Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25[edit]

How do we verify this news paper ref[edit]

Greetings,

An IP's edit @ the article Minar-e-Pakistan brought my attention to presently numbered 7th ref. As of now it reads as below

'Amna Jamal (2002) The Pakistan Day memorial. Dawn. 23 March. Retrieved 12 February 2008'

There is no URL link in the ref. We can guess it is probably 2002, March 23 article. Google and simple search @ archive did not give expected result. I do not see any reason to doubt good faith of who so ever added ref. But some of the content seem to need verification. Any ways to retrieve old article?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX is designed for these kinds of requests; maybe someone there has access to an archive and can get you a copy. --Jayron 32 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirating[edit]

Hello, fellow editors. I have a question. Is it considered pirating if you watch a movie when you do not know its copyright status but it is unavailable to stream or purchase anywhere? Since there is quite literally no way to pay money to whoever owns the film, could you watch it in good conscience. A specific example would be this movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4XchLQq9A. There is no notice of it being copyrighted or in the public domain but it is not on streaming anywhere. There is no legal way to purchase it. Is this still pirating? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the topic of whether something is still under copyright or not, the basic test is to always assume something is copyrighted unless it can be reliably demonstrated that it isn't. The movie in question is Grand Ole Opry which was made in 1940. So, in terms of "aging out", it's not yet old enough to be public domain in the US. See Public domain in the United States, where you can see that the cut off is currently 1927. So, it's likely that someone somewhere still holds the copyright, at least technically. As to your conscience - that's up to you. On the great chain of evils, watching a film where all parties involved have long since died of old age doesn't strike me as a mortal sin. Matt Deres (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still pirating. The right of copyright gives the copyright holder the right to not show their work. That is their prerogative. If they don't want to distribute copies of their work, they don't have to. This can be for economic reasons, such as generating scarcity to make the value of the work rise (Disney used to do this with VHS copies of their films. They would only release a limited number of copies before they went "back into the Disney vault". This generated demand for the VHS tapes, since once they were pulled off the shelf, you couldn't buy them anymore). However, even if the copyright holder does not have what you consider a "legitimate" reason, or even no reason at all, they still don't have to release the work. There's been some claim that abandonware has entered the public domain, but even in those cases, it doesn't usually. When companies stop doing business, somebody owns those assets (including intellectual property), whether it is a successor company that bought them out, the former shareholders, the company's former creditors, etc. The IP doesn't go away. It is still a thing of value and somebody still "owns" it. --Jayron 32 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever posts something on YouTube and violates someone else's copyright could certainly get into legal trouble. But if someone merely watches it on YouTube, how likely is that viewer to get into legal trouble? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right and wrong, legal and illegal, and getting caught or not. Which of these three is not like the other two? DOR (HK) (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall one time when Robert Klein was presenting a monologue on HBO or something. He reminded the audience at home that they're not supposed to make a videotape copy of the show. He then said that rule was on about the same level as the rule against tearing a tag off a mattress. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, the question was not about making a copy, it was about watching an existing copy that someone else made. Second, as to nonsense about mattresses, see Law label. Third, aren't we providing legal advice if we answer the original question at all? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Robert Klein is a comedian by trade. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf_the_Groovy -- we have an article Orphan work... AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Piracy" is not a legally defined concept, but is generally considered a form of copyright infringement that involves the copying, distribution and selling of works without the consent of the owner of the rights. Whether a specific act constitutes copyright infringement depends on the details, specifically whether the act constitutes a "use" of the work. Imagine you are in a shopping mall and while you are there, minding your own business, the mall (not under your control or direction) plays a pirated song. No sane judge will then find you liable for copyright infringement just for listening to it, even if you know the mall is playing the song without the consent of the owner of the rights. (Consider the possibility that the reason you know this is that you are the owner of the rights.) This is not to be construed as legal advice. To play it safe, always wear earplugs inside shopping malls. The dividing line between "use" and "non-use" will ultimately be determined by case law and may differ for different jurisdictions. --Lambiam 11:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure purse-snatchers and pickpockets would support the idea of everyone in the mall wearing earplugs. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passively listening to music is not the same thing as actively choosing to watch a movie. Simply being in a bank when it's being robbed doesn't make you culpable, but volunteering to help the thieves carry their loot to their getaway car does. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And finding a bootlegged video on YouTube and merely watching it is different from paying somebody for a copy of the bootleg. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But still more in the carrying the loot category if you know (or suspect) it's bootlegged. You can't say, "Officer, I was forced to watch the video." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the bootlegger profit by my watching a free video? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the bootlegger making money; it's about the proper owner losing something of value. When you watch a video that violates copyright, the owner loses their ability to possibly profit from selling it to you. It's hard to search for, given the title, but it appears that this film has never been released on DVD, so it's true that the actual losses are probably negligible, but that's not for us to decide. The owner might be working away on some remaster as we speak and the YT video is harming their ability to sell it. Either way, we don't have a legal say in what they choose to do or not do with it. Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner is free to go after the pirate. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]