Slashdot Mirror

It could be the case that Fox obtained permission from Konami, copyright owner of Double Dribble, and then used the clip pursuant to 17 USC 103(a), which states that an unauthorized derivative work is not eligible for copyright, and/or a supposition that the uploader's contribution to the clip do not "represent an original work of authorship" (17 USC 101).

Yes, that's one of the main points of her open letter. Youtube has a system in place, Content ID, to stop piracy and it works quite well. The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them or at least that's assumed, as they don't publish any rules. Everybody else gets left in the dust and isn't allowed into Content ID and thus their content can be shared on Youtube without permission. Which according to her argument violates the requirements for "Safe Harbor" protection and makes Youtube guilty of mass copyright infringement, as that "Safe Harbor" law requires technical measures to be made available to everybody.

Let's look at the actual text of the safe harbor:

(2) Definition. -- As used in this subsection, the term "standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and --
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.

Is ContentID offered by multiple service providers? Is ContentID described in any standards document?

Are the costs associated with operating ContentID insubstantial is terms of not only money, but CPU time and storage?

If you cannot answer those questions with a yes, then the fact that ContentID is not being offered to "everybody" -- meaning everybody who wishes to agree to "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms," not merely terms of their own choosing -- is not relevant.

I've read the open letter, and it's self-serving mush. For example, in her analysis of whether YouTube is a racketeer:

A. ContentID is not a "standard technical measure" as defined in the DMCA.
B. Stephen Carlisle should be sued for malpractice. You send a certified letter containing the items listed in 512(c)(3) to the designated agent specified here according to 512(c)(2). Done.
C. Doesn't like 512(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer, which clearly exists and assumes that subscriber identities are confidential, but wants to conceal the identity of the copyright owner, a right that does not and almost cannot exist.
D. WTF? Seems to be the love child of a complaint concerning broken-link error message one gets after content has been taken down and a variation of the complaint in item C. Copyright owner authorizes the takedown of content allegedly owned by the copyright owner is pretty darn difficult to hide since we can pretty much infer that yes, the complaint was essentially made by the copyright owner.
E, part 1. But those questions are in the DMCA. 512(c)(3) requires them, so yes, you get to answer questions when making a notification. 512(f) also has some laughably weak language concerning misrepresentations, so yes, you should probably be aware of that. 512(g)(3) requires lots of similar questions for counternotifications and a statement made under penalty of perjury. Seems fair enough.
E, part 2. It's called a counternotification, not a pre-certification. Requiring pre-certification would be a fairly substantial violation of the first amendment. You're welcome to practice what you preach and pre-certify everything you post, including your own open letter, as a means of educating yourself as to why.
F. The possibility that YouTube might support a user in a wrongful takedown situation is unfair. It's just little old me (get back behind the curtain, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, RightsHaven, Guardlex, and the rest of you guys, they're buying it!).
G. Enforce my copyrights for me for free. Now.
H.

Privacy laws? Come off it, on data the person made public? The facts that the individual made public are their information, not OKCupid's. They make it public, tough sh*t. Giving public information to a company doesn't suddenly make it not public when it's willingly posted on a public server with the express purpose of the public seeing it.

And you can't copyright facts. F*cking morons ...

Copyright does not protect facts,

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

Sweat-of-the-brow work doesn't give rise to a grant of copyright, and since they didn't hack into the database, there is no way that they can be accused of taking the data in it's original format anyway.

there certainly is no need for proactive server-side scanning

As I read 17 USC 512(i)(1)(B), it requires providers taking advantage of the DMCA's safe harbor to "accommodate[...] standard technical measures", such as automatic identification of works whose copyright is often infringed, so long as said measures do "not impose substantial costs". What did I miss?

and automated take-downs.

Automated notices of claimed infringement wouldn't be quite as necessary if service providers blocked reuploads of the same work after having received "actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" per 17 USC 512(c)(1)(A). When a service provider takes a work down upon notice of claimed infringement, the same work often remains available on the same provider at other URLs, even if the notice specifies that no accounts on that provider have been licensed to use a particular work. In addition, the work often doesn't stay down when either A. another user reuploads the work, or B. a user whose account had been terminated for repeat infringement creates a new account and reuploads the work. Only proactive or automated systems can make a dent in that sort of infringement.

You need to learn copyright law.

Aside from that, that's the difference between consenting parties versus nonconsenting parties. Isn't that odd how the world works? That's why I can't run up to you in the street, punch you in the face a few times and walk away without liability claiming that it was a boxing match.

On a tangent to your point, open-source players are now allowed under DMCA. In the US, you still need a patent license ($2.50).

DMCA instructs the Library of Congress to make rules about the details of fair-use circumvention. Here's the latest set of rule changes :
http://copyright.gov/fedreg/20...

Under current rules, there are substantial uses allowed as fair use, mostly in an educational context. Because a DVD player/ripper is "capable of substantial non-infringing use", it's legal.

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

So, even using the exact same rules (described slightly differently but with the same result, same as there are plenty of different ways to describe, say, the game of chess), and the same system of play, and even the same NAME, are not protected. Make your own Risk clone with different artwork and you can tell Hasbro to stuff it.

Here's some hard proof that the non-USA manufacturers are trying to take your rights away just like the rest.

Sorry but in this fight, there don't seem to be any good guys.

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dry. For instance,
if you use a small segment and it is used to "enhance" or add some effect (drama/suspense/etc) to a recording, then it could very easily fall under fair use.
You can even use the full body of the work, in some (admittedly rare) instances, without issue

Don't listen to me though, Take a look at youtubes stance on it or, would you prefer The Copyright Office's Take, how about Wikipedia's

USC 17512 Limitations on liability relating to material online

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.â"

(1) Accommodation of technology. â" The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider â"

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

Nobody has dared poke this part of the law with a stick, what the heck does "reasonably implemented", "appropriate circumstances" and "repeat infringers" mean? None of it is defined any closer. I'd go for the simple two-pronged defense:

1) The policy is clearly spelled out in our terms of service, where we may terminate your contract:

By using the Service, you agree to abide by, and require others using the Service via your account to abide by the terms of this AUP. The AUP will be updated from time to time, so you should consult this document regularly to ensure that your activities conform to the most recent version. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP THE USE OF THE SERVICES AND NOTIFY THE COX CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT SO THAT YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE CLOSED.

1. Prohibited Activities. You may not use the Service in a manner that violates any applicable local, state, federal or international law, order or regulation. Additionally, you may not use the Service to:
(...)
Breach of Agreement: If You breach this Agreement, or any other agreement referenced herein, Cox has the right to terminate this Agreement and retrieve its equipment.

2) Our customers are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Something tells me this is going to get overturned on appeal.

but US copyright law specifically says that sort of incidental copying doesn't count.

If that was the case...

Alright, I decided to look up the section of law I was referring to. See 17 USC ss. 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:

It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.

The entire basis and rationale for EULAs is that the act of installing the software on the user's PC involves making a copy and thus "would have been" copyright infringement, so a license would be necessary to cure that infringement. It's a "nice" side effect (from the copyright holder's perspective) that such a license requirement provides an opportunity for the copyright holder to impose additional restrictions to which he would not otherwise be entitled (if he were, for example, selling a book instead). But as you can see, that legal theory is wrong because the code I cited renders such licenses wholly unnecessary.

...all software licenses by US entities, that includes GPL, would be void.

Sigh... yet another person who doesn't understand the GPL.

Here's the difference between EULAs and the GPL: EULAs (attempt to) restrict mere use of the software -- a thing which copyright law (as I mentioned) already gives the owner [of the copy] the explicit right to do.

The GPL, on the other hand, has no affect on mere use of the software; in fact, the user does not need to agree to or even care about the GPL in order to do so. What the GPL does is restrict -- and enable -- distribution of the software, a right the owner [of a copy] does not have by default. In consideration for giving the owner [of a copy] the right to copy and redistribute, the GPL requires that said person agree to abide by its terms. That consideration is what makes the GPL valid. EULAs, in contrast, do not give the owner [of a copy] any rights he didn't already have, thus provide no consideration, and thus are not valid contracts.

The best you can do is search. Good luck:

http://www.copyright.gov/recor...

The copyright office in the U.S. recently raised its prices for copyright registration enormously. If you submit 2 short articles, that is a now called a "compilation", and the price is raised from $35 to $55, even though the total may be only 2 or 3 pages.

Also, the U.S. Copyright Office takes months to respond, makes frequent mistakes, and has a web site that is in some ways poorly written.

Can you recommend a copyright office in another country?

And here is the link to the copyright office's document requesting input by the 23rd July.

http://copyright.gov/fedreg/20...

Nonsense.

The act of compilation itself does not protect the digital work (we're NOT talking about the source code here, we're talking about the end product) from being accessed. You can give the binary to someone else, and (in the absence of actual DRM features) they can run it. So it is not DRM in itself, that requires another layer.

Neither the DMCA's Wikipedia page, nor the bill summary mentions the word "binary" or "compile". Nor does some quick googling unearth anything supporting your stance here.

If I own a game, I am free to hack away it, install mods, trainers, hexedit data files, whatever the hell I want. As long as I am not bypassing any DRM features it has. The DMCA criminalizes cracking copy protection schemes. Not "all modification of binary files". If you have a source that says otherwise I'd love to read it.

Mod AC up.

The trial court ruling is how things ought to be, but how things actually are is a much different story, as reflected by the CAFC and SCOTUS.

You need a vanishingly small amount of originality to meet the copyrightability threshold. Like choosing categories for yellow pages rather than listing everything alphabetically. Like selecting and arranging public domain stories. Like adding a few lines to someone else's pictures.

It's worth arguing that even by the lowest standards, the APIs do not possess even a modicum of creativity. It's also worth arguing that they are so purely functional on a basic and elementary level that they should not be afforded copyright protection at all. But since the higher court rulings force us to concede copyrightability arguments, what's left to argue is that Google's use of these validly copyrighted APIs was fair and thus permissible.

And to add you don't even have to take my word for it. Read the damn DMCA. It has an entire section about eligibility of protection under US laws for works in foreign countries:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic works.

Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section 101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.

The only people misinformed are the ones who have never read the DMCA like yourself.

At least Scalia, Thomas and Alito will hammer Oracle. They tend to be very antagonistic to arguments like this. In Kelo v. New London, which was a similar abuse of intent in the law (5th amendment there), they wrote scathing dissents. Allowing APIs to be copyrighted is like allowing technical jargon (that's not trademarked) to be copyrighted. They fall dangerously close to the list of things the Copyright Office says are not covered by law.

Part of this makes me wonder if this isn't a "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario for Oracle. If they win, they get to badly hurt Google. If they lose, there's a Supreme Court precedent that allows them to clone any small competitor's products (patent considerations notwithstanding) at a 100% API compatible level and use Oracle integration and consulting to ram them out of business. It smells like a Larry Ellison strategy.

Standard disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed as legal advice.

First, you don't steal titles from an existing work. Stealing has a very specific legal definition and in the context of law commentary, it's very important that you don't fuck it up.

Second, yes, using the same titles is, in fact, okay.

Third, that specific licenses allow you to use interfaces or not explicitly is irrelevant. Copyright enforces the wishes of the copyrighter in how distribution works. Unless you have some evidence that the Java platform is licensed in this way, this point is completely irrelevant. And it seems to me that you might be hoisted upon your own petard.

Fourth, what does it take to be a standard in your mind? What is your opinion on the Java platform documentation? Because it seems pretty well-specified to me. Java also has a language and VM spec that are published specifications. How do "oversight organization" and "corporate entity" automatically differ?

Oh, and here are the "terms" for getting information from a web server: HTTP. I can do whatever I want with the data.

Here are the terms under which any work of authorship is made available in the United States: Title 17, United States Code. Has a court decided whether removing ads creates a "derivative work"? Or is it more like the Game Genie, where the judge in Galoob v. Nintendo decided that the modified work is not "fixed" enough?

You can just run a web site on any old PC, too.

Not if your home Internet connection is behind a carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT). Instead of giving your PC a world-routable address, your ISP gives your PC an address in a reserved space that is private to your ISP. This has happened in a lot of countries affected by the IPv4 address shortage. Even users in countries where a fairly long DHCP lease of a public IP address is common often can't run servers, as many ISPs have a habit of disconnecting home subscribers who are discovered to be running servers.

Apparently most photographers think that if they are hired to take and edit photographs of YOU, the copyright and even the originals belong to them, unless stated otherwise in the contract. I find it strange, really.

They do belong to the copyright holder, which in the case of photographs is the person that took them, even if they are a monkey.

Show me where it says that.

I would be very surprised if Canada's copyright law lacked a counterpart to Title 17, United States Code, section 502, reproduced below:

(a) Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.

Because you actually need to RTFA.

This is linked in the article: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015...

Relevant section:

In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking "leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits," according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts "leads to disastrous consequences."

You'll see "Global" in that quote mind you. But if you look at some of the organizations, they include companies like Honda, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Volvo, etc. I'm gonna just chalk this up to anti-American bias.

Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. 'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,' he said.

I don't agree with that assessment, especially when I watch the RIAA and MPAA go to work.

His copyright hasn't expired, his family (or estate) has a right to control his works, and Longerich should pay up.
However, I am basing this on US copyright law, I'm not sure if that applies here.
http://www.copyright.gov/title...

Yes

Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:

"Works of fanfiction are more likely to constitute fair use if they are "transformative" with respect to the original work, if they are non-commercial, if they appropriate relatively little of the original work, and/or if they do not tend to detract from the potential market for or value of the original work.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... http://www.copyright.gov/title...

Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.

http://www.copyright.gov/title...
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government"

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/...
"NEWTON Ask A Scientist program is not copyrighted formally."

After reading the other article, it seems he plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement. Here is the law itself.

Having a legitimate use is not a justification by itself. Remember Limewire lost their court case because they were implying on its website that it could have illegal uses. Don't do that.

"Software Freedom Conservancy has filed a Comment ... to legally permit circumvention of encryption for firmwares found on Smart TV products from manufacturers"

News:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/...

The submission:
https://sfconservancy.org/docs...

And another submission in part by Karen Sandler about allowing putting free software on medical devices such as the one in her heart:
http://copyright.gov/1201/2015...

Then how does the Right of First Sale have nothing to do with my car, when it applies to my car?

We're talking about the First Sale Doctrine, it doesn't apply to your car.

Seems the only one here that doesn't know what it is is you.

No, it is definitely you. So please explain to me what you think the First Sale Doctrine is.

It appears you think the "first sale doctrine" is the thing that allows you to re-sell goods. It is not. Why are you citing something when you have absolutely no clue what it is?

You can read the text of the first sale doctrine here.

You can read a more layman explanation of it here.
For example here is an excerpt:

The "first sale" doctrine says that a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work may "sell or otherwise dispose" of the work as he sees fit, subject to some important conditions and exceptions. Section 109(a). In other words, if you legally buy a book or CD, "first sale" gives you the right to loan that book or CD to your friend. Libraries heavily depend on the first sale doctrine to lend books and other items to patrons.

Now if you have educated yourself on this can you see how ridiculous your assertion that this applies to your house or your car is? It isn't that hard to quickly research this instead of making assumptions that the first sale doctrine covers everything to do with the ability to re-sell things just because "first sale" is in the name.

As long as you don't run pirated software or play DRM media, etc, on the phone, rooting it is legal. In other words to be in order for circumvention to be illegal, you must actually be violating copyright.

Source: U.S. Copyright Office lists the following exemptions:

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

... (copyright does not cover the implementation).

Wrong. Copyright does cover implementation. That's the only thing it covers. Or are you unaware that software is under copyright protection?

Content quoted from http://copyright.gov/help/faq/...

What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. 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."

Well, that's Google's mistake obviously. They shouldn't patent the driverless car and everything associated with it, they should copyright it, then it would be theirs forever.

Copyright has limited protection compared to patent. If you are going on a new invention, patent is the way to go; especially the implementation of the invention (copyright does not cover the implementation).

Content quoted from http://copyright.gov/help/faq/...

What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. 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."

Anyway, it is better for Google to make it first, so that it will become prior art sooner. At some point when all technologies are ready, it wouldn't be many stupid patent troll out there for legal battles...

There are piles of abandonware.

I didn't say there wasn't. What I actually said was that I never hear anyone using "abandoned" as the excuse for skirting, or outright breaking, copyright law. Don't argue with me over things I didn't say.

And lots of books printed with a short run.

Books printed with a short run aren't the definition of "abandoned". Lots of things are produced "with a short run" and are hardly abandoned. The phrase is "limited edition".

But anything made after Mickey Mouse will be protected to the end of time.

I doubt that. Can you cite any law that says that?

There are books that will be lost because the runs were short, and you can't copy them. The author is dead, and often the people who inherited "other" from the estate don't even know they are a copyright holder of a book, let alone what to do with it.

You're getting closer to abandoned, but haven't quite reached it yet. Let's see, how do we handle this situation legally? Maybe you ASK the copyright holder if the book can be archived? You know who it is even if they themselves don't. Educate them.

Any copyrighted work of his is lost forever.

Here's what I see in the copyright law regarding length of copyrights. I'm going to paraphrase because it's full of legal twists, but the basics seem to be:

1. Copyright after 1978: life of author plus 70 years.

2. Before 1978 in initial copyright: 28 years from the initial copyright.

I'll not bother with "before 1978 already extended" or any of the optional extension mechanisms. I doubt your father had done that if it wasn't part of the estate papers. In either 1 or 2, the work is hardly "lost forever". All you have to do is not extend the copyright (and you seem unlikely to do that) and the copyright will expire. If there was a copyright, all you have to do as heir is release the material to the public domain. If it was initially copyright before 1978, it will have already become public domain! (1978+28=2006)

It will only be lost forever if someone throws up their hands and burns all his books as a protest to an incorrect belief that copyright lasts forever.

Now, your comment about "Mickey Mouse". I don't think anyone can use Mickey Mouse or any Disney property as an example of "abandoned".

You want old, but enforced like a Nazi?

I know I didn't say anything even close to that.

Try Happy Birthday...

If "Happy Birthday" is still in copyright, it is only because it has not been abandoned. Arguing that abandoned works should not be under copyright anymore (an idea with which I've already told you I agree) and then using an example that is so clearly not abandoned is simply ridiculous.

The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.

I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading, but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".

AFAIK, fair use in the textual world means things like quoting limited excerpts for discussion in other writings, use in satire, etc. Writing a new application with arbitrary and unlimited dependency on the API (which is the desired use of the API, after all,) is not clearly "fair use;" it's use for which the API "owner" could reasonably expect payment. The economic value to the API user is well-understood.

I don't agree with you there. What is a fair use is described here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/f...

I think Google wins this one: the nature of the copyrighted work here is a specification that has been released to the public, so as to make the underlying libraries or other code usable.

An API "owner" could claim that the API was published for technical evaluation only, but to use the implementation, or even to create one's own fresh implementation, requires permission under the copyright. It would be calamitous for the industry, but the argument seems to align with the law.

Except that it is well-established that the API was published so the corresponding libraries/code could be used by outside entities writing Java applications. (It was Java, right?) Once the API has been released for public use, it is a standard and fair use to copy the portions that are required for use of that standard. It's also permitted by the license of the copyright implied by the release of the API as a standard.

Make it cost prohibitive to get a license

I'd have it scale with the number of works that a copyright owner seeks to claim in notices of claimed infringement, such as 35 USD for a copyright registration on a work or a set of works published in a collection. This way both small-time individual authors and big-time work-made-for-hire publishers pay appropriate fees.

Make it cost prohibitive to get a license

I'd have it scale with the number of works that a copyright owner seeks to claim in notices of claimed infringement, such as 35 USD for a copyright registration on a work or a set of works published in a collection. This way both small-time individual authors and big-time work-made-for-hire publishers pay appropriate fees.

For most laypersons, it's not a problem because they'll never be in a position to produce copyright works.

What? Everything you create is covered by copyright.

Au contraire, not everything that someone creates is covered by copyright. To be eligible for copyright, it has to be original, non-trivial, and not a compilation of facts such as a list of names and addresses. And then there's the stuff that people "create" that someone else already did - hence the expression "great minds think alike."

It also has to be fixed in some medium.

A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. 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.

Only to the extent that artwork contains non-utilitarian aspects is it protected. The rest isn't. So if the artwork is strictly utilitarian, it isn't eligible for copyright, even if it took you 1,000 hours to create it:

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

Also, inventions, while an exercise in creativity, are not copyrightable - hence patents. Nor is stuff protected by copyright if it is subject to fair use provisions.

Also, you can't claim copyright on work you did for hire - that resides with the entity that paid you, and only to the extent that it is subject matter fit to copyright.

So no, not everything you create is covered by copyright, and that's a good thing, or there really would be quite the chilling effect on creativity.

You're assuming that sound recordings are treated in the same manner as other copyrighted works. They're not. Read up on pre-1972 sound recordings. They're covered by a messy patchwork of state laws, with the result that probably neither you nor I nor anyone here can know exactly how long those recordings are protected by copyright law.

Welcome to the wacky world of intellectual property.

No musical recordings have entered the public domain due to expiration of copyright. Ever. When the U.S. Congress expanded copyright to sound recordings in 1972, it allowed existing sound recording copyright laws at the state level, some of which provide for a perpetual term, to continue for one full work-made-for-hire copyright term. This means all sound recordings produced before 1972 are under copyright in at least one U.S. state until 2067 (17 USC 301(c)). If the songs were first published on or after January 1, 1923, the songs are not in the public domain in the United States. If at least one songwriter was surviving on or after January 1, 1944, the songs are not in the public domain in the European Union.

That's because games themselves are eligible for very limited IP protections.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/f...

Speaking for U.S. law, you understand copyright wrong. The fair use doctrine allows for use of copyrighted works for the purpose of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research".

Part of the criteria for determining if use of a copyrighted work is fair use includes the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", so, for example, if I were to post a Vine video of a goal, along with commentary like "Manchester United played a great game today, with three goals including this exciting one by Bob Smith", then I am (your pick) commenting, critiquing, or reporting on the entire hour and a half game, while posting a five second clip of that game. In the U.S., that is clearly fair use unless the other side's lawyers have more money than you do.

I realize this story is about England, but I'm relatively certain that every Slashdot commenter including the parent is discussing this in terms of U.S. law, so I did as well.

(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 use described is non commercial, a video of unplanned events, a tiny and non-substantial portion of the whole, and will not in any way reduce the value of the copyrighted material.

In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.

From , any infringement that is not willful for one. For example, Ameriprise here. They had good reason to believe that they were within their rights to distribute the software, and it turns out they didn't. They did nothing criminal.

In common practice against corporations, maybe, but there are absolutely criminal penalties to be had.

> IANAL

If you were a lawyer, you might start by reading the law (statute).
  102 . Subject matter of copyright: In general ...
  b) In no case does copyright protection ... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery
from http://www.copyright.gov/title...

Also 499 U.S. 340, 345 "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates."

If the wording of the statutes are unclear, you would look at how the court has interpreted it. Feist v Rural was a Supreme Court case in which someone made an unauthorized copy of somebody else's phone directory. A list of phone numbers is simply facts, not a work of original authorship, the defendant claimed, and the court agreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The court ruled "In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

Unless the plaintiffs are suing under a theory based on section 1003 of that chapter, which obligates manufacturers of a "digital audio recording device" or "digital audio recording medium" to pay a royalty despite not infringing copyright. That's 2 percent of the price of the device (minimum $1, maximum $8) plus 3 percent of the cost of the medium.

The Act reads:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

The Act defines a "digital musical recording" as:

(5)(A) A “digital musical recording” is a material object —

(i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions incidental to those fixed sounds, if any, and

(ii) from which the sounds and material can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

http://www.copyright.gov/title...

That Exemption was specifically to allow for home taping from CD to DAT and Minidisks, so it seems appropriate here.