating a few Apple photos into some greater body of academic work. His entire DVD is just a straightforward duplication of dozens of copyrighted videos. Making a mix-tape of pop tunes, for example, doesn't free me from paying royalties to those artists.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

- none

That isn't for you to decide. Apple could very well argue that uncontrolled dissemination of these copyrighted materials could have an adverse effect on its corporate image.

While I doubt that Apple's going to notice this little transgression, it's arguments like yours that get kids hauled into court for stealing (yes, stealing) movies and music.

If Macintologist was on the up and up, he'd have run things by Apple Legal before posting this material for sale.

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by new newton

My "reputation" here doesn't mean anything to me. It's not an issue one way or another.

There's simply nothing about this that fits into the fair use doctrine. Educational is a term that the fellow tacked onto this as an attempt to make it appear to be fair use. He's not an educator, this isn't taking place in an educational setting, and it's not educational material. I work in education, so believe it or not I have some small measure of experience with this. Do you?

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student. Read that statute again, and in conjunction with the statutes it references. This clearly does not fit into the category of fair use.

And be reasonable, the guy is selling them at a profit if he's taking $8. That doesn't factor into the issue of it being a copyright violation, but 50 cents for a DVD-R, at most a dollar for a mailer, and at most a dollar in postage. Now, math is not one of my strong points, but that adds up to about $2.50 at most. That's a tidy profit margin there, eh? His not having a car has little to do with that, unless the USPS is charging extra to pick up his mail. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

Where on Earth did you ever pick up the idea that I wanted to see someone get sued? If anything, I've been urging the seller to stop this illegal activity before he has a problem.

Again, you haven't explained anything. Regardless if I have a background in education or not, the law does not define what educational use is. Unfortunately, it is another instance where the law is open to interpretation.
I should also mention, just because a use does not agree with all the conditions, does not mean that it would be deemed illegal. I have read the statute and have a very clear understanding and interpretation of it. However, there is still a grey area in the matter of fair use. If you are indeed a law student perhaps you should use some of your education here. Look at this case from the court and copyright holder's perspective. If a decision were to be made, what would it potentially be?

Whether or not he is making a personal profit is somewhat irrelevant in this case, in the court's perspective, the more important issue is; Does this cause the copyright holder any monetary damage? The answer again and again, is that it clearly has no monetary impact to the copyright holder.

You have done a well enough job to warn this member of their potentially illegal activity. As I previously suggested, if it is so much a concern to you, use that legal education, and deal with it in the appropriate legal manner.

I really have nothing else to say to you, I have made my argument for this completely clear, you are obviously incapable of presenting a concise and solid argument regarding this issue.
I gave you plenty of other examples, yet you made no other comment on these. I would think you'd jump at the chance to use any of them to prove your position. Instead you resort to the "no it isn't" argument, how completely unimpressive. Honestly, if I was you, I'd be ashamed to call myself a law student.

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by new newton

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student. .

LOL Now it all makes sense. Maybe He is bending the law a bit....BIG DEAL. get over it.

[new newton]

Deal with it in the appropriate legal manner? What might that be?

This is a lot like someone saying that this smilie is frowning. My saying that it's frowning does not create a frown. I can post up a definition of the word frown and claim that it matches the smilie, but it doesn't make it a frown, now does it?

If a person wanted to do the applicable research into what constitutes fair use, they could. My opinion is that this is in no way fair use, and I've got no desire to kill a few hours in order to prove that. Any layman should be able to come to the conclusion that it isn't fair use as described in the statute without too much trouble, just as you can tell me that this little fellow isn't frowning.

Why are you so eager to support someone who is clearly abusing someone else's property?

[f1000]

new newton, you made your point. If the OP gets hauled into court by Apple Legal, then that's his problem, no?

I'd say that in the greater scheme of things, no puppies are going to die from this crime. You'd do better to lecture drivers on the evils of exceeding the speed limit.

[rparke1]

okay, all im hearing is "blah blah im a dirty tramp" (not the literal me) anyways, just cut it out everyone and leave this matter be.

goodnight

[EFFENDI]

Macintologist is clearly profiting from the resale of this material, despite his claims to the contrary.

Macintologist, moreover, isn't a one-man accredited university handing out degrees. If I can't resell Beatles tunes as part of an "academic" review of Western pop music, then neither can Macintologist. At best, Macintologist might be labeled as being a for-profit educational organization.[/QUOTE]

Whether or not he is profting from this use is defined within the statutes of fair use, and in this case, it may be found as illegal use. Based on his claims, the potential profit is quite low, and the potential loss of profits from the copyright holder is also quite low. Again, this is just one of those cases that are open to the court's interpretation of the law.

Again, I have stated that the law is unclear as to what "educational" use actually us. Is a website or business that distributes tutorials or videos (for profit) demonstrating copyrighted software an example of educational use?

Originally Posted by f1000

You're interpreting this statement in a self-serving manner. In some instances, duplication of copyrighted material is almost impossible to avoid. Think of graphics in webpages. Such images are often replicated in a user's computer in both RAM and in caches. It would be unfair to punish Internet users for unknowingly maintaining copies of such images on their computers. The nature of Internet browsing makes it impractical for users not to cache some copyrighted material.

If ABC broadcasts "The Wizard of Oz" on TV for free, however, I don't have the right to tape it and resell it at a profit.

No you don't have the right. However that is clearly defined within law. This case is not.

Originally Posted by f1000

Macintologist isn't incorporating a few Apple photos into some greater body of academic work. His entire DVD is just a straightforward duplication of dozens of copyrighted videos. Making a mix-tape of pop tunes, for example, doesn't free me from paying royalties to those artists.

Again, the law does not define what quanity is considered fair use. You creating a mixtape is entirely legal. Selling it for profit is not. This example is defined by the law. And again, consider the copyright holder is potentially suffering from a much higher percentage of loss of profit by that use.

Originally Posted by f1000

That isn't for you to decide. Apple could very well argue that uncontrolled dissemination of these copyrighted materials could have an adverse effect on its corporate image.

While I doubt that Apple's going to notice this little transgression, it's arguments like yours that gets kids hauled into court for stealing (yes, stealing) movies and music.

If Macintologist was on the up and up, he'd have run things by Apple Legal before posting this material for sale.

Now this is where your argument raises an interesting point. In what manner and in what capacity or quantity does this use copyrighted material become unlawful?

I definitely agree, running this by Apple legal would have been the smart thing to do. However, look at the other examples I gave on page 1. Do those uses necessitate the possession of copyright permission? Are they unlawful?

This case hovers more in the grey area of fair use, you think it doesn't. My personal opinion is that it leans more toward legal use.

At least you have somewhat defended your point of view without resorting to a "no it isn't"

Fair use is one of those issues that will continue to be pondered, argued about, and fought over....I personally find it pretty interesting, and this discussion has raised quite a few important questions.

I think the wisest thing to do in this situation is for everyone to back off. If the moderators and administrators are content with allowing this use of copyrighted work on their forum, there is really nothing else to discuss here. For anyone else who isn't already drawn in to the ongoing battle of fair use, I suggest you visit the electronic fronteir foundation at eff.org

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by new newton

Deal with it in the appropriate legal manner? What might that be?

This is a lot like someone saying that this smilie is frowning. My saying that it's frowning does not create a frown. I can post up a definition of the word frown and claim that it matches the smilie, but it doesn't make it a frown, now does it?

If a person wanted to do the applicable research into what constitutes fair use, they could. My opinion is that this is in no way fair use, and I've got no desire to kill a few hours in order to prove that. Any layman should be able to come to the conclusion that it isn't fair use as described in the statute without too much trouble, just as you can tell me that this little fellow isn't frowning.

Why are you so eager to support someone who is clearly abusing someone else's property?

Are you looking for someone to hold your hand here? You are the law student. Why do I even have to explain what proper legal procedure is? Contact Apple's legal department, I am sure you are intelligent to figure out the rest...

And just to clarify, I don't give him my support, I am merely offering my own argument, and giving my own interpretation of fair use lawswhich so happen to align for his case. You are definitely entitled to your opinion opinion as well. No one is condemning you here. I just believe you've chosen to take a very immature approach to sharing your point of view, and giving your "warning". As I said before, if you are so unwilling to responsibly and maturely discuss an issue like this, there is really nothing else that needs to be said. If you felt all you had to do was warn macintologist of his potentially illegal activity, congratulations, you have done the job and proven your point. I have given my argument, and also offered a few questions to promote a healthy discussion here. Fair use is something that can be very hard to define. As a law student though, I would expect much more than resorting to smilies.

At this point, I feel that I have adequately stated my position. I haven't completely discredited your argument. I am curious to know other people's opinions, but not unless they are going to present a solid argument instead of simply stating their position without acknowledging the reality of fair use laws. The issue is now in the hands of the administration of this forum, and they have clearly stated their position.

[TUnderwood]

For the record, I am a lawyer.

This sale is not fair use. The arguments above in support of fair use have been based on a rudimentary statutory analysis. Copyright law has, however, been litigated over and over, and case law more clearly defines the application of the fair use exemption, and it doesn't apply to this sale.

But Apple is very unlikely to sue someone for copying and redistributing its promotional materials.

In fact, Apple pays hundreds of millions of dollars to get those very same materials seen by as many people as possible.

[macintologist]

UPDATE: The DVD is no longer being sold.

2 and a half reasons

1) You can go to the brand new site www.applekeynotes.com and get them. They have almost everything I have)

2) It's ****ing cold outside and I don't want to walk to the post.

2 and a half) Feel bad charging for this when another website does it for free.



I'll start selling this again when: 1) it's spring/summer and 2) applekeynotes.com is offline


THREAD CLOSED FOR NOW