Slashdot Mirror

Under US copyright law, Microsoft can buy Linux CD/DVDs from any legal distributor (in this case, Novell) and sell it to others without ever agreeing to the GPL3.

See: Title 17 Section 109 Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord.

I believe that under US Copyright law, if you are going to perform another artist's work you pay a default compulsory license fee set by law (unless you strike a separate deal with the original composer) which is from about 2 cents to about 10 cents per song.(See http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html (setting out compulsory license rates)) That means if you play a dozen of your own songs and a dozen songs from other artists you will have to pay a compulsory license fee of a grand total of about $1.00 U.S. This is how composers and other artists are compensated for their work. Its not the end of free speech, its the government's way of "promot[ing] the progress of the sciences and useful arts" (Article 1, section 8 U.S. Constitution.) Of course its not perfect, but its rationally based on the concept that allowing artists to be compensated for their work will ultimately increase the overall amount of new works being produced. Plus it is consistent with the basic idea that people should be compensated for their work product--in this case the songs that an artist wrote. I find it a bit annoying that people seem to feel a sense of entitlement to use another's work (e.g. a composed work, a program, etc.) without permission from or payment to that person. Don't get me wrong--open source is great IF everyone wants it that way. But you can't just take someone else's work product and decide for yourself you are going to make it open source, public domain, whatever. The alternative to paying the fee is simple of course--come up with your own works.

It's illegal to photocopy and distribute even sections from copyrighted books or music, even in a classroom environment.

Fair use. Maybe you've heard of it.

You are wrong. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992* allows for analog and digital copying of copyrighted audio works for home use without any copyright protection.

The right to backup and/or change the medium of a copyrighted work is protected under fair use...

There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.

I looked at your link, and all I got from it was that you can't download or upload from P2P networks legally.

Ripping something you've bought is fair use, and perfectly legal in the US. Now the DMCA makes ripping movies with copyright protection on them more complicated, since technically it is illegal to circumvent this protection.

Or is it illegal to download a movie (or a song) no matter what?

...(as in, is there a difference between ripping a movie yourself and downloading a copy of it?)

Yes, we get to blamne the DMCA again. See title 17 of the US Code, Section 114(f) 5A.

Section 114 allows the Copyright Office to designate a receiving agent for those who have not registered a receiving agent with the Copyright Office.

Copyright law doesn't extend to the rules of a game, just the artwork, etc. - the "tangibles."

For the disbelievers, here's what the U.S. Copyright oOfice has to say about games:

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

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

You can make your own version of Bejeweled, right down to the name. You can't copy the logo artwork (they can register the logo) or the game images - you're on your own there. Popcap ought to pop a few 'ludes before they pop a gasket.

But nevertheless, it is still a crime

they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.

But nevertheless, it is still a crime

they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.

The question is, what's a "performance." The RIAA, et al, want it defined as broadly as possible, so that they can collect royalties from every transfer of a copyrighted work from person to person. Prior to 1995, transferring music over the Internet wasn't necessarily a 'performance' subject to royalties. It was treated just like regular radio, where no royalties are necessary. The decision to make digital broadcasting subject to royalties, separating it from conventional broadcasting, was not accidental. (See Section 106 of the Copyright Act; they single out 'digital broadcasting' specifically, putting it in with CD sales, and not with regular broadcasting.) If you remember back to 1995, the reasons for this are obvious: the music lobby was terrified of anything digital, and was fighting it tooth and nail. This legislation was bought and paid for by the RIAA and the other record companies.

Anyway, as to your other point, streaming a few hundred channels of music really isn't that hard. You need a lot of bandwidth, sure, at least at peak times, but if you do it right it's a reasonable cost and can be carefully balanced against revenue sources. Lots of one-man websites do it every day. (It's not like you need a lot of personnel to run an internet radio channel, you essentially just need to make up the playlist -- many of them don't have live DJs or anything.) The key difference between the terrestrial broadcasting market and the Internet one is the barriers to entry -- anyone with a few thousand dollars in capital could set up an Internet 'radio' station and start attracting listeners -- do well and you can be producing many channels, each with only a few listeners (remember -- it doesn't take any more bandwidth, really, for each listener to have a different stream); starting a new terrestrial radio station costs millions, and that's if you can buy the spectrum at all (and obviously you can forget about customized radio on using traditional technology -- the spectrum is too crowded and expensive).

The effect -- in my opinion, the sole purpose -- of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act is to make the cost of entering the Internet broadcasting market just as prohibitive as the terrestrial one.

17 USC 114(d)(1)(A) exempts "a nonsubscription broadcast transmission" from the exclusive right under section 106(6). I would assume that "broadcast" is defined as a radio transmission licensed by the FCC, not a packet stream sent to IPv4 address x.x.x.255.

I was also curious about the comment mentioning the Audio Home Recording Act. It looks like that would still probably not make this mix CD legal (but then IANAL). The text of the relevant portion of the U.S.C. is here. The apparently revelant portion of the statue (Sect 1008) says:

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.

An analysis from what looks to be a University law journal is available here. From that piece (under the section on the Audio Home Recording Act):

In 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act ("AHRA"), an amendment to the federal copyright law. Under the AHRA, all digital recording devices must incorporate a Serial Copy Management System ("SCMS"). This system allows digital recorders to make a first-generation copy of a digitally recorded work, but does not allow a second-generation copy to be made from the first copy... The AHRA also provides for a royalty tax...This tax is paid by the manufacturers of digital media devices...The SCMS and royalty requirements apply only to digital audio recording devices. Because computers are not digital audio recording devices, they are not required to comply with Serial Copy Management System requirement.

So apparently, at least in that author's opinion, PCs don't qualify as digital audio devices (and if you read Sect. 1001 of the statue you'll see that indeed seems to be the case) and hence are not covered on the exemption given by the AHRA. I'm not offering an opinion on the law, because I don't know enough about copyright law (especially case law), but it looks like based on this other source that commentor's assertion that the AHRA protects the mix CD is questionable at best.

I'm not sure how kosher this change is in terms of the fair use laws (not limited to the US) or the archiving law

plus the Finnish courts have ruled that a DVD's protection scheme is ineffective. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/052807-finn ish-court-rules-dvd-drm.html?inform)

I'm not sure how kosher this change is in terms of the fair use laws (not limited to the US) or the archiving law

plus the Finnish courts have ruled that a DVD's protection scheme is ineffective. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/052807-finn ish-court-rules-dvd-drm.html?inform)

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

"if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space"

So if you set up a sound system that can scale to a larger venue, you can be considered to be intentionally broadcasting it. Putting data in an explicitly shared would be considered analogous to that.

These 'gray lines' people like to jump on in terms of real-world analogies have been recognized and answered in law already. You can probably reasonably tell whether the person's share was intentional or incidental (most modern OSes and large-scale networks make it hard to accidentally share data such that people can get it without circumventing or bypassing a mechanism meant to prevent it). If his directory was by default world readable, there is a fair argument he was using it for his own purposes never realizing the world could get at it. If he put it in something like public_html, it's hard to argue that he didn't mean it. In which case, public_html would be like putting a few hundred speakers throughout a town and playing the music, and then claiming you didn't mean for anyone but you to hear it.

I don't know where the boundary is, but after a certain dollar amount, it becomes a criminal matter.

If the copyrighted works have at least $1000 retail value, it is criminal infringement.

No, you don't. This is wrong, at least in the US. Copyright law explicitly allows transient copies made by the owner of a copy of a computer program, as long as those copies are "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program". See Title 17, paragraph 117, part (a)(1) of the US Code. It also explicitly allows you to make backups.

As long as you acquired the copy legally, you are the owner of the copy and you're entitled to use it all you like.

Unless Microsoft has managed to get you to agree to some other contract, yes you absolutely do have the right to use it under the law.

This is exactly why F/LOSS software shouldn't require the user to agree to a license. It perpetuates an incorrect idea that MS and all other EULA-proffering companies would love to be true. F/LOSS apps should take the opportunity to show users that it doesn't have to be that way. Rather than display a license and ask the user to agree to it, I think F/LOSS apps should display a simple statement of like "You are free to use this program in any way you like, with no limitations. You are also free to give copies of it to others, with some small restrictions. Click here for more information.", and the dialog should have a button labelled "Continue", rather than "Accept" or "Ok". Finally, the link in the text should bring up another dialog with a brief, one-paragraph layman's description of the terms, followed by the text of the actual license.

The expression of a recipe may be copyrightable, but the method it describes is not, and even if a particular expression is copyrightable, that won't preclude other people from expressing the same recipe.

Actually the courts have held that even the particular expression of a recipe is not copyrightable. They said that the format of a recipe is so well-define, and so brief, that there is absolutely no creativity in the layout or formatting, the only creativity is in the recipe itself. And while that could be copyrightable if Congress wished to do so, it is not actually protected under any law right now. (Much like, for example, boat hulls were not protected until recently.)

At least, that's what the courts have said. The copyright office is still in denial about it, with the idea that 'where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions' it is copyrightable, but, sadly for that theory, the courts have held directions like 'Stir until smooth, then pour in butter, continuing to stir.' are not 'substantial literary expressions'. Recipes, as commonly written have two parts, a list of ingredients, which isn't copyrightable in any form, and a very very simple list of things to do with the ingredients, which has no 'literary expression'. 'Do this, do that, do the next thing' simply cannot assert any sort of creativity, especially with the limited vocabulary of recipes..

Now, if there's a description of the finished dish, or a story behind the recipe, or an image of the finished dish or any of the steps, or anything like that, you have to be careful and not copy any of those, but that's not really part of the 'recipe' to start with.

Also, there is some sort of trivial protection for collections of non-copyrighted work, so copying an entire recipe book and distributing it whole might be actionable. But who knows?

As for patents, patents have to be a useful progression of science, and the courts have held that 'a method to make a certain food' is not 'original'. The patent office may seem to be very stupid at times, but they realized that almost every that can be done with food has been done with food in some way or another. This, in theory, means if you could demonstrate that you just invented something (like forced injection of carbon dioxide into drinks), you could possibly patent it, although in actuality this tends not to happen.

Under copyright law, merely transcribing a song by ear (even without sending it to a website) is copyright infringement.

I'm fairly certain this is untrue, or at least I would appreciate it if you could provide some support to this statement. Such activities are clearly spelled out as infringement if and only if the transcription is sold. I have no doubt that publishing companies and mechanical rights organizations would like us to believe otherwise, but it's simply not true.

It's all right Copyright here

No I'm not.

Owning copyright on Mickey Mouse gives me copyright on all derivatives of Mickey Mouse as they are based on my original idea. Actually, I'm the only one who can make derivatives since I own the copyright to the original.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

Looks like I'm not the one who needs to study.

I brought up trademarks because they represent a separate threat in addition to copyright violation.
To reiterate my Spider-man example, here is the trademark registration for Spider-man:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6 d0u0u.2.14
Now if you use the term Spider-man to reference a comic strip character without getting the thumbs up from Marvel, you are open for trouble of the legal variety.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you read the portion of the US Copyright Law that pertains to fair use.

yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].

Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!

According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+in tent.html
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.

the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.

I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.

What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.

And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.

As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.

If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.

According to copyright.gov the law states, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." This states specifically that the federal government may not receive copyright for works it creates, but it does not deny states the right to receive copyright protection for works they create. The real question is if the video is considered creative enough to warrant copyright protection (in my opinion it's clear that it isn't creative in the slightest).

Backup of computer software is, at least in the United States. It's even spelled out in Title 17, Section 117.

Of course, music files and such are probably not considered computer programs by the law, plus circumventing DRM systems is a violation of copyright.

Backup of computer software is, at least in the United States. It's even spelled out in Title 17, Section 117.

Of course, music files and such are probably not considered computer programs by the law, plus circumventing DRM systems is a violation of copyright.

It wouldn't surprise me if Disney came at this from an entirely different direction.

How did the author obtain those clips? Hopefully he just recorded them off the TV. If he circumvented the Macrovision on a VHS tape or the CSS encryption on a DVD to obtain those clips couldn't Disney come after them for DMCA violations? I know that the DMCA has provisions for educational uses, but based on the parts of the DMCA which I have read they would only apply in the following event:

Every three years, the Librarian of Congress has to make a determination on whether persons who would like to use works in a non-infringing manor [ie. fair use] might be adversely affected by the protection schemes of the work stopping them from making use of the work.
Then the Librarian has to 'publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined' would apply in that situation. [See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html ]

So of the Librarian of Congress hasn't decided that Disney films might need to be used for non-infringing works, and published them for the current three year period, then from what I can tell, Disney would have the right to send a DMCA takedown notice, even though it is used for 'education' or 'critical' purposes, *IF* they believe that the author circumvented the protection schemes on VHS or DVD meda in order to obtain the clips they used.

Then again, I'm just some schmo posting on Slashdot from work. What the heck do I know? :)

What am I allowed to do with your perl code then? Where do you specify that?

You may run it. That's it. You have no other rights. I do not have specify that you have no other rights, since this is default position under the law. No other rights were explcitly granted, and no other rights may be infered. The right of execution can be reasonably infered, if it's not explcitly granted, because why would someone purchase a piece of software if they may not execute it? Collectors' value? I don't think so.

Where is it specified what I'm allowed to do with a piece of JavaScript stored on a publicly accessible HTTP server? At what point am I in violation of any inferred license? When I tune about:config to make the script less obnoxious? Running NoScript?

Legally, you must default to believing that the entire work is owned by the person/group running the website, and that they have full rights to their work and that you have none. They may grant you additional rights, but it's only prudent to take the most conservative posture when approaching a new work.

In your examples, you're not violating the copyright of the script, because you're not modifying the script itself. You're modifying the environment that the script executes in. The script owner has no rights over the execution environment. That is your domain. While you may not go through the code and remove all calls to "alert()", since that's modifying the code, you can simply disable the alert() call so that it doesn't actually do anything. The end effect is the same, alert boxes don't display, but technically, and, more importantly, legally they are distinctly different.

I'll grant you the redistribution aspect, because Copyright protects that, but Copyright doesn't say I can't add words to my copy of Alice in Wonderland.

Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. You can do anything you want to it.

I suspect that you were actually trying to pick a famous work that is still under copyright protection for your point. So let's assume that you want to add words to your copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

In this case it matters what the nature of the addition is. If you're simply writing "Trillian is teh hotness" in the margins, then that's fine. You're not modifying the work (i.e. the story) but rather the presentation (i.e. the physical book). "Trillian is teh hotness" would be your intellectual property, since you created it. Additionally, in the United States at least, it is automatically copyrighted to you upon its creation. You do not have to register this copyright at the US Copyright Office to enjoy protection of this work under the law. However, failure to register copyright may prevent you from receiving restitution if your copyright on "Trillian is teh hotness" is infringed. (i.e. You can sue to cease and desist the person making "Trillian is teh hotness" t-shirts, but you can't sue for money. (The money from the t-shirt sales probably would be forfitted to the government's general fund, but I don't know.)) Furthermore, you can even quote a small portion of the HGTTG as evidence of Trillian's "hotness." This is protected under fair use, since 1) it's a small amount, and 2) it's for commentary on an existing work.

Now, if you say changed Ford Prefect's name to "Ford Escort," you'd be violating the copyright. You have created a derivitive work, and that is explicitly forbidden under copyright law. Now, I'll grant you that if you're just marking up your own paperback copy of the book, no one will notice, and no one will care, but as a matter of law, you've commited a criminal act. The moment you attempt to distribute "Bill McGonigle's Edition" of HTTG, you've violated copyright three times. Once because you've created a derivative work without permission. Second, you're distributing a copyrighted work without permission. Third, you've created a "confusingly similar" work, which is

Titles are not copyrightable, so he's not a hypocrite in that regard. However, if a writer is indebted to Shakespeare and printing technology, then every writer in the Western hemisphere owes God a pretty penny for the Bible that provided all the moral themes that appear in many stories and being one of the most published book of the ages.

If Sony can legally appropriate your work, why would they pay you anything, even pennies?

Of the three things listed - only one has ever been considered (under the law) to be fair use. To wit: making backup copies. (C'mon, handing out mix tapes? That's distribution - that's distribution, which is about as blatant as copyright infringement comes.)

It's not that uncommon. Here in SC you have to pay to have access to the law. It is copyrighted and the state vigorously protects that copyright.

1) Paint a picture on your house. Heck, you could even just paint an interesting geometric design on it. Just make it interesting enough that people wouldn't laugh at you if you called it "artistic expression". Stick a copyright symbol on it somewhere. If you're feeling particularly zealous, take a picture of it and register for a copyright with the copyright office.

2) Identify company selling pictures of your house showing the picture or design you painted.

3) Sue them under the DMCA for selling pirated reproductions of your copyrighted "artistic work" (aka the paintjob on your house).

And tomorrow the number will be 301 ... The page has moved.

. . . protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully

It is interesting in the dissenting opinion of Eldred vs. Ashcroft this argument you are making here was reinforced. Justice Breyer in the dissenting opinion suggested that the constitution was explicit about the limited time clause and believed that Congress had stepped too far with the nearly perpetual copyright extensions. This opinion is one of the most reasoned judicial or legal arguments I have ever read that touches these issues, and certainly was much better than Lawence Lessig (even though Lessig did argue the case in chamber).

There was a hint in this and some of the testimony by other justices that this issue could be revisited again if copyright was extended yet again by Congress. Essentially, all that was really said was that the current copyright terms are acceptable but also served notice that members of the public were being harmed substantially by any further extentions.

Certainly this legal case together with a very different attitude toward copyright by those who were born after the baby boomers may make this a significant legal issue if legislation ever comes up again to extend or modify copyright.

No, actually you do not have to file anything.

From the US Federal Copyright website:

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright." - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

She is clearly critiquing said "work" and as she works in the, perhaps arguably, most pertinent industry I think she may be able to get off on fair use.

Not sold on the derivative part though, you can't just have original work in it, it 'must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material.' And since drivers licenses are 90% the same(only the text changes) I don't think it would hit. Plus since the states always change the text and pictures it probably wouldn't be considered new work as that is what the state always does with it.

Plus, presenting it as official from the state(aside from breaking laws) would imply you were not claiming copyright ownership of it, and thus it has been since relinquished.

Of course, there's no way it will ever go this far to explore any of these questions, so I'm just guessing here, although it should be pressed criminally, especially if she thinks she's "going places" because all those places have enough crooks who eventually get caught, and many who don't, and if you're gonna get caught before you even start you're not going anywhere.

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html Copyright office on derivative works.

the bottom line is: if you talk about how much you love gpl, then turn around and download spider-man 3, then you are a hypocrite. agree/disagree?

Actually, after reviewing http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 again, I suppose it's possible they could try to make a criminal case out of this, which certainly complicates things more than I, as an employee of this company, would probably be comfortable with. The only sane thing to do in this situation is refuse and document.

You seem to be confusing the broader concept of illegal (violating the law) with the distinction made between criminal and civil law. Something can be "against the law" but not criminal.

Also, copyright violation can, in some circumstances, be criminal. If the infringement is "willful" and the total value of the software exceeds $1000, the guy could be charged criminally.