Slashdot Mirror

You're seriously asking me what harm an infinite-length copyright term could do? That's a remarkably low bar to set. We'll examine the effects of automatically-renewed copyright terms of long, but not infinite, length here in the United States.

(Bear in mind that to seriously argue for infinite terms, you'd have to show harm to the culture that wouldn't occur if terms were only five hundred years long, for instance. And "it enriches their descendants" doesn't count; we have copyright to promote science and the useful arts. Congress can hand me a stack of Benjies for no particular reason, and that'd be "good" for me, but that doesn't make it good public policy, and it absolutely doesn't promote science and the useful arts.)

If you'd like an example of how current culture always makes use of the past, and how that past has been taken out of the hands of creators, there's an excellent presentation by Lawrence Lessig.

If you'd like numbers, see Public Knowledge's statistics that of the 3 million registered copyrights from 1923 to 1943, only 2% of them were commercially used in 1998. I think tossing 98% of our culture from that period down the memory hole is a terrible thing to do. (The Lessig presentation has a bit about the role of a noncommercial life for many works--most of the books on Project Gutenberg aren't sold any more, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Better to have them there than nowhere at all.)

If you'd like anecdotes, you can start with Save The Music's overview, then read anecdotes from researchers who had to change or abandon projects because there was no way to clear rights for orphan works, archivists and documentarians who can't use materials from companies that went out of business many years ago, or old folks who can't get their wedding photographs repaired if their kid tears them, or the Science Fiction/Fantasy Writers of America--hardly a bunch of Napster-licking college students--collecting anecdotes where the early pulp heritage of SF can't be reproduced or even preserved because early magazines folded, and no one knows who owns the copyright.

An Orphan Works system--or requiring copyright registration again--would address most of these concerns. But ironclad copyright of a century or more, let alone eternal copyright, is destructive madness which serves to enrich a few corporations at the expense of our culture at large, by locking up (until they turn to dust--essentially throwing away) any works which aren't commercially exploited any longer.

So, yeah, there's my evidence; the losses are far from being simply theoretical. Your house analogy is ridiculous for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread; no one short of Jack Valenti thinks that intellectual property should be administered the same way as physical property. You can read some of the Founders' thoughts on that. (As I keep saying, copyright is for the benefit of the culture at large; it rewards creators as an incentive to this end. It is, for this reason, a convenient abstraction, similar to physical property in name only.)

(Also, your distinction between "artistic" and "non-artistic" isn't the right one; you're thinking of creative and non-creative works. See Feist v. Rural; it's not your efforts that are copyrighted, but your creativity, once fixed in a tan

You're seriously asking me what harm an infinite-length copyright term could do? That's a remarkably low bar to set. We'll examine the effects of automatically-renewed copyright terms of long, but not infinite, length here in the United States.

(Bear in mind that to seriously argue for infinite terms, you'd have to show harm to the culture that wouldn't occur if terms were only five hundred years long, for instance. And "it enriches their descendants" doesn't count; we have copyright to promote science and the useful arts. Congress can hand me a stack of Benjies for no particular reason, and that'd be "good" for me, but that doesn't make it good public policy, and it absolutely doesn't promote science and the useful arts.)

If you'd like an example of how current culture always makes use of the past, and how that past has been taken out of the hands of creators, there's an excellent presentation by Lawrence Lessig.

If you'd like numbers, see Public Knowledge's statistics that of the 3 million registered copyrights from 1923 to 1943, only 2% of them were commercially used in 1998. I think tossing 98% of our culture from that period down the memory hole is a terrible thing to do. (The Lessig presentation has a bit about the role of a noncommercial life for many works--most of the books on Project Gutenberg aren't sold any more, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Better to have them there than nowhere at all.)

If you'd like anecdotes, you can start with Save The Music's overview, then read anecdotes from researchers who had to change or abandon projects because there was no way to clear rights for orphan works, archivists and documentarians who can't use materials from companies that went out of business many years ago, or old folks who can't get their wedding photographs repaired if their kid tears them, or the Science Fiction/Fantasy Writers of America--hardly a bunch of Napster-licking college students--collecting anecdotes where the early pulp heritage of SF can't be reproduced or even preserved because early magazines folded, and no one knows who owns the copyright.

An Orphan Works system--or requiring copyright registration again--would address most of these concerns. But ironclad copyright of a century or more, let alone eternal copyright, is destructive madness which serves to enrich a few corporations at the expense of our culture at large, by locking up (until they turn to dust--essentially throwing away) any works which aren't commercially exploited any longer.

So, yeah, there's my evidence; the losses are far from being simply theoretical. Your house analogy is ridiculous for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread; no one short of Jack Valenti thinks that intellectual property should be administered the same way as physical property. You can read some of the Founders' thoughts on that. (As I keep saying, copyright is for the benefit of the culture at large; it rewards creators as an incentive to this end. It is, for this reason, a convenient abstraction, similar to physical property in name only.)

(Also, your distinction between "artistic" and "non-artistic" isn't the right one; you're thinking of creative and non-creative works. See Feist v. Rural; it's not your efforts that are copyrighted, but your creativity, once fixed in a tan

You're seriously asking me what harm an infinite-length copyright term could do? That's a remarkably low bar to set. We'll examine the effects of automatically-renewed copyright terms of long, but not infinite, length here in the United States.

(Bear in mind that to seriously argue for infinite terms, you'd have to show harm to the culture that wouldn't occur if terms were only five hundred years long, for instance. And "it enriches their descendants" doesn't count; we have copyright to promote science and the useful arts. Congress can hand me a stack of Benjies for no particular reason, and that'd be "good" for me, but that doesn't make it good public policy, and it absolutely doesn't promote science and the useful arts.)

If you'd like an example of how current culture always makes use of the past, and how that past has been taken out of the hands of creators, there's an excellent presentation by Lawrence Lessig.

If you'd like numbers, see Public Knowledge's statistics that of the 3 million registered copyrights from 1923 to 1943, only 2% of them were commercially used in 1998. I think tossing 98% of our culture from that period down the memory hole is a terrible thing to do. (The Lessig presentation has a bit about the role of a noncommercial life for many works--most of the books on Project Gutenberg aren't sold any more, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Better to have them there than nowhere at all.)

If you'd like anecdotes, you can start with Save The Music's overview, then read anecdotes from researchers who had to change or abandon projects because there was no way to clear rights for orphan works, archivists and documentarians who can't use materials from companies that went out of business many years ago, or old folks who can't get their wedding photographs repaired if their kid tears them, or the Science Fiction/Fantasy Writers of America--hardly a bunch of Napster-licking college students--collecting anecdotes where the early pulp heritage of SF can't be reproduced or even preserved because early magazines folded, and no one knows who owns the copyright.

An Orphan Works system--or requiring copyright registration again--would address most of these concerns. But ironclad copyright of a century or more, let alone eternal copyright, is destructive madness which serves to enrich a few corporations at the expense of our culture at large, by locking up (until they turn to dust--essentially throwing away) any works which aren't commercially exploited any longer.

So, yeah, there's my evidence; the losses are far from being simply theoretical. Your house analogy is ridiculous for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread; no one short of Jack Valenti thinks that intellectual property should be administered the same way as physical property. You can read some of the Founders' thoughts on that. (As I keep saying, copyright is for the benefit of the culture at large; it rewards creators as an incentive to this end. It is, for this reason, a convenient abstraction, similar to physical property in name only.)

(Also, your distinction between "artistic" and "non-artistic" isn't the right one; you're thinking of creative and non-creative works. See Feist v. Rural; it's not your efforts that are copyrighted, but your creativity, once fixed in a tan

You're seriously asking me what harm an infinite-length copyright term could do? That's a remarkably low bar to set. We'll examine the effects of automatically-renewed copyright terms of long, but not infinite, length here in the United States.

(Bear in mind that to seriously argue for infinite terms, you'd have to show harm to the culture that wouldn't occur if terms were only five hundred years long, for instance. And "it enriches their descendants" doesn't count; we have copyright to promote science and the useful arts. Congress can hand me a stack of Benjies for no particular reason, and that'd be "good" for me, but that doesn't make it good public policy, and it absolutely doesn't promote science and the useful arts.)

If you'd like an example of how current culture always makes use of the past, and how that past has been taken out of the hands of creators, there's an excellent presentation by Lawrence Lessig.

If you'd like numbers, see Public Knowledge's statistics that of the 3 million registered copyrights from 1923 to 1943, only 2% of them were commercially used in 1998. I think tossing 98% of our culture from that period down the memory hole is a terrible thing to do. (The Lessig presentation has a bit about the role of a noncommercial life for many works--most of the books on Project Gutenberg aren't sold any more, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Better to have them there than nowhere at all.)

If you'd like anecdotes, you can start with Save The Music's overview, then read anecdotes from researchers who had to change or abandon projects because there was no way to clear rights for orphan works, archivists and documentarians who can't use materials from companies that went out of business many years ago, or old folks who can't get their wedding photographs repaired if their kid tears them, or the Science Fiction/Fantasy Writers of America--hardly a bunch of Napster-licking college students--collecting anecdotes where the early pulp heritage of SF can't be reproduced or even preserved because early magazines folded, and no one knows who owns the copyright.

An Orphan Works system--or requiring copyright registration again--would address most of these concerns. But ironclad copyright of a century or more, let alone eternal copyright, is destructive madness which serves to enrich a few corporations at the expense of our culture at large, by locking up (until they turn to dust--essentially throwing away) any works which aren't commercially exploited any longer.

So, yeah, there's my evidence; the losses are far from being simply theoretical. Your house analogy is ridiculous for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread; no one short of Jack Valenti thinks that intellectual property should be administered the same way as physical property. You can read some of the Founders' thoughts on that. (As I keep saying, copyright is for the benefit of the culture at large; it rewards creators as an incentive to this end. It is, for this reason, a convenient abstraction, similar to physical property in name only.)

(Also, your distinction between "artistic" and "non-artistic" isn't the right one; you're thinking of creative and non-creative works. See Feist v. Rural; it's not your efforts that are copyrighted, but your creativity, once fixed in a tan

And it is a civil violation which must be enforced by the copyright holder.

(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.

(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.

I'm enjoying the heck out of the fact that your post was modded "informative."

If you (or anybody else reading this) would like to know more about criminal copyright infringement, you can read S 506 of copyright law, "criminal offenses," right over here.

A good way to learn about actual cases of criminal copyright infringement is to google on "criminal copyright infringement." Or, just keep reading Slashdot... whenever somebody gets jail time for an extreme case, it's usually covered in the YRO section.

Microsoft license

...you'll find that Microsoft lists a number of BSD licenses and authors, such as Luigi Rizzo, who wrote the IPFW firewall now used as part of Windows (as well as in MacOS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD and elsewhere). However, if the GP's claim was right-- that someone removed the copyright statement entirely from FreeBSD code, that would be a crime per 17 US 506(d):

US copyright law

...nothing gives one the right to alter or remove an existing copyright statement, unless of course you are the author or have the right to do so.

1. Live in a house built after 1990.

2. Register the design copyright on the house, as per 17 USC Section 102.

3. Demand royalties from Microsoft if they want to reproduce images of your house's architecture.

4. Profit!

No, it doesn't. Just as a list of ingredients is not protected neither are facts. The manner of expression of those facts may be protected, but it certainly is not in the simple statement of "Album X by Band Y contains songs A, B, C and D" which is what the cddb is.

They made the exception for obsolete computer programs/games among others. Their definition of obsolete is:

A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Takedown orders will still hold, if the content is still manufactured. Well, at least they don't have to wait until it reaches public domain!

The first few pages of the official document (pdf warning) give more details.

You mean, -1 Uninformed? Seriously, do you not even know what fair use is? Copyrights have limits, despite what copyright holders like to pretend. They are an artificial monopoly created to reward artists, not a God Given Right. Don't believe me? Here you go, the law itself. And before you get confused, parody is a form of "criticism" and "comment"--laws are always a bit vague because the world isn't black and white. Yes, there is also a limit to what is considered a parody, but parodies are legal. Determining if something is a parody is up to the courts.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer and you should not use this as legal advice. Otherwise, I would have smacked you down with much more wit and knowledge, that which is gained from more than five seconds on google.

Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.

You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.

Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.

Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.

You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.

Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.

Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.

You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.

Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.

For those that would like to read the actual "Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works" from the Library of Congress:

The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.

1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.

2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.

6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.

These exemptions will go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006 and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Otherwise, I thought USA is governed by President, Representatives and Senate. The only Library that had government power was in the japanese anime "Read or Die" and that was the British Library. Who is a library to decide what can be hacked? That is a matter of legislation, reserved for the authority of elected officials only.The Library of Congress houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Thus, the current Librarian of Congress had the Copyright office pass the following regulation: Exemption to Prohibition against Circumvention. They did so with the authority given to them in Title 17 of the US Code Section 1201(a)(1)(C). So yes, they were within their legal bounds... too bad it only lasts for 3 years though.

You are the one confused in this matter.

Read the damn license that I've been writing code under for ten years. I'll tell you this: if you remove my attribution from any of my GPLed code, expect a summons.

I've allowed a couple of project maintainers, with my permission, to place my code under the project's ownership and copyright with just a notice of thanks to me. That was my choice, and it was determined by the project maintainer and myself to be better for the projects involved. I do not give anyone free reign to steal credit for my work. Neither does anyone else using the GPL.

The very idea that a license that grants rights on top of a copyright could even remain in effect by invalidating said copyright is absurd.

GPLed software is not in the Public Domain. A GPLed work is a copyrighted work which the authors have decided to share with the other people in the world who are willing to share their changes to it. The Public Domain consists of works on which the copyright period has ended or which are specifically placed into the Public Domain by their authors.

According to U.S. law and international treaties to which the U.S. is a party, copyright applies to all published works almost anywhere in the world unless copyright is specifically disclaimed by the author. In fact, works completed and fixed in a tangible form are covered without publication in the U.S. Copyright does not require registration to exist, but you do have to register before bringing a n action in a U.S. court for infringement. Yes, there are exceptions. The U.S. for example does not enforce copyright on works published in certain other countries which themselves are not party to international copyright treaties. Before I get jumped all over for being Ameri-centric by noting U.S. laws, please notice that the company in question is a U.S. company operating in the U.S., so it is U.S. law that has jurisdiction.

I'm not a lawyer. If you want or need specific legal advice, contact a lawyer. The above paragraph is paraphrased from the website of the U.S. Copyright Office. Go to the The Copyright Office website yourself if you want to know more. Again, consult an attorney with specific knowledge of copyright issues if you want legal advice pertaining to a copyright case.

Are you sure?

YES.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html

On the above page, click "deposit requirements". On it you will find:

"Computer Programs: One copy of identifying portions of the program (first 25 and last 25 pages of source code) reproduced in a visually perceptible form, together with the page containing the copyright notice, For details please see Circular 61, Copyright Registration for Computer Programs."

This is all academic, you understand. You are not required to register copyright to be afforded its protection in the United States. Registration is only necessary if you desire to sue, and said registration can be any time preceding mentioned lawsuit.

C//

Here's a link to the US Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Specifically look at the exclusive rights given to authors: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 Most other nations will have similar provisions.

Here's a link to the US Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Specifically look at the exclusive rights given to authors: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 Most other nations will have similar provisions.

What fair use rights would those be?

Wikipedia doesn't mention any right to make 'backups' of media. Neither does the US copyright office. In fact as wikipedia points out "if consumers can make a copy of a CD for their car, they can give MP3 files to everyone". Quoting a small part of something with attribution for critical purposes probably is fair use, BTW. Copying the whole work verbatim isn't.

Anyhow, if you feel some media infringes your rights, don't buy it.

Back to the present. Copying, not distribution, is what the law currently controls.

qz

Copyright is more then just "making copies". Here is a short list:
        * 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;
        * To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
        * To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
        * In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Of course, this is the area that the typical person is most likely to come up against is the copies which you are referring to. There are exceptions to the no copying section and this area is not cut and dry.
One which you mentioned but has NOTHING to do with making backups for personal use is the doctrine of Fair Use.

Another exception is the section 117 of the Copyright law (amended in 1992 as part of the Home recording act) that specifically allows home recording and copies to be made for backup purposes. The RIAA fought hard for this but the technology blew right by this.

Getting off topic here but since the RIAA can not seem to get laws passed to prevent any copies, they are using other methods to prevent coping at all which is NOT the intent of the copyright law. Examples being the DMCA, broadcast flag, DRM, region coding, and many others. Some of these methods have the backing of a law and some do not.

Making copies is not stealing. I can make 1000 copies of any audio cd and there is NOTHING lost to the copyright holder, I have stole nothing, not even your theoretical right of exclusiveness.

Copyright is more then just "making copies". Here is a short list:
        * 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;
        * To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
        * To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
        * In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Of course, this is the area that the typical person is most likely to come up against is the copies which you are referring to. There are exceptions to the no copying section and this area is not cut and dry.
One which you mentioned but has NOTHING to do with making backups for personal use is the doctrine of Fair Use.

Another exception is the section 117 of the Copyright law (amended in 1992 as part of the Home recording act) that specifically allows home recording and copies to be made for backup purposes. The RIAA fought hard for this but the technology blew right by this.

Getting off topic here but since the RIAA can not seem to get laws passed to prevent any copies, they are using other methods to prevent coping at all which is NOT the intent of the copyright law. Examples being the DMCA, broadcast flag, DRM, region coding, and many others. Some of these methods have the backing of a law and some do not.

Making copies is not stealing. I can make 1000 copies of any audio cd and there is NOTHING lost to the copyright holder, I have stole nothing, not even your theoretical right of exclusiveness.

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
  
• amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
  

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

1. the purpose and character of the use, 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.

While dissenting opinions can't be used to establish legal precedent, they still can be used to argue points of law. And the law regarding format shifting is still evolving. The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act allowed consumers to make digital copies for private noncommercial use. Additionally, there would be royalties paid on the equipment and media that would go to the artists. It added a new section to the US Copyright Act, including the following clause:

"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."

This was used by Diamond Multimedia in Recording Indus. Assn of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. (1999) where it was found that format-shifting was permissible and enables us to use MP3 players.

All well and good, but then we have the DMCA (1998) that prohibits circumvention of DRM. And people like Sherman who want it so that there is nothing available without DRM.

It's based on statutory damages, not a specific number of infringements. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

If the story is true, even if this guy didn't pay his licensing fees, does he really need to be arrested? The last time I checked copyright infringement was not a criminal offense but a civil offense. Large scale bootleggers are usually charged with something more substantial like fraud, mail fraud, etc which make their actions criminal. IANAL. Somebody inform me on this.

Bullshit. The point is to get more money from people and to keep their obsolete business model propped up a little while longer.

To begin, InterTrust believes that electronic commerce in copyrighted works has noticeably lagged due to the lack of a trusted and consistent environment that neutrally supports the rights of both owners and users of copyrighted works. For example, disseminating copyrighted works in digital form often makes such works vulnerable to unlawful reproduction and distribution of such unauthorized copies. On the other hand, this very character creates new opportunities for copyrighted owners to disseminate their works - such as the oft-mentioned "viral" adoption of new works and services - and opportunities for consumers to use copyrighted works in ways that are significantly more flexible than those afforded by the mere purchase of a copy.

but you are still just a common thief.

Dear Ignorant honest person,

Please stop attributing a crime that does not relate in any way to the actual crime being discussed.

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

Understand that, even though there is the belief that the act of getting a copy of certain information (being it, a book, a movie, music etc) is illegal in the same basis as theft, it is really the act of distributing what is illegal.

When someone commits the copyright infringement is when she/he makes a reproduction of the information without consent of the copyright holder (which may or may not be the author).

There, please reffer to A review of the criminal law, section 16 of the theft act and Copyright Law of the United States to understand the differences.

Depends on how much you infringe.
If you pirate more than $1000 worth of copyrighted works during any $180 day period, then it's criminal. Otherwise it's civil.
See
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc506. htm
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

As much as the Slashdot community hates it, the DMCA is utterly clear on the topic. If a copyright owner can't even be bothered to send a DMCA-takedown notice about their content, then no harm, no foul.

Whoah! Where did you get this wrong-headed, crackpot idea? As much as the Slashdot community may hate it -- yourself included, apparently -- the DMCA is not the be-all, end-all of copyright law. It's an addendum to a lot of law that was already on the books.

Some points you apparently fail to grasp:

• Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you put down the pen, what you wrote is copyrighted.
• Notification of copyright is not necessary, though it does confer additional benefits. Your copyright can be protected even if you never put a circle-C on the work.
• You don't even have to publish a work for it to be copyrighted.
• "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright." There's harm. It's a foul. Whether the author chooses to pursue a claim for the violation is another matter. It's up to the author. But to my knowledge there's no statute of limitations on copyright infringements.
• Even if an author has no idea what a work is "worth" -- even if he was giving it away for free -- he can still recover statuatory damages from a copyright infringer. That is, the civil courts have a mechanism to punish copyright infringers even when it's impossible to calculate the actual damages or money lost by the author.
• Willfully violating copyright for financial gain -- meaning you knew something was copyrighted (see the first three points, above) and you distributed it anyway, and you're a business, so presumably everything you do is to make money -- is a criminal offense. If you do it more than once -- say you're a Web site and you do it hundreds of times -- each offense after the first can land you ten years in prison.

Based on the laws on the books as they stand, YouTube is in a very precarious position. Probably the only thing that's kept the hammer from coming down already (or the guillotine) is that the owners of the videos on YouTube are trying to figure out if they can make more money by killing the goose or keeping it around.

Actually, they have. The underlying principles have always been the same--your purchase includes the real goods of the CD, the box, and whatever documentation might be included in the box along with a license to the intellectual property therein.

What license? I don't know how things work in your country, but in America, you don't need a license to run a program you own a legitimate copy of.

1. Reproduction "in copies or phonorecords"
    
2. Preparation of derivative works
    
3. Public distribution of "copies or phonorecords by transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending
    
4. Public performance (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
5. Public display (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
6. Performing music "publicly by means of digital audio transmission"
   

• Wikipedia on First Sale
   
• First Sale: section 109 of Copyright Law (warning: very hairy)
   
• List of rights of copyright owners: section 106
   
• List of rights of copyright authors: section 106A
  

1. Reproduction "in copies or phonorecords"
    
2. Preparation of derivative works
    
3. Public distribution of "copies or phonorecords by transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending
    
4. Public performance (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
5. Public display (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
6. Performing music "publicly by means of digital audio transmission"
   

• Wikipedia on First Sale
   
• First Sale: section 109 of Copyright Law (warning: very hairy)
   
• List of rights of copyright owners: section 106
   
• List of rights of copyright authors: section 106A
  

1. Reproduction "in copies or phonorecords"
    
2. Preparation of derivative works
    
3. Public distribution of "copies or phonorecords by transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending
    
4. Public performance (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
5. Public display (applicable types of copyrighted works)
    
6. Performing music "publicly by means of digital audio transmission"
   

• Wikipedia on First Sale
   
• First Sale: section 109 of Copyright Law (warning: very hairy)
   
• List of rights of copyright owners: section 106
   
• List of rights of copyright authors: section 106A
  

"Fine. In that case, you should also check the dictionary, because "cartel" accurately describes the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, "propaganda" accurately describes things like "Don't Copy that Floppy," and "disinformation" accurately describes RIAA-funded studies with dubious methods and misleading conclusions. If you object to the use of those words (and you did, in your previous post), than I have the equal right to object to your use of "piracy" and "stealing!""

I objected to "cartel" and "propaganda" based on their connotations. You were disputing their definitions. There is a big difference. And I objected to the "misinformation" claim due to the fact that it is completely unsubstantiated (at least in this 'article').

"Provide evidence to back up your assertion. I cited the US Constitution; what have you got?"

Citing the Constitution doesn't do squat if your citation doesn't prove what you are claiming. As for my evidence, check out the actual law.

"And the physical fact that if I'm holding something, you'd have to take it away from me in order to hold it yourself doesn't factor into it at all, right?"

Right. If you had no claim of ownership over it, I wouldn't be breaking the law if I took it from you (barring any other law like assult that I would have to break in order to take it). It may be mean of me to take it from you, but not illegal.

"Taxes are fees for services rendered. The only reason they are compulsory is that you can't physically opt out of receiving their benefit, since they involve preserving the commons."

I'm sorry, where have you refuted that the government cannot take property from someone? The fact that they only do so when they have good reason doesn't refute it, in fact it proves it.

And no, that is not how taxes work. Much of what taxes fund are services nor are they involved in anything that could be considered part of the commons.

"Funny, I don't recall writing anything childish at all, let alone that in particular."

"They started it" arguments are pretty much the definition of childish when it comes to debates.

2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
      circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
      circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
      copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
      analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
      with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
      copyright law.

Nope. Interoperability is explicitly allowed. Much to the chagrin of some copyright nazis.

Copyrights

The problem we have here is an issue of semantics. Here's the crux of the problem: my origami crane is implicitly copyrighted. Thus my friend would be guilty of copyright infringement. If my friend took away my origami crane, that would be stealing because I no longer have the physical object. However, since he just made his own origami crane to look like mine, he's only infringing on my copyright of the crane. I still have my origami crane in my possession.

The issue here is that the RIAA/MPAA would like to have you believe that copyright infringement and stealing are the same thing when they are not. What they're trying to do is pound into the public that copyright infringement is stealing because, quite frankly, which term sounds worse? Stealing or copyright infringement?

Please check for example http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

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

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

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

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

So, preparing derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.

It is not necessary for somebody to agree to a license in order to use a piece of software under USA law. Copies for the purpose of use is not copyright infringement.

The idea that you need special permission to use software you have already bought is abhorrent and contradicts property law. Every effort should be made to stamp it out. Doubly so when that software is given to you freely.

Can somebody explain why so many people think copyrights were originally 14+14 years? I hear this erroneous assertion frequently. From the copyright office: "Under the law in effect before 1978 ... the copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the last (28th) year of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second term of 28 years." In other words, 28+28.