Slashdot Mirror

Not exactly. Pystar did a few things wrong. They used disk duplication software to install the copies, rather than running the installer from the CD. They did not have a license to make copies in this way.

The owner of a copy of OS X has the legal right to make copies as needed to use it with a computer. How those copies are made is irrelevant: AFAICT, nowhere in copyright law is there any distinction between copying files via an installer, copying them directly from a CD to a hard drive, or copying them to an intermediate buffer and then to a hard drive. You end up with the same bits no matter what.

More importantly, they modified the software to allow booting on other machines and to subvert the automatic update mechanism. They then distributed copies of these derived works.

The same law that grants the right to make necessary copies (17 USC 117) also grants the right to make necessary adaptations -- like Psystar's modified version. It also grants the right to authorize a third party to make those copies or adaptations on your behalf.

If there is a weakness in Psystar's case, it's the possible ambiguity about who owns the copy of OS X at the moment that the adaptation is made. You can adapt software you own, and you can have someone else adapt software you own on your behalf, but if you want to transfer that adaptation when you sell the software, you need the copyright holder's permission.

So the question is, does the customer buy OS X and then have Psystar adapt it, or is Psystar selling an adaptation that they own? Does copying a previously adapted image count as "making an adaptation", or would they have to copy an unmodified image and then patch it?

Either way, it's clear that Psystar is acting within the spirit of the law: copying an unmodified image first and then patching it is slightly less convenient than copying a pre-patched image, but ultimately equivalent. It's somewhat unreasonable to require them to change their patching process when the end result is identical.

Personally, I would love to see it made explicit in copyright law that you can distribute derived works of a copyrighted work as long as you also distribute a legal license for the original (so, for example, you could distribute DVDs along with alternate edits), but there is existing precedent in the US that this is not legal.

Maybe not for movies, but it is legal for software. Not all copyrighted works are treated equally. (Another example: you can't rent out software, even though you can rent out movies.)

The current law is the current law, and Apple is legally correct.

No, they aren't. You (and Apple) are ignoring 17 USC 117, which explicitly allows making a copy or adaptation of software in order to run it. It was even mentioned in the summary!

If you believe that the current law is not optimal, that's a matter to take up with the legislature. Arguing that the lawyers and courts are wrong for following the law is downright silly.

They're not following the law. They're following the parts they like and ignoring the parts they don't like.

Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?

That may have been the case before 1980, but 17 USC 117 now explicitly allows the owner of a copy of a program to make additional copies or adaptations as needed to run it.

You're the proud owner of a box and its contents, but you lack legal possession of the usage rights, which is 95% of the value.

There's no such thing as "usage rights" regarding a copy of software that you own. 17 USC 117 says you're entitled to make additional copies (i.e. copying it to the hard drive or into RAM) or adaptations (i.e. patching it to work on non-Apple hardware) of that software as needed to run it. There is no software usage right in law, there's only copyright, and copyright law specifically allows this.

Just because the developers of Windows and Linux have chosen to let you run their OS on any x86 machine, doesn't mean you automatically have the right to run any piece of software you like on your machine.

You're right, technically, but 17 USC 117 does mean you automatically have the right to run any piece of software you own on your machine. You don't need permission from the copyright holder to install or run software, or to adapt it to run on your machine; copyright law itself grants you those rights.

This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.

Yes, but...

End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.

No. Like Psystar said, 17 USC 117 grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it. You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.

And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.

I wonder how you reach that conclusion. Eldred v. Ashcroft doesn't talk about software or programs. On the other hand, Section 117 is quite clear about it. Weighing those two pieces of legal info, I'd say Psystar is 0% wrong.

You don't need a license to install or run software once you've bought a copy. 17 USC 117 is all the entitlement you need.

Squatter, or just extreme slacker?

When I first reached out to google for the definition of squatter, I got a bit confused as to where the illegality lay[gr.?]. The definition of squatter hereseems to express two types, those with legal, and illegal. When I switched the search to cybersquatter, I then understood more about where the laws start, (though seems a amendment may be needed) here in the United States, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act passed in 1999, an amendment to the Trademark Act 1946 also known as the Lanham Act.

Where am I going with this? How does one determine good faith? How do you differentiate between a person who might struggle to get it up (specially if a deadline looms overhead, further if that deadline is tightened) and one who is squatting maliciously, awaiting a time when they can resell the slot to someone else who has developed the application, put in the sweat, time, thought, tears, hours, etc...
To end with a wee bit of entertainment amidst all this legal jumbo-gumbo, figured I might throw a little head-nod to J.R. Bob "Dobbs" (not MS's failed project). Slacking is an artform, a religion, one that many take quite seriously. So much so they used it in the naming of a Linux distro. Slacker? Or Ill-memes willful disconsolation?

A database is copyrightable. See http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html

... but FACTS are not copyrightable.

A database is copyrightable. See http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html

Facebook is actually the best example of why not to share. Remember that lawsuit Facebook went through because it turned out that Mark Zuckwhatever had actually lifted the idea from some fellow students at Harvard? Facebook bought out the company at well above market value as a settlement.

As the owner of a small tech business, I would suggest that you consider using NDA's and MNDA's whenever possible. It allows you to share, but people with money and ideas of their own will know that you are both serious and collaborative. I've been told by other companies and individuals that they knew we were serious when we showed up with NDAs or MNDAs.

And to echo an earlier comment, no the value of ideas is what drives most of our economy these days, and let not forget our favorite slashdot subject of patent trolls. You should cover your ass legally if you think you really do have a good idea. Non-Disclosure agreements and Mutual Non-Disclosure agreement are available online for free to customize.

(for instance)
Bit Law Sample NDA

Don't trust anyone who JUST tells you your idea is worthless. They either don't recognize the value, are an ass-hat, or a thief. If your idea really is worthless, someone who really understands your idea will explain it in a way that will totally convince you that it is either dumb or overdone or impractical. Otherwise, you should be signing NDA's for everything and ignoring the dweebs here that say it doesn't matter. They don't know what they're talking about. If you told me your idea and I didn't sign a contract I'd take it if I were a jerk. Shit, I've even got a co-location, a couple extra servers, a perl/javascript developer and a web designer not to mention a couple extra quadcore rackmount servers.

So now that I think about, yeah.... NDAs and MNDAs are the dumbest thing ever. Your idea is worthless and stupid, and I'd be happy to hear all about it under no legal obligations with your full technical disclosure...

Done. From Bitlaw (emphasis mine):

Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act sets forth the general requirements for a utility patent:

        Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

In other words, for an invention to be patentable it must:

      1. be statutory,
      2. be new,
      3. be useful, and
      4. be nonobvious.

Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?

I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.

While IANAL, I think it would go under the the intended use. While some people have specifically loaded MP3/RAW Media tracks/etc onto their phone for use, the number of people that only get their ringtone's form "official providers" (e.g. their phone service, etc.) and probably either purchase (or receive for free) the ringtones from that official service. Thus, if the service licensed the use of the media with the intent of offering on that service - which probably would have had to be in their contract - then it probably goes that the intent of a ringtone is by nature a public performance and thus non-infringing by definition.

A suitable metaphor would be if you picked up a CD, and put it in your CD player. If you had license to use it in your CD player and the definition of the CD player was such that it made a "public performance" then the license would be required to allow such "public performance".

That's not to say that I agree with their definition of a "public performance" - I quite likely don't. For example, my freshmen year of college we frequently watched movies in a common area of the dorm - available only to other students and/or residents and their guests. (E.g. you had to be a student or faculty to gain access; guests had to register at the front desk.) People would come and go, and there'd probably be at most 20 people there. My sophomore year they told us we couldn't do that any more as it was a "public performance" - simply because there was no regulation of who could come by and watch, and they didn't want to deal with any legal issues that may further arise if they didn't; dorm staff did enforce it (they had to, not blaming them). Yet if we stuffed those same 20 people into a dorm room, and let anyone come and go into the dorm room it would have been a "private performance".

That's not to say that there is legitimate need to regulate "public performances" - there is. But the definition needs to be narrowed down a lot more than it is currently, and should probably require a minimum number of people and more.

Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?

I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.

Unix just turned 40, and Tetris just turned 25. What do they have in common other than closely spaced birthdays? They were both first developed on PDP-11 hardware (Unix on a PDP-11, Tetris on a Russian clone). And they've both been cloned, early and often.

U.S. copyright explicitly doesn't apply to methods of operation. Title 17, United States Code, section 102(b). This makes it legal to "clone" a computer program by observing its method of operation. But SCO has tried to use copyright to shut down Unix clones, and The Tetris Company has tried to use copyright to shut down Tetris clones. SCO already lost its case (there is no copyrightable piece of Unix in Linux), but the other case (Tetris v. BioSocia) is still pending.

And despite Tetris inventor Alexey Pajitnov's expressed disdain for free software, two servers operated by Tetris (zone.tetris.com and www.tetrisfriends.com) are run using GNU/Linux.

But you can lend it out for free at the library?

Yes. From the statute in question, with my emphasis:

Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. [...] Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

Good luck getting that done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I see your 17 USC 109(a) and raise you a 17 USC 109(b): Record Rental Amendment.

Non-obvoiusness is and important factor. If as novice HS programmer can do it without assistance of any sort beyond knowing how to program, it is pretty obvious.

Let's say I write a game involving falling shapes with completely different gameplay from Tetris (say, Dr. Mario). Is this infringement?

The Tetris Company claims exclusive rights to "trade dress" over nine elements of the game. One is the use of tetrominoes (spelled "Tetriminos" by The Tetris Company) as game pieces; the other eight are present in Dr. Mario Online Rx, developed by Arika and published by Nintendo with no mention of Tetris in the opening credit screen. But then, Nintendo has a patent on the rules of Dr. Mario; Tetris doesn't have one on the rules of Tetris.

How about a game with different gameplay and the Tetris pieces?

One example of such a game would be Tetris 2 also called Tetris Flash, published by Nintendo under license from Elorg (now part of Tetris Holding). The Dr. Mario patent appears to read on Tetris 2. Another would be Zoda's Revenge: StarTropics II published by Nintendo, which has tetromino-shaped "tetrads" as artifacts to be collected much like the Dragon Balls of the anime series Dragon Ball. A third is Blockout also called Geom Cube published by Technos, which uses tetracubes (most of which are tetrominoes extruded by one unit) to be packed into 3x3 or 5x5 cell planes.

How about a game with the same gameplay and shapes, but new graphics, etc?

This is the situation of most clones, such as KSirtet and Gnometris, and this is the situation under legal dispute. But I think 17 USC 102(b) makes the gameplay uncopyrightable as a "process" and "method of operation".

How about a 100% accurate remake of one of the official Tetris games?

Some clones are reskinnable to resemble a classic Tetris game almost to the pixel, though the author doesn't distribute such infringing skins.

The legal system has a habit of assuming that an issued patent is valid by default

It's not just a habit, it's law:

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/282.html

Section 282. Presumption of validity; defenses
A patent shall be presumed valid...

The ID number is copyrighted

An identifying number cannot be copyrighted. Feist vs. Rural Telephone held that a copyrighted work must exhibit some sort of discretion or creativity. An algorithmically-assigned serial number does not satisfy that condition, and therefore is not subject to copyright.

First, we need to make sure we're all on the same page about what a derivative work is. From http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html

According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is: "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."

A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version.

Given that, creating an audiobook from a text (whether by recording a person speaking, or on-the-fly with a computer program) is a derivative work, the right to which is reserved for the copyright holder. A lot of people talk about reading a bedtime story to their kids being okay and it obviously is - IANAL, but I suspect that if you recorded that reading of Harry Potter and posted it on the 'net for download for a small fee, or even free, you'd face some swift legal action. My understanding is that just because you purchased the rights to a work in one form does not mean you can, other than for personal use, convert it to any other form.

Consider the following what-if: some CGI and AI genius creates an algorithm that can take a book, interpret the descriptions and generate a visual adaption, not just an audio one via text-to-speech. Would that be considered

Fact is (as far as I can tell, again IANAcopyrightL) an audiobook, whether created by a human or a computer, is an established derivative of a book, and is protected by copyright law, and you cannot distribute such without being given the right by the copyright holder. (Although I guess it could be argued that a text-to-speech algorithm generating the audio on the fly is entirely different from doing the exact same thing in a studio and transmitting the result as an audio file? It's not like Amazon is sending out actual audio information. Hmm...)

Reading something out loud is pretty much the definition of performance, and if done for an unspecified number greater than 1, is public in aggregate (multiple single readings)

True, it's performance. But from the definition of "publicly" in 17 USC 101, I don't see how individual private performances of a single copy constitute performances done "publicly" when repeated in front of separate audiences. Otherwise, owning a tape deck would infringe copyright law because I can play a tape multiple times to different people. Can you cite other statutes or case law supporting your interpretation?

if not immediate fact (multiple person audience).

Don't plug the headphone jack into a public address system, and it's not public. Even some public performances would appear to meet a statutory limitation of the exclusive right under U.S. law as long as nobody charges admission: 17 USC 110(4).

The fact that various situations exist which seem to contradict Aiken's assertions do not invalidate his assertions

Yes it does. Per Sony v. Universal, a device feature does not infringe copyright if it has substantial non-infringing use.

Reading something out loud is pretty much the definition of performance, and if done for an unspecified number greater than 1, is public in aggregate (multiple single readings)

True, it's performance. But from the definition of "publicly" in 17 USC 101, I don't see how individual private performances of a single copy constitute performances done "publicly" when repeated in front of separate audiences. Otherwise, owning a tape deck would infringe copyright law because I can play a tape multiple times to different people. Can you cite other statutes or case law supporting your interpretation?

if not immediate fact (multiple person audience).

Don't plug the headphone jack into a public address system, and it's not public. Even some public performances would appear to meet a statutory limitation of the exclusive right under U.S. law as long as nobody charges admission: 17 USC 110(4).

The fact that various situations exist which seem to contradict Aiken's assertions do not invalidate his assertions

Yes it does. Per Sony v. Universal, a device feature does not infringe copyright if it has substantial non-infringing use.

Slashdot comments are not legal advice. Run them past your attorney if you have questions.

By their reasoning, all of my elementary school teachers are criminals.

Not exactly. The performance of a work as part of face-to-face teaching takes advantage of several limitations of copyright's scope, both implicit in fair use (17 USC 107) and explicit (17 USC 110(1)). Besides, 17 USC 110(4) would appear to make this whole article not apply.

Slashdot comments are not legal advice. Run them past your attorney if you have questions.

By their reasoning, all of my elementary school teachers are criminals.

Not exactly. The performance of a work as part of face-to-face teaching takes advantage of several limitations of copyright's scope, both implicit in fair use (17 USC 107) and explicit (17 USC 110(1)). Besides, 17 USC 110(4) would appear to make this whole article not apply.

Also EULAs are ex post facto

Lately, I've seen URLs of EULAs for PC software printed on the box. Therefore, the terms are available to peruse before you buy a copy.

and have no exchange, which isn't allowed in contracts.

Because the EULA was available at this URL, the exchange (or consideration) happened when you bought the copy. Even if not, the consideration is the decryption of the installer in exchange for your assent to the EULA terms. Several countries that have implemented the WIPO Copyright Treaty have made the right to decrypt an installer an exclusive right of the copyright owner. For example, under the United States statute (with my emphasis):

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. [...]

As used in this subsection--

• (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
• (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

If an interface concept is used in a movie and it is eventually turned into a real product and patented, does the implementation in the movie count as prior art?

Yes, it does, at least in the US.

The US statute reads, in relevant part, "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent ..." (35 USC 102)

Since finding printed art is a much stronger argument than, say, having sworn depositions from individuals in this country stating that they "knew" of the invention before the applicant claims to have invented it -- it's hard to cross-examine a scientific journal article -- that's usually the way these things go. The courts have a very broad interpretation of "printed," so don't worry, it doesn't have to be on paper. The emphasis is on "publication," i.e., available to the public.

[IANAL, but I've been down this road a few times.]

Of course you'll need to make sure you've got a license to present the broadcast! Oh and if you choose to use a PC relaying a broadcast (from the internet or from a TV signal) then you'll need to purchase "secondary transmission" rights ...

In the US 17USC111 (a)(5) appears to give a publicly funded school a pass on this. But it does say under ibid (a)(2) that you must comply with 17USC110 (2) which at (2)(D)(ii)(I)(aa) [!] requires that any digital copy is deleted before the end of the classroom session. Oh and you'll need to "[provide] notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection".

Sounds like you need a good lawyer. I hope the TV stations band together and sue all the schools! Justice must be done!!

US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/111.html
US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/110.html
Worldwide situations: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/copyrightlaw/copyrightlaw.htm
UK licensing: http://www.gla.ac.uk/copyright/video.htm

Of course you'll need to make sure you've got a license to present the broadcast! Oh and if you choose to use a PC relaying a broadcast (from the internet or from a TV signal) then you'll need to purchase "secondary transmission" rights ...

In the US 17USC111 (a)(5) appears to give a publicly funded school a pass on this. But it does say under ibid (a)(2) that you must comply with 17USC110 (2) which at (2)(D)(ii)(I)(aa) [!] requires that any digital copy is deleted before the end of the classroom session. Oh and you'll need to "[provide] notice to students that materials used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright protection".

Sounds like you need a good lawyer. I hope the TV stations band together and sue all the schools! Justice must be done!!

US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/111.html
US law: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/110.html
Worldwide situations: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/copyrightlaw/copyrightlaw.htm
UK licensing: http://www.gla.ac.uk/copyright/video.htm

There's one thing you're not quite taking into consideration: patents. MS can't release anything in any form (including beta) and then file for a patent. They need to file for the patents first, and only once the paperwork hits the US PTO can they release a beta.

Another piece of advice: don't rely on random dudes on slashdot for legal advice, including me:

From http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html:

In order for an invention to be patentable, it must be new as defined in the patent law. This novelty requirement states that an invention cannot be patented if certain public disclosures of the invention have been made. The statute which explains when a public disclosure has been made (35 U.S.C. Section 102) is complicated and often requires a detailed analysis of the facts and the law. The most important rule, however, is that an invention will not normally be patentable if:

• the invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection;
• the invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or
• the invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date.

So as long as you file within a year of disclosure, you can still get a patent.

There are technical, legal definitions of theft, which don't include the act of making digital copies.

In Indiana they do. The Indiana Code defines theft to include "transferring or reproducing: (A) recorded sounds; or (B) a live performance; without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit." True, federal copyright law preempts state law except for sound recordings published prior to 1972, but there are a lot of works published prior to 1972.

Read paragraph two of the following...
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html

License does not mean "a pile of text", it is a abstract concept which grants or takes away one or more rights in an agreement with the holder of the rights.

If you have no license to a work, you are infringing copyright. If you have an explicit license which was legally agreed at purchase.

If you have don't have an explicit license, you have been given an implicit license to the copyrighted work, assuming whoever you bought it from has the right to offer you that.

What I called bullshit on was the claim that by seizing the gang's trademark they would somehow be able to prevent the gang members from wearing jackets with the logo on it. Trademark law doesn't work like that.

Lolwut? Trademark law explicitly permits seizure of counterfeit goods. In this context, counterfeit goods are those displaying a trademark in violation of the rights of the trademark holder. After the RICO action, the tradmark holder is the U. S. Government, so only they can display the MONGOLS' former logo. Anyone else displaying it is counterfeiting.

Or, at least, I'd suspect that's the legal theory. IANAL, but just reading through the back history of trademark laws (for instance, the Lanham Act).

BTW, even if you think that "counterfeiting" is an inappropriate term, any trademark dilution or infringement can be subject to seizure and destruction of infringing article. So yeah, the Mongols may be losing their jackets. (Not right away; if I'm reading the law right, it takes a substantial judicial process to ask for seizure and have it executed.)

Where does anyone(Other then the gpl itself) grant me the right to run software?

This is the law in the United States, home of Slashdot, as I understand it: When you download a computer program, and this copy is not legally bound to a service like World of Warcraft, you become the owner of a copy. Copying a program into RAM to execute it, under the authority of the owner of a lawfully made copy, is not an infringement of copyright. 17 USC 117(a)(1).

Also you paid good money for the game, full retail, but you can't put it in your gaming shop or cyber cafe without paying us more. Do car rental places pay special extra price for their cars? What about a library that loans out books?

The United States, home of Slashdot, restricts the "rental, lease, or lending" of copies of computer programs. However, nonprofit libraries such as those run by government agencies or educational institutions are exempt. 17 USC 109(b)(2)(A).

Why is software so special when compared to other fields?

Because it is so much easier for an end user to make a new copy[1] of a sound recording or a computer program than any other kind of work.

[1] "Copy" here includes phonorecords.

I never said copyright covers end use. Copyright covers distribution.

The GPL extends your rights to allow distribution so long as you provide source.

Copyright has a specific clause that disallows PsyStar from distributing their copy without Apple's consent:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html

IANAL, but I just read 17 USC 117, and it doesn't seem to say that.

What it DOES say seems to be this:
1. You can make copies of stuff you own, as long as it's for archival purposes, or you need to do so to use it (e.g. copying software from DVD to USB key to install on a machine with no DVD drive)

2. You can sell/give away/transfer/etc. an exact copy only while doing the same to the original, transferring all your rights (e.g. you can give someone the backup of the install disc as well as the original)

3. Copies of software can be made for the purposes of maintenance or restoration, as defined later on in 17 USC 117 (e.g. imaging a system to a new hard drive).

I don't see anything there that invalidates EULAs. I'm pretty sure that if EULAs had been invalidated it would have been all over slashdot by now.

They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.

And that's why you can revoke a transfer of copyright. I admit that the term through which you cannot revoke is too long, but a transfer of copyright is trivially revocable.

So...copyright no longer includes the right to copy?

Selling software has always implicitly included the right to use that software. Like ALL other sales. Can you imagine buying a pizza and then being told you'd have to pay extra eating fees?

Sorry Pizza/Software sellers, if you put something up for sale, you implicitly license all standard behavior (eating, executing, etc) because it'd be fraud to sell something you knew was unusable in its current state.

That you can buy WoW at Walmart proves that it needs no license - otherwise they'd have given you one before taking your money. Obviously they couldn't be selling a product you couldn't use, so that they complete the sale (as agents of Blizzard via the software distributors) so you can be sure Blizzard knows what they're doing and consents.

Here's the specific exemption. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html

I don't know why people keep getting hung up on legal vs. illegal content; the law clearly says that ISPs have no copyright liability for their caches:

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/512.html

You can copyright a performance in the US. perhaps you are not in the US and were not aware of this.

In the US, you can even copyright choreographed works, without any recording or written record of the choreographic performance. A musical performance, affixed to a media or not is still under US copyright. If you aren't convinced even bitlaw agrees with me on this particular issue.

If someone records my performance, without my permission, they have violated my copyright. It does not matter if I was performing another person's song. If I performed another person's song without their permission then they could come after me, of course.

If Radiohead wants to enforce a rule that if you make a performance using one of their songs that it has to be free (like a Creative Commons license for example). They are certainly free to do that. And they are certainly free to revoke Prince's right to any future use of their music. But I assume Prince's label and membership in various music organizations have granted him a (very limited) license to use Radiohead's song.

There seems to be a rampant misconception here on Slashdot today, So I'm posting this a 3rd time.

For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"

This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to .... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.

The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).

IANAL, but that's the facts.

For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"

This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to .... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.

The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).

IANAL, but that's the facts.

Rather than making a new refutation, I'm reposting the one I did from earlier in the thread. FSD extends to rentals of everything but sound recordings and computer programs.

For more clarity, The actual cite USC Title17, Chapter 1, Section 109 describes the situation where the owner of a copy of a lawfully created work may dispose of it, without the consent of the copyright owner. "the owner of a particular copy ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"

This is a clear exemption from the blanket rights granted to copyright holders, under section 106(c). Though 106(c) gives copyright owners "The exclusive rights to .... distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale ... rental, lease, or lending" these rights have exemptions.

The rights granted to owners of a copy, but not the copyright, to dispose of a copy by sale or otherwise are established. Rental, leasing and loaning are implicit in the "or otherwise" The rights do not extend to renting, loaning, or leasing computer programs or sound recordings because of 109(a)(1)(A).

IANAL, but that's the facts.

Buying a DVD with OS X on it does not necessarily give you the right to make an additional copy of the OS on your computer's hardware. Only Apple has that right to make a copy and if you want to make use of it, legally, there is a lot of support for you needing some sort of a license from Apple.

Nope, 17 USC 117. You don't need a license to run software any more than you need a license to make a "copy" of the words in a book in your retina.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner