Slashdot Mirror
Domain: benedict.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to benedict.com.
Comments · 40
-
Re:Google doing evil again
Authors have nothing to do with this.
Authors have EVERYTHING to do with this, fool. The Author's Guild has been fighting this since day one.
Sorry, but you can't cry and whine that it's the E-E-E-E-E-VILLLL *IAA's/licensed distributors (who only rip-off the poor artists anyway) who are leading the fight against piracy this time. The authors are on the front line -- have been since the day Harlan Ellison first sued AOL back in the 90's
-
Re:Is that fraud?
It was not a DMCA "request". It was a notification that they were removing the file in order to comply with DMCA Section 512 C-1-c, which indicates "No liability if
In other words, they believed the material to infringe on DMCA, and as the file host, they have the right and duty to remove such a file when they believe it to be infringing. See, Dropbox isnt just the potentially "injured party", they are also the service provider-- and that is the capacity they were issuing the notice in. (NB- IANAL)
-
Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud?
For more info, DMCA Section 512 - Safe Harbor http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Internet/DMCA/DMCA-SafeHarbor.aspx
-
Re:Reality Check
Reverse engineering is, in fact, totally legal if it is done correctly... It can even be used to justify fair use for an unauthorized copy of copyrighted code. See Sega v. Accolade.
-
Try the Bright Tunes case from 1976.
> Nope, that's impossible. If you're uploading at a faster rate than you're downloading, you would be uploading data you have not yet downloaded.
Wrong. I'd be sending the same bits of the file to more than one computer.
If you have one lone, slow, seed with lots of peers trying to download from it and you have a decent connection, you can easily have a ratio greater than one while waiting for the seed to finish seeding a complete copy. This scenario is common enough, in fact, is the entire reason for the "initial seeding" mode found in some torrent clients.
While you're correct that many lines are asymmetric, that still doesn't come into play unless you're downloading faster than you're uploading. You may be used to large torrents where you can peg your connection (and those certainly do exist), but with small ones, you won't be able to download anything all that fast. It's perfectly possible to get stuck with a slow download when there's just one seed. If there are enough peers, your upload should be more than enough to outmatch whatever pathetic connection the lone, slow seed has.
In other words, I know that you are incorrect from experience, because I have done this.
Finally, I should point out that while you download random, comparatively rare blocks with BitTorrent, your computer is very capable of knowing where the pieces fit together. You often get the entire block from just one source, and blocks are contiguous. That is, the bits inside them are one solid piece, rather than being randomly distributed throughout the file. If they weren't, it would take a lot more data to know where to put those bits and nobody wants to add overhead like that.
> Show me one case that holds the sharing 32 seconds of a song constitutes infringement and I'll agree
I can do better. Here's a finding of infringement for a few notes:
Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (1976)
Silence has also been copyrighted. You can't make this stuff up. The laws are so bad, I don't put anything past the courts these days.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property -
Re:Memory Leaks?The definition of page size in this case is: "the sum of the file sizes for all the elements that make up a page, including the defining HTML file as well as all embedded objects (e.g., image files with GIF and JPG pictures)." Try it with as many terms as you want, I'm sure you'll get similar results. How sure are you that I'll get similiar results?
I tried it with your terms, and didn't get similiar results at all.
http://www.google.com/search?q=web+page
1) 230KB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_page
2) 173KB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website
3) 38KB: http://geocities.yahoo.com/
4) 317KB: http://www.steves-templates.com/
5) 189KB: http://www.howstuffworks.com/web-page.htm
6) 263KB: http://www.wpdfd.com/
7) 199KB: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/frontpage/default.aspx
8) 112KB: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
9) 267KB: http://www.benedict.com/
Measurements taken on "Net" tab of Firebug, which lists all HTTP requests for the page and the Content-Length.
This situation is exacerbated, even, by the fact that many responses are gzipped, and the Content-Length in this case represents the compressed length, rather than the space taken by the response in cache (which I assume is uncompressed, but I could be wrong here). -
Re:This bit is always amusing...
It's actually sad. A composer or performer CANNOT copyright a harmony (the chords). The melody, yes.
Actually, no. In 1994, SCOTUS found that using a melody from another song is legal fair use, if the new version is genuinely a new song, even if the entire song is noticeably similar to the orignal.
Anything else would effectively be a ban on the creation of new music - there are extremely few places where genuinely new melodies are being created, and most of those are experimenting with bizarre tunings or similar things. The number of possible pleasant-sounding melody themes in the 12-note scale is not so large that we're still capable of finding large numbers of new ones. Most new songs just put existing melodies together in new ways. SCOTUS declined to ban the creation of new music, so there is no such thing as a copyright on a melody, only on the complete song. -
Re:Piracy not equal to Lossesfrom bennedict.com
Which is a discussion of copyright in general.The DMCA prohibits the sale or distribution of technology that would enable either the unauthorized access to a work or the unauthorized copying of a work. However, only the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work is prohibited.
The distinction is a neat bit of sleight of hand employed to ostensibly preserve fair use. The theory is that since copying a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, the DMCA does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological counter measure that prevents copying. However, the trafficking in tools to accomplish this is prohibited, so you have to be a hacker to enjoy fair use in the Digital Age.
As far as unauthorized access to a work is concerned, the argument is that since fair use is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited. This raises many thorny issues, not the least of which is that in the real world, you generally need access to a work in order copy the work.
For an actual ruling this PDF is part of the DMCA ruling reguarding 321's DVD copying software. Wherein you get such gems as: This Court agrees with the Corley court that the purchase of a DVD does not give to the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS. and Licensed DVD players have been issued a key to decrypt CSS, and in exchange must adhere to strict prohibitions on copying of the decrypted DVD; 321's software does not have such a license, and therefore does not have the authority of the copyright owner. Which in effect means that You (the owner of the DVD) do not have permission to decrypt CSS, the DVD player (which you own) has the permision.
My real preference is actually a reference from Corley:[Defendants] contend that subsection 1201(c)(1), which provides that nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title can be read to allow the circumvention of encryption technology protecting copyrighted material when the material will be put to fair uses exempt from copyright liability. We disagree that subsection 1201(c)(1) permits such a reading. Instead, it simply clarifies that the DMCA targets the circumvention of digital walls guarding copyrighted material (and trafficking in circumvention tools), but does not concern itself with the use of those materials after circumvention has occurred. Subsection 1201 (c)(1) ensures that the DMCA is not read to prohibit the fair use of information just because that information was obtained in a manner made illegal by the DMCA.
So, you can legally engage in any fair-use of material from a work covered under the DMCA, after you have ilegally broken the 'digital walls'. Wee, that one really does seem to cover "It's legal to do it, but illegal for anyone to make or distribute the tools to do it." -
Re:Linking to a shared library?
To the best of my knowledge (IANAL) there isn't any legal precedent favoring either interpretation.
There are plenty of precedents which say that trivial wiggling, to try and evade the terms of an agreement (such as converting a GPLed program into a library and then linking to it) is invalid. If it was copyright infringement when you linked statically, then the judge will normally rule that changing one little compiler flag (with no user-visible effects) does not suddenly make it legal, because there is no substantial difference in the result. Not a sure win in court, but a solid argument, which means the judge is going to be looking closely at the intentions of both parties and the effect on society, to decide which answer is better.
That doesn't conclusively say that dynamic linking is derivation, but it does mean that you shouldn't screw around with it, which is probably 'good enough' - most people aren't going to risk it.
A more interesting question is whether precedents like http://www.benedict.com/Audio/crew/crew.aspx are applicable to software. That one says that if your derived work is sufficiently different and worthwhile, it's all yours even if it contains literal copying that would, on its own, be unlawful. -
Re:Ugh
What happens when someone's Neo-Nazi cutting service takes your movie and figures out how to cut out the sympathetic parts so that it almost turns into a modern-day Birth of a Nation? Then, they market the 'altered' version in much the same way that this cleaning service market's their services.
Actually, they could make a case for this being legitimate. Since they are not reproducing your product, but are instead creating something new, it is 'transformative'. That means it is possible to classify this as fair use. Even with commercial intent, even with significant copying, it can still be okay. The significant case here is the SCOTUS ruling about 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" remake.
Obviously you'd have to prove in court that it wasn't just a cheap attempt to undercut the original, but you could make a good case for it. -
Some tangential "Deep Note" triviaThis always amused me: http://www.benedict.com/Audio/dre/dre.aspx When the Napster maelstrom hit the recording industry, Dr. Dre, along with Metallica, was one of the first to hurl accusations of copyright infringement at the popular file sharing site.
Dr. Dre is furious that people are using Napster to download his song "Lolo" without permission or license - an obvious "copyright infringement". The irony is that the prominent feature of that song is a sound that Dr. Dre appropriated without permission or license - an obvious "copyright infringement"?
-
some links
Copyright Durations
http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyrig ht_durations.html
bulk.resource.org
Data rescued by media.org.
http://bulk.resource.org/copyright/
Copyright Clearance Center
http://www.copyright.com/
Copyright in Cyberspace
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p1 33.html
Copyright Management Center
http://copyright.iupui.edu/
Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/
FAIRCOPY
http://www.faircopy.com/
Janis Ian
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
Musicians Against Copyrighting Of Samples
http://www.icomm.ca/macos/
Stanford University Libraries
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
What is Copyright Protection
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ -
Re:What of other works of art?
" What happens to other publicly displayed works of art?"
It depends on the artist.
This is, in essence, what copyright is: the right to determine how your work is copied -- including, in the case of artwork, photographic images. It is entirely the artists' prerogative.
"Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers (read: the company) still own the copyright to the design."
You are 100% correct. That would be unworkable, so they don't do it.
There is indeed precedent for scultors and artists to ask that their works not be reproduced commercially. About ten years back, the producers of the film "Devil's Advocate" were sued because they used a replica of a sculpture in an unauthorized manner.
"Appalling."
Perhaps. I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation. In the artists' defense, he probably asked for this restriction because he did not want to see his sculpture showing up on posters, t-shirts, and other commercial products without getting compensated.
It's the free market that eventually decides things like this. If the city realizes that it's too much of a PITA to deal with this sculptor's requirements, then they'll never buy another sculpture from him, and word will get around.
-
Re:They're stealing from ME...
Wow, a long bitter response. I must be doing something right.
Hard to use someone else's theory or plagiarize it when you've never even heard of it before.
You might not have heard of Max Weber but you did use his theory and ideas which you probably heard of from other sources (from Psychology class or someone else using it). I don't think you just came up with the idea all on your own. It is a public domain idea that benefits everyone, including you without having to pay for every use of it.
I don't know if you realized this, but theories can't be copyrighted either. The paper that explains them can be, but the theory itsef cannot. The closest approximation of what you're trying to go for is a patent.
That doesn't change the fact that you have to pay when you use something that has been patented. So cough up the money to Max Weber's estate.
And what's more - even if it were possible to copyright a theory - is that if I use someone else's theory without ever having heard of them, I'm creating my own version. That's not copyright infringement.
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
And, by the way, it is antisocial - if you won't be governed by society's laws, you're antisocial by definition).
Antisocial heh, then I guess that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat in the bus was also antisocial since it did violate society's laws.
-
Re:What is original anymore?
"No I can't. If I create what I sincerely believe is an original work, some incumbent copyright owner is likely to come out of the woodwork and claim I copied it. This happened to George Harrison, and statistics show it could happen to any songwriter."
The fact that we remember this case at all (it was almost 30 years ago) shows how rare this is. Billions of pieces of artwork are copyrighted each year. The vast, vast majority are not contested. This does not match the definition of "likely" by any stretch of the imagination. There may be good arguments for abolishing copyright, but this ain't one of them.
Either way, I think it's pretty obvious that "My Sweet Lord" is the same song. I think the court ruled appropriately.
-
Re:This is clearly protected
It is outside of the copyright period in effect at the time of the film's initial release.
Um, I don't think so. I am not a lawyer, but if I read correctly, the original film (1977) might be in the public domain if published without notice (reference here and here) -- which seems extremely unlikely. And all the later movies would still be convered by copyright either way.A film seen by so many people becomes public domain as a result of having entered the cultural consciousness.
That sounds great in theory, but has a court ever actually said this?I say, ignore the Lucas 'warning', and hold your event.
This sounds like legal advice. Are you ready to accept financial responsiblity for their costs if your advice turns out to be unsound?Personally, I think they need to contact a lawyer rather than `Ask Slashdot'.
-
Re:Puff Daddy does it, why can't I ?
Cases have gone the other way too so this is not a cut and dry area..
2 Live Crew vs. Roy Orbison determined that sampling in certain instances WAS legal (here and here) and not infringing. Of course 2 Live Crew had other legal problems but at least this one went in there favor.
-
Re:Reverse Engineering in other fields
Sure you can. If someone comes to you and says, "I want you to write an irritatingly saccharine techno-pop song for my new boy band," and it turns out that it's word-for-word, note-for-note identical to some other boy band's new song, as long as you can prove that you had never heard their song before you wrote yours, you're in the clear, at least theoretically.
It didn't help George Harrison when he wrote "My Sweet Lord" and was accused of ripping off the melody from "He's So Fine". -
Just become a rights holder
Just like a similar US story: License to Hack"
Then you can have the same powers to attack the big guys. Legally. -
Re:Do NOT read that code!
that's like saying the beatles can sue every musician who ever listened to them for copyright infringement
I personally think it's a bad analogy, but even that isn't as far-fetched as you might think.
George Harrison (of Beatles fame) was succesfully sued for _subconsciously_ ripping off the song "He's So Fine" (in "My Sweet Lord"). See here for more details.
So, no, I don't think worrying about IP contamination from looking at Windows source code is paranoid at all.
-
Re:Ah, at last!
It's not true that copying must be verbatim. Take a look at the Altai test (quick analysis; chessy brief)... Copyright law is actually pretty subtle.
-
Re:Origionality
-
Re:So don't buy closed systems.
Normally I agree with your comments, but I have to wonder --
What's the point in not buying an XBox if you honestly want the benefits of buying them?
Consumers have gotten up and shown that they don't want more media consolidation, and it looks like Congress is listening. They only listen to prevent hordes of angry voters putting them out of office, but that's how it works in these United States.
What would be more effective would be buying an XBox, and writing your congress(wo)?man to express your opinions regarding systems which are artificially closed.
Explain how important "fair use" is to you, and encourage others to do the same. Tell your congresspuppet that you feel that products which contain anti-circumvention technology does more to remove your fair use rights than it does to protect the businessperson. Mention the XBox, perhaps even cite the 1992 Sega ruling, and throw in current examples of artificial product lock-in with respect to the printer cartridge industry for good measure.
Write your congresspuppet, and write them often. Encourage others to write them. Tell them you are sick of seeing your fair use rights taken away in the name of "digital rights". Tell them that you feel that the existing copyright law adequately covers businesses, and that you feel that "digital" copyright laws are an infringement upon your consumer rights.
Remember, puppets don't understand issues -- they just move in the direction of the hardest tugs. Tug their strings, and encourage others to do the same.
If the XBox provides a service that you want, buy it! You're not hurting MS in any way that they'll ever notice by not purchasing one. -
Devil's Advocate and Ex Nihilo - Turnabout?
Does anybody remember the flak when Cathedral sculptor Frederick Hart sued about the Devil's Advocate using his sculpture Ex Nihilo?
In the movie the people in the sculpture get a little randy, and "the National Cathedral denounced the film as a grotesque distortion of sacred art."
I suppose if they have Darth in a choirboy outfit leading the procession, Lucasfilms might have a similar case.
-
IN SOVIET EKROUTSociety>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights Arts>Music>Resources>Copyright
Sponsored Linkse-Copyright
Affordable copyright services
(877) 693-2677
www.e-corp.us
Interest: See your message here...News:Closely watched copyright case goes to jury - San Francisco Chronicle - 2 hours ago
Groups at odds over hidden copyright fees - The Globe and Mail - 11 Dec 2002
Defense rests in ElcomSoft copyright trial - San Jose Mercury News - 10 Dec 2002
New! Try Google News: Search news for copyright or browse the latest headlinesUS Copyright Office
US Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registration and
deposit of copyright material.
Description: Office of public record for copyright registration and deposit of copyright material.
Category: Regional>NorthAmerica>...>LibraryofCongre ss
www.loc.gov/copyright/ - 36k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pagesCopyright Website
Copyright Website - The Copyright Wizard. Copyright your online assets -
online.
Description: Endeavoring to provide real world, practical and relevant copyright information.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.benedict.com/ - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pagesCopyright Clearance Center: Permissions Made Easy
supplies permissions but not the copyrighted content itself.
Description: Offering licensing systems that facilitate compliance with the copyright law and promote the constitution...
Category: Society>Law>...>CopyrightServices>Licensi ng
www.copyright.com/ - 22k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pagesSUL: Copyright & Fair Use
of Texas System Administration Office of General Counsel.
Description: A very good starting place built by the Stanford University.
Category: Arts>Music>Resources>Copyright
fairuse.stanford.edu/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages10 Big Myths about copyright explained
10 Big Myths about copyright explained. An attempt
- by Brad Templeton. Note that this is an essay about copyright myths.
Description: Answers to common myths about copyright from Brad Templeton, former publisher at ClariNet Communications...
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pagesWhat is Copyright Protection?
What is Copyright Protection? A brief memorandum regarding copyrights
in general and as may be applied to the internet. Researched
Description: Information about copyrights in general, and as applied to the internet.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.whatiscopyright.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pagesTITLE 17
OF COPYRIGHT; CHAPTER 2 COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER; CHAPTER
Description: Title 17- Copyrights- of the US Code in its entirity from Cornell University
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pagesUS Copyright Office, Copyright Basics (Circular 1)
Circular 1. Copyright © Basics Español September 2000. Copyright
Basics. Format Note. Table of Contents.
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pagesTHE UT SYSTEM CRASH COURSE IN COPYRIGHT
Copyright Crash Course Logo with Link to Copyright Crash Course, Want to use, images?
Want to create things with them? You need a crash course in copyright...
Description: Beginner's guide to all aspects of copyright law, from the University of Texas.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtin dx.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pagesIPR Notice and Disclaimers
de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University), All
www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
ResultPage:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
SearchwithinresultsDissatisfied with your search results? Help us improve.
GoogleHome - AdvertisewithUs - SearchSolutions - Services&Tools - Jobs,Press,&Help
2002 Google -
HmmIs this copyright infringement? It is not, because copyright only protects the expression of an idea, and not the idea itself. Consequently, a retransmission of the ideas, facts, or even conjectures (which are not themselves copyrightable elements) in the retransmitter's own words does not constitute a copyright infringement, and is itself as protected by copyright as the original posting. From a legal standpoint, this is the preferred method for information to propagate across the net. quoted from here
I'm not sure that you could even put a price 'in your own words'. Perhaps a script to change the 'offending' price into words, such as, "Thirteen dollars and twenty-seven cents". But that is plain dumb.
A price can't be copyrighted, any more than I could copyright "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890". If this weren't true, I could have just copyrighted all the letters in the Alphabet, and Walmart and Best Buy would be fighting over who owns the copyright on '$9.95'.
I'm not sure where the DMCA comes in to the original complaint, as reading a price or marketing blurb is hardly 'reverse engineering' or 'breaking copy protection'. If these companies encrypted their prices prior to publication, it would be easier to track who has access to them, and we would then be talking DMCA.
If anything is wrong here, it's the fact that there are leaks in the companies. Perhaps if they were paid to keep their mouths shut, the employees wouldn't talk. Or still would. There is something to messing with your company, especially when you're just a cogwheel out of zillions and can be replaced or removed without notice. Maybe a rush of power comes over these people, or they have just watched 'Office Space' 32 times. But I digress.
There was a issue similar to this going on here in Minnesota, when big grocery store chains got into a sue-fight over the 'theft' of prices that had yet to be released.
To sum all this up, as long as fatwallet is 'reviewing' prices and service, I can't see how they can be liable.
-
Re:Umm...
Someone needs to do a google search on " Public Domain". Public domain is there for a reason. Just as Copyright is available to give the artist a means of supporting himself, it was never ment to last his entire life. The purpose is to give the artist an incentive to work, current copyright law fails in this respect because an artist only needs to create one successful work and can immediatly switch to being a leech on society for the rest of his (and his childrens, and childrens childrens) life. Having the works pass into the Public domain is a good idea for two reasons:
1. It is for the greater good of society as other people build on earlier works.
2. It keeps the artist busy as they were supposed to have to keep releasing work to feed themselves as their early work passed into the public domain, just like any other job. -
Re:The Record Labels are Protecting the Artists
Don't forget Dr. Dre who took a few stabs at the Napster crew himself. Of course, he also stole the THX "deep note" sound effect from George Lucas. I'd like to hear an explaination that doesn't indicate gross hypocrisy on his part, but I can't find an accurate one anywhere.
-
Google cache *does* break copyrightOK IANAL, but I was working on some similar technology at one stage....
Let's see if I can summarize (sorry I don't have the specific links/cases anymore):
- in many countries, pretty much everything is copyrighted even if I don't put all the (C), all rights reserved, yada yada. By default all websites are copyrighted.
- Claiming anything on the internet is 'public use' or the like is total crap. It does not absolve you of copyright law breaches.
- keeping copies of copyrighted things is a Bad Thingtm to do
- If you sell technology that does keep copy of stuff, as well as going after your customers, they can go after you.
Sure, the google cache is useful. I use it myself. It's always amazed me that it is that useful, because the only reason they have anything in the cache is due almost entirely to the good will of anyone who owns that content.
There's some good sites around, including UK gov't, Stanford and the copyright website. I'm not affiliated with any of them...
-
Rap music, sampling, and Biz MarkieIf none of you know where to look, the case that established that unauthorized samples were always copyright violations is called Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc.
The injunction handed down on December 17, 1991 forced Biz Markie's hit album, "I Need a Haircut," off the shelves for including a sample of Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Alone Again (Naturally)." This case marked the end of sound collage in popular music, since it firmly established that the number of notes that may be sampled without permission is zero.
The US Supreme Court was a little bit looser in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (the 2 Live Crew / Roy Orbison "Pretty Woman" case), and allowed 2 Live Crew the affirmative defense of fair use, overturning past decisions that had held commercial appropriation to be presumptively infringing.
These are probably the cases of the early '90s to which Mr. Vaidhyanathan is referring.
-Isaac
-
But...if video games aren't "speech"...
Questions:
1. What is the relation between "free speech" and "copyright"? If a game is not free speech, can it still be copyrighted? According to this, "any original expression that is fixed in a tangible form" can be copyrighted.
2. Could a saved game-- which maybe would be considered a "performance" -- be considered free speech? I mean, if I play some 3d shooting game and kill only the politicians, isn't the saved game a kind of performance art?
3. What about hacked ROM games? Some of these must fall under "parody", no?
4. Surely games written by recognized literary greats, such as Douglas Adam's "Beaurocracy" is not only legitimate expression but social satire?
5. How do you draw the line between straight fiction, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and an Infocom interactive adventure?
6. If you printed out an Infocom game's text replacing the user's typed instructions with "Turn to page 7 to do xxxx" and published it as a book, would the video game suddenly become speech?
Maybe Dave Touretsky needs to set up another gallery.
W -
Re:copyright/legality?
They copy the entire article text and redistribute it from their own server, without ads and even the "branding" from the original site. That's a very different animal that slashdot, which just links to the original material at the original site.
Sure, their main page just briefly quotes, which is probably ok, but all the links point to local copies of the copyrighted news articles.
(In the USA) there are four criteria for judging what is a fair use of copyrighted material.
The purpose and character of their use isn't academic or educational, it's a news service just like the original sites they got the text from. The fact that it's hosted from a
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is darn close to 100% of the copyrighted material.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work is particularily bad... if people can easily get the news from this convienent summary site, why would they bother to visit the original site (and thus be an audience for their advertising, become "loyal" readers, etc).
Now the nature of the copyrighted work is informational news, and not really expressive (like songs, movies, etc), so at least they've sort-of got one of the four criteria for fair-use.
-
Re:Isn't everything copyrighted?
In the United States, copyright isn't technically automatic, one must attach a copyright notice to his/her work. It's one of those little notices like:
Copyright © 2001, TrollMan 5000. All rights reserved.
The little circled C is sort of an international symbol for copyright and is necessary for protection in other countries, thought not needed in the U.S.
Click on the link for more detailed info. -
Re:Hrmm.How close does a song have to be to the original before it can be declared the original?
Let's ask George Harrison. I'm sure he's got a highly sarcastic reply.
Seriously, there are only seven available chords in any given key anyway. I ii iii IV V vi and vii. Most rock musicians to my knowledge do not bother with vii as it's highly dissonant and hard to play on a guitar besides. Almost every song you will hear on the radio alternates betwee I and V and IV, unless you listen to the "alternative" station in your area, where you will hear fucked up minor chords in no key in particular.
Shifting the key doesn't make much difference except to people with perfect pitch. A large number of alternative groups drop their guitars down to eb or d (nirvana, korn, etc) anyway.
Chordless riffs (the opening of "Day Tripper" if you're over 40, or the opening of Rush "Limelight" or Ozzy's "Crazy Train" if you're an '80's metalhead, or to PJ's "Jeremy" if you're an alterna-dude) qualify as melody, and you really couldn't disguise them without ruining them. If you flattened the G in Day tripper to an F# to put it in the same key as the rest of the riff it would just barely be recognizable as the wrong riff. Alter any other note in the riff by a semitone and it becomes cacophany. Alter it by more than a semitone and it becomes increasingly difficult to play.
add in new notes (according to a map),
That would definitely obscure things, but only if done in a random way. You can add trills and grace notes to most existing songs and you'll just sound like you're showing off.
and change the tempo
Since tablature doesn't contain rhythm, this won't make any difference.
Although, now that this interesting fact has re-occurred to me, I wonder if tab can be seen as infringing at all? Since it doesn't contain that vital third dimension in music, the rhythm, they can't really be considered as a copy of the music. It's one reason why I don't use tab anymore, becase most bass parts are rhythmic, not melodic, and tab can only show me so many times that I play an E for eighteen mind-numbing measures.
Anyway, what I think is far more likely is that the greed-driven activity of lawyers will once again drive a harmless activity underground, make more previously harmless people into angry dissidents, fester discontent in our society, foster disrespect for the law in general, and push us all one more step closer to a societal collapse. Thanks, Harry Fox Agency.
-
Hope the NYT doesn't see this...I rather suspect that the good people at the NYT might take exception to this being posted in its entirety, without the hits and ads and all that they use to fund their online site.
I think it might be wise of we
----
-
Re:Can you keep your head,Making backups is legal
Media shifting is legal
Fair use is legal
these are all things that this coding is preventing things that are legal...There are conflicting claims about the legality of backups and media-shifting. The bottom line is that no sane person is going to object if you (for example) playing a tape into your sound card, digitally cleaning it up, and burning the result to CD-R, so long as you do not redistribute copies.
Fair use is, by definition, legal, but the waters have been muddied by people who think that "fair use" is some sort of magical invocation. The current precedent is to weigh the situation against a four-part test.
It can't really be copying because the only copying that can do any real harm is done with disk pressing not disk burning.
True; this whole business is irrelevant to the economically significant piracy problem, which is factories in see-no-evil jurisdictions where the entire DVD, CSS key track and all, is simply copied bit-for-bit and pressed.
/. -
Copyright primerTwo things...
First, you own the copyright to the article, whether or not you note such. They are clearly in violation of the US Copyright law, so the bark letters that have been mentioned should work fine. Unfortunately, before you can actually sue for copyright infringement, you must register the copyright for a nominal fee (~$40 if I remember correctly), and because the copyright was not registered before the actual infringement, you can only collect actual damages (probably none in your case) plus any profits that Filemaker Today made as a result of your article. Had you registered it, you would have also been eligible for up to $100,000 in statutory damages. See The Copyright Website for more info on the Copyright law.
Second, a simple phrase such as:"All material on this site is Copyright 1999, www.murrayc.com. Permission is hereby granted for non-commercial reproduction, provided that this notice remain attached. Please email for information on commercial reproduction (including advertiser-sponsored websites)."
That let's anyone use it as they wish for non-commercial purposes, but if someone wants to put it in their book or whatever, they must get you specific permission first. -
IT IS ILLEGAL TO GPL BSDL CODEThis is a little off topic, but there were so many threads discussing this, that rather then reply to each of them, I thought I'd just start my own. : )
BTW, most of this is applicable to all licenses, including the GPL.
Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:
"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."
There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)
Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.
Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.
Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net
Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test -
IT IS ILLEGAL TO GPL BSDL CODEThis is a little off topic, but there were so many threads discussing this, that rather then reply to each of them, I thought I'd just start my own. : )
BTW, most of this is applicable to all licenses, including the GPL.
Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:
"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."
There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)
Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.
Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.
Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net
Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test -
Licenses vs CopyrightsThere seems to be a bit of confusion about the ability to license BSD code as GPL.
A software license defines restrictions you wish to place on the use of your software/code. It is a legally binding agreement between the copyright holder and the user. These restrictions can not be overridden by sublicensing the code unless permission is explicitly given.
A copyright notice defines ownership of the code. You do not need to place a copyright notice in your work to hold the copyright. The second you write it (in the US), it is protected under copyright law unless you explicitly release it to the public domain.
Code which is in the "public domain" has no copyright. You used to see people who would release code to the public domain with restrictions, however in the US "public domain" means public domain, so the restrictions won't hold up.
Unless explicitly forbidden by a license, you can sublicense code under whatever terms you wish. The terms of the new license can not conflict with the old license (sublicense, not relicense).
This allowed people such as Microsoft to take BSD code and place it under MS EULA. The EULA does not place any restrictions to make it incompatible with the original BSD license.
That said, it is completely legal to sublicense BSD source code as GPL as long as the GPL does not conflict with the BSD license, which, by the looks of it, it doesn't.
Here are some URLs for people who are interested:The Copyright Website
Copyright Terms
Software License Primer
The USENET Copyright FAQ
[disclaimer: this is all information I gathered from law usenet groups and various legal web sites so it may not be completely accurate. if there are any copyright lawyers who want to correct me, please do.]
--