Slashdot Mirror

Going all the way back to 2005, China stated that it would take steps to comply with, and enforce copyright laws. See #1 under "Serious Challenges Remain" in this article. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat052505.html

According to 17 U.S.C. 504 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max. However, if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200. What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement."

Yeah, that is really neat, and useful, too - notice the important parts "knowingly provided... materially false contact information to a domain name registrar". That's not targeting normal p2p file sharers, but people who set up a commercial website to sell copyrighted works under a false name so that they can't be caught. This is fraudulent and malicious behavior, and exactly the sort of thing we want to slap down with punitive damages.

What has never been argued, however, is that the $150k level should be for this sort of egregious, fraudulent and malicious behavior - i.e. that that is the definition of "willful", rather than the RIAA's definition of "anyone who has ever seen a copyright notice or one of our 'you wouldn't steal a car' advertisements". Thomas didn't challenge it, and Tenenbaum offered up a definition of "we know it when we see it" without any real argument, which is why it failed before it even got off the ground. The proper level of damages that should have been presented to the jury was $750-$30k, not $750-$150k, and that should be a reversable error.

According to 17 U.S.C. 504 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max. However, if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200.

What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement."

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html

Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors (or, if the authors are not alive, their surviving spouses, children or grandchildren, or executors, administrators, personal representatives or trustees) to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met. Notices of termination may be served no earlier than 25 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 30 years after the execution of the grant or 25 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first). However, termination of a grant cannot be effective until 35 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).

So no, you can't sell your copyrights, you can only lend them out for 35-40 years.

Wait, you mean that two songs sounding the same isn't only annoying, it actually constitutes a crime?

Music plagiarism is not a crime in the United States because criminal copyright infringement requires willful mens rea. But it's still a tort, as shown in these cases.

If I read it right, it is 14 years plus it can be renewed for 14 more years, so 28 years.
http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf

There is no exception in copyright law, to my knowledge (and please cite the law if I am wrong) that treats software any differently than any other copyrighted work.

17 USC 109 ordinarily exhausts the distribution right after the first sale. But this doesn't extend to the rental, lease, or lending of a copy of a computer program unless A. the copy is embedded in a device, B. the program is for a video game console, or C. a nonprofit library is lending the copy. On the other hand, 17 USC 117 specifically allows copying a computer program into RAM to run it. To find more cases, search the copyright statute for the words "computer program".

There is no exception in copyright law, to my knowledge (and please cite the law if I am wrong) that treats software any differently than any other copyrighted work.

17 USC 109 ordinarily exhausts the distribution right after the first sale. But this doesn't extend to the rental, lease, or lending of a copy of a computer program unless A. the copy is embedded in a device, B. the program is for a video game console, or C. a nonprofit library is lending the copy. On the other hand, 17 USC 117 specifically allows copying a computer program into RAM to run it. To find more cases, search the copyright statute for the words "computer program".

You bought a round piece of plastic. You don't own a copy of the code.

Chapter 1 of the United States copyright statute starts out by defining dozens of terms. For instance, "copies" are material objects in which a work is fixed, meaning that a disc with bits on the surface is a "copy". It goes on to grant exclusive rights to the copyright owner and then carve out exceptions for the owner of a lawfully made copy, such as the right to resell it (exhaustion of distribution rights at first sale; 17 USC 109) and the right to load a computer program into RAM (17 USC 117).

"Fair use" still means I can give a friend of mine a copy of your song off a CD I own so they can listen to it.

Umm, no, this shows you don't understand what Fair Use actually is. What you are doing is clearly copyright infringement.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Yes, but *that* redistribution meant mass produced copying. If I xerox my highlighted textbook, my highlights will actually *add* to my fair use defense, so your argument is invalid.

Highlighting is not considered modification because copyright in a book's case is the content. You did not change the words of the book. Fair use allows to modify your book as long as you don't sell it. If you re-wrote the book by changing the words and sold it, that is copyright infringement. The key word is "and".

As for scale, the copyright does not recognize scale as whether the copyright is valid or if infringement occurred. Scale only affects whether it is worth the copyright holder's time and money to pursue the matter (and whether they even know) and the amount of damages if successful. The copyright holder probably won't go after you if you sold 1 book even though they are within their rights to pursue the matter. You could provide fair use as a defense. But Psystar did not sell 1 copy. Psystar is not a hobbyist. It is a business and Apple had a strong case.

Yes, psystar would have been guilty of copyright infringement under (b), but the world has been moving away from (b) and towards (a) for a very long time, largely due to the copyright lobby getting it's panties in a wad over every new technology, like records for example.

Copyright Act is very clear on this. The Copyright Act of 1976 (US Title Code 17) has been amended a number of times for new technologies. Section 117 explicitly deals with computer programs. Section a says you may modify your copy to get it to run. Section b says you may sell your copy "as-is" but you may not modify and re-sell without the owners permission.

Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors:

Wrong. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html:

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

Who is representing the consumer's interests? Does any of these people have a grasp on topics such as "fair use" - you know, that thing that the DMCA wasn't supposed to hinder (DMCA sec 1201(C)(1)). Well, I guess some do, but they're the ones trying to destroy that concept.

Reference: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

It is considered a literary work. Given that nobody actually practices literate programming, I don't think this makes much sense.

You can't copyright recipes

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Recipes

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the U.S. Code, section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met.

For information on how to register, see the reverse side of this letter. For further information on copyright, deposit requirements, and registration procedures, see Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Deposit requirements depend on whether the work has been published at the time of registration:

        * If the work is unpublished, one complete copy
        * If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition
        * If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies as first published If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published
        * If the work is a contribution to a collective work and was published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work or a photocopy of the contribution itself as it was published in the collective work

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Yes, in some cases you can. I simple list of ingredients cannot, but then I don't think a protocol would be considered just a list of ingredients.

The copyright laws (such as the DMCA) and enforcement actions against emulators long predate the existence of the wii and it's Virtual Console

Fair use in a given country may be broader for out-of-print works than for in-print works. When a copyright owner takes a work out of print, that action says something about the copyright owner's own assessment of "the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107). In fact, I remember reading that some countries include out-of-print status explicitly in their counterparts to the effect on market test.

Here's your source material:

U.S. Copyright Office - Games

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufcient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

The back side of this form letter describes the options for registering copyrightable portions of games. If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, we recommend that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

The deposit requirements will vary, depending on whether the work has been published at the time of registration. If the game is published, the proper deposit is one complete copy of the work. If, however, the game is published in a box larger than 12" * 24" * 6" (or a total of 1,728 cubic inches) then identifying material must be submitted in lieu of the entire game. (See “identifying material” below). If the game is published and contains fewer than three threedimensional elements, then identifying material for those parts must be submitted in lieu of those parts. If the game is unpublished, either one copy of the game or identifying material should be deposited.

Identifying material deposited to represent the game or its three-dimensional parts usually consists of photographs, photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The identifying material should include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable content of the work, including the copyright notice if it appears on the work. All pieces of identifying material other than transparencies must be no less than 3" * 3" in size, and not more than 9" * 12", but preferably 8" * 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of the work.

I am not a lawyer (and I use Acronyms sparingly), but stealing accounts from other phishers may be a DMCA violation!!!

I don't mod any consoles mainly because I don't own any, thank you very much. Actually, I have looked this stuff up and yes, it is legal for me to back up software I have legally bought for personal use. And I didn't read that on wikipedia. I read it on the patent office website. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#backup

The best I'm doing with my time is getting a Ph.D. in a time when my country is very short of scientists.

The term "public performance" in the context of Copyright law isn't just about whether the property is public. It has to do with whether the audience is "the public". If you invite enough people (greater than a judge considers fair use) over to your house to watch a DVD, then you are infringing on the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder.

From 17 USC 101

To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

We broke both of those rules frequently in college - yay projector night!.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Citation

I know of no element of US law that supports the 3 strikes notion.

Look at what 17 USC 512(j)(1) says about repeat infringers.

Time to apply the cluebat: * infringing copyright is against the law * if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers) * if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem. The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

I'm not sure about AU, but in the US copyright infringement, while unlawful, is not criminal. One cannot be arrested for it, convicted of it, or subsequently incarcerated (with exceptions.)
Suing for bazillions of dollars is precisely what the offended party is supposed to do.
Moreover, it's up to the offended party to decide who to sue. If A downloads a movie from B, with software written by C, over a communication medium owned by D, who is to be sued? One; All? If this is a simple problem, then please, offer your solution. Maybe we can get this whole copyright/internet thing sorted out over the weekend

(but don't take my word for it: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)

It turns out that America did NOT give copyright protection to foreigners (but I thought that they had).
However, what is not mentioned by others is that NONE of the other countries gave copyright protection to ANY foreigners. It appears that the Berne treaty of 1886 was the first to give foreigners protection in terms of IP, though countries like England did not enact it until 1980's. OTH, in 1891, America passed its international copyright act. But it appears that it was used as a tool (similar to how we wield MFN today).

I think this is already an exemption under the DMCA. See here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

A DMCA exemption request has been filed for jailbreaking iPhones and will be reviewed soon. A more explicit request for an exemption for unlocking has also been filed. See here: http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking

Except that this isn't a criminal matter, and you're not going to the police to report a crime.

In the US, willful infringement over $1,000 IS a crime. IANAL but I should think if three-ish pieces of business software were pirated, it would exceed a total worth of $1000, and the CEO refusing to get properly licensed when informed of the situation might be considered willful infringement on the part of the company. If that were the case, he could indeed go to the police with it. Of course, I have nfc who would be prosecuted if the company were found criminally liable, so...

We have not yet had to reply to any DMCA takedowns yet - all the content on the website must have a share-friendly license before content can be uploaded.

Say someone develops a video game in the vein of Quadra, Quadrapassel, or KBlocks. These games are free software, and they implement substantially the same rules as Tetris. The Tetris Company claims that other computer programs that implement the rules of Tetris infringe the copyright in Tetris, despite a U.S. Copyright Office publication to the contrary. If someone develops a Free video game with the same rules as Tetris and hosts a mirror of the game on LegalTorrents, how do you plan to handle a DMCA request from The Tetris Company?

I don't think copyright infringement is typically a criminal offense.

It can be fairly easily, at least here in the US. $1000 retail value within 6mo (so for example a "so-and-so discography" or "best of <genre>" torrent would probably qualify), or if you're trying to make money, or if it's pre-release.

Copying for installation and for use by a computing device is explicitely permitted under Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 of US Copyright law

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Melodies are expressions.

That's why recordings of songs get copyright protection, but not the songs themselves.

In the language of U.S. copyright statute, your statement is written "That's why sound recordings are subject to copyright, but not musical works." The letter of the law contradicts you.

If, however, they decide to not enforce even one notice, no matter how ridiculous that notice might be, they run the risk of being found liable not only for the material identified in that one notice, but for any and all materials for which they have never received any notice. So, under the DMCA "safe harbor" provision, service providers have a very strong incentive to comply with all DMCA notices regardless of merit. In fact, that incentive is strong enough that it is nearly indistinguishable from being mandatory.

I don't think that's precisely how this DMCA safe harbor provision works. This is actually the first time I've heard that interpretation suggested.

In reviewing 35 U.S.C. Sec. 512(c), it appears that the service provider's liability is limited for material under certain circumstances, including "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."

If a service provider received, and ignored, notification of alleged infringement of file 1, I don't believe that the service provider would lose the safe harbor protection for file 2.

If you are aware of any judicial opinions (or even arguments made in court) that suggest otherwise, I would appreciate a citation.

Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?

No. The DMCA does not mandate removal of allegedly infringing materials. Without the DMCA, copyright holders could still send "cease and desist" letters to service providers, or otherwise request that allegedly infringing materials be removed. Service providers would then have to decide whether to comply with the demand/request or risk being held liability for monetary damages, perhaps under a theory of secondary liability. Even worse, service providers might have faced monetary damages even if they were unaware of specific acts of copyright infringement.

The DMCA "notice and takedown" safe harbor provides a voluntary way for service providers to avoid monetary liability based on the potentially infringing activities of their users. Even better, if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability.

Service providers that use the DMCA notice and takedown safe harbor are thus able to provide public fora without being having an incentive to police user activity to minimize the risk of owing damages in their users engage in copyright infringement. This is good from a free speech perspective.

If a takedown notice is sent, service providers do not have to comply . They can keep the materials online, provided they are willing to risk being found liable. Thus, service providers who choose to use the DMCA to protect themselves from obvious instances of infringement can still choose to protect the availability of their users' submissions.

This is good for service providers and good for users. Why do you think Slashdot has designated an agent under the DMCA?

Given the benefits of this provision, Congress should not be ashamed. Only those copyright holders who send out abusive takedown notices and the like, and those service providers who indiscriminatly hang their users out to dry, should be ashamed.

And remember that any attempt to circumvent locking out third-party memory is a heinous violation of the DMCA and will leave *you* the crimino-consumer liable for a big fine or jail.

No it won't, because:

The prohibition ... shall not apply to persons who are ... adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title. source

If all your data for legitimately purchased software gets erased every time you try to play, then by all means, you are showing substantial adverse effects on your non-infringing use of copyrighted works. By all means, circumvent the hell out of them!

Are you being sarcastic??

For example, in the United States--

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

GPL covers SOURCE CODE, and thru "derivative works" covers binary "performances". The whole reason we even have EULA's (End User LICENSE Agreements) is that there was one case 30 years ago where somebody argued that typing source code from a book to RAM and from the RAM to CPU was "infringement" and duplication of the work. So because of the internal machine copies needed, you have to be granted a special LICENSE to USE any kind of software (source code or binary). EULA writers have used US law's reliance on "contracts" to throw the "kitchen sink" in EULAs and call them "contracts" rather than license for use.

Except that under Copyright Law, you don't need any special license to USE software. See Section 117, which was amended in 1980:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — 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

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

I believe that the Copyright Act preempts your statements. :)

There is no issue with the legality of what the hackers did. Article 17, section 1201(f) explicitly exempts this situation (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201):
"a person ... may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program ... that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs"

It is most definitely about MySpace. It doesn't matter what Warner claims (even if it was illegal and they could be sued for theft), MySpace has the duty to investigate the claim of copyright. It's not even that hard! Go to the U. S. Copyright Office Search Page and type in "Collins Edwyn" and the sixth link to return is "Girl Like You". If I can find it in 2 minutes, how long should it take MySpace?

It also doesn't solve the problem that providing fake information to domain registrars is a felony in the US and probably a couple more countries. In fact, if you commit a felony that is somehow connected to a domain with fake registration information, your sentence is automatically increased by 7 years or doubled whichever is less.

I'm not sure I would recommend doing that. And if your in a country where it isn't illegal, then make sure the registrar isn't or it could suck you into the law there. I'm not sure they would extradite you or anything, but a warrant could sneak up on you down the road when attempting to get a better job or visiting certain countries or if the cops in your own country get a boner for you and want to use it as an excuse to take you down town once a year and hold you for several days seeing if anyone wants to extradite you. I was once held for 3 days on 4 or 5 unpaid parking tickets from 10 years prior that happens 5 months after I sold the car.

This article is a classic example of why you shouldn't take legal advice from slashdot posts.

Note, I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I can't find credible sources/links which show this guys doesn't know jack nor shit about what he's talking about.

First, yes, as someone pointed out, copyright laws vary somewhat from country to country. However, thanks to treaties, like the Berne Convention, which has been signed by most of the world's countries (although, not all the countries necessarily enforce it vigorously) they have become fairly standardized.

For the following statements, I've referenced wikipedia articles (which, I suppose might be wrong, but I have a fair amount of confidence in the accuracy), as well as the US Copyright Office website:

• 
       
• Japanese Copyright
       
• European Copyright
       
• US Copyright

1) Copyright is longer than 10 years in most countries, and particularly, in the US, Europe and Japan (50 years for Japan, 70 years for US and Europe). So there is no way this is public domain (note: I am, personally of the opinion that copyright on software *should* be about 10 years, maybe renewable for another 10, but want you or I want, and what is law, are two separate things, and you'd do well to remember that).

2) You don't have to bother to copyright something. In all Berne Convention copyright regimes, copyright is *automatic* at the moment a work is put in a fixed form. So,

"But technically, is it even copyrighted if he didn't submit it to the Copyright Office, or is it just a banner he put there to scare people?"

Yes, to the extent that something he claims copyright on is actually his original work, it *is* copyrighted. Whether he'll enforce the copyright or not, is a different question, which I cannot answer.

Also... the work done was clearly work for hire. Kirby knew it, Stan knew it.

Doesn't matter. Since 1978, part of the deal in work-for-hire arrangements is that the creator gets to take the rights back if they want them (relevant legislation). Being creative industry professionals, I'm sure both Kirby and Lee knew this, as well.

We'll start to see some interesting things happening in 2013 when the window for making those claims opens, I'm sure.

Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:

In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...

It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.

Also... the work done was clearly work for hire. Kirby knew it, Stan knew it.

Doesn't matter. Since 1978, part of the deal in work-for-hire arrangements is that the creator gets to take the rights back if they want them (relevant legislation). Being creative industry professionals, I'm sure both Kirby and Lee knew this, as well.

We'll start to see some interesting things happening in 2013 when the window for making those claims opens, I'm sure.

IIRC from my IP law class, when you sell a copyright to someone, there is a certain point where you can decide to take back control. I don't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but it's statutory. A quick glance here looks to be from 30 to 35 years into the license, but copyright math depends on a lot of factors, e.g. when the work was originally registered.

Also IIRC this was originally instituted as a statutory way to prevent publishers from forcing authors to turn over all their copyright rights - by building in a statutory exception giving the author a window of time when they could take control back, publishers wouldn't strike such hard bargains.

Sounds to me that the real problem in this case is that copy shops can be led liable in case of copyright violation.

That's something that Google/Youtube/etc. battled long ago to remove. They want the users to be led liable, not the messenger.

Because yes, you can totally copy pictures all you want, even if they are made by a professional photographer, as long as it's under private / fair use.

(source http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html)

There is no mention whatsoever of fair use.

Well, there actually is a mention of fair use in the parent guide but all it does is refer you to a better site. The only other mention is -- hilariously enough -- in their own terms of use about using the materials on the site under fair use.

But that's beside your point, let's play a game. Pretend you have the floor in front of primary school students and you want to explain fair use. What do you say?

I'm not saying they shouldn't mention it. Because it's not well defined. Fair use is, in my opinion, an abomination in that it's a "law" that's not defined in anyway. And what's even better is when I try to cite the safe harbor laws or portion limits on Slashdot, I'm ridiculed over and over (not that I've ever practiced law but as a citizen it's the most I can find) despite my analysis being correct! So with my masters degree in computer science, I am clearly unable to pin down what precisely constitutes fair use and what does not. I imagine that were I charged with uploading and editing fair use samples of every song off of David Bowie's Hunky Dory album (which I did) that my innocence would depend entirely on how much money I have for a lawyer ... not the law. Because "fair use" is ambiguous and the so called "doctrine" is downright laughable. If you don't agree with me, go ahead and post a response arguing for or against my above Wikipedia edits being "fair use." I'll gladly play the devil's advocate if someone doesn't beat me to it.

So given the above information, would you please outline how you would explain this to children? Or how you plan to "win their hearts and souls" with the fair use doctrine?

What I want for Christmas: someone in my government to man up and bring any amount of clarity to copyright law, fair use and (while we're at it) patents. Something shouldn't be unclear until you've already been sued for doing it. That's how you find yourself in situations like the RIAA suing thousands of people and watching court case after court case resolve to millions in damages awarded from an average citizen to a huge conglomerate of lawyers and labels.

per http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html:
 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

that says it all. Govt work is free as in beer.

If a work is in the public domain, then it is no longer protected by copyright law in regards to the possibility of circumventing it. What they are doing is creating a derivative work of a public domain work (which they are free to do, as the original owner no longer has rights in regard to how the materials are used), which they will then own copyright on until such time as that expires and their scans/ocr of the original text enters the public domain, at which point you are free to use their materials to do whatever you like.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

On the other hand, what Google seems to be doing, and what is the contention of The Author's Guild and others, is taking orphaned works, those works still under copyright, but are A) no longer in active production, and B) the owner of the copyright cannot be easily located, and creating a derivative work of those. The legal status of which is questionable at best.

Additionally, as a derivative work, Google will only hold copyright on any changes they make, not to the original text itself.

See: http://www.photosig.com/go/main/help?name=help/copyright
and
http://www.copyright.gov/

All of the above only holds true in the USA, laws differ around the world.

Do you seriously think that anyone who is smart enough to write a good virus/trojan would be stupid enough to take out a copyright on it?

In Berne Convention countries, including every country in the World Trade Organization, copyright exists from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium. An author has to "take out" a copyright only if he wants to recover statutory (RIAA level) damages for infringement.