Slashdot Mirror

Without a licence, or a statutory right, you have no right to install the software on a piece of hardware - that requires copying, which, in respect of a copyrighted work, is an act restricted by copyright.

You're completely, indisputably wrong. From Title 17, section 117 of the United States Code:

(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.

You are directly, explicitly allowed to make a copy of software that you have purchased for the purpose of using it.

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.

Registration is not required to secure a copyright on a work. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. So the very fact that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard exists is a copyright.

However, Apple must have registered their copyright on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard before they can file suit for infringement on this copyright.

Read about all that at copyright.gov:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

This would all seem to be moot though. According to copyright.gov, Apple registered their copyright on Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 on January 24, 2008, Registration Number: TX0006849489.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1

I have no doubt that there is something we're missing here, as it seems unlikely that Psystar's Lawyers couldn't do a simple search at copyright.gov for "Mac OS X Leopard". But this article offers little more than an announcement that Psystar has responded to Apple's copyright suit.

Read a comment to TFA. It links to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr, which has the following line: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."

AIUI, if PsyStar have rightly identified that Apple failed to register the version of Mac OS X sold by PsyStar within 3 months of publication, then Apple can't bring the suit.

Sight, if you quote the link, do it completely and correctly. Then you see that: (1) you can register anytime your copyright, and (2) your claims are limited if you register after an infringement.

Quote from: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

        * If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

        * If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

        * Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on âoeIntellectual Property Rights.â

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

I believe I am in fact correct on this. From the US Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."

Yes, you can register after the fact, but if you don't do so within 90 days of publication or -- and this is particularly important in this instance -- *prior* to infringement of the work, your award is limited to actual damages; hardly worth the money Apple would be paying to its lawyers. Again, assuming that Apple didn't register the work.

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law." Copyright Law Basics - Notice of Copyright

"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

If the work is an unpublished or published computer program, the deposit requirement is one visually perceptible copy in source code of the first 25 and last 25 pages of the program. For a program of fewer than 50 pages, the deposit is a copy of the entire program.

If the work is in a CD-ROM format, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the material, that is, the CD-ROM, the operating software, and any manual(s) accompanying it. If registration is sought for the computer program on the CD-ROM, the deposit should also include a printout of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code for the program." Copyright Office Basics

Sigh. From the US Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

Many law suits have demonstrated that the idea of a game simply can't be copyrighted, only the name and IP.

Law suits don't demonstrate this - it's the law at the US Copyright Office

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

In other words, the artwork is copyrightable, but neither the rules of the game, nor the method of play, is. That's simply the law.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8) - US Copyright Office

A musical or video recording is neither a writing nor a discovery. It was never the intent of the framers to extend copyright to these things and the practice should be abolished by law.

That's because software rental has been illegal since Dec 1, 1990 thanks to the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act. Limited purpose devices like game consoles are exempt.

Software rental was big in the 80's, I used to rent C64 games all the time from a mail order place whose name I've forgotten.

Copyright infringement is not only a civil case, it is also criminal. The GP is semantically wrong, but argumentally correct. Those who infringe copyright are breaking US federal law. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Personally, I believe that it's a good idea - they're just going about this the wrong way. Use an opt-in system. That way, those who wish to levy the p2p networks to get music can do so, while those who have nothing to do with music sharing can continue doing what they always have.

Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down

Which first lists Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) disks under "DRM-based Stores Have Failed In the Past":

1. Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) Service
2. Google Video Store
3. Microsoft's MSN Music Store
4. Yahoo Music
5. Wal-Mart's Music Store

I hope it includes allowing for the authorization of my lawfully purchased copy of DVD X Copy Gold which I didn't get activated before the company was served with a cease-and-desist. That would be sweet irony.

 
Plainly false. See, for instance, Works Made for
Hire Under the 1976
Copyright Act.
 
Note, particularly, that it doesn't matter who's hired you or who the software is for, it matters whether you've created the software within the scope of your employment. I don't think 'having written a piece of software as part of (your) research employment' suddenly makes you an independent contractor.

Might want to tell that to various HOAs.

Sure will. HOAs are an abomination.

There's nothing wrong with copyright

There is plenty wrong with copyright. As it exists now, it retards, rather than promotes, progress in the useful arts and sciences.

there's nothing wrong with contracts

That depends entirely on the specifics on the contract. A contract can be ruled unconscionable.

Like it or not, to run a program you must make a copy of it; the EULA gives you a license to copy the program from a hard disk to memory to run.. sorry, that's the precident.

Sorry, but you're wrong: "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...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."

Have fun funding that video encoding software yourself then.

Uh, you have heard of Thoeora, right?

Is LOC data accessed through Z39.50 or their MARC gateway in the Public Domain?

It appears, by virtue of consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship, specifically lists taken from public documents or other common sources, to not be under copyright and thus in the Public Domain. This is, after all, material taken from the inside cover of the published item. The list itself, the Library of Congress Catalog, is also a public document.

Now all that won't stop RIAA, M$ and Disney from suing you. But then what would?

Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.

Under the US Copyright Act of 1976, works made for hire belong to the person who did the hiring. The employer owns the copyright, not the employee.

See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

Of course, the law is complex, so it is best to specify that you get the copyright in the contract, to eliminate any doubt. But in general, when you hire somebody to produce something, you own the copyright.

But what if the employee uses a large number of their own previously built libraries and the final product is just a shell calling those libraries? Just curious.

Although Parent presents himself as being only correct regarding English law, the main thrust of what he says also applies to US Copyright law.

Refer to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html for information about this.

I don't have a car analogy, but it's pretty important to read and understand the document.

Under the US Copyright Act of 1976, works made for hire belong to the person who did the hiring. The employer owns the copyright, not the employee.

See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

Of course, the law is complex, so it is best to specify that you get the copyright in the contract, to eliminate any doubt. But in general, when you hire somebody to produce something, you own the copyright.

They are ethically obliged to do as much as possible to ensure you can't run illegal, unlicensed software on it.

Illegal under what law, and unlicensed under what exclusive right? Please name a few "illegal, unlicensed" titles you're looking at, so that other people following this discussion can understand what you are talking about.

Just from a glance at the wiki, some of the games being made available are clones of Nintendo's own games!

So bleeping what? Game play is not copyrightable. In fact, Nintendo's own Balloon Fight, available in the North American versions of Animal Crossing (for GameCube) and Wii Shop Channel, is a clone of Midway's Joust.

The moment you write it, you have the copyright. If you want to extend your copyright, only then do you need to do something.

You're partly right. As soon as you record something "in fixed form" (on paper, hard drive, CD, or whatever), the copyright is yours. But if you want to go to court over it, you'll want to have it registered.

From the Copyright Office website:

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

Why do you think you need a lawyer for something as trivial as registering a copyright? As you can see by checking the US Copyright office fee schedule, doing it on-line only costs $35, much less than an attorney would charge you just to discuss the issue.

That's simply not true. You can place material into the public domain, which means, simply, that it is not protected by copyrights.

It is certainly possible to release material you have created from copyright, if you wish to do so. If you do not wish to do so, because you wish to restrict its distribution, then people who want to use it must license it from you.

But to claim that a license exists for any purpose other than to create restrictions is fallacious. There is no purpose to licensing something when the effect of that license is to place it into the public domain. Such a license is unproductive and unnecessary.

(For a more specific legal argument: It could be said that no work that has not passed through the time limitations specified in title 17 section 302, the Copyright Act, can exist in the public domain unless it is a work of the United States Government; and that therefore, by necessity, such works must be licensed for public release. However, if, in fact, you accept that interpretation of the Copyright Act, that does not obviate my original premise- the license is still a vehicle of restrictions upon the work, but those restrictions are imposed upon the vehicle from outside. The Copyright Office, from what I can tell, does not expressly support this view of copyright instead, it appears, tossing the entire issue into a third box- that a non-exclusive transfer of right, such as a non-exclusive and unlimited grant of use to any and all, while not technically a release into the public domain (as the Copyright Act has provision for revocation of such declarations) takes the general form of one, and therefore does not require the use of a license.)

This was an appeals court decision. The appeals court doesn't decide all those things. The legal issue was whether the license was enforceable under copyright law, or whether it was a "mere covenant," meaning that Jacobsen would get nothing because he was not making money off the software. The lower court had ruled that it was a mere covenant. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated that ruling, which means it now goes back to the trial court to apply the "correct" law as announced by the Fed. Cir.

Two takeaway lessons, one for Big Business, and one for developers. For Big Business, you can't infringe on the copyrights of open source developers with impunity. For developers, even if you are doing open source software, REGISTER YOUR COPYRIGHT. If you register your copyright up front, you can get statutory damages and attorney fees if some idiot from Big Business decides to try this kind of stunt. Those damages are almost always more than the "actual" damages you'll get for software that you give away for free (as in beer). If you wait until after somebody infringes before you file your copyright, it's too late. And registering is cheap and easy. In many cases, you don't even need to get an attorney involved (although if you need a patent or trademark or help with a copyright, I know this really great IP attorney who also posts on Slashdot and is clued in on open source.

And despite the stuff above that may look like 'advice" to the untrained eye, this post absolutely, positively is NOT legal advice.

You might be thinking about the situation in Europe, where database compilations are copyrightable; but this doesn't apply in the US.

As with most areas of law, absolute statements are probably ill-advised...

There is nothing in current U.S. copyright law that explicitly disallows a copyright to subsist in a database; indeed courts have repeatedly treated databases as compilations. That being said, the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) makes it clear that the scope of copyright protection for a compilation of facts is narrow. "In order to qualify, they must exhibit some modicum of creativity in the selection, arrangement, or coordination of the data." (Statement of David O. Carson, General Counsel, United States Copyright Office, see the last paragraph of section I, The History of Database Protection in the United States).

My understanding of the situation in Europe is that there are explicit statutory provisions for copyrighting databases. Congress has, so far, been pretty resistant to passing such a law, despite lobbying efforts by many commercial database operators. In any event, given the fundamental differences between U.S. and European copyright law (i.e. Utilitarian vs. natural rights origins) and the fact that originality dictates copyrightability, it is unclear to what extent a U.S. law protecting the contents of databases could be supported by the Constitution's progress clause.

You might be thinking about the situation in Europe, where database compilations are copyrightable; but this doesn't apply in the US.

As with most areas of law, absolute statements are probably ill-advised...

There is nothing in current U.S. copyright law that explicitly disallows a copyright to subsist in a database; indeed courts have repeatedly treated databases as compilations. That being said, the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) makes it clear that the scope of copyright protection for a compilation of facts is narrow. "In order to qualify, they must exhibit some modicum of creativity in the selection, arrangement, or coordination of the data." (Statement of David O. Carson, General Counsel, United States Copyright Office, see the last paragraph of section I, The History of Database Protection in the United States).

My understanding of the situation in Europe is that there are explicit statutory provisions for copyrighting databases. Congress has, so far, been pretty resistant to passing such a law, despite lobbying efforts by many commercial database operators. In any event, given the fundamental differences between U.S. and European copyright law (i.e. Utilitarian vs. natural rights origins) and the fact that originality dictates copyrightability, it is unclear to what extent a U.S. law protecting the contents of databases could be supported by the Constitution's progress clause.

I think it's worth noticing that the title of Section 9...

... is not the complete contents of Section 9.

Suppose the author and sole owner of all copyright rights in a GPL'd program tried to sue you for copyright infringement because you ran and P2P propagated the program.

That would be a ridiculous proposition in the US, given 17 USC 117.

Unfortunately, the case law is against you.

Citation, please.

I just don't see how you can get the rights you need unless you get them from the GPL.

In the US, some of those rights come from the US Copyright Code, which the GPL extends.

Title 17 Section 106:

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 works;
    (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 picture or 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 works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;and
    (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publically by means of a digital audio transmission.

You could conceivably run afoul of #4, #5, and #6. The right to perform as well as perform publicly *IS* a protected right.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

I suggest everyone imposing their interpretation of Title 17 at least read it. The problem is Title 17 has been modified so many times, it is just about impossible to make coherent sense out of it as the author of the linked document states. Simply looking at Title 17 is a sure way to run afoul of another existing act. In the front of that document I linked to it lists all the various acts that either changed or impact Title 17.

This is one of the reasons copyright law needs to be reconsidered in an era of digital content

That is probably the most terrifying aspect of all this to me. Suppose we do the job and convince the Congresscritters to reconsider copyright. Does anyone here actually think it'll turn out the way we want? Raise your hand if you do.

They fucked things up with the DMCA, and they're gonna fuck things up with this. If you need any further convincing, spend some time browsing here.

Actually Internet "access providers" are also covered by the DMCA under section 512(a) which governs "transitory communications (p. 8-9)." As for "net neutrality," the requirements of this section are pretty close to what most of us would consider neutral. To maintain its exemption from liability, the access provider must exert essentially no control over the content and cannot discriminate by sender or recipient.

What you consider "basic knowledge" about what constitutes a "service provider" and what the provisions of 17 USC 512 considers a "service provider" are not the same thing. YouTube is a "service provider" under 17 USC 512(c). You might want to look at pp. 9-10 of this document as well.

Then you should probably specify which ISP you are talking about, it's really confusing.

In that document I don't see anywhere it says that "service provider" == "ISP". A "service provider" on the world wide web is not the same as an Internet Service Provider (Which is sometimes referred to as an Internet Acces Provider). If they were and had to follow the same rules, then net neutrality in the U.S.A. would indeed be long dead.

You seem pretty knowledgeable, but I just wanted to make it crystal clear that you were not talking about an Internet Access Provider.

What you consider "basic knowledge" about what constitutes a "service provider" and what the provisions of 17 USC 512 considers a "service provider" are not the same thing. YouTube is a "service provider" under 17 USC 512(c). You might want to look at pp. 9-10 of this document as well.

I really doubt it: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

512-g-3-D (which is to do with DMCA counter notices):
"""
The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
"""

In the DMCA itself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html

 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. â" (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph

My understanding is that that is why it's legitimate. But of course IANAL so I may have misunderstood that. But it would be somewhat questionable if the DMCA were capable of over riding fair use provisions in such a way.

So, I might have had the details a bit off, but it's definitely not supported in the DMCA itself. And I don't have the access to case law to look there as well.

You are wrong, I'm sorry. Read the EULA

The EULA is just a piece of paper that is bundled in the same box you buy your copy of Windows in. If I stick a piece of paper in a car saying that you aren't allowed to drive it over a certain speed, and then sell you the car, does that make it legal? If it looks like a sale, swims like a sale and quacks like a sale, then it's a sale. You pay your money, you own what's in the box.

How about, instead of reading Microsoft's wishful thinking, you read the law?

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... 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

You simply do not need a license to use software.

What you do is very different than what desktop software developers do.

No. Completely wrong. What I do is very different to what commercial software developers do. There are plenty of desktop software developers that do precisely what I do. In fact, they are the majority. Look in any large company, you'll find people writing non-web software that will never be sold. It's not as visible for obvious reasons, but it's there. The platform is irrelevant, and I think you know that, you just wanted an excuse to lead into...

I know so many people without any education in the web development field that it's scary. You might not be one of these people

But you're happy to imply it anyway!

Yes, the state of the web development industry is atrocious. That has no bearing on the argument at hand and your ad hominems have no place here.

Any model for selling your product is giving up control

You've missed my point entirely. The problem is not giving up control. The problem is basing a business model around simultaneously giving up control (selling) and not giving up control (copyright). The two together are a contradiction. One side must give way. Either you really sell your software, in which case you have no right to control it once it has left your possession, or you lease your software, in which case it remains yours and you can still control it. You can't have it both ways.

This would disagree with you. Copyright covers the right "To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

Apple owns copyright, PsyStar has no right to distribute.

Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.

Both extend logically from copyright.

Wrong.

Copyright is not the right to control what anyone does with your product. Copyright is the right to dictate who is allowed to (a) create derivative works, (b) create copies and (c) distribute copies they created.

Nothing more.

If the copyright holder makes a copy and then gives or sells it to someone, the recipient can do what they like with it, including selling it to others under any terms they wish.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that copyright also prevents unauthorized installing of software (because it involves copying to the hard drive) or unauthorized running of software (because it involves copying to RAM), but US copyright law explicitly allows any copies that are made "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" (Title 17 section 117(1)(a)). Since in order to use OS X you must install it on a hard drive and it must be copied into RAM when run, both of those copies are legal, without the permission of the copyright holder.

Of course Apple software, unlike GPL software, comes with an EULA which attempts to impose restrictions beyond what copyright law allows. In order to do that, the EULA has to be interpreted as a contract, and EULAs of that sort have been pretty consistently struck down by the courts.

May 31, 1790 First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.

February 3, 1831 First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.

ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html

The average life expectancy in 1900 was 47.3 years

ref: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

Given the fact that: A: The original copyright in 1790 was for 14-28 years B: The likelihood that the person would be a least a young adult for their creative endeavor C: Just over 40 years after it's creation, one generation, copyright duration was increased to 28-42 years in the 1800's when the life expectancy was most likely under 47 years (Even less when first enacted and duration was up to 28 years)

It is apparent that the intent of copyright law in the US was, from the beginning, to protect ownership for the majority if not the entire life of the creator.

Can I have the cheques then?

*hopeful look followed by a crushed look when I realize it isn't happening*

RE: Patent laws spurs innovation...

Kinda like making your own game rather than taking a bunch of old games somebody else made and resell them?

Or not taking parts of other games to make your own like Limbo of the Lost?

I don't see shortening the term of copyright spuring innovation. Instead, I see a bunch of advertisers picking up a song like "Handlebars" by Flowbots at the same time and causing my head to explode.

BTW unrelated and for the US:

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the authorâ(TM)s life plus an additional 70 years after the authorâ(TM)s death. In the case of âoea joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,âthe term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving authorâ(TM)s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the authorâ(TM)s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Redefining words? Was I misunderstood? I didn't claim "file-sharing" was illegal. I stated that "file-sharing of copyrighted material" was/is illegal.

We agree that file-sharing always results in copying, yes? If so, file-sharing of copyrighted material is infringement.

And in any case, unless I commit fraud by selling you dodgy copies, this is only a civil issue encountered by breaking the contract which has already been broken several times by the holders of copyrights.

The copying of copyrighted material (usually but not necessarily for purposes of distribution) is a criminal offense iff

It is done for financial gain,

or the material reproduced in a 180 day period exceeds $1000 retail value,

or the material has not yet been released commercially.

See here. The definition is actually more involved, but the above summary should suffice (I have assumed we are concerned with the US exclusively. I hope that's not a problem.). Selling/reselling is not essential to determining criminality.

Copyright law has had criminal penalties for many years now -- the first one was added to US copyright law in 1897 -- more than 100 years ago. Criminal offenses predate Slashdot and even the RIAA.

The scope of criminal infringement was broadened in 1997 with the NET act, which opened up criminal enforcement even if there's no profit motive involved. This was seen as necessary to deal with warez BBSes that were distributing lots of copyrighted material without charging for it.

You can read the actual copyright law regarding criminal offenses here.

Here's an interesting piece of trivia: you know the FBI warning that appears when you watch a DVD, that warns of fines and jail time even if there's no money involved? I don't mean the DVD rips you torrent, of course, but the legit ones. The NET act allows the FBI to claim this.

Just to be clear: I'm aware that many Slashdotters like to claim copyright law is a civil matter, not a criminal one. This is one of those ugly little memes that won't go away. Copyright violation holds both civil and criminal penalties, and the sooner everybody understands this, the better.

OK, I poked around a little -- I'm no copyright expert by any means and the 30 minutes I spent is not a real analysis. That said:

If you make a recording, the statute says (statutes trump regs) you have exclusive right to do a number of things with it, for example "(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;" http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Then in the Copyright Board Regs, there is this: " (c) Copyright Owner is a sound recording copyright owner who is entitled to receive royalty payments under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) or 114(g). ... (e) Licensee is a person that has obtained statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, and the implementing regulations, to make digital audio transmissions as part of a Service (as defined in paragraph (h) of this section), and ephemeral recordings for use in facilitating such transmissions." S 383.2 And if the copyright owner happens to want royalties, here's the payload.

Essentially, if you make something and want it to be covered by the Copyright Board regs -- that's your right. If you want to give it away, that's your right. This idea that the law somehow forces people to take payment for their copyrighted work is silly.

You can read about the 112(e) and 114(g) requirements here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

OK, I poked around a little -- I'm no copyright expert by any means and the 30 minutes I spent is not a real analysis. That said:

If you make a recording, the statute says (statutes trump regs) you have exclusive right to do a number of things with it, for example "(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;" http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Then in the Copyright Board Regs, there is this: " (c) Copyright Owner is a sound recording copyright owner who is entitled to receive royalty payments under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) or 114(g). ... (e) Licensee is a person that has obtained statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, and the implementing regulations, to make digital audio transmissions as part of a Service (as defined in paragraph (h) of this section), and ephemeral recordings for use in facilitating such transmissions." S 383.2 And if the copyright owner happens to want royalties, here's the payload.

Essentially, if you make something and want it to be covered by the Copyright Board regs -- that's your right. If you want to give it away, that's your right. This idea that the law somehow forces people to take payment for their copyrighted work is silly.

You can read about the 112(e) and 114(g) requirements here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

What you may not realize is that SoundExchange is the mandatory collector for EVERYONE. Even if you release your works under CC license and explicitly say "no royalties for 'web radio'" in your license, the operator still has to play the fee.

This is only true if they also play *IAA pap. If the Internet Radio station doesn't play that stuff they don't have to pay royalties.

From Wikipedia : SoundExchange collects royalties for artists and copyright owners whose work is used under the statutory license.

After reviewing Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 I find this:

801(b)(7)(C): (C) Interested parties may negotiate and agree to, and the Copyright Royalty Judges may adopt, an agreement that specifies as terms notice and recordkeeping requirements that apply in lieu of those that would otherwise apply under regulations.

So apparently as long as you only stream creative commons licensed audio separately licensed for streaming with terms for recordkeeping and terms notice you should be ok to stream audio because you are not relying on the "statutory license" but rather "License agreements voluntarily negotiated".

The problem for the Internet Radio stations is they don't want to air the commons. Waah. They want to pump the same garbage that's coming out of my radio and I've heard all of it I care to. There's been nothing new there for a decade it seems like, and when they do get an interesting piece they play it until I'm sick of it in one day. And they should have to pay to air the garbage that gets airtime on over-the-air radio so as to discourage the practice. It's awful. Not one thin dime to the *IAA and their artists. If the artist wants to get his work played in that forum - even if it's CC licensed - he's part of the persistence of that problem and I'm not interested in his work either. You can't roll in the sewer without getting stinky.

So where are you getting your information from?

I am not a lawyer. If you need one hire one.

"In the U.S., copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal one, although I think that may be different in Europe...?"

Not sure what you mean there. It's pretty well known that copyright violation carries both civil and criminal penalties in the US. You're correct that most people reading this would be liable for civil penalties at most, but it's misleading to state that there's no criminal copyright infringement in the US.

That's why you see that FBI warning before movies on DVDs -- yeah, I know that many DVD rips have this removed, but you've probably watched at least one legit DVD in the past. The stuff about imprisonment on the FBI warning card alludes to the criminal penalties allowed in the copyright code.

You can read about the criminal penalties here. It crosses the line at $1K worth of infringement in 180 days. A bit difficult to hit if you're trading MP3s; a little easier if it's DVDs. But give away two or three copies of PhotoShop to your friends in six months, and you're in criminal territory.

You might be able to trademark "???", but not copyright.
There are some handy lists on this page.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp

An entire article on the development/abuse of copyright and not one mention of Walt Disney & Sonny Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act. I think the graph on that illustrate what this article talks about, the gradual extension of copyright through the years by political legislation.

Yeah the current state is bad. Even worse that the people making the calls are the people who have the most money. I don't think we should do away with it completely but I think it's well past the point of stifling innovation. Well past that point.

You want an indication of problems witch those in power continually extending it? Point me to a single proposed reduction bill. It's all about extension, reinforcement and expansion to other works like vessel hull design.

It should probably be pointed out that formally registering a copyright with the U.S. government costs a whopping $35, and can be done online in a matter of minutes. That is maybe one Happy Meal more expensive than paying a notary public to roll your own legal creation.