Slashdot Mirror

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 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.

From: das at doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Incorrect information about SIRA?
Date: June 6, 2006 8:21:46 AM CDT
To: fred at eff.org
Security: Signed

In your post you say:

SIRA's main aim is clearing the way for online music services by revising the current mechanical compulsory license set out in Section 115 of the Copyright Act to accommodate "full downloads, limited downloads, and interactive streams." So far so good, but the devil is in the details. This license specifically includes and treats as license-able "incidental reproductions...including cached, network, and RAM buffer reproductions."

By smuggling this language into the Copyright Act, the copyright industries are stacking the deck for future fights against other digital technologies that depend on making incidental copies. Just think of all the incidental copies that litter your computer today -- do you have a license for every copy in your browser's cache?

But, the "Blanket Licensing" section of says:

First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.

Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.

So it would seem that SIRA is trying to do the exact opposite from what is being alleged in various "calls to action" regardingm SIRA.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison

----

There's a reason we've "never heard of" this bill: it's not trying to do any of the evil things the submitter or TFA say it is. Yes, it may suck in other ways and probably does, like pretty much any proposed law will in some respect or another. But it's not trying to enforce separate licenses for cached, buffered, and incidental copies of digital works; it's trying to eliminate all of the ridiculousness with regard to that and allow one license to cover all of the incidental copies that might pop up in digital distribution. It sure would be nice if people actually read it.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

This bill doesn't even apply to consumers!
The gist is this: licensing is cumbersome for digital music services, because there are no standards. This bill is attempting to simplify the process by applying a blanket license to digital distribution. This is similar to what is set up for radio stations - so they don't need to negotiate with every single artist they play, there is a royalty system that works very efficiently.

The other language, if you actually read it, prevents copyright holders from charging twice for cached copies. This enables subscription services (like Napster's) to stream a song to a consumer who has "purchased" it unlimited times while only paying one royalty.

geez. It amazes me how people get so up-in-arms about things they don't even take the time to read

Here:

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/cmus ings/SIRAof2006DiscussionDraft.pdf

and a summary (actually an initial proposal),

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

I deals more with streaming than anything else. It provides licenses for:

  1. One form and agency will be the only licensing method any non-dramatic musical work.

  2. Incidental copies (in ram, buffers, etc) are covered under a royalty-free single license (possibly with an administrative charge).

          a. an alternative suggestion is to waive any license for intermediate copies under a statute.

  3. the Copyright Royalty Board will set royalty rates for existing and new digital medias (and may set them at zero value, ala incidental licenses)

  4. If a royalty rate has _not_ been set for a media, the licensing body may still issue licenses, and the CRB may retroactively set rates. The aim is to make legal distrobution possible before red tape is finished, to combat (neccessary) infringement in new technologies.

  5. there is no provision that addresses how royalties are to be distributed by designated agents to copyright owners. This should be addressed in statues accomponying the bill, and should not be left to the designated licensing agent (conflict of interest concerns).

Thats pretty much it. Most seems harmless, although I wonder who the CRB is made up of, govm't? RIAA? Public Oversight Committee (ha!)? The blanket royalty rate thing also is a _little_ spooky, it means all songs have the same royalty percentage (if I understand correctly), which seems to feed into the commoditization of music (personally, I am of the opinion that single-price markets destroy the incentive for labels and musicians to create truely original works). On point two, that's an administrative nightmare, so I'm hoping the alternative is strongly suggested or codified.

Basically, not _nearly_ as bad as slash and boingboing made it out to be, though truthfully this summary is from the proposal, not the actual letter of the law (and IANAL, though I am/have been a professional programmer, audio engineer, musician, and copyright geek).

The text of the bill is available here http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html If I'm understanding the terms of the bill the "no opt-out" phrase means that individual copyright holders must agree to give their copyrights to whatever group that is in charge of the "limited number of applications". It seems that the record industry is not just aiming at consumers but the artists as well

Another example of people making articles about things they don't have the foggiest idea about. Please don't flip out.

This legislation is actually needed. As things stand, net broadcasters can be hit twice, once for a public performance and again for distributing a copy. This will clear that up, along with providing for a simple blanket license for them. It will also help the songwriters to actually get a little money from the licensing for online broadcasts of their works. It appears there is some loophole that lets the record labels collect money for digital copies without paying the songwriters/songpublishers.

see http://www.nmpa.org/pressroom/showrelease.asp?id=1 16

Of course there are problems with this draft bill. The US Copyright Office has identified some, including the foggyness on server copies... http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

iPac looks like another fledgling advocacy group fanning flames trying to get some attention. a little short on clue methinks... look for their misuse of hacker stereotypes in 'Hollywood Hackers' :(

I'm not very well educated on ... anything, but I did a quick search and found a Statement of the United States Copyright Office to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary concerning Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006.

Taken from the statment:
"..the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."

I could be wrong, but to me that looks like it directly conflicts with TFA. Here's the link http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html so you can check it out for yourself before you mod me down for siding with the US copyright office.

First, let me say that I am very anti-stupid-copyright/patent etc and against the whole trend we've been seeing from RI/MPAA and congress to remove our longstanding fair-use rights and damage the public domain.

That said, I took a look, and this Act doesn't read to me the same way the submission is characterizing it. The link is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, the Act actually tries to do the opposite of what is claimed in the article submission, as to the seperate licensing of cached/buffered/etc copies of content.

Here is an excerpt from the linked page above:

"First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.

Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.

Based on the foregoing and our involvement in discussions on these issues over the past several years, we anticipate that the blanket licensing approach would be welcomed by, or at least be acceptable to, the various interested parties. Furthermore, we note that blanket licensing has proven successful with respect to the section 114 compulsory license for sound recordings, and would expect it to function similarly in the section 115 context.

However, the Copyright Office strongly urges that the SIRA not characterize streaming as a distribution or as a form of "digital phonorecord delivery," or DPD. A stream, whether interactive or noninteractive, is predominantly a public performance, although the various reproductions such a transmission requires makes it appropriate to address in section 115. A stream does not, however, constitute a "distribution," the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient; the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may temporarily exist on a recipient's computer to facilitate the stream and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient simply do not qualify. Similarly, a stream should not be considered a DPD as that term is presently defined by 17 U.S.C. 115(d), because it most likely does not result in "a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord." The Office recognizes that the SIRA proposes to amend the definition of DPD to specif

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

Did anyone of the above commenters read the actual text? Having read the text, I don't see any place where it says we should start paying for intermediate copies (caches, buffers ...). I do see however the concept of a "blanket license" for those who are distributing music (iTunes, MSN Music, streaming, webcasts ...). This new licensing model would allow them to offer new music or tracks in their catalog wihtout having to (re)nogiate.

Jeez - the link seems like a pure political rant against SIRA. While it's an important issue, I would've hoped slashdot might have linked to a more intelligent article that actually discusses the bill.

Here's a much more thorough discussion of the bill:

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

This article counters a number of the rants on the extremely biased link slashdot provided.

For instance, the slashdot political link claims "It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory..."

However, the link above specifically says:
"the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."

I'm not arguing that it's a good bill (and I'm pretty sure it sucks), only that the initial link is so blatantly political that it's hardly an objective source for ANY information and is easily proven wrong by a casual read at the facts. Shame on you slashdot for posting such biased and political crap soley to incite a flamewar.

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo? (from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html ) Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark. In any case, Asimov didn't "invent" the name "I, Robot." His book of short stories used the name with pressure from his publisher. The short story was written by Eando Binder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2C_Robot_(short_sto ry)

From TFA, "A person can download a song off the Internet when they pay for it or get permission."

The statement is true, but if they had said "A person can ONLY download a song off the Internet when they pay for it or get permission," they would of course be wrong. I have to think the first statement has an implied "ONLY"...

TFA: "A person cannot copy a song that they have legally downloaded (by paying a fee or obtaining permission) for someone else."

Even in a backwards nation like Canada ;), it is NOT illegal to make a copy of music you have downloaded. Quite apart for music that is not copyrighted, even copyrighted music can be shared under fail use restrictions.

There is plenty of music in the world that is no longer copyrighted. By international treaty, copyrights expire!

By August 16, 2047, all of Elvis Presley's published works will be in the public domain. Many early recordings from the Jazz era are already in the public domain.

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES

From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that is 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 case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer req

"Whether or not file sharing is fair use is, to the best of my knowledge, an as of yet unsettled legal question. I don't necessarily believe it is, but there's arguments to be made both ways and I think it's far less black and white than the RIAA likes to pretend."

To be fair to you, the "Making copies of my CDs for my friends is fair use" meme is a popular one -- but it's wrong, at least in the US (this particular case is in Germany). Many people start with this incorrect foundation and make the next leap to "file sharing is just like sharing with 10,000 of my closest friends" -- which, of course, is also incorrect.

A similar argument is "fair use allows copying in some instances for educational purposes. By putting this CD in my share directory, I am 'educating' others about how great this music is." Or, "fair use allows copying in some instances for scholarship and research. I am allowing others to research how great this music is." The trouble is, while these arguments may sound good to many Slashdotters, they're not aware of a legal term called the "laugh test" -- if you wouldn't buy it yourself, the courts probably won't buy it, either.

There are indeed lots of gray areas where new technology clashes with existing laws, but in the USA, this ain't one of them. If you distribute a copyrighted CD to others without the permission of the copyright holder in a manner that you wouldn't reasonably expect to fall under fair use doctrine -- whether you're giving ten copies to your friends, selling 100 copies out of a suitcase in Times Square, or allowing 10,000 people to download it from your hard drive, "fair use" is going to be a tough position to argue. Not even the EFF is going there.

Hrmmm, it seems you may have a point. At first I thought that the DMCA(b) may apply, but it specifically states:
no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections

One minor detail in my previous post - if XM doesn't implement SCMS on their recording devices, the RIAA may have standing to sue them. But 17 USC 1008 specifically forbids suit from being filed solely for manufacturing/selling digital audio recording devices, and the RIAA doesn't have standing to sue regarding the royalties provided for by the AHRA, because they don't get those royalties in the first place.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html

Q: How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. ... In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

I don't know whether fair use applies

From the copyright.gov web site:

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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Because of the way they made the game, they can't just use the original recording.

Assuming by "the way they made the game," you mean "as cheaply as possible," true enough. By rerecording the tracks they only need to pay the cover artists a flat fee and the songwriter a percentage. (Indeed, you don't even need their permission to cover the song if you're willing to pay the rates set by the copyright office. Assuming they didn't negotiate better terms, each copy of Guitar Hero sold included $2.73 for the compulsory rights.)

If they used the original tracks or got the original artist to re-record it, most of those artists would have wanted a percentage. It's the same reason that Karaoke Revolution uses covers. This also explains why the bonus songs in Guitar Hero are performed by the original artists: they're all much less famous bands who were willing to accept the free publicity in exchange for their music. For a relatively unknown band that's probably a good call. A group like Rush has no incentive short of being well paid (and perhaps a genuine love of the game); they're not going to get significantly new fans from the game.

"Technically, if she doesn't sell it, then no, it's fair use."

This is one of those things that every Slashdotter "knows," but is not true.

Smartass remarks aside, it's highly unlikely that you'd ever see the inside of a courtroom for giving a few copies to your girlfriend. But this does not qualify it for "fair use." Fair use is a doctrine, a set of guidelines -- a test -- for determining whether an act of copying is permitted. It covers things like "teaching," "news reporting" and "criticism" but "sharing copies among friends" is noticably not listed as an example. Slashbots like to make statements like "but I'm teaching my girlfriend about the music by giving her copies." Whether this is a smart thing to say is, as the math texts put it, an exercise left for the reader.

More information is here.

Technically, if she doesn't sell it, then no, it's fair use.

In the US? Um, not to my knowledge. Money has nothing to do with it.

Fair use would be if you used a portion of a CD for personal non-commercial purposes or educational purposes, or if you made a backup copy for yourself. You do not have the right to create copies and distribute them, whether or not you charge for them.

Making a tape recording of a CD and giving it to her isn't fair use either. Making a tape recording of a CD you own for your own use is, though.

Essentially, you can create a backup for yourself or if you need to switch the format for your own use, that's going to be ignored. But you do not have the right to make copies for anyone else. That's kind of the whole point of copyright.

Fair use is an ugly thing to work out, but if it isn't:
1)for your own use
2)for educational or research purposes
3)for criticism or news reporting
4)or for the public interest
and it isn't both limited in scope and with a minor impact on the original work, it's probably not going to be considered fair use.

Good lord. I should know better than to try and write something coherent about copyright when I'm so tired I can barely parse a sentence. Hope someone got something useful out of this.

For anyone who wants to read the portion of the US Copyright Act dealing with Fair Use, here it is.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. [...]

Then the box was lying to you.

The word "Porsche" cannot be copyrighted.

Now, maybe the guy that wrote the text on the box made a stupid mistake, but regardless of what the box said, words (even neologisms) cannot be copyrighted.

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html :

Can I copyright the name of my band?

  No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information.

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

  Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

this predates RICO and is part of antitrust.

RICO was enacted in 1970. Anything enacted before RICO may have been superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976.

Basic take is that if you use copyright as a tool to violate antitrust, the copyright on the material in question vanishes and it becomes public domain.

This may have applied prior to 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, but too many provisions of 17 USC chapter 1 have the phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws".

What if the state of the authors life is unknown?

Under U.S. copyright law, 17 USC 302(e), after 95 years, the onus falls on the copyright owner to prove the date of the author's death if the estate has not kept the Copyright Office's records up to date.

designs of vessels:

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/list/index.html

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

Vessel Hull Design Protection Act: Overview and Analysis:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/vhdpa-report.pdf

It's interesting that some of the most obvious things about boats and small craft can be "registered and protected". **Seems** like the LibCong is/could be headed the same way the USPTO...

Seems that if you design and sell or display a "boat" SOMEbody can sue you for even common, prior-art stuff. Somewhat to its credit, though, the boating industry doesn't want to see a series of expensive and industry-crippling lawsuits rising up. But, at the same time, I find it a bit disturbing that many of the boats depicted are not unique, special, innovative, or the like.

designs of vessels:

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/list/index.html

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

Vessel Hull Design Protection Act: Overview and Analysis:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/vhdpa-report.pdf

It's interesting that some of the most obvious things about boats and small craft can be "registered and protected". **Seems** like the LibCong is/could be headed the same way the USPTO...

Seems that if you design and sell or display a "boat" SOMEbody can sue you for even common, prior-art stuff. Somewhat to its credit, though, the boating industry doesn't want to see a series of expensive and industry-crippling lawsuits rising up. But, at the same time, I find it a bit disturbing that many of the boats depicted are not unique, special, innovative, or the like.

designs of vessels:

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/list/index.html

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

Vessel Hull Design Protection Act: Overview and Analysis:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/vhdpa-report.pdf

It's interesting that some of the most obvious things about boats and small craft can be "registered and protected". **Seems** like the LibCong is/could be headed the same way the USPTO...

Seems that if you design and sell or display a "boat" SOMEbody can sue you for even common, prior-art stuff. Somewhat to its credit, though, the boating industry doesn't want to see a series of expensive and industry-crippling lawsuits rising up. But, at the same time, I find it a bit disturbing that many of the boats depicted are not unique, special, innovative, or the like.

if I sell 1,000 down loads and keep $900 what are they suing me for? $900 doesn't buy many lawyers. Not a huge risk, there is no damage besides the actual sales. If I sell (really large number) of downloads I have money to be sued for but also money for defense.

They can still sue you for $30,000 (maximum statutory damages for non-willful infringement under US law), and can't the Court garnish your wages to pay the damages?

I'd pay the publishing

As I understand 17 USC 115, "paying the publishing" applies only to reasonably faithful covers. If you are planning on making a derivative composition, publishers are free to charge more or even to deny a license altogether[1]: "the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner."

False. Again. No one has had to explicitly regerister a copyright since 1977. Since Ford signed the 1976 Act, every utterance, every scribble, every doodle, every little jingle-jangle of your keys has been copyright since the moment of creation. But... I now have an idea where the confusion of the issue comes from...

That's great, care to explain the below snippet from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr regarding the reasons you should register your copyright EVEN TODAY?

Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on "Intellectual Property Rights."

My favorite in light of our conversation would be "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." I would really like to hear you explain that one away as just being wrong. I would also like to hear how publication has nothing to do with copyright when "If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate."

I think Avi covered most of your points, but civil code is filled with inumerable examples of seemingly arbitrary statutory amounts. If you want to learn more about statutory vs. actual damages (this is crucial to understand if you want to make statements like "This is a court of law, they have to prove losses, not speculate"), and the bounds set by the courts for situations like this, you'll want to read Section 504. You'll see where the RIAA get that $750 number. HTH.

Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together.

Who do they answer to?

For informational value...
For entertainment value, or as thay say, "Follow the money".

a) It's the name of a song, not a movie.
b) Titles can't be copyrighted.
c) Trademarks can only be enforced against confusingly similar products. IE, not a search engine vs. a theme park.
d) The Disney spelling is Hakuna Matata.
e) The tradmark is Class 25 (See: Your own link) which means it's for clothing.

So no, to answer your question, they're not.

Renting computer software without permission of the copyright holder was made illegal in the US by the Computer Software Rental Amendment Act of 1990.
In a nutshell:

On December 1, 1990, President Bush signed into law the "Computer Software Rental Amendments Act," an amendment of section 109 of the copyright law, prohibiting the rental, lease, or lending of a computer program for direct or indirect commercial gain unless authorized by the owner of copyright in the program. Behind the amendment was a concern that commercial rental of computer programs encourages illegal copying of the rented programs, depriving copyright owners of a return on their investment and discouraging creation of new works."

Previous to this amendment, you could rent computer software. I used to rent software via the mail for the Commodore 64 and Amiga computers back in the '80s - long before GameFly.
About the only thing you can do is buy used games on auctions sites like ebay or www.gameswapzone.com.

Chapter 12's permission vis-a-vis reverse engineering for compatibility purposes refers to copy protection and issues pertaining to copyright, not generic protocols:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#120 1

Scroll down to "(f) Reverse Engineering." This section has to do with permitting one vendor to reverse engineer protected/encrypted content.

The notion of reverse engineering a driver for a pipeline which does not encrypt or otherwise disguise its content is theoretically outside the aegis of the DMCA.

Apple used (or misused, depending on your perspective) the DMCA against the OSx86 website because it infringed on protection measures Apple specifically set in place to prevent OSX from installing on whiteboxes. Real told its board members that they might be DMCAed over Fairplay because it unlocks copy protection on iTMS purchases.

If the submitter did not discover any authentication methods or trust related protocols in his reverse engineering, and his driver does not have code which specifically spoofs a platform or other form of identification, it sounds to this non-lawyer like a non-issue.

There may be other legal issues at hand, but AFAIK the DMCA is chiefly concerned with those who circumvent deliberate measures to protect copyright, and simply refusing to publicly document a protocol isn't the same thing.

Now, if the driver somehow replicates code that the vendor had to *license* from Microsoft, Microsoft may have an issue with you. Again, check with a competent IP attorney.

You really don't know anything about copyright law, do you? You're trying to give too much freedom on one hand, while mistakenly taking away a liberty with the other. As someone else pointed out, read up on derivative works. Also, you can't copyright titles, so there goes that part of your argument...

You really don't know anything about copyright law, do you? You're trying to give too much freedom on one hand, while mistakenly taking away a liberty with the other. As someone else pointed out, read up on derivative works. Also, you can't copyright titles, so there goes that part of your argument...

Well, you're not quite completely free. And in the case you describe, since Fargo is still under copyright, you'd be giving your lawyer an uphill battle.

Now, if you want to start from a work no longer under copyright, and use that to base your movie on, your lawyer will have to put in a lot fewer billable hours. What he invoices may be another story, but that's between him, the FBI, and Grisham's copyright lawyer.

Frankly, I think White Wolf's case over Underworld was roughly the same caliber as this one for the DaVinci code, and WW were not-quite laughed out of court by the judge.

A more interesting question is the general copyright-ability of 'fictional' worlds. Can I write novels that take place in Asimov's, Niven's, Heinlein's, [etc] worlds?

Well, seeing as how that would make it a derivative work... no.

Copyright gives you the rights not only to control who publishes or distributes the work you wrote, but it gives you the rights to control who publishes works derived from that work. If you're using the Federation, or the Foundation, or Known Space, you have to either wait for the copyright to run out or ask permission from teh copyright holder.

You could, of course, write it as fan fiction, avoid selling it, and hope it stays under the radar -- or you could write something in a *similar* world. That sort of thing happens all the time. Not just Middle Earth vs. D&D, but people will pitch a Star Wars novel or Star Trek script, get turned down, and come up with their own characters and setting.

This suit would be thrown out a US court immediately. By federal statute, ideas are not copyrightable:
17 USC 102 Subject Matter of Copyright: In General - (b) Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery.

Let's hope the UK courts do the same!

This is just silly. No wonder they're litigating over in the U.K., as this "idea infringement" wouldn't make it over here in the US, even with our own nonsense copyright laws (DMCA anyone?). The copyright office clearly states you can't own copyright to an idea or method of doing something. That would be just a little too much -- even for people in the US.

See:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html #idea

People need to stop wasting their time in the courts.

Sorry, it's illegal to manufacture or import a VHS deck in the US without "automatic gain control"; I confused that with auto tracking, but it's the part that makes Macrovision work. See chapter 12 of the US copyright law. Section 1201(k), or Section 1202(k)(1)(A)(i).. not quite sure how to cite law. Just search for "automatic gain control".

"Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter [1998 DMCA], no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any - ... (i) VHS format analog video cassette recorder unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology;

Presumably a VHS playback-only deck (no record function) without automatic gain control would be legal. Of course, I doubt such a thing exists. There also appears to be an exemption for "any professional analog video cassette recorder" which is later defined as "an analog video cassette recorder that is designed, manufactured, marketed, and intended for use by a person who regularly employs such a device for lawful business or industrial use ...".

There is a legal thoery (similar to the original EULA theory) that goes as follows:

When you run and install a program, you make copies in RAM and on the hard disk. This requires a license from the copyright holder. A license grant from the seller can reasonably be implied from the purchase, as selling unusable copies doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In the United States, USC Title 17, Chapter 1, 117 makes specific exceptions for copies needed to run or install a program (this really hurts the case for the need for EULAs); however, the exemption only applies to "the owner of a copy of a computer program".

Now, companies make the case that it is not, in fact, a sale, but rather simply a license. This is the same argument that was used in Adobe vs. Softman, and was rejected.

So, through the wonders of copyright law, it is in fact the purchase of the software that grants you the right to use it (or, more specifically, prevents copyright law from taking away your right to do with your own posessions as you see fit).

And let's remember, it's only legal to copy these songs from CDs to whatever you want, IF the CD isn't DRM'd. DMCA says you cannot bypass a DRM of a content you legally own, movie, music or whatever.
In my mind, these big cartels only exist because in the old days was so expensive and difficult to distribute Music/Movies.
Media content sellers should stop selling media and start selling licenses.

Please, stop using the words "owner", owns" etc. when you're talking about copyright and similar things.

Precise discussion about law uses words defined in the letter of the law. The statute in question, 17 USC 101 et seq., defines and uses the phrase "copyright owner".

... it's perfectly legal to make an interpretive "copy", so as long as they don't succeed in too accurate a portrayal of your conversation, they are safe, as far as the "performance" copyright is concerned. "The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording."

114
(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

As I understand things (and IANAL) your speech would be a public performance rather than a sound recording and so would have different protection. Now if you record your speech first and then play them that recording, then if they can reproduce those actual sounds, you'd have a case!

Everyone should read the whole text of the filing. It's both side-splittingly hilarious and quite scary if you consider that some of this might make be boug^H^Hvoted into legislation.

The filing has this to say about a non-infringing exemption to copying DRM-protected content in the public domain:

"If there are other examples of collective works containing public domain materials which are protected by copy controls, it should be recalled that both of the referenced collections are examples of materials that never would have been available if not for the advent of DVDs, and thus the net impact of technological protection measures on their availability is positive."

You said "in my understadnding, once you buy a CD, you have a license to play it's songs in any format, in as many devices as you want and as many cars you have."

According to what I can find on US law, that's not true. You have the right to play your CD wherever you want, but you have not got the right to make a copy of it (in the same or any other format) ... though I recall that there was an exception for making a tape for a car (which I can't find at the moment), but the ARHA put in specific laws about digital copies (as did the DCMA) ... so it's at least a fuzzy area.

"Copyright in a sound recording protects the particular series of sounds "fixed" (embodied in a recording) against unauthorized reproduction and revision"
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.html#what

There already is such a thing as an ephemeral license fee. You see (paraphrasing jwz) someone decided that the transitory copying of music necessary for a webcast is more like printing new copies, than broadcasting over radio waves.