Slashdot Mirror

The Apple IIe had some awesome Pac Man and Space Invaders clones that were decidedly illegal because they mimicked the arcade machines you put quarters in perfectly.

For one thing, companies like Atarisoft published plenty of authorized ports of arcade games on Apple II and other 8-bit platforms. For another, how perfectly? Not every aspect is copyrightable.

It's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Neither is illegal.

Not according to the Plagiarism Checker, it says "The owner of a copyright gets to decide who can legally make copies of that work. It is illegal to copy large sections of someone else's copyrighted work without permission, even if you give the original author credit." If that's not enough, then let's see what the Copyright Office says: "It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright." Notice the government itself says it's illegal.

Falcon

Copyright law has both civil and criminal penalties. The Criminal Offenses portion of copyright law goes into more details.

You're correct that many cases of copyright infringement don't fall into criminal territory. But it's also important to understand that you are being misleading when you state that copyright is not a criminal matter. Sometimes, it is.

Not true actually; fair use also takes into account what distribution will do to the market value of the distributed work.

In a nutshell, if it's worthless, you're going to have a very hard time proving copyright infringement.

The only way they'll get him is in a civil suit for harrassment or libel.

By putting standard-copyright content on a webserver, you're almost guaranteeing that a third-party caching proxy is going to redistribute your content, but the law (so far) has glossed over this detail

Glossed over? One of the riders to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act set out rules for the operation of automated caching proxies in the United States. See 17 USC 512(b).

Bull.

There is a specific exception for "caching only" both in US and EU law. See 512(b) of the DMCA and Article 13 of Directive 2000/31/EC

Then, if I've purchased a copy on vinyl, or otherwise legally obtained a copy (perhaps through taping from the radio), I'm legally entitled to replace it with another copy, of whatever format?

Nothing I said implied that. If you purchased a song on vinyl, you are entitled to one copy of that song: the one you bought on vinyl. Buying one copy does not entitle you to make more copies, except under certain conditions specified by the doctrine of fair use.

After all, that's the same copy as far as copyright is concerned.

It's the same song, but not the same copy of the song. The distinction is actually very easy to comprehend, but if you need help it's spelled out in the list of definitions which you will find here (you might need to substitute the word "song" for "work").

Over my life I've owned a lot of tracks that I no longer have. I don't think I have transferred ownership, so I still own them, even if that vinyl or CD or tape has deteriorated or disappeared or been destroyed.

No, you destroyed/lost/failed to adequately care for the one copy you paid for. If you wanted to keep those tracks you should have taken better care of the physical media. Nobody owes you anything for your carelessness.

But it's reassuring to know that they're still mine, I can replace them by download without hindrance.

Did I say that? No, it's a strawman. If you can point to an error in anything that I wrote, as opposed to what you made up, please do.

Oh, wait,the CopyCartel says it doesn't work that way.

And they're right, which means you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote in order to prove absolutely nothing with a sarcastic bitching session. And in that spirit, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself, since you're being both a dick and a twat.

Titles are not protected by copyright. That's a common misconception. If I write a book and call it Harry Potter and the Copyright Infringement Case that went Nowhere, copyright law doesn't give anybody the right to stop me.

Game rules are not copyrightable. 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 protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

There is more than one ciriut court, they don't write law, they don't always agree, and you're just plain wrong on copyright law concerning installing and running software.

    The following is copied from: 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. -- 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.

    I'm not a lawyer(nor attempting anything other than a layman's discussion here, just to be clear). However the installing/running myth has been debunked so many times I'm amzed to see someone, fully warned, try and pull that bs again.
          Then again I suspect you're just trolling given some of non-arguments and nonsense in your post. I suppose you'll pick on my spelling or grammar next.
          Just in case your not trolling I'll point out that the offer and acceptance was money for the copy of the software, completed at the register. There is no actual contract that I can see (no exchange of consideration) in many eula's, they're just claims (and only that) that you agree to a bunch of restrictions after the sale (the actual exchange of consideration) is already complete.
      Now if you wanted to make an argument that some eula's are conditions of recieving support and updates, etc. on the software then there is room to argue. In this case it could be argued that they get to limit you as the eula states and you get additional services in the form of updates, tech support, etc.

Mycroft

Well, copying it is explicitly forbidden by law.

You might want to actually read up on things like this next time so you don't make yourself look like a fool.

Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is "archival" copy, not "backup" copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

        * the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
        * you are the legal owner of the copy; and
        * any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#backup

In other words, monster fail.

nd then there's the issue of Software being seen as a product, but not being sold, and it being -licensed- instead...

That's copyright law, not patent law.

Short answer: Copyright law does not grant the author full control of the work. There are only five rights granted by copyright: reproducing, distributing, derivatizing, public display, and public performance. A holder of the copyrighted work can do anything with it that doesn't fall into these bins. And even these rights are limited by certain principles (fair use, first sale doctrine, etc.)

- David Stein

I was going to post my own reply: You can't copyright the rules of a game. Parent has it right. Here's the copyright office's own document on the subject:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

First sentence is "The idea for a game is not protected by copyright." By contrast, "[...] the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable."

As with other forms of copyright, you can copyright the expression of an idea, not the idea. Copyright gives you the exclusive right to make copies, not the exclusive right to an idea.

You can't copyright a game. Hasbro is suing them over the trademark. Scrabulous should have used a name that doesn't sound like Scrabble, then there would be nothing Hasbro could do. Perhaps Scrabulous could change their name to Crapple.

Not buying a great product you can easily crack is even more retarded.

I'm not even going to argue about how "great" a glass phone with crippled bluetooth and no MMS happens to be and skip right to the part where you're suggesting the mostly American readership here break US law:

Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. Â 1201(a)(1))

5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.

Breaking this law can result in hefty fines and even jail time. IANAL, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. I'm pretty sure that inciting others to break the law is a crime here as well. So maybe buying a product with the sole intention of breaking the law could seem like a pretty retarded idea after they bust your ass. I can get much better and totally legal results with a different handset. I'm with the OP; If you're buying this handset with intentions of jailbreaking it, you is stoopid.

you're guilty of copyright infringement simply by using the product that you paid to use. Quite the precedent.

It's also completely and utterly wrong, according to copyright law.

US Title 17, section 117 explicitly states that copying a program into RAM so you can use it is not an infringement.

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

The judge quite clearly erred in application of this statute. IIRC the law was amended specifically because of courts ruling that copying to RAM was infringement (which the judge apparently didn't understand.)

This is pretty much a slam-dunk appeal.

Yes. The EULA is a license that gives you permission to load it into RAM. If you violate the EULA, you don't have that permission, and therefore copying into RAM is not allowed.

(I am not a lawyer)
Interesting thought, but 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 and that it is used in no other manner..."

(I am not a lawyer)
The contents of the physical disc, maybe, but the discs themselves... no, because that would be in violation of 17 USC 109.

Well, for the purpose of protecting proprietary software, copyright law requires only certain portions of physical code. Anything stored in the Library of Congress as a matter of Preserving Copyright is technically Public Record. Exploit the portions of code within the sections to have been sent in for the purpose of demonstrations, and merely explain you worked on those projects, in a manner that doesn't quite violate the letter of your NDA. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

The orphan works proposal that so many people love to hate would do just as you requested.

I think you're misunderstanding copyright here.

Would that be in a similar way to how you confuse intangible goods and tangible goods by claiming first sale in an argument on copyright?

Are you seriously claiming that not moving your car after the meter expires is immoral?

Are you seriously claiming it isn't?
You've abused the trust in the system
You're taking advantage of a service without proper renumeration
Which means you're claiming to be superior to others And you're depriving others of that service

Well, it's like longing for something so expensive that it is beyond your means;

Really? I'd say it's more like you see this hot girl at a party, then she turns around and she has warts and growths all over her, a moustache, terrible, rotting teeth, an annoying nasally voice, and to boot she's a real bitch with an ugly personality. But then you keep trying to claim she's attractive, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that you've already wasted the night trying to get her attention.

Copyright does infringe on free speech, but I don't denounce copyright for doing this

Then why, oh why, did you start this conversation by attacking someone for defending copyright, and start claiming that free speech means you should be able to copy anything you like?

I'm fine with copyright including a reproduction right.

So why are you arguing with me? I support copyright, you support copyright, what exactly is your problem?

What's with the unless? Fair use is an exception to copyright. It's a utilitarian exception, which seems sensible, since copyright is utilitarian anyway

And to think, just moments ago, you were saying that the utilitarian way would be to allow anyone to copy a work.

Getting a copyright should be neither hard nor expensive. Just not automatic.

Here's an idea: If you don't care how easy it is to get one, why don't you just mandate that an artist can protect his works merely by stating publicly that he doesn't want it copied? There's no reason it couldn't work, after all currently we do the exact opposite of that.

Patents require an inventor to apply for a patent on their invention, and to fill out lots of paperwork, pay substantial fees, and renew the patent periodically lest it expire sooner than it otherwise might. And of course, this is all traditional in copyright law. It's not really that foreign to us

Damn right it's not foreign. In fact, your idea of being able to register a copyright seems like a perfect job for the U.S. Copyright Office.
It's funny you mention patents though, since theoretically it's possible to stop others stealing your ideas even without a patent.

No, I mean the copyright law of the United States of America. For copyright law purposes, architectural works include things like houses, but not things like bridges.

Whereas the English language definition includes pretty much any construction, which is what you dislike, hence the English language definition is too broad for your liking. Unless you're claiming that even the US copyright law definition, which (allegedly) only defines architecture as residences, is still too broad.

No, you're wrong there.

Oh, thank goodness I was only wrong there. I was beginning to think you though everything I said was wrong, turns out it was just that one irrelevant paragraph. Luckily though, copyright law specifically protects architecture.

Where are you getting the 'single act' from? I see no reason why you co

I think you're misunderstanding copyright here.

Would that be in a similar way to how you confuse intangible goods and tangible goods by claiming first sale in an argument on copyright?

Are you seriously claiming that not moving your car after the meter expires is immoral?

Are you seriously claiming it isn't?
You've abused the trust in the system
You're taking advantage of a service without proper renumeration
Which means you're claiming to be superior to others And you're depriving others of that service

Well, it's like longing for something so expensive that it is beyond your means;

Really? I'd say it's more like you see this hot girl at a party, then she turns around and she has warts and growths all over her, a moustache, terrible, rotting teeth, an annoying nasally voice, and to boot she's a real bitch with an ugly personality. But then you keep trying to claim she's attractive, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that you've already wasted the night trying to get her attention.

Copyright does infringe on free speech, but I don't denounce copyright for doing this

Then why, oh why, did you start this conversation by attacking someone for defending copyright, and start claiming that free speech means you should be able to copy anything you like?

I'm fine with copyright including a reproduction right.

So why are you arguing with me? I support copyright, you support copyright, what exactly is your problem?

What's with the unless? Fair use is an exception to copyright. It's a utilitarian exception, which seems sensible, since copyright is utilitarian anyway

And to think, just moments ago, you were saying that the utilitarian way would be to allow anyone to copy a work.

Getting a copyright should be neither hard nor expensive. Just not automatic.

Here's an idea: If you don't care how easy it is to get one, why don't you just mandate that an artist can protect his works merely by stating publicly that he doesn't want it copied? There's no reason it couldn't work, after all currently we do the exact opposite of that.

Patents require an inventor to apply for a patent on their invention, and to fill out lots of paperwork, pay substantial fees, and renew the patent periodically lest it expire sooner than it otherwise might. And of course, this is all traditional in copyright law. It's not really that foreign to us

Damn right it's not foreign. In fact, your idea of being able to register a copyright seems like a perfect job for the U.S. Copyright Office.
It's funny you mention patents though, since theoretically it's possible to stop others stealing your ideas even without a patent.

No, I mean the copyright law of the United States of America. For copyright law purposes, architectural works include things like houses, but not things like bridges.

Whereas the English language definition includes pretty much any construction, which is what you dislike, hence the English language definition is too broad for your liking. Unless you're claiming that even the US copyright law definition, which (allegedly) only defines architecture as residences, is still too broad.

No, you're wrong there.

Oh, thank goodness I was only wrong there. I was beginning to think you though everything I said was wrong, turns out it was just that one irrelevant paragraph. Luckily though, copyright law specifically protects architecture.

Where are you getting the 'single act' from? I see no reason why you co

Under fair use, no such payment is required.

Oh, really? Point out the part of the fair use doctrine that allows performance of someone else's songs wherever and whenever you please. Here's the actual law (I'll assume you're in the U.S.).

I sometimes play various songs at my family and friends homes, yet nobody pays "royalties".

That is not a public performance. You can do that all you want without paying royalties, as no copyright holder (not even the RIAA) would ever come after you for that.

People play songs at train stations, etc. with legal permits, yet they are not required to pay royalties.

Actually, they are technically required to pay royalties if they're performing covers. The RIAA hasn't started going after them yet, so don't give them any ideas. Of course, the busking permit could be modified to include a payment to the appropriate PRO (maybe that's already in place. I don't know).

There is no such thing as a company universally authorized to collect money in exchange for the right to play everyones songs.

It would be impossible for an individual copyright holder to chase down every individual who performs the copyright holder's songs without licensing them. So, organizations were created to pool the efforts on behalf of the copyright holders. Bars, clubs, radio stations, etc voluntarily pay these fees to these organizations, known as PROs (Performing Rights Organizations), in order to avoid civil litigation. It is not a legal requirement that fees be paid to this organization, but it is a legal requirement that any fees demanded by the copyright holder be paid to them. The PRO is simply a convenience for the performers/broadcasters and the copyright holders.

While it is the conventional wisdom to buy into the extortion, it is a house of cards

It is not extortion. You don't have to pay it. If you choose to break the law (ie. perform a song that you don't have the legal right to perform), then you may face consequences. That's reality. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't break the law (ie. either pay the appropriate licensing fee, or just don't perform the song).

I always assumed that scanning yearbook photos and putting them on the web would violate copyright law. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html Am I missing something?

He's making a fair use copy.

Bravo! You are spot on. It's time to force professors and universities to turn to open source information sources, especially so for public domain knowledge.

Unfortunately for the publishers, copyright does not apply to material that is duplicated for educational and research purposes, and such textbook torrents are 100% legal. Hoist up the countersuits. Prepare the public relations broadsides.

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

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Which parts of the Newtonian physics principles will the textbook publishers try to claim is copyrighted? Prepare to slash those sections out with the tips of your swords, figuratively and literally. It's Booty Time!

I agree that 10 years is absurd, maybe 1 year and a boatload of community service.

As for your assertion that this shouldn't be a matter for criminal courts, well, the law disagrees with you:
copyright.gov
Title 17 Chapter 5 506.a.1.B was probably violated, though not mentioned in DOJ press release.
Title 17 Chapter 5 506.a.1.C was definately violated.

Fair use is (1) a legal defence in a copyright violation case, not a right;

From Wiki:
"The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107".

From the US Copyright Office:
"Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

That summarizes section 107. And 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Here's Standford University Library's Copyright and Fair Use section, with court cases.

So long as only a small part of an article is used it is covered by Fair Use. For more here's what Findlaw has to say, including When Copying is Okay.

Fair use is (1) a legal defence in a copyright violation case, not a right;

From Wiki:
"The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107".

From the US Copyright Office:
"Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

That summarizes section 107. And 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Here's Standford University Library's Copyright and Fair Use section, with court cases.

So long as only a small part of an article is used it is covered by Fair Use. For more here's what Findlaw has to say, including When Copying is Okay.

Well http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/mandatory_deposit.html#mandatory seems to indicate otherwise. Granted that there are many exceptions to exclude classes of works where depositing is not possible or practical, or that the Library of Congress has no interest in.

I've read your posts here. You are an absolute idiot. Here is the LAW of fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 read it. read the law. there is nothing there about "a single backup copy to protect the physical media that you bought from wear and tear." What you are repeating is a practical result of the concept of fair use - indeed, you ARE allowed to make a backup copy. However, there's nothing in "Fair Use" law that restricts this to one backup copy. Now, let's get to your ABSOLUTE FUCKING STUPID statement: that "criminal copyright infringement" does not exist in law. OH REALLY? http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 You are so clueless it is mind boggling.

I've read your posts here. You are an absolute idiot. Here is the LAW of fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 read it. read the law. there is nothing there about "a single backup copy to protect the physical media that you bought from wear and tear." What you are repeating is a practical result of the concept of fair use - indeed, you ARE allowed to make a backup copy. However, there's nothing in "Fair Use" law that restricts this to one backup copy. Now, let's get to your ABSOLUTE FUCKING STUPID statement: that "criminal copyright infringement" does not exist in law. OH REALLY? http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 You are so clueless it is mind boggling.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html#1101

Of course, reasonable interpretation is necessary. If you put KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3 in your public folder of a limewire machine, is it reasonable to assume that you have put it there for your own use? Of course not. If you put it in a non-advertised publicly accessible folder that is password protected? then yes. Reasonableness matters. this is why, if you are caught in the bank with a gun in your hand, the "aliens just teleported me here and implanted false memories in the witnesses' brains to make them think that i robbed this bank" defense won't work, even if the existence of such a possibility means that your guilt is not "certain" in some mathematical sense.

Additionally, i find it very ironic that you are arguing that it's not the making available, but the downloading that's illegal, when we just had a whole different thread of idiots yesterday arguing exactly the opposite to justify their piracy.

Copyright "law" is not, for the most part, about whether a given specific action is illegal or illegal. Rather, every action must be considered in terms of a number of factors, including its nature, scope, intent, use, and so on. This means, for example, that doing a given action once may be legal in one context may be ok, but in another it would be ruled as infringment. It also means that doing one action may be ok, but doing it 100 times may be ruled as infringment.

No reasonable human being thinks that the mechanism of P2P of sharing chunks of files has anything to do with it whatsoever. So, yes, sharing even one bit may well REASONABLY be infringment if it the action can be viewed as infringing as viewed through a reasonable observation of nature, scope, intent, use, and so forth.

Seriously. Do some reading.

start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

and then, if you have the ability, continue here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

seriously, read it.

What weierstrass is commenting on is the semantic difference between "unlawful" and "illegal." It's an important point in law theory, but quite unimportant with regards to the main discussion here, since regardless of whether it's "unlawful" or "illegal", the penalties are the same.

What some of you reading this may have gotten hung up on is "but does not forbid it whatsoever" to mean "so go ahead and download all you want without fear." This is simlpy not the case.

"unlawful" in this case means this: there is NO law that says "Thou art not allowed to tranfer KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3 via limewire." In fact, for the most part, "the law" says nothing about mp3 files, p2p networks, ipods, and so forth.

What the law does lay guidelines for, however, is what constitutes LEGAL IP distribution, redistribution, and fair use. Frankly, if you're reading this thread in 2008 and don't know the four or five US provisions for something to be classified as "Fair Use" off the top of your head, then you have no business being in this discussion - get thee to a wikipedia.

So, the law does not "forbid" transferring "KaiserChiefs-Ruby.mp3" via limewire - what it does, however, is state the principles and guidelines under which transferring such intellectual property could be considered legal. Since basically all interpretations have found that wantonly sharing this file on a P2P network does not fall under such guidelines, it is therefore "unlawful".

What does this mean for you? Not much. The penalties and the penalties are the penalties no matter whether it's "illegal" or "unlawful." "The law allows the copyright owner to seek reparations" basically means that if you do it, you can get sued for a lot of money. I'd add to this that it takes very little actual P2P use to cross into the line of CRIMINAL copyright infringement ($1000 worth of material in any 180 day period - I guesstimate that most p2p users exceed this by a considerable margin.)

If you're interested in reading more, please see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html . It's short reading, but worthwhile for anybody who participates in these threads other than to throw up more piracy-"justifying" obfuscation and FUD.

Oh wait - i said "piracy!" This gives green light for some of you to blather on (incorrectly) about the inappropriateness of the term for copyright infringement and its reservation for high seas crimes. Whew! That sure will get you out of actually confronting the issues.

A patent lawyer says: Proof in a copyright suit is not a matter of "caught." Proof is the matter of proving access AND copying in a copyright suit. That infringement complaints snagged the innocent does not surprise me. This kind of info (spoofing) would have the tendency to derail a copyright infringement suit. File sharing is an enormous issue that deserves treatment elsewhere. My philosophy is to recommend to my clients that they studiously avoid file sharing, esp. of musical and film works. They are risking hugely otherwise. Read more about copyright laws and practice at http://www.copyright.gov/

Not sure why people aren't getting this. It's not unusual for a work to have multiple independent copyright holders involved.

Most popular musicians perform works written/composed by a songwriter. There are people who make a living purely by creating new songs and having other people perform them. And indeed they are cut royalty money through their musicians association.

A cover of a song is a derived work. I hope you understand that. As a software developer I often see a long list of copyright holders in the source code to a project. Derived works are permitted as long as some agreement was established by the original copyright holder(s).

So I assume we agree on the following:
1. a work can have multiple copyright holders associated with it. (this is what it means to be a derived work or compilation)
2. copyright can be held on a performance (section 102)
3. a band playing music on stage in front of hundreds of people is a "performance"
4. copyright can be held on a derived work (section 103)
5. a cover of a song is a derived work - do you agree with this one?

When Prince covers a Radiohead song. Prince's contribution is the performance. His interpretation of the melodies, the inflection and timing of the lyrics, his voice, etc. He doesn't own the song, but he owns his particular performance of it. This is because it is substantially different than a Radiohead performance (let's hope!), making it a derived work.

Not sure why people aren't getting this. It's not unusual for a work to have multiple independent copyright holders involved.

Most popular musicians perform works written/composed by a songwriter. There are people who make a living purely by creating new songs and having other people perform them. And indeed they are cut royalty money through their musicians association.

A cover of a song is a derived work. I hope you understand that. As a software developer I often see a long list of copyright holders in the source code to a project. Derived works are permitted as long as some agreement was established by the original copyright holder(s).

So I assume we agree on the following:
1. a work can have multiple copyright holders associated with it. (this is what it means to be a derived work or compilation)
2. copyright can be held on a performance (section 102)
3. a band playing music on stage in front of hundreds of people is a "performance"
4. copyright can be held on a derived work (section 103)
5. a cover of a song is a derived work - do you agree with this one?

When Prince covers a Radiohead song. Prince's contribution is the performance. His interpretation of the melodies, the inflection and timing of the lyrics, his voice, etc. He doesn't own the song, but he owns his particular performance of it. This is because it is substantially different than a Radiohead performance (let's hope!), making it a derived work.

#1 - yes it is. It is covered in the copyright act.

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
    AKA - Criminal Infringement

Most copyright infringement on the Internet is falls under Criminal Infringement. The key word in the definition there is "public" under paragraph 506(a)(1)(C). This protects private distribution on the internet amongst friends (and you better be able to prove that all people with access are friends!), but it slaps public distribution.

The clause was added due to relatively cheap or free ability to infringe on other's work. See 10 years ago with Napster. Clearly, the sharing was *not* between friends!

2. I agree. But in this case no crime was not even committed in the first place. MediaDefender is treading on some very thin ice.

Anyway, this is not about the copyright act. It is about a different law altogether.

#1 - yes it is. It is covered in the copyright act.

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
    AKA - Criminal Infringement

Most copyright infringement on the Internet is falls under Criminal Infringement. The key word in the definition there is "public" under paragraph 506(a)(1)(C). This protects private distribution on the internet amongst friends (and you better be able to prove that all people with access are friends!), but it slaps public distribution.

The clause was added due to relatively cheap or free ability to infringe on other's work. See 10 years ago with Napster. Clearly, the sharing was *not* between friends!

2. I agree. But in this case no crime was not even committed in the first place. MediaDefender is treading on some very thin ice.

Anyway, this is not about the copyright act. It is about a different law altogether.

The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space-shifting or format-shifting is a noninfringing use. ... This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive legitimate digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services. Where a market is functioning to serve the demand otherwise being fulfilled by unauthorized copying, the likelihood that the unauthorized copying is fair use is diminished.

and

Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use.

From the article: "The TPM will, in fact, absolutely stop piracy of gameplay." I assume this TPM is a Trusted Platform Module. For example, Windows Vista Ultimate's BitLocker feature uses the TPM. But don't you need at least Windows Vista to run games for Windows that require the TPM?

Besides, is it even possible to pirate "gameplay" as such? The Tetris Company likes to assert a copyright on Tetris, but game rules can't be copyrighted. One leading case is Lotus v. Borland.

" - Offering it to be downloaded may not be "nice" but no laws are broken until somebody actually DOES download it. "
nope:

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

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

Bolded by me.

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

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

so just uploading to a publicly accessible computer is infringement.

All this "wrong" or "worse" talk is about feelings, of which should not be involved in facts.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.