Slashdot Mirror

If a Led Zeppelin song is broadcasted but there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound^H^H^H^H^Hvalid claim of copyright violation?

Probably not, because US copyright law defines "publicly" as "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", and a cricket isn't a "person" except perhaps in works of fiction written by Carlo Collodi or George Selden.

Seriously, though, this is why they should play from a radio station broadcast -- then the royalties were already paid.

The royalties to ASCAP and BMI were already paid, but not for performance in an establishment "open to the public". Such royalties are the responsibility of the owner of the establishment "open to the public" unless the performance qualifies under 17 USC 110(5), which was enacted as a rider to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

You are wrong (assuming you're referring to US law). A "right to make archival copies" does exist, but it applies only to computer software, not to digital media. (Source)

From the wikipedia: "Copyright gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work..."

The keyword is "exclusive". It means you have no right at all, unless you accept a license agreement

That's simply wrong. The creator of an original work has certain exclusive rights. Specifically, the exclusive right to make copies, the exclusive right to make derivative works, the exclusive right to hold a public performance of the work, etc. If it's not on this list you are free to do it, no matter what the copyright holder says. (as long as you don't accept a EULA further restricting your rights)

The fact that you have to comply with a DMCA takedown doesn't mean that you're responsible for the comment. It means you're responsible for the comment, only if you ignore the takedown notice.

That's not quite accurate. If you comply with a DMCA takedown notice, it means you are protected from monetary damages, even if you put the work back up because of a counternotice provided by the user. If you do not comply with a DMCA takedown notice (e.g., if you are one of the countless service providers that has not designated an agent to receive a DMCA takedown notice), then you are no longer protected from monetary damages by the DMCA safe harbors. But, that doesn't mean that you are responsible for the user data either.

If there is no infringement, you are in the clear (unless you get sued but don't defend yourself). If there is infringement, then your liability could depend on factors such as whether you exercise control over what your site publishes, whether you had knowledge of the infringement, whether you promoted use of your site as a place for infringement, and whether you benefit as a result of the infringement.

Service providers did not want to face the uncertainty of whether the courts would find them liable for their users' content and what factors would affect the outcome of trial. I believe that they were the biggest supporters of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The rights of users and the desire to avoid stiflement of free speech led to the counternotice-and-putback part of the safe harbor provisions (a provision sadly missing in the DMCA safe habor counterparts in parts of the world such as the European Union).

Unfortunately, the anonymous reader who posted Church of Scientology material (see grandparent comment) did so, well, anonymously. Thus, there was never an opportunity for a counternotice to be submitted by the user who posted the material. Perhaps someone could have claimed responsibility for having posted it and submitted a counternotice. But, that would mean providing a name, address, and telephone number, then consenting to the jurisdiction of U.S. Federal Courts.

Of course, Slashdot could have ignored the original notice and tried to face down a potential lawsuit from the Church of Scientology (not that I blame them for not wanting to go through that). But, Slashdot would have faced such as threat regardless of the DMCA safe habor provisions. At least the DMCA safe habor provisions meant that there was no need for Slashdot people (or scripts) to scan comments for potentially instances of infringement. And the DMCA counternotice-and-putback provision provided an opportunity for someone else to take on the monetary risks of possible infringement.

If Slashdot did not take advantage of the DMCA safe habor, or if there were no DMCA safe habors, that would not meant that Slashdot would be liable in court. It would just mean that Slashdot would have one affirmative defense fewer to hide behind and that the question of responsibility would be an open one for the courts to decide.

... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ... 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 include --

(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.

Almost all minor sampling should fall under criticism/comment or least should be exempted in some other way. Of course many people (including the courts) disagree with me. Oh well. Just because we have asinine laws, doesn't make them morally right. Searh for "remix culture" if you want to understand the other side's arguments.

P.S. We certainly have a right to petition our corporate overlords. It's a tired argument to say the corporations can do what they want and we should bend over for a good dicking without saying a word about it. Sure, they have many rights, but they also massively influence society and are therefore subject to at least some accountability to those people they affect.
P.P.S. The ACLU is awesome. Those who believe in true freedom should support the ACLU. It's weird to me that somehow to a lot of people freedom is merely the provisions of the 2nd amendment (which I support), and all the other Rights be damned when marginalized people say or worship something the first group doesn't like, or when a marginalized group wants freedom that runs counter to traditional, straight-laced society.

According to cornell, limitations on copyright holders are as follows. Note that research and teaching are both explicitly stated cases of fair use exemption.

107
Permits the âoefair useâ of an ownerâ(TM)s work without permission â" for the purpose of âoecriticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.â This exemption outlines four factors that must be met in order to argue a fair use.

108
Permits a library or archives to reproduce works for archiving purposes, to make copies for patrons and to participate in interlibrary loan â" all without permission

109
Permits individuals to lend, give or sell copies of works they own without seeking permission of the copyright holder. This is also referred to as the First Sale Doctrine.

110
Permits displays of work and educational performances in face-to-face teaching and distance education. The TEACH Act expands upon the limitations in section 110.

121
Permits reproduction of works without permission of the copyright holder for the blind and other people with disabilities

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

The copyright act section 107. This section lists many cases of fair use but gives 4 primary criteria for courts to consider. The first is the purpose of the work and makes it clear that non-profit educational use is protected. I am unable to find any reference to a classroom in section 107 (not that there is reason to think the professor doesn't teach his students by having them perform or assist with research in the classroom).

Project Gutenberg clears works under "Rule 6"; some works which appear to be orphaned, published before 1963, are in fact in the public domain, but it takes a significant amount of legwork to prove this.

They've also advocated for reform on orphan works, so they have been active on this.

Distributed Proofreaders harvests a lot of data from Google Book Search, already, as well.

Again we see the conflating of 'receiving pirated works' (which is 100% legal) and 'illegal distribution' (which is a civil matter).

Actually, no, it's not quite that simple. Setting aside the issue of whether buying a physical copy of a pirated movie would constitute infringement, it's far from clear whether downloading a copy of a movie from the internet is legal. Unlike in the physical copy situation, by downloading the file you are making a copy, which on its face is copyright infringement. The question then becomes whether that infringement is protected by fair use or one one the other exceptions. That is to some degree an open question, since there has only been one case on point that I know of. In that case, BMG Music v. Gonzalez, downloading copyrighted works was ruled not to be fair use. Now that's just one of the courts of appeal in the US, so there's no national standard, but it's still far from "100% legal".

Additionally, copyright infringement can become a criminal matter. The US Code allows for criminal sanctions for copyright infringement under a number of circumstances, mainly large-scale commercial distribution, but it has been applied to individuals as well. Take a look at the law.

Unfortunately, those senators were bought a long time ago.

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,..., is not an infringement of copyright. ... 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.

- US Code

The text from US copyright law is as follows.

. . . no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for -

(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or

(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I modded the OP up, so I am avoiding taking any further stance on the discussion. I just wanted to attach relevant information that I encountered while investigating the accuracy of the OP.

While you don't have to register copyrights to *have* a copyright, there is a mechanism to register copyrights with the US Copyright Office (well, if you're in another country, this option would probably not be available to you, though I'm not sure). When you register the copyright, you upload a copy of the work that you are registering.

While it is possible for a copyright registration to be overturned by a court, if presented with solid evidence (as in the SCO vs. Novell case where The SCO Group tried to fraudulently register copyrights), my understanding is that the registration puts the proceedings in your favor - if you hold a registration, the court assumes you own it until proven otherwise - you don't have to prove that you own the copyright, the other party has to prove you do NOT own the copyright). The registration also increases the amount of damages you can get in a court action (I think you can get triple damages plus attorney's fees).

It does cost money to register copyrights though - I think it's $35 for online registration, so if an artist has hundreds of small items they wish to copyright, it could get expensive to register them all individually. It might, however, be possible to collectively register them (that is, to have 100 or 200 photos as part of a single copyright registration), but I'm not sure about that.

Outside of copyright registration, I think the way courts decide copyright ownership is based upon someone providing the earliest proof of publication (though I'm not sure - I am not a layer, this isn't legal advice, etc, etc). If you can prove that you had published the image on flickr or some other site at an earlier date than the other party can show proof of their publication, that might do it for you.

I really think, though, that more open source and creative commons software/content producers should register their copyrights. It really does provide you a certain wall of protection against

Other than, I'm not sure what you can do. Registration of your copyrights is probably the best way to give you a strong case though.

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).

No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.

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

he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)

Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.

See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?

Nope. This is criminal (Section 506(a)(1)(C)).

Does the phrase "have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law" worry anyone else?

Copyright law is quite specific: S 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
M$ is giving you 1, 2 and 3, but not 4, 5, or 6. Yes?

So M$ has not given you permission to either display the code publicly, or to perform it.

While compiling is a derivative work, and copying into memory at runtime is a reproduction, then running it seems awfully like a performance. Which you don't have permission to do.

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.

Its not long enough, the snippets would have to be sufficiently expressive to be copyrightable. Like an entire haiku might be copyrightable, but a sentence, idea, thought, or word is not. Otherwise you have copyright law protecting slogans and phrases (the work of trademark law).

The copyrightable expression circulation (circ 34) is currently down, but its normally found here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html

A polite call or email to their lawyer stating "I believe that this modest quotation is well within the guidelines for 'Fair Use'", and citing the guidelines at http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html carefully, might be helpful, although those guidelines are about as sloppy as typical sexual harassment policies to prevent anyone from actually being able to provide a clear answer and possibly reducing the income of intellectual property attorneys.

This is the copyright system as set up by the big cartels, and if a writer can manage to turn it around and screw them back with their own weapon, I say why the fuck not?

I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Ideas are not covered by copyright. The whole Terminator fiasco with Harlan Ellison should never have happened, but Cameron's production company didn't want to deal with a possibly protracted plagiarism lawsuit, so they settled. But in order for plagiarism to take place, there has to be copying of the actual work in question. Copying of ideas doesn't count because that's not what copyright protects.

So the previous poster was right -- inspired by and written by are not the same thing.

In the end, you get to the right conclusion -- the issue at hand is a matter of contract law, not copyright law -- but I couldn't stand to see the waters any more muddied than they already are. Don't take the whole Terminator settlement as an endorsement of the idea that copyright covers ideas.

First, you wrote this:

Faced with an admissable statement that showed Cameron did in fact borrow ideas from Ellison's work, the distributor decided not to wait for the almost inevitable verdict a jury would render, and they settled for a lump sum of cash and a credit.

So, James Cameron admitted he got some ideas from Harlan Ellison's writing (for a couple Outer Limits episodes). But then you jump to the (unfounded, and unsupported) conclusion that the verdict was "inevitable" once this happened. Not so; I'll get to my reasoning why in a moment.

Then you wrote:

Maybe you think our copyright laws shouldn't work that way, but don't be mad at Ellison. He didn't write 'em. It was the big copyright cartels, including the motion picture industry, so if it bites 'em in the ass, tough shit.

Except for one glaring problem with your entire line of reasoning: Copyright laws actually don't work that way! You can copyright the expression of an idea. You can not copyright an idea. James Cameron merely admitting that he got a couple ideas from a particular source in no way means that he owes money to Harlan Ellison. There are no new ideas for plots or plot devices under the sun, and the stories you cite by Ellison themselves can be shown to be derivative in some way of even older literature, some of it very ancient.

The settlement was nothing more or less than a means to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit.

I am not a lawyer, but I would encourage you to actually read up on U.S. Copyright law -- the U.S. Copyright Office has a great web site which has FAQs, legal resources, and more. In particular, I'd like to turn your attention to section 102 of Chapter 1 of the law, which states in part:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

You later wrote:

It's not quite "The Terminator," but it's close, and a hell of a lot closer than for example, "I, Robot" was to the novel it was named after.

Erm, just to point out, I, Robot was a collection of loosely-related stories featuring Dr. Susan Calvin. The movie was written using the character of Dr. Calvin, and was intended to be a story complementary to and similar to the ones that appear in the book, dealing with the same kinds of issues without being derivative of the ideas presented in those other stories. Whether you consider the movie a true heir to that intellectual pedigree or not, the fact remains that calling I, Robot a novel is a stretch.

First, you wrote this:

Faced with an admissable statement that showed Cameron did in fact borrow ideas from Ellison's work, the distributor decided not to wait for the almost inevitable verdict a jury would render, and they settled for a lump sum of cash and a credit.

So, James Cameron admitted he got some ideas from Harlan Ellison's writing (for a couple Outer Limits episodes). But then you jump to the (unfounded, and unsupported) conclusion that the verdict was "inevitable" once this happened. Not so; I'll get to my reasoning why in a moment.

Then you wrote:

Maybe you think our copyright laws shouldn't work that way, but don't be mad at Ellison. He didn't write 'em. It was the big copyright cartels, including the motion picture industry, so if it bites 'em in the ass, tough shit.

Except for one glaring problem with your entire line of reasoning: Copyright laws actually don't work that way! You can copyright the expression of an idea. You can not copyright an idea. James Cameron merely admitting that he got a couple ideas from a particular source in no way means that he owes money to Harlan Ellison. There are no new ideas for plots or plot devices under the sun, and the stories you cite by Ellison themselves can be shown to be derivative in some way of even older literature, some of it very ancient.

The settlement was nothing more or less than a means to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit.

I am not a lawyer, but I would encourage you to actually read up on U.S. Copyright law -- the U.S. Copyright Office has a great web site which has FAQs, legal resources, and more. In particular, I'd like to turn your attention to section 102 of Chapter 1 of the law, which states in part:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

You later wrote:

It's not quite "The Terminator," but it's close, and a hell of a lot closer than for example, "I, Robot" was to the novel it was named after.

Erm, just to point out, I, Robot was a collection of loosely-related stories featuring Dr. Susan Calvin. The movie was written using the character of Dr. Calvin, and was intended to be a story complementary to and similar to the ones that appear in the book, dealing with the same kinds of issues without being derivative of the ideas presented in those other stories. Whether you consider the movie a true heir to that intellectual pedigree or not, the fact remains that calling I, Robot a novel is a stretch.

I'm not sure if it is a statutory requirement or not; but the following language is extraordinarily common in DMCA takedown notices:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

From here,

"(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

makes it sound as though the minimum requirements may be slightly looser. IANAL, though.

Here's another one with the code in question:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Now that's funny. (It's a play on the word "code".)

Here's another one with the code in question:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

No, copyright ALSO applies. From Circular 1:

Copyright protection is available for all unpublished works, regardless of the nationality or domicile of the author.

Emphasis mine.

Steam was created to prevent you from exercising your First-Sale Rights. Not coincidentally, it also prevents you from exercising your Fair Use Rights to make an archival copy (specifically 17 USC 117 (a)(2).) Steam has a backup process but you can't play the backups until your Steam installation has been updated and blessed, by connecting to the Steam network. Steam backups are no backups at all! They are backups of game content but you can't really call it a game until you are able to play it. Until then it's just a collection of files taking up disk space.

Those who purchase a Steam-"powered" game while Steam does not permit both the immediate play of a restored game backup and the transfer of Steam games from one account to another are voting to give up their legal rights in the only way which matters in a capitalist society - with their money.

When you "buy" a song, a photo, or software, what you are really doing is purchasing a license to use a copy of the item.

No. When you acquire a copyrighted work, there's no license involved, and you can do anything you want with it, except for those things that are specifically restricted by copyright law. Your own source, the "Brief Intro to Copyright," says: "If you create something, and it fits the definition of a creative work, you get to control who can make copies of it and how they make copies." As the source says, the issue here is copying (and also public display), not mere use.

Your first example is of public display or performance, something specifically restricted by copyright.

Your second example is incorrect - if I own a copy of a photograph and I can make some commercial use of it without copying or publically distributing it, I don't need the permission of the copyright holder to do so (I can't think offhand of a way you could use an image commercially that didn't involve copying or publically displaying it; but if there are any such ways, they are permitted by copyright law).

Your third example is contentious. Software companies claim that using a program involves copying it, and so using it requires a license. But even if that's true, the license is only required because you are copying the software.

Note that even laws like the DMCA talk about copy protection, rather than DRM.

That's not entirely correct. While they refer to them as copyright protection devices, the actual definition of infringement in USC 17.12.01 is:

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

So according to the law copyright protection devices control access to the work not just copying of the work. Another reason that it is a bad law.

To the poster's credit, I don't think he's referring to the USA, but for those who are interested in criminal copyright infringement in the US:

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

I am not aware of any law that allows copying a game.

US Code Title 17 Section 107 covers all forms of copyrighted works, and states that it is not an infringement of copyright to make Fair Use copies. It includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of where unauthorized copies are absolutely legal.

US Code Title 17 Section 117 explicitly addresses software, and it explicitly affirms the legality of backup copies.

Note that the second law is redundant. Backup copies clearly fall under Fair Use.

Note that in fact the first law, section 107, is itself redundant. It doesn't actually do anything. In fact the congressional record when it was passed explicitly notes that section is not intended to do anything. The congressional record explicitly says that section 106 is merely intended to reflect Fair Use as already established by the courts, and that it is not intended to enlarge nor diminish Fair Use at all.

More than a hundred years prior to section 107 being added, the US Supreme Court issued a number of rulings establishing Fair Use. The Supreme Court ruling that Copyright law itself would be unconstitutional and struck down as invalid if it did not permit Fair Use.

So there are TWO laws allowing it, where in fact it is allowed even with ZERO laws allowing it.

It seems they both [copy protection and DRM] achieve the same goal

Well yeah, sure.
Security guards and chopping people's hands off as they enter my store both have the same GOAL of preventing shoplifting. Just because the GOALS are the same does not make them equal, does not make them equally reasonable, does not even make them both SANE.

Copy protection makes copying a pain in the ass to do.
DRM IMPRISONS innocent people who give other innocent people instructions on how to do perfectly legal things. That is how the DRM law is written, it literally imprisons innocent people who give other innocent people instructions on how to do perfectly legal things. It sounds absurd because it is absurd. The GOAL is to keep people from getting instructions on how to make and use infringing copies. The law puts you in prison for giving people instructions, period. If you do not infringe, if you give instructions to someone in order to do something completely legal, you go to prison because those instructions COULD be helpful for making and using an infringing copy.

I give you instructions on how to use chopsticks, you use those chopsticks to eat your food, the idiotic DRM law puts me in prison because my chopsticks-instructions COULD be used to reach through the hole in a DRM package and eat food you didn't pay for.

The GOAL may be the same, but the method is completely different. It is wrong and insane and it is harmful.

-

I am not aware of any law that allows copying a game.

US Code Title 17 Section 107 covers all forms of copyrighted works, and states that it is not an infringement of copyright to make Fair Use copies. It includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of where unauthorized copies are absolutely legal.

US Code Title 17 Section 117 explicitly addresses software, and it explicitly affirms the legality of backup copies.

Note that the second law is redundant. Backup copies clearly fall under Fair Use.

Note that in fact the first law, section 107, is itself redundant. It doesn't actually do anything. In fact the congressional record when it was passed explicitly notes that section is not intended to do anything. The congressional record explicitly says that section 106 is merely intended to reflect Fair Use as already established by the courts, and that it is not intended to enlarge nor diminish Fair Use at all.

More than a hundred years prior to section 107 being added, the US Supreme Court issued a number of rulings establishing Fair Use. The Supreme Court ruling that Copyright law itself would be unconstitutional and struck down as invalid if it did not permit Fair Use.

So there are TWO laws allowing it, where in fact it is allowed even with ZERO laws allowing it.

It seems they both [copy protection and DRM] achieve the same goal

Well yeah, sure.
Security guards and chopping people's hands off as they enter my store both have the same GOAL of preventing shoplifting. Just because the GOALS are the same does not make them equal, does not make them equally reasonable, does not even make them both SANE.

Copy protection makes copying a pain in the ass to do.
DRM IMPRISONS innocent people who give other innocent people instructions on how to do perfectly legal things. That is how the DRM law is written, it literally imprisons innocent people who give other innocent people instructions on how to do perfectly legal things. It sounds absurd because it is absurd. The GOAL is to keep people from getting instructions on how to make and use infringing copies. The law puts you in prison for giving people instructions, period. If you do not infringe, if you give instructions to someone in order to do something completely legal, you go to prison because those instructions COULD be helpful for making and using an infringing copy.

I give you instructions on how to use chopsticks, you use those chopsticks to eat your food, the idiotic DRM law puts me in prison because my chopsticks-instructions COULD be used to reach through the hole in a DRM package and eat food you didn't pay for.

The GOAL may be the same, but the method is completely different. It is wrong and insane and it is harmful.

-

People with disabilities can use specialized devices, which are made available only by prescription to people with a qualifying disability, that play copies of works produced under an exception to the U.S. copyright statute (17 USC 121). Kindle 2, being available to all, does not meet this requirement.

Have you ever used devices dedicated to the blind. They are expensive, ugly, complicated to use and do not offer what the Kindle does.

Being legally blind with functional vision, I like to read, but I cannot for long periods of time. With the Kindle 1's largest font, that eye strain is reduced somewhat. The Kindle 2 is the next step towards my ideal reading device, one that allows me to go back and forth with large print and TTS.

Losing TTS (Amazon's discussion is likely tantamount to this) will kill this move forward for accessible, aesthetic and feature rich device for the partially sighted.

See One Small Step Back for Amazon, One Giant Leap Backwards for Access for more of my rantings on this subject.

I am not aware of any law that allows copying a game. Not even for backups. Please provide a citation.

Copyright law:

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

 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. â" 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, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Tons of disabled people already depend on text-to-speech and with an ever older populace this is only going to become even more important to everyone.

People with disabilities can use specialized devices, which are made available only by prescription to people with a qualifying disability, that play copies of works produced under an exception to the U.S. copyright statute (17 USC 121). Kindle 2, being available to all, does not meet this requirement.

That's odd. I don't remember including "redistribution for profit" in my statement.

"Profit" is roughly synonymous with "financial gain", and 17 USC 101 provides that in the context of copyright law: "The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." In this case, I find "expectation of receipt [...] of other copyrighted works" an apt description of the share ratio system on several private BitTorrent trackers, or even the exchange of pieces of a torrent that contains more than one work.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to
its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
elements, to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent.

Yeah, you might be wrong about this, at least in so far as the initial notice is concerned, it requires the statement as much as the counter-notice does.

So what, do they want proof of blindness before the speaker is activated?

Yes. See 17 USC 121(a) (with my emphasis): "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities."

There is no user test for blindness that can't be passed by a sighted person with their eyes closed (no pun intended).

People who malinger in order to gain access to equipment for playing phonorecords of copyrighted audio books designed for blind people without a qualifying disability are likely committing fraud.

Even if it had the hardware, there's nothing to prevent a sighted person from learning braille, and even if blind people had electronically readable disability identification cards, it can't prevent a blind person from using it in the presence of sighted people or a microphone.

Technologically it can't prevent an analog hole attack, but legally it can: "Copies or phonorecords to which this section applies shall -- (A) not be reproduced or distributed in a format other than a specialized format exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities".

You can however create a device that converts sighted people into blind people (lasers), thereby authorizing them to hear their books.

Such a device would probably violate laws in all fifty states.

Copyright law, Chapter 6, Section 121 expressly allows for alternative versions to exist specifically for persons with disabilities. Also in the case of an audio book, you are paying for both the copy of the work and the voice actor's performance. In the case of the Kindle 2, the customer has already paid for the book.

In fact, "copyright" law should have been named distribution rights law because that is what it does. It doesn't really try to enforce copying like you claim it does. It enforces the authors right to control redistributing the material so he or she can make a profit off of his / her work as if that work were a real physical object. If someone copies a work they purchased for their use (as long as they have the material in their possession), that is within the spirit of copyright law.

I don't know about the "spirit" of copyright law, but that certainly isn't what copyright law says (at least in the United States). In general, making any copy of a copyrighted work without permission is illegal, pursuant to 17 USC Â 106(1), whether or not you distribute it. So is preparing any derivative work.

There are, of course, a broad array of exceptions to these basic principles. All the transient copying that occurs in the course of execution of a computer program is specifically exempted from copyright, by 17 USC Â 117. Copies of a computer program (I imagine judges would take this as applying to any digitized work) may be "created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".

According to the selfsame section, you're also allowed to create copies for archival or backup purposes if you destroy them when you no longer lawfully own the work. (A good thing, or else installing software on RAID1 would be illegal!) But I'd suspect that that exemption does not extend to, for instance, installing the software on a second machine. That might be fair use or something; IANAL.

In fact, "copyright" law should have been named distribution rights law because that is what it does. It doesn't really try to enforce copying like you claim it does. It enforces the authors right to control redistributing the material so he or she can make a profit off of his / her work as if that work were a real physical object. If someone copies a work they purchased for their use (as long as they have the material in their possession), that is within the spirit of copyright law.

I don't know about the "spirit" of copyright law, but that certainly isn't what copyright law says (at least in the United States). In general, making any copy of a copyrighted work without permission is illegal, pursuant to 17 USC Â 106(1), whether or not you distribute it. So is preparing any derivative work.

There are, of course, a broad array of exceptions to these basic principles. All the transient copying that occurs in the course of execution of a computer program is specifically exempted from copyright, by 17 USC Â 117. Copies of a computer program (I imagine judges would take this as applying to any digitized work) may be "created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".

According to the selfsame section, you're also allowed to create copies for archival or backup purposes if you destroy them when you no longer lawfully own the work. (A good thing, or else installing software on RAID1 would be illegal!) But I'd suspect that that exemption does not extend to, for instance, installing the software on a second machine. That might be fair use or something; IANAL.

IANAL, but if you are not imposing a EULA, you shouldn't need any kind of license. End-user licenses restrict what can be done with the copy of the software that is owned. Licenses like the GPL restrict what can be done when redistributing the software, but impose nothing on the end-users. If you are not wanting to permit your end-users to redistribute, simple copyright is enough to protect your rights without the need for an additional licenseIf the software is not being redistributed and you aren't requiring a EULA, then the end-users are free to modify the software as they see fit (or do anything with it, except redistribute) under existing copyright law. So it seems copyright law as-is protects you from redistribution and permits your users the ability to modify the software, without the need of any license.

This is 100% incorrect. Copyright law does not allow some to create a derivative work without the consent of the copyright owner. And when I say derivative, I mean modification. The author of the summary is confused because he or she does not understand that a modification is a derivative work (assuming modification uses the original aspects of the work that the original author created himself.) You are assuming that copyright protects only from redistribution. That is wrong. Here is what the statute says:

15 USC 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

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

As you can see, derivative and distribution are two separate rights granted to the copyright holder.

Specifically, copyright allows exceptions for the disabilities which text-to-speech would seem to cover:

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 121 of the United States Copyright Law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.

On what are you basing your belief that the act of circumvention itself is not prohibited?

The law overview

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent ...
unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that
are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.

So I was actually wrong. Only anti-copying provisions may be circumvented, but format shifting isn't allowed. Here's another interesting paragraph:

The broadest of these exceptions, section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(E), establishes an
ongoing administrative rule-making proceeding to evaluate the impact of the
prohibition against the act of circumventing such access-control measures. This
conduct prohibition does not take effect for two years. Once it does, it is subject to
an exception for users of a work which is in a particular class of works if they are or are
likely to be adversely affected by virtue of the prohibition in making noninfringing uses.
The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the
Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who is
to consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information.

So, if we are likely to be "adversely affected" when using a copyrighted work, not for infringement, then, upon the ruling of the Librarian of Congress, we may be eligible for an exception to the anti-circumvention clause. There are also some other specific exceptions. They include expected exceptions, like libraries, non-profit organisations, and education facilities. It also includes a clause that allows courts to make an exception for the protection of minors against offensive internet content. I have no idea how circumvention would protect minors, but who am I to complain about an exception? I did, however, find the following exceptions interesting:

Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law.

Assuming we lawfully come into possession of a circumvention utility, we may circumvent for interoperability purposes, like, for example, to make sure the DRMed WMAs we acquired legally for free actually work with other music players. For the sake of interoperability and analysing the elements of the DRM, of course.

Encryption research (section 1201(g)). An exception for encryption
research permits circumvention of access control measures, and the ...
development of the technological means to do so, in order to identify
flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies.

This speaks for itself. It doesn't, however, permit you to distribute the circumvention measures.

Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention
when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable
of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about
the online activities of a natural person.

This one I find really interesting. If the technological measure infringes on

I know what the DMCA says, but that conflicts with existing US Copyright law saying it is legal to create an archival copy of most legally licensed media - (specifically section 117). The recording industry hasn't been willing to fight that fight and with good reason - it is unlikely that they would win a DMCA battle vs that pre-existing copyright law, which is why sites like GameCopyWorld are still around (if the DMCA also specifically forbids publishing how to circumvent protection that would be a violation of free speech - another battle they wouldn't likely win, otherwise we'd have no porn or anarchist cookbooks).

  What big media does to compensate is charge a "piracy fee" for all burnable media assuming that every one will be used for piracy, even in the days where they also license copies of music and movies with licensing allowing legal burning. Since these licenses preclude that the media is actually being used for piracy, they are in essence double dipping, and IMO, that could be construed as extortion.

You sound like one more person who fails to understand the concept of fair use and that old laws are not written with new technological possibilities in mind.

You might like to reflect on what you wrote there, until you understand the irony.

New technologies do not negate fair use, it just adds new uses. Some of which are fair, and some not.

I maintain that linking with an extract is fair:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: âoequotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.â

You wrote them? They belong to you.

Sadly, things are not that simple. I see two main points here, and will address them separately. Also, I'm assuming you're in the US, because the law is decidedly different in other places.
*Disclaimer* I am not a lawyer (yet), and you should not rely on my thoughts. If you really want to keep the notes, consult an attorney.

1. IP RIGHTS. Teachers/Professors claiming IP rights in their lecture materials has come up a few times in my recent recollection. The theory is that they own the copyright in the material that they teach and your notes are derivative works. In the US, derivative works belong to the copyright holder, regardless of who did the works. Thus, if you write a song and I do a remix of it, you generally own the remix despite my hard work.

What makes this interesting are a few twists and turns in copyright law:

(a) IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY. Copyright only extends to expression, and does not include the idea being expressed. Thus any copyright in your teacher's work does not extend to the underlying concepts. As to whether or not your notes are infringing on your teacher's expression of the ideas is a difficult question, and would be answered by a court.

(b) FIXATION REQUIREMENT. Copyright only applies to things that are fixed. Thus, a concert or dance performance is not copyrightable *unless* they record or otherwise 'fix' the performance. Thus, if your teacher did not fix their work in the form of powerpoint, lecture notes, or something else, it may not be protectable. Again, a question for the court. (Note that your teacher may have copyrightable lecture notes, from which the lecture would be a derivative work, and thus copyrightable.)

(c) WORK MADE FOR HIRE. If your teacher made any copyrightable work in the course of his/her job, it is possible that any copyright belongs to the educational institution. if that is the case, any rights associated with it are the institution's and thus your teacher has no standing to demand anything with respect to the work.

(d) LICENSE. It is possible that as a student you have a license (implied or explicit) to any work by your teacher that allows you to take notes, etc. This is highly case specific, so I cannot comfortably comment further

(e) FAIR USE. Given the educational setting and other circumstances, there is a high likelihood that your notes fall under the fair use exception in copyright. Thus even if your teacher has a full and valid copyright in the lectures, etc., you may be able to take notes nonetheless. (See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html for more information.)

2. TAKING YOUR NOTES. Taking the notes from you backpack. Regardless of who owns the IP rights in the notes (see #1), your teacher should not be able to go into your backpack to take them, as that is your private property. If the notes ultimately belong to the teacher, you may be ordered to turn them over by a court. Before that, however, I see no obligation to do so.

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

It's called a "poor man's copyright," it involves only copyright, not patents, and it's a myth. The U.S. Copyright Office has a note on this. Don't waste your money, especially with the cost of Registered Mail these days.

As for the original submitter, he's likely safe as long as a "substantial" amount of University resources aren't used, and if there isn't an existing contract between him and the University (work-study, faculty/TA, or regular employee) covering intellectual property. My school has a similar policy. And what I found on the SUU site turned up this:

In the Southern Utah University Student Handbook, for instance, you will find the [...] Intellectual Property Policy.

Which seems to be listed here.

No, it is not, and never was. You CANNOT COPYRIGHT A NAME.

U.S. Copyright Office - What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)

Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law.

Copyright /= Patent /= Trademark.

You're probably right about Canadian law. I speak of the US, where copying is a right strictly reserved for the copyright holder. Even archival copies of music and video are not allowed.

and you are full of it still.

It's called fair use.

Backup copies are allowed. Just because the device accesses someone else's computer to produce the backup doesn't make it any less a backup.

Absolutely untrue.

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