Slashdot Mirror

If there is no copyright claim by the original author then I don't see what the problem is. /

Then you have no clue of what you're talking about. Many of the other posts in the thread have bad information as well though, so don't feel too badly about it.

For those in the United States, the definitive source would be the Library of Congress copyright web site. Since you're talking about code, you probably also want to read Circular 61, devoted to "Copyright Registration for Computer Programs".

For those outside the United States, the details change, but in most countries the basics remain the same. Specifically, the copyright laws in most countries follow the rules of the Berne convention. Of course, that's only the law itself -- enforcement varies much more widely. In some countries, it's hardly enforced at all, while in others (e.g. the US) there's almost no question the other laws are routinely broken to help enforcement even when there's little or no real evidence of copyright infringement having taken place at all (e.g. tens of thousands of RIAA cases).

If there is no copyright claim by the original author then I don't see what the problem is. /

Then you have no clue of what you're talking about. Many of the other posts in the thread have bad information as well though, so don't feel too badly about it.

For those in the United States, the definitive source would be the Library of Congress copyright web site. Since you're talking about code, you probably also want to read Circular 61, devoted to "Copyright Registration for Computer Programs".

For those outside the United States, the details change, but in most countries the basics remain the same. Specifically, the copyright laws in most countries follow the rules of the Berne convention. Of course, that's only the law itself -- enforcement varies much more widely. In some countries, it's hardly enforced at all, while in others (e.g. the US) there's almost no question the other laws are routinely broken to help enforcement even when there's little or no real evidence of copyright infringement having taken place at all (e.g. tens of thousands of RIAA cases).

They can claim all sorts of things, but that does not mean it will stand up in court. Even if the forum owns the copyright, that does not help the person who has not licensed it from anyone.

And books are considered the property of the purchaser, but that does not make them the copyright holder.

Nope, it is assumed all copyrighted material is for public consumption, since copyright law exists to promote publication. Try republishing a story from a large newspaper and see what happens.

Well, several things. First, that is not the exact words he used, but paraphrase. He said, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Second, it predates the copyright extension so it has entered the public domain by now. it was said in 1933 and the copyright expired in 1961. Third, Copyright law includes a large and somewhat vague doctrine called "Fair Use" which makes it legal to use parts of or entire works for certain purposes, subject to certain restrictions. Using a quote like this almost always fair use. Finally, Providing attribution, that is FDR said, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..." is a fact, and facts are not copyrightable.

check out the USCO site for more info.

Nope, but I can read and I'm not afraid to educate myself on issues that effect me.

You'd be wrong. (At least in the United States you would.)

From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" and "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law...."

Better yet, what constitutes a "Legal Copy"?

A receipt? The physical media? A purchase at the DRM-hut? Buying from a used store/pawn shop?

How can we be guaranteed that we are getting an authorized copy?

Many places print receipts. Is that good enough?
Physical Media: is it legit or a fake press from a dupe factory?
Does fair-use allow us to convert a DRM-hut media to mp3? I thought it does, but DMCA says there can be no disseminating tools. :-(
Used/Pawn shop? First sale doctrine covers us here. Hopefully.

Now the tough part. I buy iTunes CD at Starbucks. I download the songs and then burn them to a CD. I sell that CD and delete my digital files. Is that covered under first sale doctrine? Are digital files sellable under first sale, even if technological matters make it hard to do so?

Next case: I buy CD long ago (some nineties CD). I converted it to MP3 recently and it was later smashed accidentally. Are my MP3's legal?

Is the disembodiment of copy-right and the copy possible? Title 17 Chapter 2 Section 202 indicates it would be possible, as rights do not travel with the physical medium. Can I bequeath my listening rights on another person whilst possessing the medium? How then would a court determine if I was a legitimate copy holder?

Copyright law needs some serious cleaning up to do.

According to the copyright office, damages go from 750$ to 30,000$. Unknown infringement is no less than 200$. Known, willful infringement is no greater than 150,000$. These all are statutory damages.

I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?

I clicked on his link to the paper, and was disappionted to find a PDF. Google failed me when I made a cursory effort to find an HTML version.

Huh? Paste the link to the PDF into Google. It provides a "view as HTML" link.

The paper he links is itself incorrect in its very first page when it speaks of "the rights of owners and users of creative works."

"Owners" is the correct term, check the law yourself. At worst, you could say that the wording was ambiguous by not explicitly saying "copyright owners".

The US Constitution makes it quite clear that the "owners" of creative works are we, the people.

No it doesn't. It says:

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;

It says nothing at all about public ownership.

Also, read this.

Based on a cursory Westlaw search using the terms 'copyright' & 'fair use' & 'tattoo', this issue has not been litigated in the US. A personal tattoo does not fall into the listed categories of fair use such as criticism, teaching, scholarship, or research. See here.

Ordinarily, non-commercial uses that do not affect the value of the copyrighted work tend towards fair use. This limitation applies regardless of the medium of the purported infringement. In order to get some real closure to our tattoo debate, what we need is a porn star with a Mickey Mouse tattoo clearly visible in a video.

(warning: puns incoming) That would give us reproduction in a commercial context, and someone with deep pockets to sue. /ducks

I posted this comment on the FSF's site during the commenting period for the AGPL and I will reproduce it here:

AGPL is not enforceable in the United States

Disclaimer: IANAL

I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.

As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:

1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor

Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.

The AGPL is not an EULA.

Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."

The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.

However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... 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"

Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf)

This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp

Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.

Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.

So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.

Uggg The right to use X provider is not a liberty. The provider, the person who sells you the phone, and you all have rights in the transaction and just like anywhere else in life *none* of them are absolute. There is nothing illegal or even morally wrong with me selling you something with a condition (so long as the condition does not void any of your God given rights). You are free to abstain from the transaction. I dont like carrier locking but I also have not invested my life in a business that sells phones..

But because you have asked: In the US you actually *do* have the right to setup your phone on whatever cell network you wish. There is an exemption in the DCMA for just that http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/1201_recommendation.pdf

You have the right to mod your phone so you can use it on whatever network youwish (your property)

Just don't expect the providers of hardware to support a modded system why should they have to? Should not their property (being their business) have some protection as well?

602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

She's probably going to lose if this goes to trial. The defense here against copyright infringment is fair use, and they will probably try to argue that it was in the category of a "significantly transformative" use. There's several factors to take into account when determining fair use, 1) the amount and nature of the portion taken, 2) the nature of the use, 3) the nature of the work and 4) the impairment of the copyright holder's ability to profit/control their work. see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html for more info.

Without giving any actual legal advice on this case, I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect. And the song itself wasn't changed or transformed, it was used to supplement a video work.

". . . fair use is not a right backed by a law, it's a doctrine . . ."
See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html/ :
"This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

So, how far does this go?

Read 17 USC 512 carefully (it's not as well-organized as one would prefer) making careful note of various cross-references, definitions (which may be in section 101 as well as 512), etc. and also take a look at the page here.

Further, I'd take a look at cases where 512 was an issue, including Napster, Ellison, and Perfect 10.

The safe harbor is useful, but it takes work to qualify for it, and it doesn't apply to everything or everyone.

Please point out where U.S. Copyright Law says I can only make one copy.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17
It says I can't make a devise that makes copies of copies and it says that I can't distribute copies. Aside from that, the chapter on sound recordings doesn't contain anything pertaining to "one copy." Hell, it doesn't even contain the word "one."

And that said, who said ringtones need to be an additional digital copy? They could very well be a 30second selection played from a full length song which already exists on your iPhone or iPod.

This is generally the case, but it is not an absolute rule. It's quite possible in a copyright infringement case for one side or the other to be required to pay the expenses for both sides.

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers",

On what grounds? People are hacking their own phones, which is explicitly permitted under the DMCA. Link (pdf warning). Apple is under no obligation to support it or make it easy, but they can't sue people for unlocking iPhones.

The whole intent of copyright law is to encourage artistic expression.

What Works Are Protected?

the only category that is possible is "literary works", and I think it unlikely a judge would agree that a C&D letter was such, should it come to trial.

What Works Are Protected?
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works

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:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
Good enough?

Copyright is copyright. One copyright is not stronger than another copyright.

The only difference between a registered and unregistered copyright is the burden of proof.

Sorry, this is wrong. Registration of the copyright provides a number of advantages, which are summarized here by the Copyright Office. Among them is that, if the copyright is registered within three months of publication or prior to infringement, statutory damages and attorney's fees may be obtained. If not, only actual damages may be recovered by the copyright owner. In the case of a letter such as this, which has no commercial value, actual damages would be zero, so the failure to register the letter effectively eliminates any financial recovery. (Of course, the author of the letter is unlikely to succeed in the threatened suit since this is an absolutely classic case of Fair use.)

From the US Copyright office FAQ on registration http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register:

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

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration."

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration" and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

I've heard about a "poor man's copyright." What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a "poor man's copyright." There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration [ephasis added by me].

so the mailing it to yourself adds no special protection.

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

Copyright .. protects original works of authorship

A cease and desist letter usually isn't original, it is a half-standard text.
That is why attaching a copyright notice to it might not work in many circumstances.

You also would probably anyway be allowed to make copies for the use in your defense against such a letter.

Do you mean that wireless providers in Europe are explicitly required to unlock your phone (if you ask, for some fee)? Or that they're explicitly required to provide software updates for unlocked phones? Otherwise, I don't see how the situation is any different in the US than it is in Europe.

In the US, you're perfectly free to unlock your phone. In fact, there's a specific exemption to the DMCA [PDF] allowing cell phone handset unlocking. You certainly can unlock GSM phones here, or buy unlocked phones (I've done both).

So, are wireless providers required to explicitly offer an unlocking service, or just to not arrest you if you do unlock your phone? The latter is essentially the case in the US.

Right, there's no "property" because there's property. Copyright is property, period. There is no legal conclusion to the contrary.

Well, first, that's an article, and second, it's not the reference.

The terms included with a product are binding on the purchaser by virtue of perfecting the transaction where reasonable assent is given unequivocally. If you object to the terms, make a counteroffer and specify that your acceptance requires acceptance of your terms.

One can take original software written by others (not containing Apple's software) which then modify one's own copy of the Apple software and achieve the desired result.

That scenario a) does not exist here

still does not get you past assumption of the risk. If you modify your software, it is not Apple's responsibility to ensure that their update will play nice

You are particularly confused here. The DMCA is not relevant here or in the context of the other examples given--the issue is not copy protection,

You are not free to modify software to get on a cellular network unlawfully

or to compromise restrictions put in place for a wide variety of reasons. In other words, the point is that you do not have complete autonomy in your modification, and more specifically do not have superior autonomy to Apple in that regard, and it is a basic truism that you cannot assert a right against one with superior rights to the same.

Further, the DMCA does indeed prohibit the use of circumvention tools, but doesn't need to, considering there are a number of other avenues of enforcement available.

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. [...] As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

Right, there's no "property" because there's property. Copyright is property, period. There is no legal conclusion to the contrary.

Well, first, that's an article, and second, it's not the reference.

The terms included with a product are binding on the purchaser by virtue of perfecting the transaction where reasonable assent is given unequivocally. If you object to the terms, make a counteroffer and specify that your acceptance requires acceptance of your terms.

One can take original software written by others (not containing Apple's software) which then modify one's own copy of the Apple software and achieve the desired result.

That scenario a) does not exist here

still does not get you past assumption of the risk. If you modify your software, it is not Apple's responsibility to ensure that their update will play nice

You are particularly confused here. The DMCA is not relevant here or in the context of the other examples given--the issue is not copy protection,

You are not free to modify software to get on a cellular network unlawfully

or to compromise restrictions put in place for a wide variety of reasons. In other words, the point is that you do not have complete autonomy in your modification, and more specifically do not have superior autonomy to Apple in that regard, and it is a basic truism that you cannot assert a right against one with superior rights to the same.

Further, the DMCA does indeed prohibit the use of circumvention tools, but doesn't need to, considering there are a number of other avenues of enforcement available.

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. [...] As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.

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.

We have strong protection for copyrights because we believe in the ability for people to write or create books, software, art, movies, music, or other "soft" art for a living. Without copyright, these things would be just hobbies. Even free software depends on strong copyright protection. Without the protection of GPL and copyright protection, GNU and Linux and other GPL software would not have the following and developer involvement and attract billions of dollars from by IBM, Sun and Google as they do today. The proof of this is BSD ("is dying") software, which has much trouble attracting developers, investors and users.

I don't mean to troll, but truly, what's the big problem? Don't distribute stuff that doesn't belong to you unless the person who owns it says it's okay. Find a better hobby and you won't get sued!

Your choice of verbs must be qualified. No software is conveyed to you in the sense of any legal property rights. Ownership of said software remains solely and fully in the hands of Apple.

Your ownership of a right to use, including a requisite copy of the compiled forms, does not itself confer any ownership over the software product.

Irrelevant. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you gave assent to a Software License Agreement which covers those terms. Your copyright grant of use of the code is not solely controlling.

You do, in fact, need a license to prepare derivative works, which is precisely what occurs with software given its intangibility and ease of duplication,

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.

You can modify software. That does not mean that you can take modifications made by others and apply them as you wish--such a position would be contrary to all holdings of law.

Given that "right" you would have no obligation not to bypass activation systems or payment processing systems or other functional restrictions built into software products to prohibit nefarious
use.

Did somebody post a sign prohibiting people from *reading* before they post?

Something to hide. Good grief. Take your unconscious double entendre fallacy ( Plurium interrogationum and ad hominem) to a ZDNet forum, where it belongs.

I was merely making an observation, and yet I included four, count 'em, four references to "fucktard", which you apparently failed to notice. What more do you want? You also failed to notice that I was not the one being questioned by the Anonymous Fucktard.

According to NASA, the assertion in the thread parent is considered common knowledge 'round these parts (are you new here?), even though it actually seems to be a bit of a legal grey area and may be incorrect or subject to interpretation on a case by case basis by a court. I shouldn't need to post a link to a discussion of fair use and copyright law for every Anonymous fucktard that asks for one, nor should you.

So, uh... how do you know unfounded assertions are a lazy rhetorical technique? Where is your reference?

*ducks*

*peeks*

Is it safe to come out, now? If I don't get a Funny mod for this, you people are drain bamaged.

Did somebody post a sign prohibiting people from *reading* before they post?

Something to hide. Good grief. Take your unconscious double entendre fallacy ( Plurium interrogationum and ad hominem) to a ZDNet forum, where it belongs.

I was merely making an observation, and yet I included four, count 'em, four references to "fucktard", which you apparently failed to notice. What more do you want? You also failed to notice that I was not the one being questioned by the Anonymous Fucktard.

According to NASA, the assertion in the thread parent is considered common knowledge 'round these parts (are you new here?), even though it actually seems to be a bit of a legal grey area and may be incorrect or subject to interpretation on a case by case basis by a court. I shouldn't need to post a link to a discussion of fair use and copyright law for every Anonymous fucktard that asks for one, nor should you.

So, uh... how do you know unfounded assertions are a lazy rhetorical technique? Where is your reference?

*ducks*

*peeks*

Is it safe to come out, now? If I don't get a Funny mod for this, you people are drain bamaged.

I am by law entitled to make one (1) backup copy of a DVD or a CD.

Which law? The US copyright office says you're only allowed to make back up copies of computer programs.

At least the DVD one is impossible legally in the US, but allowed by Copyright.

As I said, CDs and DVDs are physical objects which you may use in any way that is not prohibited by law. Circumventing CSS is prohibited by law (the DMCA).

What about medium shifting? I thought that was legal too.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask the EFF, yes. If you ask the RIAA (as in the present article), no. Ultimately it will be decided by a judge.

How about listening to the same Red Hot Chili Peppers CD in my living room while my wife is in the room?

You are not making any copies, distributing any copies, or performing it publicly so you're not infringing on any of the copyright owners exclusive rights. You're not circumventing any copyright protection so it's not against the DMCA. Your living room is not a public place, so you're not violating anyones performance rights.

I am by law entitled to make one (1) backup copy of a DVD or a CD.

Which law? The US copyright office says you're only allowed to make back up copies of computer programs.

At least the DVD one is impossible legally in the US, but allowed by Copyright.

As I said, CDs and DVDs are physical objects which you may use in any way that is not prohibited by law. Circumventing CSS is prohibited by law (the DMCA).

What about medium shifting? I thought that was legal too.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask the EFF, yes. If you ask the RIAA (as in the present article), no. Ultimately it will be decided by a judge.

How about listening to the same Red Hot Chili Peppers CD in my living room while my wife is in the room?

You are not making any copies, distributing any copies, or performing it publicly so you're not infringing on any of the copyright owners exclusive rights. You're not circumventing any copyright protection so it's not against the DMCA. Your living room is not a public place, so you're not violating anyones performance rights.

• I'm a moron,
• I disagree with you, but
• I'm too ill-informed to argue my side of the debate, and
• I'm too lazy to look up the resources which are freely available which would help me construct an argument, so
• I'm going to take the low road, and snidely suggest that you defend your argument, whereafter
• I'll assume that you are wrong and I am right because you didn't respond by falling all over yourself by quoting chapter and verse to me,
• but because I have this lingering sense that I might not know what the hell I'm talking about, I'll just post this retort as "Anonymous".

The problem with Apple bricking iPhones is that there is an explicitly-defined right -- 37 CFR Part 201, Exemption to Prohibition on
Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" states that one of the exempted classes of copyrighted works is "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." As has been brought up in previous comments about the unlocking of iPhones, the law explicitly permits individual owners to circumvent the lock-in to AT&T in order to enable them to use it with another cellphone service, but does not establish an explicit right for individuals to produce and market the process to do so. And therein lies the distinction; owners of bricked iPhones, in my opinion (IANAL), have a case against Apple for taking punitive action against them for exercising their rights as set forth in 37 CFR 201; Apple will have to settle for acting against the people who are selling or otherwise distributing the 'crack'.

I've got a quasi-legal project (if YouTube is legal than my project is legal)

A suggestion for you: Read 17 USC 512. Read it very, very carefully. Read every single line. Take notes if it helps. Then you'll know why the web page here is of vital importance to you. And you'll know why YouTube's legality depends on more issues than simply existing.

It is correct information. As soon as a person in the US creates a copyrightable work, it is immediately copyright to that person. The exception being if it is a work for hire. The issue of who has the copyright is set permanently at that moment.

The registration of a copyright is not required for a work to be copyright, it just has to be registered prior to filing suit. Doing so early on is a good idea as it makes it easier to defend in court, but it is definitely not compulsory to do so.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc Has plenty of relevant information. As well as:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

It is correct information. As soon as a person in the US creates a copyrightable work, it is immediately copyright to that person. The exception being if it is a work for hire. The issue of who has the copyright is set permanently at that moment.

The registration of a copyright is not required for a work to be copyright, it just has to be registered prior to filing suit. Doing so early on is a good idea as it makes it easier to defend in court, but it is definitely not compulsory to do so.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc Has plenty of relevant information. As well as:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

It does NOT forbid dynamic linking at all, because the .so or DLL loader combines the two works at the same time that it loads them into memory, and copying into memory is not regarded as an act of copying that invokes copyright.
[...]
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

First of all, loading into memory IS an act of copying that invokes copyright in the United States. Look up U.S. Code Title 17, Section 117. The courts have held that in several cases. The reason that we can use them is because congress specifically carved out exceptions so that a person who rightfully posesses software can load it into memory to use it and also to make an archival backup copy. Second, the FSF's position is that dynamic linking creates a derivative work that must be distributed under the GPL. I'm not sure whether that would legally constitute copyright infringement on its own, but by using teh library at all you are agreeing to the GPL, so contract law might be used to force compliance.

I am not a lawyer, seek a lawyer out if you want legal advice.

IANAL either, but...

the right to create a derivative work is one of the rights held exclusively by the holder of copyright or those to whom the copyright holder assigns or licenses them.

Try on Copyright Office Basics from the U.S. Copyright Office for size. It is a good starting point for any content creator, and the bundle of rights that make up copyright in the U.S. are near the top.

iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.

Where in any contract agreed to by iPhone users does it state that you're not legally allowed to write software for it? ("Write software for it" is different from "unlock it" - and I don't even know whether that is forbidden; the DMCA explicitly exempts phone unlocking (see PDF pages 1, 5, and 6).

With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.

"Locked" in what sense? I suspect most cellphones sold in the US are locked to the carrier they were sold to work with, but there are SDKs for Symbian, Windows Mobile, and what I assume is the successor to the Palm OS. "Locked to a carrier" is not the same as "locked shut so that you can't run third-party apps"; even the iPhone has third-party apps, Apple's lack of assistance to developers of them nonwithstanding.

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." 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.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." 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.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." 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.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos