Slashdot Mirror

You are correct. The following are listed as forms of reproduction that are protected and exempt from copyright.

Criticism
Comment
News Reporting
Teaching(including multiple classroom copies)
Scholarship
Research

Ref: Circular92: Copyright Law of the United States and Related laws contained in title 17 of the United States code.
Circular92 Chapter 1 Section 107

Copyright violation. In the USA, a judge has ruled that you need a contract to legally run software, since when activated the computer loads portions of the code into memory, which is considered copying, and additionally, most software also must first be copied and extracted from archives on the CD, creating a derivative work on your hard-drive.


Please cite, because that makes no sense. Of course IANAL, but US copyright law seems to specifically say that installing and running a program is not infringement.


117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(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.


Copying files from CD/DVD to hard drive and into memory are essential steps to utilize most computer programs.

"You can't copy that tune from there to this device. You must pay another fee!"...

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.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

IANAL but if I read 602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords right, importing copies is treated as infringing distribution, except one copy at a time for personal use if it was made with permission.

Why don't you go ahead and explain to all of us what copyright law DOES prohibit?


Short answer: Making copies of covered works for purposes other than criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research without permission.

Long answer can be found here.

Canon has filed for a patent for using iris watermarking (as in the iris of your eye) to take photographer's copyright protection to the next level.

No, putting your photos on a CD or DVD and then following these instructions takes it to the next level. It helps that a)you have the RAW files and nobody else does and b)most cameras encode their serial number into the EXIF data (or similar for a RAW image), and if you have proof of ownership of said camera...

I didn't see anything in the patent summary provided by the linked site that related to ease of copyright enforcement. Just:

Alternatively, by embedding personal data which is biological information in the image of a subject as an electronic watermark, falsification can be prevented more robustly.

Wow, you don't say. We can do that now- it's called Digimarc. They'll even crawl the web for you and look for images with your Digimarc watermark. Too bad it costs about a zillion dollars- their pricing model means that only a small number of pros use it (and you pay for both per-image watermarking, AND the services like web crawling.) This technology is sufficiently expensive and limited in scope to mean that it will never make it into anything except the 1D series cameras- it probably wouldn't even make it into the _0D series.

I really don't see an application for this technology, except for *maybe* press agencies, where they want to (more) easily track who took what photo. This is a fairly painless way of doing so; you no longer need to track who has what camera (Canon and Nikon provide loaners for repairs and loaners for special events, which means that no, it's not 1 person, 1 camera. Pro's also often shoot with more than one body.)

Though really, they could do the same thing with a microSD slot (where shooting preferences could be stored, too) for a lot cheaper. The only thing this gets them is more "proof", maybe- if they can somehow provide tamper-proof metadata (supposedly, the "data verification kit" from Canon provides verifiable images, but I've never seen even the most basic description of how it works.)

Simply not true. Under US law, you can make something public domain by simply stating that it is so. "I make this work part of the public domain."

Yeah, though I did follow up with a correction. Granted, the masks I remembered seeing © on were prior to the 1984 law that made explicit that masks are not covered under copyright, and established separate protection for them. (And here I thought it was just because newer masks had such small features that the copyright designation becomes harder to see.) Of course, in those early days of computing, nobody was sure what copyright actually covered. Modern masks, such as this one do have the circle-M on them.

The main thing, though, is that it's not covered solely by patent law, which was my main objection.

FWIW, mask work is defined under the Copyright Act and is administered by the Copyright Office (as opposed to the USPTO), so you can understand how one might get confused. :-)

As I said in my other followup, mea culpa. I learn something new every day!

In the 1970s and 1980s, there were extensive discussions on whether the patent system, the copyright system, or a sui generis system, should provide protection for computer software. These discussions resulted in the generally accepted principle that computer programs should be protected by copyright, whereas apparatus using computer software or software-related inventions should be protected by patent.

Copyright law and patent law provide different types of protection. Copyright protection extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such, whereas a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

It's not a contract, it's a transfer of copyright, which is a VERY different thing (as SCO learned to their ruin). The transfer would be valid if it were written on the back of an envelope. There is no requirement for consideration... a copyright can be transferred as a gift, or bequeathed in a will for that matter.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204

But if it makes you feel better to treat it as a contract, you can use this form:
http://www.copylaw.com/forms/copyassn.html

Read the US Copyright Faq again if you don't believe me.

'Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."'

'What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

        *

            Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
        *

            Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
        *

            Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
        *

            Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)'

Apparently ideas cannot be copyrighted. Not only that but an employment contract cannot violate copyright law or the Constitution that copyright law is based on.

I know this because I used to work for a law firm for almost five years. They knew that ideas cannot be copyrighted, and told me to develop programs for them, even if they didn't own the ideas to them. Besides in my years not working for them anymore, I came up with new ideas to do things differently anyway that are not even based on the ideas I used when I worked for them. In fact, I have much better ideas than they could even hope to have that work better than what they had.

Read the US Copyright Faq again if you don't believe me.

'Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."'

'What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

        *

            Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
        *

            Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
        *

            Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
        *

            Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)'

Apparently ideas cannot be copyrighted. Not only that but an employment contract cannot violate copyright law or the Constitution that copyright law is based on.

I know this because I used to work for a law firm for almost five years. They knew that ideas cannot be copyrighted, and told me to develop programs for them, even if they didn't own the ideas to them. Besides in my years not working for them anymore, I came up with new ideas to do things differently anyway that are not even based on the ideas I used when I worked for them. In fact, I have much better ideas than they could even hope to have that work better than what they had.

From the US Copyright law: "Audiovisual works" are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied. "A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

It's been posted from other sites already, but if you want it from a .gov site, look at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110

Because their ability to restrict public broadcast is specifically written into federal copyright law:

USC 107 para (4)

The figure of 55" is built right into the exemption clauses. It looks arbitrary to me but there it is:

USC 110 para (5)(B)(i)(II)

Because their ability to restrict public broadcast is specifically written into federal copyright law:

USC 107 para (4)

The figure of 55" is built right into the exemption clauses. It looks arbitrary to me but there it is:

USC 110 para (5)(B)(i)(II)

qz

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

The penalties built into the law are to deter the behavior, not just to remedy one infraction. We don't say to burglars, "that's OK, just give the stuff back and we're square" (I'm not equating copyright infringement and stealing, I'm just pointing out the nature of penalties).

The $1.5 million per CD is consistent with the law if we assume that the infringement was willful and there are 10 songs on the CD. If you assume that the CD is a work as a whole -- see the last sentence of part (1) above -- then $150,000 per CD is appropriate.

Is he willing to codify Fair Use into law instead of letting it remain a nebulous "defense?"

Fair Use is codified in current U.S. law and has been since the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976. See U.S. Code, Title 17, section 107.

Did you perhaps mean that you'd like to see a new copyright statute that modernizes and/or widens the applicability of statutory fair use provisions?

He can revoke the grant of license, but only after 35 years. This is spelled out by U.S. copyright law, not the GPL. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

Please examine the relevant law at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html, which specifies in detail where copyright law was modified by the Berne Ccnvention and this is no longer required. The lack of such requirement is critical to computer software lawsuits I'm aware of, and would otherwise overwhelm the library of Congress in trivial copyright registration.

Out-of-date knowledge of the law can be as dangerous as out-of-date knowledge of computer science, electronics, or medicine.

I had previously said the guy couldn't do this, but it looks like he can for the most part, at least in the U.S. From U.S. 17:

In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

Nothing I see in the conditions would seem to prohibit the guy from doing this, in particular:

Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

Instantaneousness has no bearing here. This is a copyright license, not a sale of goods. There is no consideration provided back to the owner, therefore the license is revocable, period, subject to the terms of Section 203 of the copyright code.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

The net effect is that barring state laws to the contrary (e.g. at-will contract laws) redistribution is dubious, use in derivative works is disallowed, continued use of the software as-is is allowed. All rights are terminated in about the year 2042, +/-.

I don't believe using the Copyright symbols and registering with a government office is required for copyright protection anymore - it's automatic as soon as you put pen to paper (or push record, whatever) by 1989's Berne Convention (according to Wikipedia's article on Copyright.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright

A FAQ on www.copyright.gov also mentions the automatic protection.

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

Since this is governed by U.S. Copyright Law, the answer is yes, after 35 years.

As that time period has not been reached yet, he is unable to revoke the existing grants of rights under copyright. Even if it had, he would be faced with the monumental task of individually notifying all of the people who obtained such grants. Unfortune for him.

Not exactly. You are correct that it doesn't take any special actions on your part to copyright a work, as anything you write is copyrighted automatically. You can register the copyright with the government if you want to defend it and recover damages. The "mail-yourself-a-copy" trick is often known as the Poor man's copyright, and probably won't hold up if contested. See the links below: www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright

Copyright only exists for writing that is "creative" in nature.

The text of a legal document sets forth a demand, a contract, etc. The writing is not creative, it is just a listing of facts or positions. I was told this by one of the top partners at WSGW (top legal firm in Silicon Valley) when he advised me to copy another company's contract. The formatting of the contract (e.g. the forms you can buy at a stationer's store or download pdfs online) is creative layout - you can't just photocopy the contract and use it as that is a copyright infringement. But if you want to make your own form with a different layout and using the exact same words, that is perfectly legal.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

      1.

            a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
      2.
            a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
                    * a contribution to a collective work
                    * a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
                    * a translation
                    * a supplementary work
                    * a compilation
                    * an instructional text
                    * a test
                    * answer material for a test
                    * an atlas

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
• To display the work publicly, 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;
• In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope....One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

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. US copyright law for games

Copyright protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. For example, an idea for a board game would not be protected by copyright, but the expression of this idea in the form of written rules and playing instructions would be protected as a literary work. - Canadian Copyright Policy FAQ

You can take any existing game, rewrite the rules in your own words (while avoiding the use trademarks, e.g. "Scrabble") and publish it. That is your right. There's no law to stop you from creating your own Scrabble game just so long as it does not infringe on any of Hasbro's trademarks. The rules, method of play, and alphabet are not copyrightable.

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

It depends.

If I simply draw just the ford logo it isn't protected by copyright, as it fails to meet the minimum standards of originality. Specifically, titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs cannot be copyrighted

Now if I draw a picture of a mustang (or Ford produces any concept or product drawings, photos, or brochures) that specific work is copyrighted. That does not mean that I can't copy the logo because it is included in a copyrighted work somewhere (which is what you said).

Trademarks are specifically not covered by copyright. I can copy the ford logo deliberately and without permission, directly from their site and reuse it on my site, provided the use of the mark is made in good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with another's goods or services.

But, even magazines in the shipping industry need to (or as a courtesy and self-protection measure) seek permission of vessel owners (not the ship's master or captain, but the holding or owning company) before running even favorable or industry-improvement/kudos articles and such in professional journals.

Even museum ships and other ships (except military, which are funded by tax dollars; however, since the DOD and other nations' MoDs farm out whole jobs to commercial concerns, these firms ay try to claim image rights... just look at Boeing and Lockheed Martin, et al; to use their craft in movies you might need or dearly WANT to get their permission. They may or may not fund your project, but if they give you money, you better not turn on them and write a scathing review or produce embarrassing/humiliating footage...) try to claim copyrights over the STRUCTURES. Some of it surely is tourism dollars funneling...

Even yachts and small craft are being copyrighted. See:

U.S. Copyright Office - Registration of Vessel Hull Designs
http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

U.S. Copyright Office - Protection for Fashion Design
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

The Learning Page-Getting Started: Copyright
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/start/cpyrt/

U.S. Copyright Office - Forms
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

The lame thing is that in the early days of this new program (say, around 2000-2003-ish) USLIBCONG expected these "fashion designs" to fit on a single sheet of 8.5"x11" paper. But, people seeking to contain or constrain competition began submitting multiple sheets (despite the cost of doing so) because all the details could not fit and be legible. I even submitted 5 sheets of 24"x36" for a ship I designed*. I modeled it after the USN DDG-51, but "enhanced" it (for fictional, not hydrodynamic) reasons. (They WILL charge extra for over-sized and over-count sheets, last I checked...)

* Yes, I did contact the USN Public Affairs Officer, told them what I was doing, and I was told that the US public paid for the work on the DDG-51, and the US public can model after it. But, people modeling ships and planes and affixing company names will be in a different category and in need of rights permissions in some scenarios. Obviously, Boeing doesn't want 747s being depicted in crashes attributed to passenger mischief.

But, even magazines in the shipping industry need to (or as a courtesy and self-protection measure) seek permission of vessel owners (not the ship's master or captain, but the holding or owning company) before running even favorable or industry-improvement/kudos articles and such in professional journals.

Even museum ships and other ships (except military, which are funded by tax dollars; however, since the DOD and other nations' MoDs farm out whole jobs to commercial concerns, these firms ay try to claim image rights... just look at Boeing and Lockheed Martin, et al; to use their craft in movies you might need or dearly WANT to get their permission. They may or may not fund your project, but if they give you money, you better not turn on them and write a scathing review or produce embarrassing/humiliating footage...) try to claim copyrights over the STRUCTURES. Some of it surely is tourism dollars funneling...

Even yachts and small craft are being copyrighted. See:

U.S. Copyright Office - Registration of Vessel Hull Designs
http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

U.S. Copyright Office - Protection for Fashion Design
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

The Learning Page-Getting Started: Copyright
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/start/cpyrt/

U.S. Copyright Office - Forms
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

The lame thing is that in the early days of this new program (say, around 2000-2003-ish) USLIBCONG expected these "fashion designs" to fit on a single sheet of 8.5"x11" paper. But, people seeking to contain or constrain competition began submitting multiple sheets (despite the cost of doing so) because all the details could not fit and be legible. I even submitted 5 sheets of 24"x36" for a ship I designed*. I modeled it after the USN DDG-51, but "enhanced" it (for fictional, not hydrodynamic) reasons. (They WILL charge extra for over-sized and over-count sheets, last I checked...)

* Yes, I did contact the USN Public Affairs Officer, told them what I was doing, and I was told that the US public paid for the work on the DDG-51, and the US public can model after it. But, people modeling ships and planes and affixing company names will be in a different category and in need of rights permissions in some scenarios. Obviously, Boeing doesn't want 747s being depicted in crashes attributed to passenger mischief.

But, even magazines in the shipping industry need to (or as a courtesy and self-protection measure) seek permission of vessel owners (not the ship's master or captain, but the holding or owning company) before running even favorable or industry-improvement/kudos articles and such in professional journals.

Even museum ships and other ships (except military, which are funded by tax dollars; however, since the DOD and other nations' MoDs farm out whole jobs to commercial concerns, these firms ay try to claim image rights... just look at Boeing and Lockheed Martin, et al; to use their craft in movies you might need or dearly WANT to get their permission. They may or may not fund your project, but if they give you money, you better not turn on them and write a scathing review or produce embarrassing/humiliating footage...) try to claim copyrights over the STRUCTURES. Some of it surely is tourism dollars funneling...

Even yachts and small craft are being copyrighted. See:

U.S. Copyright Office - Registration of Vessel Hull Designs
http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

U.S. Copyright Office - Protection for Fashion Design
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

The Learning Page-Getting Started: Copyright
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/start/cpyrt/

U.S. Copyright Office - Forms
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

The lame thing is that in the early days of this new program (say, around 2000-2003-ish) USLIBCONG expected these "fashion designs" to fit on a single sheet of 8.5"x11" paper. But, people seeking to contain or constrain competition began submitting multiple sheets (despite the cost of doing so) because all the details could not fit and be legible. I even submitted 5 sheets of 24"x36" for a ship I designed*. I modeled it after the USN DDG-51, but "enhanced" it (for fictional, not hydrodynamic) reasons. (They WILL charge extra for over-sized and over-count sheets, last I checked...)

* Yes, I did contact the USN Public Affairs Officer, told them what I was doing, and I was told that the US public paid for the work on the DDG-51, and the US public can model after it. But, people modeling ships and planes and affixing company names will be in a different category and in need of rights permissions in some scenarios. Obviously, Boeing doesn't want 747s being depicted in crashes attributed to passenger mischief.

Copying for your own personal use is completely legal. I don't know why you think contrary.

"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; ..." [emphasis mine]

There's nothing in copyright law that says: oh, by the way, if you only make copies for yourself that's okay. Just ask Microsft about that one. Now, to be fair, there are a few exemptions that are very carefully spelled out, such as fair use, or the one-backup-copy, etc. But without those specific limited exemptions, in general copyright infringment covers personal-use copies too.

Same for patent law too. You don't have to sell anything or distribute anything to be guilty of either copyright or patent infringment. Just "doing it" in the privacy of your own home can technically be illegal, though granted, the likelyhood of you getting caught or sued and/or the type of punishment can vary.

I think it is this misunderstanding that causes most people to not get so upset by copyright/patent laws, because they think it doesn't apply to them since they're not selling anything. But that's wrong.

>In the first article he states there is a problem with people relicensing copyrighted work under the CC license and having subsequent users of that copyrighted work sued by the original owner.

That has nothing to do with any CC license, or any license. You can't sell what's not yours, and you can't give it away either, under any license. I guess the message is "caveat emptor" (or "caveat downloader"); but again, that applies equally to content you pay for.

By the way, in the US there is such a thing as an "innocent infringer" [partial] defense. The defendant bears the burden of proof, but if successful, damages are limited to $200, which puts defendants in a good position to make an FRCP 68 offer and avoid trial.

>In the second article he fleshes out these ideas and states that there is an increased risk of being sued if you use a CC license.

Huh? You mean I'll have to actually read the article? No fair! But I wonder if this is one of those "aggressively paraphrased" summaries.

>Finally, in the third article, he states that people can 'game the CC license' for profit, by suing people who use your CC'd work which you have subsequently revoked from the CC license.

The CC licenses are legally irrevocable, but some of the other commenters here have described a scenario in which someone could erase evidence of ever having released content under a license. (In other words, commit fraud.) Again, nothing here specific to any CC license, except that commercial licenses tend to involve money transactions which are arguably more likely to leave a paper trail in the purchaser's possession. This scenario is possible, but the defense is simply to keep records: make a note of where you found the file, what the license terms were, etc. (Including dates and URLs; screenshots wouldn't hurt either.) Come lawsuit time, you have documentation to back up your story. Anyway, ask the RIAA what their profit margin has been on lawsuits lately (don't confuse strategic lawsuits with money-making lawsuits). I don't predict a big wave of Nigerian license-backsies scams.

What a bunch of BS. There are SEVERAL exceptions to the DMCA, e.g., research, education, etc. You don't know what the f you are talking about and comments like this are why slashdot is a cesspool of intellectual discussion compared to what it used to be.

F you and everyone that modded you informative.

Yeah, well -- there isn't a really polite way to put this -- suck it up.

Really, that's all I can tell you. Nobody keeps paying ME for the creative work I did a month ago in my job. Far as I'm concerned, this notion that I should be prevented from saying words because another person owns them is repugnant on its face -- five years is the compromise position, not the extreme.

If you created it on the job (I'm assuming for someone else) it's called a "work for hire," and you don't own the copyright to get paid for it anyway. I'm sure that if you did own the copyright you'd feel a lot differently on the matter. I agree with you that life + 70 is extreme, but seriously, 5 years is the blink of an eye. Why should an artist not be allowed to reap the benefits of their creation for a longer period of time, such as the original 14 + [14 year extension])? That period of time covers a large portion of the creator's life, and not much beyond that. This (in my mind) is fair the the copyright holder, and still allows the public to benefit from the work without snubbing the creator in the process. Five years essentially says that creative works are near worthless, and leaves creators with very little motivation to create new works if someone else will just snatch them up after that period anyway.

Fair use is often cited as a reason why people can supposedly do whatever they want with purchased media.

No, fair use is cited as the reason that people can do what they want with purchased media for their own use (the law actually has many other applications, but that's what is most relevant here.) Not too many people I know, and not many on Slashdot, believe that fair use implies a license to commit copyright infringement on a massive scale, because it doesn't. Whether or not you believe that Fair Use doctrine applies to ripping music for personal use (and that is open to interpretation, I agree), the Audio Home Recording Act explicitly does, so far as I can tell. The RIAA agreed to that in exchange for fees levied upon blank media sales. Now they want to renege on that agreement: the bastards want it both ways. Screw them, and their horses too, and I hope their building falls down on them.

However, fair use is NOT a law.

The United States Federal Government would disagree with you on that point.

For your edification, here's the relevant portion:

Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

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. 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.

So Fair Use is very much the law. Whether it can be construed to mean what we all want it to mean is something entirely different. I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps some actual attorneys could enlighten us as to the the application of Fair Use to personal copies of musical tracks.

According to the US Copyright Office, "You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).". Hmmm. That pretty much blows my argument out of the water entirely as far as the US is concerned. Section 107 could be relevant (especially if you believe the EFF), but the wording is ridiculously vague.

I'm going to shut up now, and I'd like someone who actually know about this to explain to what extent US copyright law allows copying for personal use without authorisation.

Reading up on US law, it seems that I mean US Copyright Law, Section 1008, although I'm starting to doubt whether it actually means what I think it does.

Um, no, you're confusion copyrights with patents. Copyright, as it was originally set in the United States at least, was originally for a term of 28 years, after which it could be renewed for an additional term of 67 years. That was up until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which changed the term to 95 years. See the original wording, which is still present in the Title 17 statute.

Aside from the vast increase in complexity (and therefore expense), this wouldn't even cut it. Here is a good place to start: The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

A check like you propose would certainly be a good attempt, but it isn't going to preserve fair use. It's a much more complicated test. 5% may be acceptable in one case but not in another. Some works are more valuable than others. A leak of an unreleased work in any amount will very likely be found to not be fair use, other things are far more forgiving.

Furthermore, any such rule must account for gaming. People on both sides will try to get cute with any ruleset for the obvious reasons. The immediate problem I see with the specific example, is the person creating this 'work' can easily control this percentage. Say the "kill percentage" is x%. I take the Harry Potter novels, and then grab more and more books from the Gutenberg project or other public domain sources (say, the US Tax Code) until the percentage of the "work" I've created falls below X. Then I distribute the resulting .zip file. Is this fair? No, it's cheating. But it might fool the filter: x% or less is copyrighted -- the fact that the x% is the only thing people want in the first place is glossed over.

Copyright law in the US started out pretty reasonable - 20 years from the date of registration. Walt Disney spent alot of money and lobbied the government for another 20 year period. Before this could expire, they lobbied to have copyright terms extended to the life of the author plus 20 years. As a result of the Sonny Bonno act, it was expanded to the life of the author plus 75 years. (NOTE: this is a very brief approximation of US copyright law history - it was actually somewhat more complex than this and with several more twists and turns). See here for a detailed explanation.

The functional result of this lobbying is that no US copyrighted work created since 1923 has lapsed into the public domain (unless the owner screwed up by not renewing the copyright at the appropriate juncture).

It sounds like you need to learn to make a distinction between the wet dreams of litigous barristers and real world pragmatics before you look very silly. Oops too late. /me sees samkass approached by Alan Dershowitz as porno music plays. /me pokes mind's eye out with a fork.

I only seem to "look silly" on Slashdot because I'm right, but most Slashdot folks don't know anything about intellectual property law in the United States or try to pretend it doesn't exist. You only have to register a copyright to get standing for a lawsuit. But everything written in this country is copyrighted by default. If you don't believe me, ask the United States Copyright Office.