Slashdot Mirror

Certainly the movie studios are obnoxiously attempting to prevent format-shifting, in order to sell you the same movie twice. But that doesn't mean they are violating any of your rights.

Wrong. See USC title 17 sections 107 thru 109.

Standard Disclaimer: IANAL -- By United States Copyright law, and I believe the laws of all signees of the Berne Convention (163 nations), a work is "copyrighted" the instant it is recorded in some tangible form. There is no need for it to be registered with any legal body. The United States Copyright Office does offer a registration service, but it's more a matter of convenience than of necessity.

Now, a sixteen digit hexidecimal number almost certainly fails to meet the minimum requirements for novelty and authorship (whatever the hell such qualities are referred to legally) and thus is not under the protection of copyright. However, the distribution of encryption codes undoubtedly falls afoul of the draconion terms of the DMCA, which has basically nothing to do with copyright.

The US Copyright Office runs a fairly informative website that's well worth the 10 or so minutes it takes to skim --> http://www.copyright.gov/

• copywrite vt. to create (promotional text). See Copywriting on Wikipedia.
• copyright vt. to secure exclusive rights in the expression of (a work of authorship). See Copyright on Wikipedia.

You have a source for that assertion? As I understand the system, SoundExchange are not legally permitted to tie you to a contract: they must license music to you if you meet the requirements of USC Title 17 Section 114 (d) (2). Basically, you provide a list of everything you want to license to SoundExchange after having played them, and if you meet the requirements they are obliged to license them to you for the standardised fee. If you've licensed some of your playlist via alternate means, you merely have to omit those entries from the list you provide to them, and you won't be charged for them.

Of course, licensing per hour of play is also available. This may be what you're refering to, as it works out substantially easier because you don't have to provide a complete listing of everything you've played every month. The options are:

$0.000762 per listener per performance, except that 4% of performances shall bear no royalty. Based on 15 tracks per hour, this would equate to $0.00109728 per listener per hour.
Or $0.0117 per listener per hour for predominantly music-based programming. Slightly more expensive, but much easier to manage.
Minimum charge $500 p/a (reached in 1 year of 24 hour per day programming with an average of 52 listeners).

A broadcaster that wanted to play a significant proportion of independent tracks would find the first option more appealing, I suspect, as long as they had more than those 52 average listeners. So, yes, what you're saying is effectively right for very small broadcasters, although it has nothing to do with contractual obligations, it is merely a matter of economics. While the broadcaster could not list the track on their submission to SoundExchange and therefore effectively not pay the RIAA for it, the RIAA would get the money via the minimum charge anyway.

But none of this applies in the slightest to what TFA was talking about, which is broadcasters that choose only to deal with independent artists. This is still viable.

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legaly the user should be given carteblanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk.

• 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

If I join SoundExchange can I still negotiate a license with a webcaster if I want to?

  Yes. Although membership in SoundExchange prohibits you from licensing your sound recording copyrights to another royalty collective for purposes of collecting and distributing Sections 112 and 114 statutory royalties on your behalf, your membership in SoundExchange does not in any way limit your ability to enter into direct (i.e., nonstatutory) licenses of any sound recordings that you own, whether with webcasters or other potential statutory licensees. SoundExchange simply requires that SRCOs notify it of any direct licenses entered into with statutory licensees or digital music service providers so that it can ensure that payments received from services that hold direct licenses to certain recordings are calculated correctly and allocated properly.

(vii) phonorecords of the sound recording have been distributed to the public under the authority of the copyright owner or the copyright owner authorizes the transmitting entity to transmit the sound recording, and the transmitting entity makes the transmission from a phonorecord lawfully made under the authority of the copyright owner, except that the requirement of this clause shall not apply to a retransmission of a broadcast transmission by a transmitting entity that does not have the right or ability to control the programming of the broadcast transmission, unless the transmitting entity is given notice in writing by the copyright owner of the sound recording that the broadcast station makes broadcast transmissions that regularly violate such requirement;

not quite: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

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

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

>The specific rights we were discussing

I was not talking specifically or only about the USA copyright law, I was talking about copyright in general.

>are granted by http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
>which is definitely part of copyright law in the USA.

Which are only limitations on the exclusivness of specific rights. The law still tells about the ri ghts the copyright holders got and leave everything else for anyone to do. It doesn't list the "rights" of non copyright holders. Thus when you said that copyright law doesn't list what rights users has is in fact right, copyright law, as I replied, are not listing rights users has and then if something is not listed (everything else), it is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, it is the other way arround.

Your example above is not any different, it is only a limitation of the exclusive right given to the copyright holder, not list of rights the user has.

>Another nice example is fair-use.

No, fair-use is not rights given to the users, it is listing conditions were the exclusivenss given to copyright holders doesn't apply. That is, it tells when something you do would otherwise have been a copyrigth infringement is not. It is again a limitations on the exclusiveness of the rights given to the copyright holder. Just because something doesn't fulfill the requirements of the fair use tests (which exists in various forms in many countries) doesn't mean it is a copyright infringement and you can't do it. The action must to start with have been one that was given as a right to the copyright holder.

The point I try to make is that copyright law tells in various ways what rights the copyright holder has, everything else is free for anyone. If you can't find about something in the copyright law, it is by default OK and not infringing. Not the other way arround.

>In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights
>to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private
>copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.

They are limitations of the rights of the copyright holder. They are not completel lists of rights the users has. On the other hand, the copyright law gives complete listing of the rights of the copyright holder, anything else is free to do by anyone.

You may argue it is a "right" of the users but the reason is that it is not copyright infrinement because it is NOT given as a right to the copyright holder. And the danger of looking at it as if the copyright law doesn't say specifically a user can do something, it is infringement is wrong, becase that is not how copyright law is written and constructed, which was my point.

>One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to
>exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder,
>but effectively that is the same thing in this case.

Agreed, we should not end up discussing the semantics or meaning of the worlds, but what I feel is important as I mentioned above is to note that the copyright law completely lists what the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has when it comes to rights. It is a complete list of their rights (sometimes expressed as exceptions or rights of the users to restrict). If not listed, the copyright hodler doesn't have control or exclusivness in it. It does however not have any completel lists of what "rights" users have or what users can do. It is the other way arround, if not listed as a right of the copyright holder, then a user can do it. Hence why I objected to your statement that "but not to
the rights that users have.".

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. -- http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html #mywork

Copyright tends to work not by telling what "users" can do, but rather what they can't do (by giving those things as exclusive to the copyright holder). Everything else is not covered or regulated by copyright law.

"tends to", yes, but thats not the whole story.

The specific rights we were discussing are granted by http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 which is definitely part of copyright law in the USA.

Another nice example is fair-use.

Both provide exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and by that also provide certain rights to owners of a copy.

This is for the USA.

In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.

I'm not very familiar with the laws of other parts of the world, but I bet that somewhat similar provisions exist in many places.

One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder, but effectively that is the same thing in this case.

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

Specifically:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.


If copying into RAM for the purpose of using the program is a reproduction or not is an interesting detail, but if it is a reproduction then it still is one explicitly allowed by law (just like there are some other cases of reproduction which while being a reproduction are still not a violation of copyright law)

The text you refered to is an interesting read, but is mostly stating that faulty defense is to blame for cases that have been lost over this. There are problems with title 117, esp. when looking at fixed disks and such, but the copying into RAM for the purpose of using a program is pretty clear I'd say.

Since running the program makes a copy of it in computer memory and since the user does not have permission to do so, that copy in memory is an infringement.

At least in the USA, it is not copyright infringement to copy software for the purpose of using it. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or...

> No, it's not theft, and there is a legal precedence that backs this up. Stop spouting idiotic bullshit.

> United States Copyright Law:
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501

Obviously congress confuses "theft" with "copyright violation" too, just look at how they name their laws (search for "theft" in the above reference).

[...]
  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, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
[...]

Well, exactly. For a mere $45, you too can receive a License to Pretext.

So I since I own the copyright to this post, I should be free of restrictions against pretexting?

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."

From www.copyright.gov Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?

I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?

I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

When it is accompanied by a copyright notice? Was copyright information included in the digital audio metatags?

I would think that if the answer is "no", then copyright does not apply.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

Notice of Copyright The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works. Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

You don't have to be a lawyer, and you are mistaken - just look at the Copyright Office website. Simply creating a work in fixed form copyrights it. If you want to be able to prove it in court later that you are the creator of said work, however, it's best to register your copyrights with the Library of Congress. It used to be that you were required to put a copyright notice on your works lest you could lose the copyright, but that's no longer true.

You don't have to be a lawyer, and you are mistaken - just look at the Copyright Office website. Simply creating a work in fixed form copyrights it. If you want to be able to prove it in court later that you are the creator of said work, however, it's best to register your copyrights with the Library of Congress. It used to be that you were required to put a copyright notice on your works lest you could lose the copyright, but that's no longer true.

Tell me, why is copyright infringement prosecuted while fair use violations are OK? Why isn't there a thing such as "fair-use infringement?" If I can infringe on someone's ability to copy a work why can't they infringe upon my right to fairly use it? Basically DRM is like making your own set of copyright laws and change them whenever it strikes your fancy. In fact I would go to say that DRM imposes anti-competitive, even criminal restrictions on market transactions. Big media companies make a standard and impose it on all their members and then anybody that wants to participate in the market has to pay huge fees to these conglomerations. So indeed these are wonderful innovations. I just wish some people would read the innovation called the Constitution once in a while...you know..the people that keep trying to modify it.

I can't remember where I read that some RIAA exec said that downloading music is not a form of free speech or civil disobedience. Oh yeah? Yes it is. It just became both since what I just said was ILLEGAL.

Oh and just a reminder, 1984 is copyrighted until 2044.

To start, IANAL.

Why does there need to be a precedent? The DMCA as written already exempts ISPs as long as they remove content when it is identified by the copyright holder.

See Title 17 Section 512 (c), particularly subsections (1), which outlines when an ISP can not be held liable, and (3), which outlines the steps that a content producer must take to notify the ISP for removal.

But follow your own link. You DO have to register your copyright to sue, and in order to receive statutory (as opposed to compensatory) damages, the registration must be within three months of publication, or prior to the infringement of the work.

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death.

In the USA, it means sending a copy to the Library of Congress

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

IANAL, but I do have a strong background in communications law. What I said was not a vague analogy. I'm fairly certain you can find plenty of legal precedent that you do not implicitly have the right to alter something that you are renting. Further, I'm not suggesting that a company renting a box shouldn't be held to the license. I'm suggesting that the legal definitions of "transfer" and "distribute" are not what you seem to think they are.

In particular, I would point you to the WIPO Copyright Treaty. I believe that we are a signatory state. It explicitly does not recognize the authority of the copyright owner to place restrictions upon (and profit from) the rental of computer software on embedded systems. "Paragraph (1) shall not apply: (i) in the case of computer programs, where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental...".

Based on that, I would contend that, in fact, rented hardware is still treated as though it were in the possession of the renter. In every other form of property law, this is also the case, as far as I am aware. As such, in cases of embedded software on a rented hardware device, it is my studied opinion that the GPL would have no legal teeth whatsoever in this matter because the software has not, in fact, been distributed, sublicensed, or transferred to a third party.

If you can show statutes or case law that contradict that assertion, I would invite you to do so.

Sigh... I posted this as AC, but got modded flamebait... so, here it goes again. In some cases copyright infringement is already criminal according to US Code Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 506.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

The punishments violating the above mentioned code are as listed below:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

So can we *please* stop pushing the myth that copyright infringement is a strictly "civil" offense. It just isn't, no matter how much people say it. I've pasted the actual punishments below.

  2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright

(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
(d)
(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;
(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and
(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.
(e) As used in this section--
(1) the terms "phonorecord" and "copies" have, respectively, the meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17; and
(2) the terms "reproduction" and "distribution" refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1) and (3) respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17.

Some copyright infringement is already criminal... People on slashdot seem to think otherwise, in ignorance of the law. Please see:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

That's USC Title 17 Chapter 5, Section 506. Thank you all for not perpetuating myths.

Andrew

He also argues that putting the onus of spotting infringement onto the content providers represents an undue burden on them.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

  506. Criminal offenses5
(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,

I bet that many of those cited easily meet the 180 day / $1000 threshold. And, all those who deal in P2P pass both the reproduction and distribution criteria.

Please understand that copyright infringement *can* be a criminal offense before posting such idiocy. I'm tired of hearing the same old argument: "Copyright infringement is a civil offense.", it isn't. Please read USC Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506 "Criminal offenses". Of course, this is slashdot, so who gives a flying fsck about something as stupid as actual facts. Go ahead, mod me down, you'll still be wrong. At least try google before posting such bald faced assertions.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Andrew

The DMCA requires it for the exemption top liability in most cases.

You need to Provide the copyright office with your information so they can list it and you need to make it generally known so if someone find something infringing, you can be contacted and given the opportunity to remove the problem.

Make sure you have you bases covered before the belong to US.

We may have a long way to go, but it is worthwhile to take notes on this now, so when the FTC request for public comment regarding the DMCA happens again in 2009, we will be ready.

HTH NE1 wrote: If the amount copied is irrelevant to fair use, then one should be able to point to instances of complete verbatim copying of works that were still declared as fair use. These days they deny that even for educational purposes.

Actually, one can point out such instances. It is generally regarded as permissible, if one is a teacher in a non-profit institution, to copy an entire article or short story for one's own research or class preparation. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

First, the DMCA actually says, clearly, that it protects storage (and that's it). Not public performance, not transformation or derivative works. See Section 512(c)(1) - which follows sections that protect transitory communications and caching.

"A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider . . . " has no knowledge of the infringing activity"

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512/

Second, in all intellectual property law, with these narrow exceptions, it's the obligation of the user, not the IP owner, to observe the rights. It's not fair to keep the benefit (running the site) and impose the cost (policing the site) on someone else. If someone drives their car over your front lawn, they don't blame you for not having a fence.

Third, although automatic filtering may not be perfect, it exists and is pretty good. After all, that's what the copyright owner has to do - search and match (and send a takedown notice). Worse, unlike YouTube, the copyright owner has to get beyond confidentiality (videos available only to friends) and scale (youtube already has stored its entire database, it also could search only the uploads for a day, rather than the entire site). In fact, MySpace is employing filtering from Audible Magic; there are a number of other vendors with scale. These work by asking copyright owners to upload their content to a database so that the filter can do a match. If Google wants to be even more helpful, it could implement a watermark detector - an electronic tag if you will. I'm sure copyright owners would be happy to embed the code in their material if it allows the automatic detection.

So Viacom's not "shifting" responsibility, but just insisting that responsibility be where the law requires and where it makes the most sense

Unfortunately, the Internet Archive is not a library, and US copyright law already deals (explicitly) with caching and networks: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

If the proxies are acting properly, and respecting the caching functions of HTTP, they're doing nothing wrong.

If you want to discuss this further, please review http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 (512 (b) specifically) first.

Fine, don't believe me. Read the law yourself or talk to a lawyer: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider's designated agent.

DMCA Text

I believe you are wrong. Almost right, but wrong.

You can't copyright an algorithm. That would fall under patent law as it is simply an idea.

You can copyright the code, comments included, as it is an expression of an idea.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.html

http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

So, essentially, if I like what your computer program does, I can certainly write my own that does the same thing. I cannot, however, use your code even if I have access to it.

And no matter how good your spec is, my interpretation in code does not "have to be written" in a certain way.

for(x=0;x9;x++); ...
x=0; while(x9) x++; ...
int count_to_ten(int n) {
    if (n 9)
        n = count_to_ten(n++);
    return n;
} ...
x = new awesome_number_class;
x.count_to_ten(); ...
10 X = 0
20 X = X + 1
30 IF X 9 THEN
40 GOTO 20
50 END IF ...
do
    x = x + 1
loop until x = 9

Oh, you mean like this?: "17 USC 1008 bars copyright infringement action and 17 USC 1003 provides for a royalty of 3% of the initial transfer price. The royalty rate in Section 1004 was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy# United_States And: "(4)(A) A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device. (B) Such term does not include any material object - (i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or (ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases." Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html

If anybody's interested, here's the relevant section of US copyright law [copyright.gov] that covers criminal infringement and penalties. With the bar being only $1K retail value, it's pretty easy for your average kid with a share directory to cross into criminal territory

Actually you underestimate that law.

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

Note that the $1000 minimum only applies to part (2). Part (1) has no such limit.

Criminalizing infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain sounds reasonable.... criminal copyright penalties were established to address genuine commercial piracy enterprises that may still be economically attractive and viable even in the face of purely financial civil damages.

However the N.E.T. act contained a trick. (Legislation often contains hidden legal gotchyas when you have industry lawyers literally writing the text of bills.) The N.E.T. act slipped another clause into section 101 (re)definition of legal terms. In particular it adds teh (re)definition:

The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

So the new CRIMINAL copyright infringement penalties.... penalties intended to apply only to genuine commercial piracy enterprises... they apply when you receive or expect to receive other copyrighted works. In other words, CRIMINAL penalties and PRISON SENTENCES apply if you infringe so much as a single copyright on a single file with $zero dollar value, if you also receive or expect to receive any other copyrighted work. And anyone who uses P2P at all does receive or expect to receive other copyrighted works.

So effectively anyone who has ever used P2P is automatically GUILTY OF CRIMINAL copyright infringement and faces up to a year in prison... anyone who has used P2P and infringed "1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500" is a felon facing up to 5 years in prison. Up to ten years on a second offense... even if both the first and second offense were for a single file with $zero dollar value.

A very substantial percentage of the entire US population is guilty of criminal copyright infringement and is by law supposed to be in prison right now. Many millions of felons. If this law were to actually be fully enforced and all of violators imprisoned, the entire nation would grind to a halt instantly. If this law were to actually be enforced the entire government would be literally overthrown by an outraged population... an overthrow that would happen within a two-digit measure of hours.

-

"For reasons of fairness, people also need to be taught that it's not a crime -- it is a tort (which has a victim by definition). Since it's a tort, it is up to the victim, not the police, to enforce this law."

In the United states, it's both. This is what the "severe civil and criminal penalties" phrase means on the FBI warnings on DVDs, but I'm guessing most people reading this get their movies via BT with the FBI warning redacted.

If anybody's interested, here's the relevant section of US copyright law that covers criminal infringement and penalties. With the bar being only $1K retail value, it's pretty easy for your average kid with a share directory to cross into criminal territory (that's only a thousand songs) but so far, copyright holders have limited themselves to civil suits in the case of garden variety file sharers.

The police can and do enforce S506, but it's typically for instances where the infringement is north of $50K or so. News of criminal convictions shows up on Slashdot from time to time.

When you're talking about releasing source that may violate the DMCA, I'd argue that intent is slightly different from what the law describes as primary design. A judge is going to look at how that code is likely to be used. You can intend all you want for the code to be used for research but if it is easy for pirates to use, you're in trouble, because a judge will see that as its primary purpose. In several places in the DMCA you'll see the phrase:

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection

So the comment about RSA could be correct, for example, if they were releasing a general-purpose demonstration of a weakness in AES to security researchers. Their primary purpose would be protecting people from a vulnerability, esp since AES is a U.S. government-approved standard. Maybe the tool could be used to decrypt an HD-DVD with some modification and technical knowledge.

If I release a tool that handles AES in such a way that I can decrypt HD-DVDs in a drag & drop fashion, well, that's primarily designed to circumvent protection.

IANAL but 17 U.S.C. 1201 is fairly clear on this.