Slashdot Mirror

Take a look at the Copyright Act of 1976. You'll be astonished to discover that: -it starts with definitions

It defines quite a number of terms ("derivative work", "anonymous work"), but strangely enough there is no definition for "work" which is the very thing that copyright applies to!

Take a look at the Copyright Act of 1976. You'll be astonished to discover that:
-it starts with definitions
-then it describes the scope and subject matter of copyright
-next, limitations on that scope/subject matter
-various features of ownership of copyright (trsanfer, duration, notice, etc.)
-infringement and penalties
-administration
-specific provisions for specific situations

In other words, it proceeds in the orderly way you think legislation ought to. The same is true for many pieces of legislation, although this is less true in the US* than in most places around the world**. You should try actually reading a title in the US code sometime - not a bill (as the author of this article did) or statute, which are very different things from the "compiled" law of the US code.

*The United States, along with the UK, Australia, etc. (Common law countries), tends to have a haphazardly organized set of statutes - Largely because (I would argue; certainly there are other explanations) judges develop most law. They work the kinks out of newly passed statutes, adapt the law to new situations, develop working rules or guidelines for how the law ought to be applied, and judges have a strong dominion over the traditional, doctrinal areas of "private" law - contracts, torts, property, etc. The legislature often works with (or against) the judiciary when it develops law - frequently incorporating judge-made law as the foundation for a new statute, or, enacting statutes to overturn judge-made law it doesn't like. Thus, our "activist" judiciary (which can made binding law all on its own) leads to the legislature enacting piecemeal statutes.

**Most other nations have a "civil law" system which (this is a broad, oversimplification) precludes judge-made law. The legislature does more than enact piecemeal statutes; they adopt "codes," which are, or ought to be, large, comprehensive, all-encompassing embodiments of the law of a general topic (like criminal law). You would like these. They're supposed to be methodologically designed, with an internal logical structure. Incidentally, law services in civil-law countries are a lot cheaper than in the US.

This whole mail it to yourself/poor mans copyright thing is not a form of protection. At least this is the case in the US Source: For a much more detailed breakdown of why the mail it to yourself approach is bad I would recommend this page

I wonder if a "real" ISP would be able to partner with a spam-fighter to allow them to fight the good fight. I'm sure within half a dozen phone calls, you'd fine one that was willing to lend you their name. I'd suggest looking at the list of registered ISPs at the Copyright office - http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/index.html as they're likely to have all of the other bases covered already.

Political speech and criticism is a completely codified exemption to copyright as fair use and is backed by numerous cases and case law (tort) and is embodied in several international treaties that the US has signed and ratified.

Copyright in which there is a clear case of political speech and fair use is not an excuse. Neither is an approval rating or the amount of time in office. It's obvious that if negative speech is blocked from being seen, the approval ratings will remain higher then they would have had the negative speech remained in the public view. What makes this more dangerous then anything is that Flickr has government contracts and is used by the government. It can legitimately be seen as the government controlling the access to negative speech. I don't care how much you want to suck Obama's dick, that should scare you.

Google came to an agreement with a guild that does not represent most writers to hand over EXCLUSIVE online rights to themselves even if the author didn't agree to it.

But surely the Guild doesn't have any rights to hand over? A quick look through the chapter headings of US copyright law doesn't indicate any provision for licensing bodies. Is this actually a case of a class action settlement being forcibly applied to anyone who doesn't opt out?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

"(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."

SCO has been trying to get around this since 2003. The APA contains no such language that the Unix copyrights were ever transfered to SCO from Novell, much to SCO's dismay.

An EULA is not a contract. It is not a conveyance of copyright signed by the ticket holder/owner of the photographs. The BMO cannot own your photographs simply because you bought a ticket. The BMO (not me) is making nice, because I think someone told them they don't have a leg to stand on.

--
BMO

That's pretty surprising. Usually even a venue that charges admission is considered a semipublic space. Although a semipublic space does give the owners the right to throw people out, it does not confer any special rights to privacy beyond that, as far as I can tell. Further, it most assuredly does not meet the criteria needed for photographs inside to become works for hire. It's not even in the ballpark.

It's hard to believe that a venue can claim copyright on photos they don't own, and that sets a very dangerous precedent. For example, under those same rules, if I took a photograph that showed Disneyland workers doing something that compromised public safety, Disney could claim ownership and demand takedown under the DMCA.

Contract law does not generally allow someone to take control intellectual property without an explicit meeting of the minds, compensation, etc. There's no compensation for confiscated photographs above and beyond what you would get if you paid the admission fee but did not take photographs, the participants do not meet the criteria for being employees of the venue, and there is no signed agreement. Thus, it cannot be considered a work for hire, and the venue has no legitimate ownership claims.

Any ticket-sale terms to the contrary should rightfully be held as unconscionable by any court that actually takes the rule of law seriously. Copyright simply cannot be assigned away without a signed agreement or proof of employment, period, and the law is quite clear on that point. The copyright office agrees with me. From Circular 1 (Copyright Basics):

Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Emphasis mine. The courts got this one dead wrong, and copyright law makes that abundantly clear.

I understand the desire to have this zone, but the correct way of enforcing this is to not allow cameras inside the zone, to post clear notices to this effect at the entrance, to confiscate any cameras and destroy the photos if that rule is violated, and to take legal action for breach of contract if the photos show up anyway. Anything else is WAY outside the scope of what copyright law allows by any sane reading.

Caveat: IANAL.

That's pretty surprising. Usually even a venue that charges admission is considered a semipublic space. Although a semipublic space does give the owners the right to throw people out, it does not confer any special rights to privacy beyond that, as far as I can tell. Further, it most assuredly does not meet the criteria needed for photographs inside to become works for hire. It's not even in the ballpark.

It's hard to believe that a venue can claim copyright on photos they don't own, and that sets a very dangerous precedent. For example, under those same rules, if I took a photograph that showed Disneyland workers doing something that compromised public safety, Disney could claim ownership and demand takedown under the DMCA.

Contract law does not generally allow someone to take control intellectual property without an explicit meeting of the minds, compensation, etc. There's no compensation for confiscated photographs above and beyond what you would get if you paid the admission fee but did not take photographs, the participants do not meet the criteria for being employees of the venue, and there is no signed agreement. Thus, it cannot be considered a work for hire, and the venue has no legitimate ownership claims.

Any ticket-sale terms to the contrary should rightfully be held as unconscionable by any court that actually takes the rule of law seriously. Copyright simply cannot be assigned away without a signed agreement or proof of employment, period, and the law is quite clear on that point. The copyright office agrees with me. From Circular 1 (Copyright Basics):

Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Emphasis mine. The courts got this one dead wrong, and copyright law makes that abundantly clear.

I understand the desire to have this zone, but the correct way of enforcing this is to not allow cameras inside the zone, to post clear notices to this effect at the entrance, to confiscate any cameras and destroy the photos if that rule is violated, and to take legal action for breach of contract if the photos show up anyway. Anything else is WAY outside the scope of what copyright law allows by any sane reading.

Caveat: IANAL.

RealMedia should apply for a DMCA Excemption? (Although other attempts at exceptions for this purpose have failed)

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

Thanks. You're right. It's pretty straightforward (well, for legalese), now.

You can find the whole text of Title 17 in various places on the Internet, but perhaps the most authoritative is copyright.gov.

The relevant section is at:

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

According to the DMCA, there are fair use exceptions listed at the library of congress that separate certain acts from the illegality of it according to the DMCA. I'm not sure how you think you can know about the DMCA's restrictions and not know about those.

Anyways, if you visit the copyright offices site and select the rulmaking for anticurcumvention links, in the 2006 rules is specifically says "The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years."

Now, if you check out section 5, you will clearly see that jailbreaking is covered with "5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

So no, it is not by default illegal.

yeah, I miss the day and age when buying something meant it was yours. These days you buy a "license" to use something and ownership stays with the content creator and his or her descendants for at least a hundred years.

Yes, Jailbreaking violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is why they're asking the copyright office for an exemption.

On November 27, 2006 the U.S. Copyright office granted the following exception to the DMCA:

5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. [ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ ]

Unfortunately, this exception (like all exceptions to the DMCA) only last for 3 years.

To date, there has been no extension granted, which means on November 28 2009, it will become illegal again.

Copyright law is not defined in terms of "uploading" and "downloading". It does speak of "copying" as a right reserved for the author, however, and, quite obviously, copying takes place both when uploading and when downloading. So far as I can tell, the issue is who initiates the copying process here. If someone else uploaded a file into your publicly shared (for writing) folder, then it wasn't you, so you didn't infringe (mere possession isn't infringement). However, if you actually went elsewhere and clicked "Download", then you initiated the copy, and are infringing (as well as the other side, that willingly provided you with said copy). This applies to BitTorrent and other P2P networks just as well.

Specifically, from U.S. Copyright Office FAQ:

"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. ... Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks."

It wouldn't be hard at all to prove downloading for many cases: RIAA would just subpoena rapidshare or megaupload or whoever; scan the download-log for infringing content; and then get financial information (which includes an identity as opposed to just an IP address) from the credit card/paypal used for the account.

It's not hard, but it's easier to go for uploaders, since all you need to prove they were distributing copyrighted material is to download it from them; for downloaders, you have to find some good evidence to get access to provider logs, or search their computers. Also, uploaders rake up more in liabilities: downloading is merely "copying", so it is known precisely how many copies are made, so damages would be limited to that; uploading, on the other hand, is "distribution", and this is where those insane $80,000 per "work" (i.e. file) fines enter into question.

That said, people have been sued for downloading. For example:

"Yamamoto, Mariano, and Martin allegedly downloaded large amounts of data from the warez server while they worked at Fox. This data included movies such as âoeWindtalkers,â âoeJimmy Neutron,â and âoeDivine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.â"

"It is illegal to share copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. But even this isn't the criminal (jailtime) kind of illegal, it's the civil (lawsuit) kind of illegal."

This is a dangerous myth. The threshold for criminal infringement is scarily low -- distribute just a few copies of the Adobe suite, or just one copy of a high-end vertical application, and you can be in criminal infringement territory.

US law limits imprisonment for criminal infringement to five years for first offenses, but still -- five years is a long time.

Hmm, interesting. It's anything over $1000 retail in half a year (or anything pre-release, or to make money). So it probably covers anyone seeding "so-and-so discography" or "<genre> greatest hits" torrents... yeah, absurd and scary.

Because "fair use" has nothing to do with the meanings of the words "fair" and "use". You can't look at a scenario and go "well, that seems fair". "fair use" is a specific legal term that covers a specific set of criteria that have to be applied to a situation. The judge is saving the defense wasted effort by saying ahead of time "no, there is no way you could possibly have fallen under enough of these criteria for that defense to fly".

USC 17 107

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeâ"
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

To reword: our fair use law is very restrictive and doesn't allow for commonly considered fair use cases, such as the right to transfer songs to your ipod from CD. The "fair use" laws we have in the UK are designed for the press and for educational use, not the common people.

The situation in U.S. isn't any better. For one, you are assuming that the "right to transfer songs to your iPod from CD" is fair use under U.S. law. It may well be, but until a lawsuit is brought and litigated, we will never know for sure if it is (and in fact, in a lawsuit some time ago, in a sworn testimony, some music label executive claimed that copying music from CD to your computer is "stealing").

That's the main drawback of fair use in U.S. The law only gives four criteria by which fair use may be determined. But because of the lack of specificity, we only know that a particular use is non-infringing after a precedent-setting lawsuit has been litigated. Most people would rather avoid those costly lawsuits than establish fair use, so they err on the side of caution and in the end, our fair use rights are as weak as yours.

Would mathematics still be copyrightable?

Yes, a sufficiently large number can represent a copyrighted work. It can be represent a piece of music or a computer program. (A program is a list of instructions that describes a mathematical process in a way that a machine can carry out.) A program is copyrighted as a literary work, but the process that the program describes cannot itself be copyrighted in the United States per 17 USC 102(b). That's why some inventors have been trying to use patent law, which is designed to protect processes, to secure exclusive rights in algorithms.

Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes

While we're still on the subject of musical copyright for a moment: Define the "hook" of a musical work as the first few notes of the memorable part. Then the Kolmogorov complexity of a hook can be estimated as having 40 bits or fewer, based on encoding each of the first eight notes in five bits: four bits for the pitch (0 to 15 relative to a standard scale), and one bit for whether the note is short or long. So there are only about a trillion musical hooks, and the birthday problem suggests that collisions start to become likely around the square root of that (a million). The music-theoretic rules of which pitches fit well together reduce the space even further. For comparison, the repertories of the major U.S. performance rights organizations, which have already surpassed 15 million (8.5 million for ASCAP and 6.5 million for BMI). So collisions such as "He's So Fine" vs. "My Sweet Lord" (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)) quickly become inevitable.

Read the law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

To me, it isn't at all clear where the reproduction occurs, and who is doing it (those acts are the infringement). Add in the absence of legal proceedings and one begins to wonder.

Read the law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

To me, it isn't at all clear where the reproduction occurs, and who is doing it (those acts are the infringement). Add in the absence of legal proceedings and one begins to wonder.

second of about 30,000 cases

Let's assume that's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums. According to section 504.c.1 each work can cost the defendent between $750 and $30,000. And if the first trial was any indication, $30,000 per song is actually the low end once you've gotten past lawyer fees. Ok so by the letter of the law the RIAA is looking to get anywhere from $450 million to $18 billion. I hope to god that Nesson stops upsetting the court and sets some better precedent than the first case. I don't care if he wants to post courtroom audio. That's a great idea and I appreciate where his heart is but that's not what this is about! I do care that he works to either reduce these unrealistic damage amounts or redefine copyright violation. So far he's just been really good at upsetting people--and not the right people!

Howcome he's allowed to have MK64 running on an emulator anyways? I thought it was illegal to do so (even if you have the game yourself); though I might be wrong on that.

Nope it's legal:

(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

Note that this exception is only for computer programs. No such exception exists for other works.

I really hate to have to point this out, but almost everything on the internet is copyrighted, in some aspect or another, at least. In fact, nearly everything has some copyrighted component.

I refer you to the US copyright office, with similar provisions applying in almost every other Berne-convention country (including my very own UK).

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created."

Copyright is not acquired, it is merely asserted.

Google cannot possibly have a policy that it only indexes works in which no copyright subsists. I suspect the real policy is that Google removes items from the index if there is a reasonable case that they are infringing copies of a copyright work, or that accessing them is likely to constitute infringement of copyright.

newspapers and magazines register under the principle of group registration and the fee for the group is 70 bucks.

Isn't there another section of copyright saying exactly how many TVs/radios/etc. (and how large they can be) you can have in your business before you infringe?

I believe it came up in this case. And I think that copyright law bars you from having screens bigger than 55" explicitly in one of the statutes. There's more analysis of the law in question in this story about the same case, which links to this law.

Now, I apologize for jumping in here. You're probably right about whatever you're arguing over retransmission and whatnot, but there are other weird parts of copyright law that trip people (and businesses) up. It's probably based on those statutes (and not any retransmission laws) that ASCAP goes after anyone with radios/loudspeakers/TVs/etc.

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.

I must admit this is one of the more cool headed yet vigorous defenses of piracy I have yet seen.

Actually, I didn't make a defense of piracy (sic), nor of copyright infringement. While I am obviously biased in that direction, my post focused on discrediting your prior post. If you read it again this will become obvious.

Also, there was no name calling.

You said, "This, by the way, firmly places you in a clinically pre-adolescent stage of cognitive development." Granted, this isn't directly name calling, I read it as "you are a big baby," which is clearly (and needlessly) insulting.

The moral and economic landscape are not changed in the least.
Obviously, I disagree. Though the difference between us is that I gave specific examples of difference to support my case, and I shall enumerate them in greater detail presently.

By your reasoning, anything that is abundant and can be reproduced at zero cost can be taken from its producer without compensation
I was using the word "abundant", in this context, to mean "anything that can be reproduced at zero cost." However, I never directly postulated that this attribute made it morally acceptable to take it from the producer without compensation. That wasn't a thesis that I was trying to support. All I was claiming is that this attribute of abundance cast the moral status of this taking in a different light, and that there was now room for debate.

That the good required a expenditures of labor and resources somehow vanishes from the equation
Nope, I do not believe this, nor did I claim this. Nice straw man fallacy.

This negates the viability of business models that depend on the sales of digital goods.
Yes, such a belief would negate such a business model. I will add that if a business model does not function well in a given economic and social environment, then it should not be practiced. Producers should find a different business model. There is no god-given right to one's business model of preference. The laws of supply and demand are a harsh mistress. (Though, to qualify, I am not at this point stating that this particular business model should, in fact, be rejected at this particular time. I may or may not believe this, but I am not postulating or defending that at this point. I am merely pointing out that it is "just" a business model, and as such doesn't enjoy some kind of privileged, protect status over any other failed business model. That is all I am claiming).

You don't explain why this is, you merely assert it.
I do not, and did not, assert it. Maybe I failed to make myself clear in my original post. In that case you have my apologies. But the fact remains that you misread me, so what you are now discrediting is not something I claimed, and hence not me.

What insult?
This one: "This, by the way, firmly places you in a clinically pre-adolescent stage of cognitive development." Telling an adult that his level of reasoning is sub-adult, and only at the maturity level of a child, is insulting. You were not merely stating an objective fact, though you tried to dress your insult up as such. I will add that you have included the following additional insults in your new post: "You are behind the times. This is the 21st century." If you wish to "win the hearts and minds" of downloaders (which I am not, but that is irrelevant) you should really lose the bad attitude.

A link here would be useful.
Copyright Law, and definition of copyright infringement, from the us code: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Also, the referenced court case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

distinguishing between a crime that is theft and a crime that is not theft seems tangential
Hardly! This was the primary thesis of my entire post!

The reason there are two different valuations for these items are because of the statutory damages portion of current copyright law. It is a backwards way of making compensatory damages effectively a punitive damage award. You can see the applicable law here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504 The crux of the matter is they get to pick, and of course they will pick statatory damages, as they will read a MUCH higher result, as in this case. It's part of the problem with modern day copyright law (U.S.)

IANAL

If they are enforceable, it makes it too easy for entities to slip in one-sided terms.

All terms in a EULA are one-sided, as US Copyright law already gives you all the rights you need to install it. Title 17 117 a 1 specifically.

The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.

Well, even in the district court you don't make certified copies yourself... the clerks do it. In fact, in King County Superior Court, the only documents that you copy/print yourself are those on microfilm and only if they're uncertified.

Anyways, I read later down the line that they're interested in certified copyright records, which is entirely different. But when you just read "concerns about expenses of expedited certified copies" it lacks the sufficient context of "copyright records".

The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.

You're right it's not the FCC but rather the LOC:

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

I messed-up the particular organization that decides on the narrow set of anti-circumvention exemptions. Since 2000 I believe we have only gained one new exemption (unlock cell phones) and lost about ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#Anti-circumvention_exemptions

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ...

That section also specifically exempts console games from the law prohibiting the rental of phonorecords without the copyright holder's permission:

blah blah rental blah This section does not apply to a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

Uh, why should he make his game "more freely available?" Why would you hate him for protecting his property so that he can make a living?

But what exactly is his property? Had Pajitnov patented Tetris, it would have expired by now. Copyright is not intended to protect game rules, and I don't see how trademark would apply to games with names like Lockjaw. The Tetris Company's claim that other tetromino games are copies of Tetris starts to sound like SCO's claim that Linux is a copy of UNIX.

others would make rip-off clones, and he would try to shut them down legally

But Pajitnov never got a U.S. patent, and copyright doesn't apply to game rules.

Copywriting the game rules

I stopped reading at word one. The verb "to copywrite" means "to write promotional text", not "to secure copyright in". In Berne Convention member states, anything copywritten is automatically copyrighted, but confusing the two words is still a good indicator that one has not thoroughly read the copyright statute (Title 17, United States Code). Even if George H. Morgan is a professional engineer and a patent agent, that doesn't automatically make him knowledgeable in copyright law. Besides, a publication from the Copyright Office explains that per 17 USC 102(b), copyrighting a game's manual protects only the expression of the rules in the manual, not the method of operation embodied in the manual.

the board design, the card designs, the packaging

Aspects of the board design dictated by the game rules, such as that there are 40 spaces around the outside of a square, are uncopyrightable per the doctrines of merger and scenes a faire. Anything else, such as the background around the playfield, gets changed in clones.

I'd assume the game patent expires after 20 years, but can be green-fielded by making changes ever decade or so.

It would have expired in 2005 had Pajitnov and Elorg applied for one in 1985. But as I said, a search of USPTO's database turns up nothing assigned to Elorg or Tetris Holding.

The vast majority of desktop computer users is happy with Minesweeper, Solitaire and Tetris.

The Tetris Company has never put out a product for Linux, except possibly the browser-based Tetris Friends. And it alleges that workalikes such as Lockjaw and Gnometris violate its copyright, though this US Copyright Office document makes Tetris's claims look flimsy.

The government agrees with you here, which is why there is an exception to the DMCA act for the purpose of enabling TTS.

Amazon allowing this flag to be switched creates a very real problem for them when it comes time to go after any DRM crackers who are bright enough to claim their tools are only meant for enabling TTS.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html - reference

You cannot copyright a game, but you are allowed to patent the rules? For shame!

You should probably read your link...

You cannot copyright an idea - you copyright an implementation. Patents are for ideas.

They are close to the perfect method for distribution of free computer programs/art/etc.

Really? I thought Internet distribution was more convenient 1. if your work is smaller than 5 MB, or 2. if your work is smaller than 20 MB and you don't anticipate users in areas with no cable or DSL. Otherwise, CD-R is still cheaper, at least in the USA where royalties to the record labels are only 2 percent of wholesale.

You cannot copyright a game, but you are allowed to patent the rules?

Correct. If you want exclusive rights to functionality, a patent is the way to go. Nintendo has a U.S. patent on the rules of Dr. Mario and Tetris 2; Konami has one on Dance Dance Revolution. The Tetris Company has had trouble shutting down developers of Tetris clones such as Gnometris and LTris because Elorg never sought a patent on the game, only a copyright on the game program and those audiovisual elements not dictated by functionality.

You cannot copyright a game, but you are allowed to patent the rules? For shame!

They (the MPAA) are also working on an online movie server ("USC Film Server" project) where teachers can select portions of movies in order to obtain clips of them for a special player program, and automatically submit a request to the relevant copyright holder for permission. They're getting it ready and hope to "beta test" it "later in the year" for Warner Bros. movies.

You can hear it at about 1 hour, 4 minutes into part 4 [MP3] of the May 6 hearings.

They (the MPAA) are also working on an online movie server ("USC Film Server" project) where teachers can select portions of movies in order to obtain clips of them for a special player program, and automatically submit a request to the relevant copyright holder for permission. They're getting it ready and hope to "beta test" it "later in the year" for Warner Bros. movies.

You can hear it at about 1 hour, 4 minutes into part 4 [MP3] of the May 6 hearings.

Of course! [slaps forehead] It's so obvious!

Now, I'd like a short and entirely fair-use clip from these 8 DVDs. I'll make the class sit through the 8 unskippable FBI warnings about copyright, and the menu/scene selection, and my fast-forwarding to the right spot. It should take, oh, about 15 minutes to set up the 5 minutes I actually want. I'm sure the students can maintain their attention while I'm fiddling with the remote control and swapping disks for 2/3 of that time.

The whole point is, it IS "fair use", but the use is such that the current packaging doesn't make the use practical without some kind of circumvention to extract those clips. The testimony at the hearings also demonstrated that sometimes quality matters a great deal (e.g., there was one set of clips dealing with computer graphics use in movies, and trying to spot the places where real CG was used versus a guy in a silver suit in the Terminator 2 movie).

The MPAA in their testimony at the hearings specifically says that they approve of the uses that were presented by instructors as examples in the hearings. But they apparently think making teachers resort to antiquated, lower-quality, and inconvenient technology to camcord a movie (I don't even own a camcorder) is worth it rather than allowing an exception to circumvention of CSS for these fair uses. Why? Here's the real kicker: they claim that CSS is still a viable and "extremely effective" (direct quote!) copy-control technology. Really.

The unaccepted submission I made for this story a couple of days ago included links to the hearings, audio transcripts for which are available. The MPAA's craziness, including their demo of camcording, begins at about 30 minutes through part 4 of the May 6th hearing [MP3 file]. The discussion of camcording starts at ~40 min. with the MPAA rep. Fritz Attaway, with the actual demo at ~45 minutes.

According to this guy, the camcording demo shows "... taking shots off of a television monitor or a computer monitor can produce clips of movies easily, using equipment that is readily available and affordable and producing a result that is certainly comparable to the clips that we've seen here this morning and that have been offered as a reason circumvention is necessary."

The whole testimony is worth listening to in order to understand the angle these guys are taking. It's going to be interesting when they get to the question/response part of the hearings.

Of course! [slaps forehead] It's so obvious!

Now, I'd like a short and entirely fair-use clip from these 8 DVDs. I'll make the class sit through the 8 unskippable FBI warnings about copyright, and the menu/scene selection, and my fast-forwarding to the right spot. It should take, oh, about 15 minutes to set up the 5 minutes I actually want. I'm sure the students can maintain their attention while I'm fiddling with the remote control and swapping disks for 2/3 of that time.

The whole point is, it IS "fair use", but the use is such that the current packaging doesn't make the use practical without some kind of circumvention to extract those clips. The testimony at the hearings also demonstrated that sometimes quality matters a great deal (e.g., there was one set of clips dealing with computer graphics use in movies, and trying to spot the places where real CG was used versus a guy in a silver suit in the Terminator 2 movie).

The MPAA in their testimony at the hearings specifically says that they approve of the uses that were presented by instructors as examples in the hearings. But they apparently think making teachers resort to antiquated, lower-quality, and inconvenient technology to camcord a movie (I don't even own a camcorder) is worth it rather than allowing an exception to circumvention of CSS for these fair uses. Why? Here's the real kicker: they claim that CSS is still a viable and "extremely effective" (direct quote!) copy-control technology. Really.

The unaccepted submission I made for this story a couple of days ago included links to the hearings, audio transcripts for which are available. The MPAA's craziness, including their demo of camcording, begins at about 30 minutes through part 4 of the May 6th hearing [MP3 file]. The discussion of camcording starts at ~40 min. with the MPAA rep. Fritz Attaway, with the actual demo at ~45 minutes.

According to this guy, the camcording demo shows "... taking shots off of a television monitor or a computer monitor can produce clips of movies easily, using equipment that is readily available and affordable and producing a result that is certainly comparable to the clips that we've seen here this morning and that have been offered as a reason circumvention is necessary."

The whole testimony is worth listening to in order to understand the angle these guys are taking. It's going to be interesting when they get to the question/response part of the hearings.

Of course! [slaps forehead] It's so obvious!

Now, I'd like a short and entirely fair-use clip from these 8 DVDs. I'll make the class sit through the 8 unskippable FBI warnings about copyright, and the menu/scene selection, and my fast-forwarding to the right spot. It should take, oh, about 15 minutes to set up the 5 minutes I actually want. I'm sure the students can maintain their attention while I'm fiddling with the remote control and swapping disks for 2/3 of that time.

The whole point is, it IS "fair use", but the use is such that the current packaging doesn't make the use practical without some kind of circumvention to extract those clips. The testimony at the hearings also demonstrated that sometimes quality matters a great deal (e.g., there was one set of clips dealing with computer graphics use in movies, and trying to spot the places where real CG was used versus a guy in a silver suit in the Terminator 2 movie).

The MPAA in their testimony at the hearings specifically says that they approve of the uses that were presented by instructors as examples in the hearings. But they apparently think making teachers resort to antiquated, lower-quality, and inconvenient technology to camcord a movie (I don't even own a camcorder) is worth it rather than allowing an exception to circumvention of CSS for these fair uses. Why? Here's the real kicker: they claim that CSS is still a viable and "extremely effective" (direct quote!) copy-control technology. Really.

The unaccepted submission I made for this story a couple of days ago included links to the hearings, audio transcripts for which are available. The MPAA's craziness, including their demo of camcording, begins at about 30 minutes through part 4 of the May 6th hearing [MP3 file]. The discussion of camcording starts at ~40 min. with the MPAA rep. Fritz Attaway, with the actual demo at ~45 minutes.

According to this guy, the camcording demo shows "... taking shots off of a television monitor or a computer monitor can produce clips of movies easily, using equipment that is readily available and affordable and producing a result that is certainly comparable to the clips that we've seen here this morning and that have been offered as a reason circumvention is necessary."

The whole testimony is worth listening to in order to understand the angle these guys are taking. It's going to be interesting when they get to the question/response part of the hearings.