Slashdot Mirror

I'm sure you meant it as a pleasantry, but to me it actually sounds quite menacing.

My apologies; no threat was intended.

I maintain that if you meant "substantial", you should have said "substantial"

The two words aren't entirely interchangable; I'd used "substantive" for its weaker connotation (similar to "adequate" versus "sufficient"). Evidently that was a poor decision, particularly as the Copyright Office uses "substantial".

...the "twelve line" test you mention above was determined in answer to almost precisely the opposite question: namely, what is the greatest amount a work may include of another work whilst still not being considered derived from that work...

I think the first part is a fair criticism; it isn't always clear how applicable a court ruling is to a different question to the one it was intended to answer. However, the question at hand is a lower limit for addition, not an upper limit for inclusion. So, the decision may apply to this lower limit, or it may not (hence my advice to consult a lawyer), but regardless of that there is a lower limit. As the US Copyright Office circular on Copyright Registration for Derivative Works says:

"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. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable."

Whether the new material qualifies for copyright determines whether it is legitimate to add your own copyright declaration to the header.

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

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.

It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange ...

(quoting Microsoft vs DAK) "Because we look to the economic realities of the agreement, the fact that the agreement labels itself a "license" and calls the payments "royalties," both terms that arguably imply periodic payment for the use rather than sale of technology, does not control our analysis." ...

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license ...

Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology 1.18[1] p. 1-103 (1992). The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal proper and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software.

(I am not a lawyer).

As Constantine pointed out, the GPL is not a EULA.

If anything, EULAs are illegal because, despite being End User License Agreements, they do not meet the legal definition of a license: "4) n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition." according to law.com. (There are four other definitions; Three of them involve government, the last is for the verb license)

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: By Title 17 (US Copyright Law), section 117 in particular, I have all the rights I need to install and run a computer program that I have legally obtained. I don't need a license for it and telling me that I do is fraud.

The source article and the current debate being waged by the MPAA are just smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real issue: freedom of personal use.

As Moraelin is saying, copyright law should only apply when I reproduce someone else's work for gain. It should not apply at all when a legally purchased work is used for personal use, even if that personal use differs from what the original manufacturer/distributer thinks it should be. The only reason it does apply now is the ill advised piece of legislation called the DMCA, and even the DMCA doesn't technically limit our personal use, just our ability to remove the copy protection schemes.

The elephant in the room here is that copy protection schemes on CDs, DVDs and software are having little to no impact on piracy, but are limiting the freedom of personal use of law abiding consumers. Why, as a consumer, should I have to re-buy the same music/movies/software in order to use them in different ways, as long as I'm using them for personal use in each case? I'm willing to bet that Apple already has an update lined up for iTunes that would allow ripping of Movies, but they're sitting on it until copyright law changes before they release it to consumers to avoid getting sued for circumventing the already cracked CSS encryption.

See the EFF for a better resource on the DMCA: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA

Another good resource: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Notice how copyright holders only retain the exclusive right to public performances.

Sorry, your lawyer friend isn't very good. Perhaps you should have him read this article, especially noting this quote: "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."

So yes, fair use is indeed "on the books," and more than just case law.

Unlocking a phone for the purposes of using it with another carrier is a specifically defined exception to the DMCA. Take a look at III.5.

Any DMCA claim is going to be tough in light of the following:

From the Federal Register:

The Register has concluded that the software locks are access controls that adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their cellular phones. Moreover, a review of the four factors enumerated in 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) supports the conclusion that an exemption is warranted.

-- Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006

And from the US Copyright Office itself:

There is no evidence in the record of this rulemaking that demonstrates or even suggests that obtaining access to the mobile firmware in a mobile handset that is owned by a consumer is an infringing act. Similarly, there has been no argument or suggestion that a consumer desiring to switch a lawfully purchased mobile handset from one network carrier to another is engaging in copyright infringement or in activity that in any way implicates copyright infringement or the interests of the copyright owner. [pg. 50]

...

the Register recommends that the following class of works be subject to exemption: 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. [pg. 53]

-- Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

The only claim they might be able to make is one against those selling the information which will, inside a few days, get out and be posted everywhere so that anyone can do it.

Any DMCA claim is going to be tough in light of the following:

From the Federal Register:

The Register has concluded that the software locks are access controls that adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their cellular phones. Moreover, a review of the four factors enumerated in 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) supports the conclusion that an exemption is warranted.

-- Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006

And from the US Copyright Office itself:

There is no evidence in the record of this rulemaking that demonstrates or even suggests that obtaining access to the mobile firmware in a mobile handset that is owned by a consumer is an infringing act. Similarly, there has been no argument or suggestion that a consumer desiring to switch a lawfully purchased mobile handset from one network carrier to another is engaging in copyright infringement or in activity that in any way implicates copyright infringement or the interests of the copyright owner. [pg. 50]

...

the Register recommends that the following class of works be subject to exemption: 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. [pg. 53]

-- Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

The only claim they might be able to make is one against those selling the information which will, inside a few days, get out and be posted everywhere so that anyone can do it.

* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
* All rights reserved.

First, thanks for continuing the dialog. As it turns out, we have the same understanding of a right. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights )

However, I was just all wet about fair use. ( http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/faq. html http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/prin ciples.html http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67- 1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/ )

Please check out the links above and you'll see an on-going problem, IMO. We (whether it's you and I or others) are going to shear on syntax and definition forever w.r.t. fair use because of the nature of the following in law: entitlement, privilege and exception.

Here's what I knew - fair use curtails the rights of the copyright holder. Here's what I knew - rights not specifically granted to an individual (as opposed to constitutional law) may be interpreted by the courts.

Here's what else I knew - over the years, fair use has become accepted and reasonably understood - based on that word, reasonable.

I argued with you because I thought you were wrong w.r.t. fair use - and you were (or, may be), but not for the reasons I'd thought. If I rip a song from a CD to iTunes to iPod for my exclusive use, it's legal. But fair use? Whoa! Here's something that I never RTFA on, but am surprised to discover at this late point:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Fair use isn't just a defense - as I understand you to say. Neither is it a right (anymore) but neither is it merely an exception. It's a nice and gray privilege, granted a codified state in the US Copyright Office - and an interesting only-almost curtailment of the rights of the copyright holder.

I couldn't be right for the same reason that what I took as your narrow argument couldn't be right - fair use now has a mantle of codification outside of previously-understood reasonable. IOW, we can both be right (and are) or wrong (and are) - fair use as presently formulated is nothing more than a new playing field for the litigants. It's so whacked, both sides can posture that they have the moral right on their side, and their attorneys can assure them this is so with a straight face.

Attorneys can - and probably are - continuing the argument you and I have had albeit in a more edified form in juries across the land - with the mantle of codification allowing them to do so with a straight face.

Where court decisions set the reasonableness of fair use before, this won't and can't count now as before. The codification of fair use, in its present form, is simply fucked.

Most people don't realize this - I sure didn't. I only wish we'd had time to have this debate when the subject was still topical and front-page on slashdot. I wish everyone at slashdot could learn what I've learned. I don't know how to submit this as an article (not because I can't read the FAQ) but because I don't know how to make this an article.

I don't know whether to be depressed or pissed off. I wish I'd paid more attention to this years ago, instead of simply assuming.

To start with, the copyright exists as soon as a creative work is fixed in a tangible medium. The issue is how one proves that the work was created by them on a particular date. The only meaningful answer is, as you say, to register with the Copyright Office.

The "poor man's copyright" is pointless. Let's assume you decide to take action against an infringer. No federal court will have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case of infringement without registration. Fine, register before claiming infringement. Then what?

The defendant will claim you don't legitimately possess the copyright, and you have to prove it. So, you pompously walk into court with your little stamped, registered mail envelope. Your opponent moves in limine to exclude your envelope from evidence. Why?

Because a critical step of introducing evidence is authenticating prospective evidence. How do you plan to authenticate this? "Your Honor, it has a postmark on it! I signed for it!" You'll be hauling in witnesses to attest that they recognize your signature, your mailman to testify that you signed it, and a postal counter worker to testify that you handed it to them. So what? You know what you've authenticated? An envelope. Congratulations!

Do you know what you can't authenticate this way? The contents of the god damn envelope. Do you know why? Well, first, when you put it in the mail, you gave up custody of the envelope, so there's now a broken chain of custody. What's more, even if you can demonstrate no loss of the chain of custody, you've now got to prove that what's in the envelope, which was not handled by the Postal Service, was, in fact, in the sealed envelope you mailed.

The result? Contents of the envelope are excluded. The envelope is excluded, for lack of relevance. But at least the USPS made a few bucks because of a misunderstood myth supported by the short-lived "The Paper Chase" TV series.

File it with the copyright office. Doing so authenticates the date filed. That is what the copyright office exists for, after all.

This is surprisingly simple. If it's a copyrightable and you have $45, register the copyright of the work with the US Copyright office (or the copuyright office in your country, I assume you're in the US because I'm an Americentric bastard). Check out http://www.copyright.gov/register/ for forms and details. A registered copyright strengthens your argument of ownership immeasurably. It raises the bar of proof that any opposition must overcome to disprove your ownership. If it's IP, I'm in the camp that it's covered by copyright, and hate IP patents, but if it's patentable like software (grumble grumble) then it's somewhere around $500 to apply to the patent office yourself. If it's that valuable to you that you genuinely fear theft, then $500 is a small price to pay for insurance.

No copyright notice is required for something to be under copyright, it's copyrighted at creation automatically. (See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html Paragraph 3 under "Use of the Copyright Notice") Also, a copyright, unlike a trademark, does not need to be defended/enforced in order to keep it. So basically, you're full of shit. He absolutely has the rights to his own content, and can show it whenever he likes.

Whether or not their use was fair is another matter entirely, but assuming that they did infringe on his copyright, their derivative work is not eligible for copyright and he was absolutely not infringing. Assuming they didn't infringe, his use was more likely than not still fair use, as he posted a small portion of their original work, for no profit, and that detracts nothing from the original value of their work as a whole.

If you're a lawyer, like you're implying, then you're a really bad one.

However, to enforce copyright, the author has to register the work within a certain timeframe and zealously defend his rights. The fact that he took Viacom material and presented it suggests that he was not zealous in defending his copyright. So, he may have lost the chance to sue Viacom and prevail.

Copyright notices have not been required in the U.S. since 1989.

This is what the USA copyright act states:

103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

To remove the copyright when you are not the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law. The original authors should be contacted and asked how they wish to proceed.

The original BSD code should at least be linked to or made available on the derivative site to clearly show the pedigree and respect the original authors rights.

When you use another's work and modify it you are creating a derivative work and possibly a compilation work. There are tests to be applied as to the extent of your changes. Changing a single word in a sentence of a comment or program line isn't enough to make a derivative work.

For example, lets say you take a BSD copyrighted program such as Apache, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or any other large program and make some minor changes. If you modify a subroutine in a large program that's not a derivative work since that is a minor change and wouldn't qualify. In fact most contributions by folks to any large free or opensource projects don't qualify as new versions of the work and the copyright remains with the original authors.

Here is a summary from the US to back up the above assertion.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivat ive/ [copyright.gov]
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.

Remember that while you can have all the open source or free software fantasies you wish the bottom line is that the copyright laws of your country and the country that the software originated from still apply and in many cases trump or nullify the license terms - sometimes in unexpected ways.

So in this case if the changes were minor the derivative works test fails, and the license MUST remain BSD as the subsequent work isn't a new copyrightable version!

Now the question is: how extensive where the changes? IF what was presented in this Slashdot thread is the entire source code AND it wasn't produced by the original author THEN one would easily see that it's not a new copyrightable work and the original authors copyright remains in full force with his BSD license terms.

Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?

No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.

Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?

No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.

Your reading foo needs work, young grashopper ;-)

The first link it returns is: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Which pretty much articulates what I said. Practical components are not protected, but substantial literary/expressive components may be (the example they give is a cookbook, but if I write the instructional components to a recipe entirely in, say, iambic pentameter 4-line stanzas, whouldn't my poetry be protected even if the practical components were not?

I.e. I couldn't prevent anyone from taking the recipe, rewriting the practical components in allitterative strophes and copyrighting that. That would not seem to be a derivative work by my reading, but IANAL.

In short, copyright only protects original expressive components under US copyright law. In fact, the link I provided gives instructions for registering the copyright of a recipe.

• (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
• (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
• (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Requiring a paid license would be a pretty interesting trick, considering that http://www.copyright.gov/register/tx-games.html specifically forbids game mechanics from copyright protection. Here's the text:

Games

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

Some parts of a game may be subject to copyright if they contain a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, you may be able to register the text describing the rules of the game or the graphic art appearing on the gameboard or container.

Form TX can be used to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, Form VA should be used.

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. -- Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art --

(1) shall have the right --

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right --

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

That means you do not have the right to give MP3 copies of music from a CD you own to someone who owns the same CD. You are infringing on those enumerated rights. Now, there are fair use exceptions, but if you actually read them (and you'll be able to in a second) you'll see that every one of them must be considered by a judge or jury to see if an individual's actions count as fair use.

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

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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, includin

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. -- Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art --

(1) shall have the right --

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right --

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

That means you do not have the right to give MP3 copies of music from a CD you own to someone who owns the same CD. You are infringing on those enumerated rights. Now, there are fair use exceptions, but if you actually read them (and you'll be able to in a second) you'll see that every one of them must be considered by a judge or jury to see if an individual's actions count as fair use.

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

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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, includin

Copywrite infringement can be criminal in the US.

From the G-man himself. Here's the relevant bit of the US codes: Title 18, section 2319.

Indirect distribution is covered in GPL2 and recognized by the courts (eg: "materially contribute to infringement" - Napster). The FSF made this even more explicit in GPL3 by using the concept of conveyance. Microsoft vouchers aren't a get-out from contributory infringement, therefore they must adhere (or permit the directly distributing party to adhere) to terms contained within a copyright license. Microsoft wouldn't want it to fly any other way in court, their own business model would be in jeopardy.

The point you're missing then is that Microsoft punched themselves in the balls - hard.

IANAL ... but the GPLv3 is a LICENSE not a CONTRACT.

If Microsoft does not follow the LICENSE then Microsoft cannot LEGALLY re-distribute the software. Doing so would put Microsoft in violation of basic copyright laws.

Which is why Microsoft quickly distanced itself from the GPLv3.

IANAL ... but the GPLv3 is a LICENSE not a CONTRACT.

If Microsoft does not follow the LICENSE then Microsoft cannot LEGALLY re-distribute the software. Doing so would put Microsoft in violation of basic copyright laws.

Which is why Microsoft quickly distanced itself from the GPLv3.

IANAL ... but the GPLv3 is a LICENSE not a CONTRACT.

If Microsoft does not follow the LICENSE then Microsoft cannot LEGALLY re-distribute the software. Doing so would put Microsoft in violation of basic copyright laws.

Which is why Microsoft quickly distanced itself from the GPLv3.

First of all, I call bullshit. You're an Anonymous Coward, and that means you're nothing. If you want to be an expert in copyright law, please provide your full name, as well as the law school from which you graduated, your graduation year, the law firm for which you currently work, and a phone number where we can verify all this with your employer or a senior partner in your firm. You department chair will do if you're a professor in a law school.

Second if all. I cite: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107, point 4 "(the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Since the claimed effect was to present said clip to her younger brother, it would in all likely hood have a positive economic impact on the film by encouraging him to see it. Therefore, fair use.

But lets take them all...

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Fair use, see above.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;, fair use. The theoretical random 20 second clip could be intended for discussion/illustration purposes. Since it is a film if a specific portion of the film is necessary for such discussion, it would be classified as fair use.

(3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; Since she took a 20 second clip of a movie that is roughly 7200 second long, that equates to roughly .03% of the film. That is an insignificant portion of the overall work, and therefore I or any sane person would call it fair use.

If you're going to bother responding, please cite specific legislation and/or case law that contradicts the above.

The only reason she needs is that she wants to. But in this case she probably thought the current scene being shown was pretty cool and wasn't necessarily in the trailer, she also just wanted to play with her new camcorder

Filming movies in a theater is illegal, nevermind inconsiderate to others in the theater. If the scene she wanted to show wasn't in the trailer, tough shit. Wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. There are plenty of places to play with the camcorder; in a theater is not one of them.

That's just the thing, you don't have to have a reason to do something legal. If I were to spin around in my chair right now for no reason, should I be put in jail?

Filming a movie in a theater is illegal, so whats you're point? We're not talking about doing something legal, we're talking about breaking a law.

Oh, I don't know, he could have asked them what they were up to. If a kid is walking around a store putting stuff in his pockets how do they know he wasn't trying to steal all of it?

First, its not the managers discresion to ask. His boss told him this is the policy and its to be enforced 100% of the time. Second there's no ligitmate reason to put anything in your pockets in a store.

They law is pretty clear about this, you can't stop the kid until he's past the point of no return, ie. walking passed the register without paying. And even if they were planning on taping the whole movie, they probably would have lied and said it was just for a moment, but now they know they're being watched and wouldn't dare try and record any more, potential crime averted.

The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.

And if the theater manager wanted to be tough about it, he can ask them to leave. It's the theater's property and they don't have to allow them to stay if they break the rules, but since there's also nothing illegal about what they did either he shouldn't be able to take their footage or delete the clip.

Its not the manager's call as I've said. He has a boss that he reports to and is given no discretion in the matter. What they did IS illegal.

Here's the law: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html

Note that there do exist exemptions to the DCMA's 'do not circumvent' writing. Of course, I have no idea how much that'll help the crew of /.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
Section (f)
(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section ... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner ... who is injured by such misrepresentation...

If they ask a content provider to remove it, and you have to hire a lawyer to keep it up, then they are liable for your legal fees.

It isn't criminal, but it is illegal.

506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, - OR -

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000
Copyright Law of the United States of America

ILLINOIS MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO POSTING '24' TELEVISION SHOW ON INTERNET PRIOR TO FIRST BROADCAST ON FOX

A Chicago man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge for posting the first four episodes of this season's "24" on the Internet before they were originally aired on the Fox television network earlier this year.
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section [July 2, 2007], The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [February 18, 1998]

The DMCA exemption is exceedingly narrow -- it only allows you to connect to a network, not run your own apps. It's so limited that a PC-based unlocking program wouldn't be allowed to bypass the DMCA to install the (temporarily legal) firmware, because the exemption applies only to firmware that runs on the phone and not regular computer software. The DMCA is still a major roadblock to fair use.

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. ---- exemption 5, expires October 2009 (source)

"Copyright does not give you rights to make any copies. Fair use doe"

That's where you're wrong. Fair use is part and parcel of copyright law. You don't have to take my word for it - take the governments'.

If you're just copying the codecs, and have no intention of using or installing the rest of the copy of Windows you legitimately obtained, you don't have to agree with any after-sale click-through EULA, since:

1. you never see it
2. you don't agree with it
3. its an attempt to limit your legitimate rights after the sale

If I buy a car, there is nothing that obliges me to get it serviced at the manufacturer. I'm free to get it serviced elsewhere (and no, it doesn't void the warranty), or I'm free to rip out parts of it and use them in ways not foreseen by the manufacturer.

The license doesn't supercede copyright fair use, especially if you never agree to the license, and never use the package as a whole.

Next you'll be trying to say that Microsofts' attempts to gag people by forbidding them to post benchmarks about their products are legal, when they're just more bs from a cojmpany running scared.

Besides, some of those codecs were licensed to Microsoft by 3rd parties, who expect THEIR license to be passed through to end users of their codecs, not Microsoft's license.

IANAL, however my observations.

..someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home?
Is it a copyrighted piece of software? If so it is still illegal despite the individual still owning an original cartridge, doesn't allow him to download a copy of it from another cartridge. The "backup" has to be made from his legally owned one.

A track from a CD that doesn't play anymore?
Is it a copyrighted piece of music? Even then according to the government you don't have a right to copy music for archival and backup purposes anyway. Even if you did, the SAME restrictions would still apply as the original NES ROM.

A no-cd patch for a game so he can play it on his laptop wherever he goes?
A no-cd patch is deemed illegal purely due to it's ability to bypass security on a disc according to the DMCA. (Notice a pattern?) Yeah, it's frustrating, and provided the student has his legal liscence (pre-"patched") by all means he should be able to play it where he wants, provided it is also installed on one computer, and one computer only. (Something that pops up in EULAs that no one reads due to the lawyer-garbage text.)


According to their draconian proposal, all of these would mean you are cut off from the internet.. forever.

Nope, according to the proposal, issues number one and two would cause a cut from the network, not the third. The third itself isn't exactly a copyrighted piece of software, despite the legality issues involved.

I find that this proposal is... okay provided that the cut is done after the accused has been found guilty, and not part of some shotgun scheme.