<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Preservation Entities Should Ignore Copyright</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/</link>
	<description>The Blog of Bringing Things Together</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Helmke: What is more important to the human race? &#124; Christian eBuddy Blog</title>
		<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Helmke: What is more important to the human race? &#124; Christian eBuddy Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.grossmeier.net/?p=49#comment-100</guid>
		<description>[...] to Greg and his blog post for the story. Some of you have seen his post already, but I have several friends and readers who [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to Greg and his blog post for the story. Some of you have seen his post already, but I have several friends and readers who [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.grossmeier.net/?p=49#comment-99</guid>
		<description>Greg: I think in the case of email delivery, fair use comes into play.

Fair use says that some uses are legal even though they're not explicitly allowed. Backups of material you are already licensed to are covered by fair use, even if (for instance) a piece of software's EULA says otherwise. I'm pretty sure email delivery falls under this as well.

Unfortunately it's not very well spelled-out, but you should be aware of your rights under fair use as they supercede regular copyright restrictions in many cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg: I think in the case of email delivery, fair use comes into play.</p>
<p>Fair use says that some uses are legal even though they&#8217;re not explicitly allowed. Backups of material you are already licensed to are covered by fair use, even if (for instance) a piece of software&#8217;s EULA says otherwise. I&#8217;m pretty sure email delivery falls under this as well.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it&#8217;s not very well spelled-out, but you should be aware of your rights under fair use as they supercede regular copyright restrictions in many cases: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/#comment-95</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.grossmeier.net/?p=49#comment-95</guid>
		<description>Wolfger: you're right in your thinking and that exposes one of the main flaws with copyright law in the "information age."  If you were following the law to the letter, then every "copy" of your email/blog post would be an infringement (both to harddisk, ram, cpu cache, network card cache, videocard memory, etc).

Luckily, people aren't THAT dumb.  They are close to that dumb, but not quit.  The reason it doesn't really come up is that if there is a case of infringement on a computer, the people sue for the unlawful replication that they can prove; like the song on your harddisk.  I believe, but have no basis for, that if the suing entity then told the judge they wanted to multiply the damages by 6 because the infringer's computer made a copy in memory 6 times because that is how many times they played it, the judge _probably_ wouldn't let that fly.

Also, ISPs are considered a "safe harbor" under the DMCA; check out the Chilling Effects website FAQ: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wolfger: you&#8217;re right in your thinking and that exposes one of the main flaws with copyright law in the &#8220;information age.&#8221;  If you were following the law to the letter, then every &#8220;copy&#8221; of your email/blog post would be an infringement (both to harddisk, ram, cpu cache, network card cache, videocard memory, etc).</p>
<p>Luckily, people aren&#8217;t THAT dumb.  They are close to that dumb, but not quit.  The reason it doesn&#8217;t really come up is that if there is a case of infringement on a computer, the people sue for the unlawful replication that they can prove; like the song on your harddisk.  I believe, but have no basis for, that if the suing entity then told the judge they wanted to multiply the damages by 6 because the infringer&#8217;s computer made a copy in memory 6 times because that is how many times they played it, the judge _probably_ wouldn&#8217;t let that fly.</p>
<p>Also, ISPs are considered a &#8220;safe harbor&#8221; under the DMCA; check out the Chilling Effects website FAQ: <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi" rel="nofollow">http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Helmke (dot) Net &#187; What is more important to the human race?</title>
		<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Helmke (dot) Net &#187; What is more important to the human race?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.grossmeier.net/?p=49#comment-94</guid>
		<description>[...] to Greg and his blog post for the story. Some of you have seen his post already, but I have several friends and readers who [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to Greg and his blog post for the story. Some of you have seen his post already, but I have several friends and readers who [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wolfger</title>
		<link>http://blog.grossmeier.net/2008/07/18/preservation-entities-should-ignore-copyright/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>Wolfger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.grossmeier.net/?p=49#comment-93</guid>
		<description>So how exactly does copyright law apply to ISPs and such? When I sent an e-mail, it makes several jumps to several different servers before it reaches its destination. I can't point to any particular piece of evidence, but I most certainly recall hearing that the e-mail is not deleted-without-a-trace after it departs one server for the next. Of course, the contents of my e-mail (and my blog post comments :) are copyrighted materials, and only the intended recipient has any right to it as I understand copyright law...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So how exactly does copyright law apply to ISPs and such? When I sent an e-mail, it makes several jumps to several different servers before it reaches its destination. I can&#8217;t point to any particular piece of evidence, but I most certainly recall hearing that the e-mail is not deleted-without-a-trace after it departs one server for the next. Of course, the contents of my e-mail (and my blog post comments :) are copyrighted materials, and only the intended recipient has any right to it as I understand copyright law&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
