Slashdot Mirror

From the RIAA's DMCA filing, pages 31 and 32: "The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space shifting or format shifting is a non-infringing use. This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services. ... In such a market, the inconvenience that faces consumers of works tethered to specific devices is far outweighed by the threat to enjoyment of copyright posed by illegal distrobution faced by copyright owners."

Wow! In one paragraph, the RIAA lawyer goes from a private citizen in his own home, making a personal copy of a work to change its' technical form to distributing that copy. What an amazing conclusion, that every person copying a CD has the intent to distribute! Furthermore, it seems when the record companies are before the courts that they sing a totally different tune. Now I know that big organizations have the "left hand doesn't know what right hand does" thing going on, but when your own lawyers can't remember what they said to this or that court then you have a real problem.

Well, you missed the deadline for making comments to the "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" proceedings that the Copyright Office is conducting. Too bad. I'm sure your comments on this issue would have been more useful than mine were.

Perhaps you could still contact the Stanford Center for Internet and Society folks who were spearheading an effort to collect comments on cell phone locking and they could use your comments as an addendum or something.

Shout out to Lessig for his blog entry that pointed these folks out to me.

Well, you missed the deadline for making comments to the "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" proceedings that the Copyright Office is conducting. Too bad. I'm sure your comments on this issue would have been more useful than mine were.

Perhaps you could still contact the Stanford Center for Internet and Society folks who were spearheading an effort to collect comments on cell phone locking and they could use your comments as an addendum or something.

Shout out to Lessig for his blog entry that pointed these folks out to me.

"Apparently the RIAA even makes money on blank cassette tapes... and if you ever buy the 'music' CDRs, notice that they are more expensive. This added expense is an extortion charge from or big brother Gido at the RIAA."

Most of the tariff on "music" CD-Rs goes to the artists: musicians, composers, session musicians and background singers, and so on. The ratio is codified in law.

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

REGISTRATION PROCEDURES
Original Registration

To register a work, send the following three elements in the same envelope or package to:

Library of Congress
Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20559-6000

      1. A properly completed application form.
      2. A nonrefundable filing fee of $30 for each application.

            NOTE: Copyright Office fees are subject to change. For current fees, please check the Copyright Office Website at www.copyright.gov, write the Copyright Office, or call (202) 707-3000.

      3. A nonreturnable deposit of the work being registered. The deposit requirements vary in particular situations. The general requirements follow. Also note the information under "Special Deposit Requirements."

        *

            If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition.
        *

            If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the work as first published.
        *

            If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy or phonorecord of the work as first published.
        *

            If sending multiple works, all applications, deposits, and fees should be sent in the same package. If possible, applications should be attached to the appropriate deposit. Whenever possible, number each package (e. g., 1 of 3, 2 of 4) to facilitate processing.

---------------

No wonder RIAA is kicking in their own shit pile. People like fuck nut Sonny "Bonehead" Bono made this possible.

"If they can claim copyright, they CAN dictate what you can do with the image INCLUDING your weblog, making duplicate photos at a photo shop, making copies on your computer, or even viewing them if they happen to be digital pics."

You are mistaken if you think you can make a derivative work without the permission of the original work's copyright owner. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#who

No, I'm not sure... it's just what I remember reading somewhere... so, I'll go look it up...

I appear to have been mistaken. Only works that were created after the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976, and first published after January 1st, 1978 are automatically protected even without a copyright notice being present. Works published before January 1st, 1978 are protected only either after the copyright is registered OR after the first edition bearing a proper copyright notice is published.

Only copyright *extensions* were made retroactive, and it turns out that there are a few works published since Mickey Mouse that have expired... because works created certain years did actually require eventual copyright renewals to be filed.

all this according to: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html#automat ic

http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html

I'm just pulling this from deep, but I don't think that copyright infringement is a criminal offense. This link indicates what is required to be considered "criminal", which means copyright infringment is normally a civil matter.

Assuming this is true, I don't think that intent is enough for a judgement. In a criminal case, intent to steal, intent to murder, intent to deal drugs, etc... are all crimes in and of themselves, and have penalties associated with them. I don't think that intent in this case is on the books as being against the law in any way, it's just the act itself.

Of course, I could have a misunderstanding of what is required for "intent" to be illegal, but it's just an idea. Feel free to poke holes in this argument, people. :)

That's what copyright law governs: copying. It doesn't say a thing about selling. Not a thing in the world.

Sorry, but US copyright law covers more than just copying; it also covers the right to distribute:

"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:: ...To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

Personally, I don't think fair use allows reselling digital copies of the songs on iPods, especially considering that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" would be substantial if the pre-loaded iPod industry took off.

If I make a fair-use copy of a CD I own onto an iPod and later sell that iPod to a friend, I do not have an obligation to remove the fair-use copies.

Of course you do! How is that any different that if you copied your CD's onto CD-RW's and then sold them on eBay? It doesn't matter what the transfer medium is. Whether it's a CD-R or an iPod, you're not allowed to distribute copies without the copyright owner's permission.

That's what copyright law governs: copying. It doesn't say a thing about selling. Not a thing in the world.

Sorry, but US copyright law covers more than just copying; it also covers the right to distribute:

"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:: ...To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

Personally, I don't think fair use allows reselling digital copies of the songs on iPods, especially considering that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" would be substantial if the pre-loaded iPod industry took off.

If I make a fair-use copy of a CD I own onto an iPod and later sell that iPod to a friend, I do not have an obligation to remove the fair-use copies.

Of course you do! How is that any different that if you copied your CD's onto CD-RW's and then sold them on eBay? It doesn't matter what the transfer medium is. Whether it's a CD-R or an iPod, you're not allowed to distribute copies without the copyright owner's permission.

it isn't literature

Yes it is, at least for the purposes of the Copyright Act of 1976 as amended. Literature, or "literary works" as defined in 17 USC 101, consists of "works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied." Such as a computer program.

No, copy-pasting is a copyright violation. Rewording of sentences, while inacceptable practice for a professional journalist (in the case the sources aren't cites) is completly legal.

Furthermore, one could argue that an information published in an internet forum is public. I agree that a journalist have been unprofessional here, but I am surprised with most opinions expressed here, that tend to go against the "information wants to be free" /. dogma.

From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html: "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." It isn't music, it isn't literature. If they say it's not art, I guess it does not fall under copyright law?

My first thought was that as soon as an event happens that is recordable as a stat then it is in the public domain.

Further reading and I found this from the US governments page (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc)
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work."
A stat is just not something that is 'created' by one person, or even a group, it is an historical definition/account of something.

What these company's could copyright is the database used to store them, and the websites used to display them...but not the actual statistical information.

I think this might be a gray area. If you look at the official government site it appears that the "performance" itself is not copyright-able unless it has been notated. So I guess the question is, do the statistics themselves constitute notation of the "performance"? IMHO, they do not. But even if they do, one would think the individual making the notation would own the copyright to the notation, not the performers themselves. For instance, if I do something that makes headlines, that could be considered a performand, too. In this case, may I now copyright my actions, since they have been notated? I would think not, but IANAL.

I think 1991 is a bit out of date. Bit of lite reading: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ65.pdf

Copyright Registration for Automated Databases

Apparently as long as some effort and organization went into the database, it can indeed be copyright protected. I can still pull out a specific fact for free, and I can go and make my own exhaustive database of the same data, but I can't use someone ELSE'S. Fer example, there were once two competing music database companies. That was their whole enterprise, building ginormous databases for people to use to search for their favorite music (early 90s, so the both imploded before digital music hit). One company employed an army of music lovers, to carefully listen to EVERY PIECE of music in all genres, and write up a small paragraph about it and pertinent info (think a small paid wikipedia for music). The other company, they just copied the first company's data and used that. Without the overhead of actually having to hire people to collect all of that data, they were much more profitable.

So the first company took the second company to court, and when the second company tried to argue that the data was free, that facts were facts, and they legally compiled those facts by themselves, the first company stepped up and showed the judge all sorts of FAKE DATA that they put into their own database for just such an occasion. Except they found this fake data in the second company's supposed "self gathered" database, proving that it was taken from theirs.

The judge snapped his gavel, ordered the second company to pay the first company millions of dollars for copyright violation, etc etc.

So getting back to the ACTUAL ISSUE, it seems that MLB just doesn't want to allow anyone to license their database anymore. Doesn't mean someone can't go and make their own database, they just can't use the MLB one, for free.

No, fair use is title 17, section 107 of US copyright law. Although it could be repealed, it is not something that is grandfathered in by English law, or the bill of rights, or a supreme court decision. Fair use is law.

As far as computer games go, in 1990 the US modified copyright law with the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act to prohibit software rental because it lead to piracy. Before the law, you could rent computer games. I used to rent computer games by mail back in the Commodore 64 days.
As for console video games, they are rented all over the place. And the used copies are sold as well. Blockbuster puts its used copies up for sale just the same as pre-viewed movies.
GameFly rents via mail and lets you keep the game if you decide you want to buy it. You just let them know you want to buy the game and they bill your credit card for it.
Gamefly also sells off their used copies when demand for the game goes down.

You are incorrect. Just creating something does not copyright it. You must go through the process of registering it with the USCO.

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. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration."

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Theft - a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
Property - something (as an interest, money, or land) that is owned or possessed
Intangible Property - property (as a stock certificate or professional license) that derives value not from its intrinsic physical nature but from what it represents
Intelectual Property - property that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; specifically : an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or application, right, or registration relating thereto
- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

After reading the article, I think there are many good common sense suggestions to prevent Podjack. Most effective, I think, is repeating your main URL to listeners and directing them to your website.

However, I foresee disputes arising among different individuals each claiming the other is podjacking or attempting to podjack their RSS feed. It is likely that both Yahoo! and iTunes will not develop "dispute resolution" methods for solving these conflicts. Consequently, I think podcasters should develop a strong legal base to use against podjackers.

The first step should be contract protection. A short warning or license, similar to what is used at the end of radio shows or NFL games, should be displayed your website and appended at the end of every broadcast. I think the creative commons in some cases (but not all) would)be effective. I, personally, like saying "my not be linked to or rebroadcast without permission" not because I won't grant permission, but I want to get to know my audience and try to find out about new audiences elsewhere on the web.

Your voice is your biggest growing asset, spend some money and get some statutory copyright protection. While podcasting is new, I foresee in the future individuals re-running older podcasts of others for their gain. Copyright in theory should prevent this. Full protection, however, only occurs if you register your copyrights with the Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/). After registration, copyright holders get to wave the flag of mandatory statutory damages (you only get actual damages if it is not registered and in podcasting that is usually nothing). One method is to aggregate all your pod casts for a year or 6-months into one file and file that Copyright Office for a minor fee, or pick and choose the most important broadcasts and file those.

Lastly, get a federal trademark or remind others of trademark law. In the truest legal sense, podjacking is not copyright infringement, but trademark infringement because the podjacker falsely designates his site as the source of the goods/services (the podcast). In the example given by Erik, the podjacker did not "re-broadcast" but directed listeners to his website and then redirected them to the original podcast. So, he did not violate the copyright act by re-broadcasting a copy. However, by listing his website as the source of the podcast in Yahoo!'s directories, the podjacker lied to the world, in a sense, by telling them that he was originating the podcast.

While I say this, the best initial steps are the ones Erik mentions in his article. Play nice, but be ready with solid legal stick to strike the other side if necessary.

In order to mark information as copyright, you have to copyright it. Dumbass. http://www.copyright.gov/

Lyrics can be a work all by themselves, but when written together with their accompanying music, they're often considered to be a single work.

Doing a few searches at the copyright office all of the songs I looked for specifically mentioned copyrights on both the words and the music, but perhaps I was unlucky or just mis-interpreting the results.

Still, just the lyrics is not the entire song. You aren't including the notes, the tempo, the instruments, etc.

As noted elsethread, copyright law is quite specific in saying that the lyrics are covered.

The courts have established guidelines for the the questions to ask in determing whether something is fair use, and your argument doesn't seem to fit them very closely at all. That's not to say that there are no arguments possible -- certainly you could make a pretty good argument on the "transformative" criterion and probably as to the effect (or lack thereof) on the potential market as well. OTOH, I'm pretty sure almost any judge around would utterly reject your argument on the basis of the amount of the original that was taken -- and to qualify as fair use, you need to meet all the criteria they set.

So, you can certainly justify putting up a web page with "ok, I listened to this song on the radio, and here are the lyrics as I understood them" and calling it fair use.

You may be able to justify it to yourself. If you honestly think a judge is going to buy it, well, you're probably pretty safe -- because you're almost certainly too busy doing drugs to every really create such a web site at all.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

But aren't lyrics not copyrighted or are the hundreds of sites out there that give song lyrics away for free underground criminal enterprises?

Yes lyrics are subject to copyright. This particular quote is from US law, but I'm reasonably certain all countries that follow the Berne Convention (and most at least claims to) have similar rules.

Of course, Fair Use is a possibility as well -- but almost certainly not in the case of quoting the lyrics to a complete song.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

You can't use a generic word as the sole basis of a trademark.

Lamp would fail.

Triominos succeeds because it was a word coined to describe a specific product, and didn't exist beforehand, so it does define a specific product on its own. Just as "Microsoft Windows" does. Just as "Hasbro Risk" does.

Remember, Microsoft got the paperwork for "WIndows" as a trademark, then had to walk away, after coughing up $20 million, when they sued Lindows, becaue "Windows" by itself isn't a valid trademark.

The criteria you should be looking at isn't obviousness, or even relevancy to your field - its whether the word existed before. If so, then there is the danger it will become generic, or that it already is. Risk is a generic term that has been in use for hundreds of years. By itself it is not a valid, defendable trademark.

If you read the lawyers' letter, you would have seen the weasel words and the bs, and at least one outright lie - that they claim to own the copyright to the rules of Risk, when game rules are uncopyrightable.

Here's the copyright office take on it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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

The RISK game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

So, who are you going to believe - a lawyer stupid enough to put a lie into print, or the copyright office?

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

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

Don't even need a laundry list.

As for trademark, the term "Hasbro Risk" is a valid trademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. You can't trademark a preexisting generic world. YOu CAN trademark a new word you've made up.

Thats why, in the car world, you see plenty of GTOs, GTs, LXs, DXs, etc, but only one Camry.

The law doesn't provide protection, either under copyright or under trademark, for generic words. For example, Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. They learned that lesson the hard way, and it cost them $20 million to avoid hearing a judge say that (google Microsoft Lindows)

Trademark protection only is valid for non-generic, coined terms, and even then it can be lost by neglect, or adoption by the public as a generic (Escalator is a good example). But you can NOT trademark a term such as "Raisin Bran" and expect to win in court. Kelloggs can't sue Post, because only the terms "Kelloggs Raisin Bran" or "Post Raisin Bran" are protected, not "Raisin Bran" by itself.

So you can create a game called "kimvette RISK" and there's nothing they can do except bluster and threaten.

Here's the actual letter they wrote:

Dear Mr. Hazen:

We are counsel for Hasbro, Inc. (.Hasbro.), the owner of the copyrights and trademarks for the famous RISK� game. We write concerning the online .Risk. game (the .Game.) that you have made available for use in conjunction with Google maps at your website www.ashotoforangejuice.com/gmrisk.html. Your Game appears to copy elements of Hasbro.s RISK� game and rules as well as its trademark. The RISK� game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

Translation: If this sneaks by your bullshit detector, I p0wn you. Hopefully, you won't check to see exactly what the law says ...

Of course, the law says otherwise - they do NOT "own" the rules The rules to the game of Risk are not protected by copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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

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

... So much for that. Let's continue

Hasbro also owns the trademark rights to the RISK� name.

They may have a piece of paper from the trademark office saying that, but its unenforceable. You can no more trademark the work "Risk" in connection with a game than you can trademark "Windows" in connection with computers. Microsoft found that out, and it cost the $20 Million to get Lindows to walk away from Microsoft's own lawsuit. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Trademark is only enforceable on terms that are not generic - in other words, a word YOU make up, not one you find in a dictionary.

Your unauthorized use of the RISK� game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. � 501. Your unauthorized use of the RISK� name also violates the federal trademark laws, including 15 U.S.C. �� 1114(1) and 1125(a), by creating a likelihood of confusion with respect to Hasbro.s authorization or sponsorship of or association with your commercial activities. Even if confusion were not likely, your unauthorized use of these elements is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK� game and trademark and hamper their ability to function as source-identifying marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. � 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws.

Translation: I'm throwing a whole bunch of legal shit against the wall, in the hope that some will stic

Here's what the US Copyright office has to say about it - and they should know http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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

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

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

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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

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

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

If youhad bothered to read the email the lawyer sent, he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments - it was all bullshit. This is because they know that they have no legal leg to stand on.

I've emailed the dude asking for the lawyer's email address so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for. IOW, I'm going to clone the motherfucker, and stick it on a couple of servers (been thinking about it for more than a year, but now I'm pissed!)

Here's what the copyright office has to say about it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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

Hasbro's lawyers need to learn to respect copyright law.

BTW: I've already emailed the dude in the article.

If you read the email Hasbro sent him, it has a nice disclaimer in it - and nowhere do they actually state that he is violating any law. The fuckers!

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

So Hasbro just fucked themselves - hard - because now a million nerds know they can make their own Risk game, even call it Risk, and there's nothing Hasbro can do about it.

Ditto with Monopoly.

Let the Clone Wars begin.

IANAL. But here's what I found by a quick googling:

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

"Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable." - The U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html)

Basically, from the copyright point of view, the guy would have been OK unless he copied the rules verbatim (or maybe close to verbatim) or he copied other parts of the game graphics.

By the way, I wonder if it is possible to sue people for providing false or misleading legal information when they ought to have known better? I am not saying Hasbro is guilty here--that depends on whether the rules were copied verbatim. Another example of the provision of false information are the warnings on DVDs saying that ALL copying is prohibited by law, which is simply false, since there is NO reasonable interpretation (though IANAL) of copyright law under which there is no such thing as fair use. For instance, it seems clearly legal to take a family photograph, for non-commercial purposes, with a TV playing the movie in the background (incidental copying, I think it's called). I wonder if one could get a class action lawsuit by people who were defrauded through the signage.

You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.

You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).

In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here and get the facts.

If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here instead.

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

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

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

In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

How did the makers of spyware get the information about the OS functionality in teh first place so that they could subvert it?Unless they were getting their info from Microsoft DIRECTLY!

How did this get modded "+2: Interesting?" Believe it or not, people have subverted operating systems for decades without the help of Microsoft or the maker of the OS. It's called "hacking."

ALL spyware violates the DMCA and all the spyware writers are liable to arrest.

Not true either. The DMCA states, in effect, that anything protecting spyware may be reverse engineered but not that the spyware itself is in violation. Quoted from page six of the link:

Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person.

Since the purpose of spyware is, of course, to "collect or disseminate personally identifying information," this clause therefore states that any protections on spyware my be lawfully removed.

I may have missed something (the DMCA is kinda long, y'see) but that's the jist of it.

The DMCA seems to already grant two exceptions that this research would fall under:

Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activites of a natural person.

Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security of a computer, computer system or computer network, witht he authorization of its owner or operator.

DMCA - Page 6

Perhaps one could argue that Sony's rootkit doesn't track "online activies", but it seems to me (though hardly an expert on law), that one's right to privacy could be extended in a court to include the sorts of information Sony's software collects.

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

Chapter 10
Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media

  1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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.

    1001. Definitions
(4)(A) A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#100 8

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

There is a lot of uh... loosely written stuff there that can be interpreted by whatever billion dollar budget company sees fit. I think they just wrote the same stuff over and over again using different synonyms to make it look long, while in fact it's just saying, "HEY! Use us however you want *insert a Captain Plan... err Pollution the power is your's*!

Indeed. Live by the ridiculously high fine; die by the ridiculously high fine.

And, today's PSA:

Copyright Office Taking DMCA Comments. Clearly, the rules need to make it 100% unambiguously clear that, yes, it's legal to remove malware from your computer.

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

        *

            Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
        *

            Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
        *

            Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
        *

            Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

If you disagree, please locate in the statute where it states that copyright infringement requires intent, knowledge, mens rea, malice, etc... Here is a link to 17 USC Sec. 92 Chap. 5: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Is "intent" an element of copyright infringment? No.

Do you have to register your copyright to claim damages? No.

Confirming Source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

According to the US Copyright Office, the key parameters to be evaluated are:

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.

Going down the list:

1. Sony is clearly using the copied LAME code for a commercial purpose.

2. Obviously, both LAME and the rootkit are software. It's unclear how this affects the evaluation.

3. Remains to be seen, but there seems to be enough evidence for discovery to begin.

4. Almost any plausible answer to the original question "What does the rootkit do when it detects LAME?" constitutes a direct assault upon "the potential market for or value of" LAME. On this point, Sony is big-red-capital-Superman-S screwed.

Check out what the US copyright office has to say about recipes.

Actually, fair use is codified into law. See Section 107 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. This is law.

Copyright law is even explicit in that regard:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

"Copyright is not immortal, but it is cheaper to register and can last more than a lifetime, literally. The length of copyright protection for works created after 1978 is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. This means the copyright registrations for the NES system are valid until about 2090. Copyright also has some substantial legal "teeth." Under certain circumstances, it is possible for executives of corporations to have personal liability for copyright infringement. Statutory damages can be as much as $150,000 per instance of infringement plus attorneys fees for egregious cases. Actual damages can be even higher. Prison time is also possible for criminal copyright infringement. All that power for a thirty dollar registration."

(Boyd in TFA)

Of course, the scary aspect to the "new" legal situation is just how easy (and dangerous under the DMCA&friends) it has become to infringe the "right" of someone('s heirs) who can wield such powers, for almost a century, without even having been required to make a deliberate effort to protect (and keep publishing) one's works in the first place.

Not quite, dramatic performances (such as plays) can be copyrighted. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp