Slashdot Mirror

In copyright terms a "license" is what you need if you're going to infringe the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. This case helps define what "essential" means in US statute. If your adaptation is an essential step in running a program that you lawfully own a copy of, then you are not infringing any exclusive rights and don't need a "license agreement" to permit you to make such adaptations.

EULAs are no different from other potential contracts. To be valid contracts there has to be "consideration" on both sides. E.g. you give money in exchange for rights. If you've already given your money for a copy and you already have the rights, there's no consideration and no contract. But some courts have held that a prominent notice on the outside of the package serves to tie an agreement to a copy you buy. For serious questions about whether you can ignore an EULA retain a lawyer.

If you buy their product, wouldn't it make sense you have to follow their rules?

No, that makes absolutely no sense. When you buy a product it's yours.

The copyright holder has certain exclusive rights, and those rights are not infringed when you need to adapt a copy you own to use it. Copying CDs to audio tape to play in the car has always been considered fair use, for example, even when record companies could sell you both CD and tape versions.

If you buy their product, wouldn't it make sense you have to follow their rules?

No, that makes absolutely no sense. When you buy a product it's yours.

The copyright holder has certain exclusive rights, and those rights are not infringed when you need to adapt a copy you own to use it. Copying CDs to audio tape to play in the car has always been considered fair use, for example, even when record companies could sell you both CD and tape versions.

It has to do with a 1980 US law that explicitly mentions computer programs. Clearly it was meant to eliminate the "every time you run a program you make a copy" argument that people still try to foist on everyone today. Apparently they didn't anticipate the "every time you open a file you make a copy" argument at that time.

"Essentially if someone owns a physical copy of software, then they are allowed to modify the code as part of their regular use, no matter what other agreements are in place." Okay, can someone chime in and say, if I own a binary, oops, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, does not mention exemptions for if you own the code, you can go in and modify it. Geesh, this sounds like a leak in DMCA big time if that is the real opinion and it carries into any devices I carry in my hand.

One could argue there's not a substantial difference in programs (a list of instructions a computer interprets to perform functions), music (a sequence of encoded signals a player interprets to produce a waveform), and movies (a sequence of images decoded/displayed by a player to produce a moving record of an event).

How would you get a federal judge to buy that argument? The Congress has defined copyright-related terms in 17 USC 101. A computer program is a "literary work", or a work that carries information in discrete symbols. A sound recording is an audio waveform that has been fixed in a tangible medium; the fact that it's digital is a technical detail in the method of fixation and does not make a sound recording into a computer program. A motion picture is a work consisting of rapidly displayed pictorial images with accompanying sounds.

When someone hires you to create a work, they own the copyright under the doctrine of "work for hire". The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.

In order for a work that is created by a freelance contractor to qualify as a "work made for hire" (specific wording of copyright law), both parties have to specifically agree, in writing, that the work is a work made for hire. If no such agreement exists, then the contractor owns the copyright of the work. That's one good reason to have a contract if you are the one doing the hiring.

In addition, the work must fall into one of nine specific categories delineated by copyright law -- for example, it might be a contribution to a collective work. Generally speaking, if a contractor wrote a software program from whole cloth and nobody else ever touched the code and there was no understanding that anybody ever would, then that program could probably not be considered a work made for hire under copyright law. If if the contractor's code is part of a collective work, however, it still is not a work for hire unless the abovementioned agreement is in place.

The rules for employees are different. The employer clearly has the upper hand there.

The employer would own the copyright if the object in questions is a work for hire... but it's sometimes hard to judge whether the business relationship is employer-employee or not.

Also, without knowing the details of the case, it is possible that his agreement contract included a clause that he would retain copyright over his work. It's complicated as well by the fact that the company he worked for was not in the business of producing the product in question.

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works....

• 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. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
• In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
• 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.

While the law allows libraries to make copies of works, it's only under very specific circumstances, none of which apply in this case. In section 108, it says (emphasis added):

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if --

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage

Since Google is doing it for commercial advantage, they don't meet the first criterion. Further, they don't meet the criteria for sections b or c. Section b applies only to unpublished work, and section C applies to a "published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen"

So no, this library exemption is not going to help Google. These sections were very carefully crafted, and Google's not going to use them as any sort of defense. They may be able to use section 107 (fair use), but not 108.

#include "ianal.h"

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;

Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.

Actually, the law does allow libraries to make a copy of an entire work. Since Google is essentially acting as an agent of the participating libraries, it seems like this exception is applicable.

By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is so far from fair use it's not debatable.

I'll give you a hint. The only possible thing Google could be thought to be infringing on is the right to distribute derivative works. Except that derivative works is defined by the Copyright act as:

a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

Libraries and Archives have a very broad right to archive one copy of a work, so long as certain conditions are met. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 . Google is merely helping these libraries electronically archive their materials in a searchable format that anybody can access. The libraries aren't allowing multiple people to borrow more than one copy at a time. They are allowing mulitiple people to browse a very advanced card catalog system that contains small excerpts. At least, that is my take on it.

504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits:

(a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either -

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

You mean to say that there Pepsi Cola, Herschi Cola, 7UP, Spa Green/Red, Tonic, Cassis, etc. could all be bought before Coca Cola existed? Or you mean to say that these other soda drinks are there because of the stiffling effect of not having a patent on Coca Cola?

Take the big 4 soda makers. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, RC, and DPSU (Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up in case you are dense). Now none of these companies use the same formula. This is why they all have very different tasting soda products and why many people either love or hate one or the other when it comes to Coke and Pepsi in particular.

Now let us say for a minute that no one else was quick enough to have figured out the wonderful process and ingredients that Coca-Cola uses. By having a patent you force disclosure meaning everyone would then be in the know about Coca-Cola's recipe. This means that anyone could clone Coca-Cola perfectly after the patent age was up (see the post that is a sibling to the GP).

As it stands Coca-Cola's recipe is a trade secret and the same is probably quite true for Pepsi, RC and Dr. Pepper. This means that a "perfect" copy of these drinks is never going to be possible because so long as they protect their trade secret, anyone making a exact clone would be breaking the law in "stealing a trade secret." This means knock-off soda made by the people who provide grocery chains and Wal-Mart with their generic soda will never be perfect replicas and only close approximations.

What this boils down to is this: no patent means competition is only driven between brands of what are technically varying products. There is no generic substitute so people who want the "real thing" have to buy it from Coke, Pepsi, etc. This means that they usually do not have to worry so much about competing with the prices of generic sodas which are often sold for as much as half the cost of the name brand. The reason they do not have to compete with these is because they are smaller in number, but also because they can never successfully replicate a brands taste without copying the recipe, which as discussed above is illegal.

Your example of the RIM v. NTP case is not a good example. First off, you misuse the idea because it goes beyond e-mail and wireless link. Go read the claims of the patent and get back to me on that one, because unlike what the masses of patent haters on /. would like you to believe the case isn't as dumbed down as it looks.

Now back to my original example. The reason a Big Mac has no patent is because burgers are much older then the Big Mac. The idea of adding lettuce, tomato, etc. is no big deal since it would be "well known" in the art. There was nothing new and innovative about the Big Mac, I mean even the lame sauce isn't that secret.

I will now point you to a particular patent for a food product. In this case 4,871,554 which is a patent for fortified food products. The first claim basically covers your fortified orange juice. The patent as you will see is held by Coca-Cola, for their Minute Maid division no doubt. I once again invite you to look at class 426 and check out subclass 7 for fermentation processes. There are patents for Anheuser-Busch which covered a cholesterol free egg product (3,987,212) which is now expired.

There is a difference between patenting a mass produced product and a simple cooking recipe. The fact is it would not be economical to get patents on simple food recipes and quite possibly impossible since there is such a wide variety in cooking. On a side note, recipes have the potential to be copyrighted if provided with the proper context. We all know how much longer a copyright lasts over a patent.

Seriously, this is not a really contested issue among patents and you are in an obvious minority here. Why do I say that? The patent application is a WIPO/PCT patent application being sent to a wide variety of states, therefore it must be something that holds patentable weight in many countries and not just in the USA.

My comment [PDF] from a few years ago (via the EFF) still appears in the top 10 pages for my name when you search on Google.

This go around, I don't know if I am any more confident. Mine does fall under one of the valid reasons for legal circumvention of not being able to watch legit videos purchased in other regions. Even though the case was marked "Region 0" it appeaars it was encoded as "Region 2" and I live in "Region 1". The problem is the blanket exceptions. I would be fine if there was a "affermative defenses" clauses in the law that allowed you to get around it for things like making backup copies, transferring media, etc. The only one allowed is artistic or scientific pursuits because those laws appear to supercede the others.

"I guess they don't have Interlibrary loans in your country. In America we do."

Very valid point. In my state, it is very easy to interlibrary loan materials within the COUNTY. Trying to get materials from outside of the county is difficult, but not impossible. Trying to get materials from another public library in another state? Unthinkable/Impossible. Granted, if I was at a university, it would be easier. But there is still the time delay. And not every book is available as an inter-library loan. I can't even begin to count the number of times I requested a book, and two weeks later was told that the book could not be found...or was in storage and couldn't be retreived.

"Plus people have been going to libraries to do research for decades. What makes you think you're special?"

I actually LIKE going to libraries.

"Look. Don't insult our intelligence. You said "every single" and you [meant] "every single"."

Yea, you got me there. Guess I was being a bit unreasonable. But I was upset. Mea Culpa.

""Knowledge should be a public good. It should not be the domain of a few. This is not the middle ages.""

"Then you don't understand what copyright is then. I suggest you get all the books you can on copyright and READ THEM! Don't get your information from Slashdot."

I'll do you one better. I'll read the copyright law itself.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

The U.S. Constitution says that: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Hmmm....limited times...promoting useful arts...allowing authors to benefit...sounds like a philosophy promoting knowledge as a common good.

And...ooo...wait, there is more. 108 of the Copyright Code says that it is ok for libraries and archives to make reproductions or distributions so long as it isn't for a commercial purpose and that the archive is open to the public and that a copyright notice is displayed. This also sounds like a philosophy of knowledge being a public good to be shared and not taken advantage of! Not to mention the doctrine of fair use too.

So...isn't Google trying to create an archive? In conjunction with a library. So long as they only keep one copy on their server, they should be ok. If someone pirates and downloads an entire book permenently onto their computer, the sin is on their head, not Google's.

For point #1, copyright law specifically refuses to limit your ability to make copies necessary to install, run, or achive software. See Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs for more information.

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

I thought "fair use" was never explicitly spelled out excepting a few examples such as the home audio recording act (name may be wrong), but required the application of the four factors.

So, here's my amateur opinion:

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

Well, it's commercial, but they aren't selling the copyrighted work, just (presumably) advertising space.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

*shrug*

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Copying all of it for internal use, displaying small exerpts for context. I think the context is by no means intended to be a replacement for the book, nor will it be.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I think this can only increase the market...? Perhaps with much trouble one could extract an entire book from google, after which the cat's out of the bag. But I think this would be an extremely valuable service.

I'm not sure if they intend to or are able to scan comics, but I can't count the times I've thought "oh, remember that Calvin and Hobbes where Calvin says 'so and so'", and wished for a text searchable database (I even already own most of the books)...

There are http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf/ 4 criteria that determine what is fair use, and until the court rules, we won't know whether it's fair use or not.

One criterion is the extent of copying, and Google fails that one.

Another criterion is the purpose and character of the use, and it could go either way for Google here. It's a commercial use, but it could be used for educational searching, and the result available to the end-user would be an amount that would be fair use.

I'm not sure that third criterion, the nature of the (original) work matters here.

The fourth criterion on the effect of the potential market of the work, may be the most important point, because I think it's clear that the 2-3 line snippets would have few to no negative impact, but potentially have great positive impact on the potential market.

So, the court could easily rule that the initial copying of 100 perecent of the work doesn't matter, it's the size of the snippet delivered to the end customer, the basic use of searching, and the positive impact on the market are the important considerations, and that it's fair use. On the other hand, they could also rule that the initial copying and the commercial nature of the search engine are the important criteria, and rule against Google.

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (emphasis added)

Actually, copyright protection applies to unpublished works as well, provided they would otherwise be eligible for protection (see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#uw). The rest of your post is on the right track. Just because copyright expires doesn't mean the owner suddenly has to give the work away - they just lose the right to keep other people from making copies of it.

According to copyright office, *copying* DVDs for personal use does not fall under the DMCA circumvention provision. It would only be illegal if you somehow accessed content you didn't have the right to access (think pay-per-view divx disks).

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf (first link on google for DMCA)

You sure as hell CAN! The USA Copyright Act provides for what is called a "Compulsory License", which means that if you follow the steps set forth by statute, you can distribute your recording of that song on a CD or over the internet. The owner of the copyright to the song cannot prevent you from doing so.

Note that "permission" is not required. You just have to notify them and pay the statutory required royalties ... The hard part if finding out who owns the rights.

See http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_ law.html and also
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf

I mentioned this in my journal almost 2 years ago (yet another rejected submission:) All links are still good, mostly covering the e-book and fair access for the blind.

There are over 10 million visually impaired people just in the US who are being blinded by the DMCA. On the back page of Software Developer, Warren Keuffel has a commentary (free reg) that summarizes what he found to be issues still brewing over the use of the DMCA to prevent people from implementing technology designed to translate eBooks into Braille. XML is being used now to facilitate the translations of eBooks and other electronic formats and to help disabled people get simple access to reading material that others of us may take for granted. The DMCA effectively blocks many of these new innovations (go figure). Is short, the American Federation for the Blind has sent comments the US Copyright office, Congress is looking at the issue, The Association of American Publishers is fighting it, all the while fair-use and disabled students continue to suffer.

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr57526.htm l

SUMMARY:

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is preparing to conduct proceedings in accordance with section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works. DATES: Written comments are due by December 1, 2005. Reply comments are due by February 2, 2006.

Yuoor Reeghts Oonleene-a: Zee Ergooment fur Creckeble-a Medeea

Pusted by Zunk oon Setoordey Ooctuber 08, @06:45PM
frum zee mekeeng-sufftvere-a-vurk-fur-yuoo dept.

roobberbundu vreetes "Vured is roonneeng a stury ebooot hoo zee US Cupyreeght Ooffffeece-a is luukeeng fur inpoot ebooot a lev thet veell elloo sume-a medeea tu be-a legelly crecked. Thees is eeemed et certeeen uses sooch es creckeeng un ibouk su thet a bleend persun cun use-a reedeeng sufftvere-a veet it und oolder sufftvere-a thet reqooures a herdvere-a dungle-a thet nu lunger vurks." Frum zee erticle-a: "Zee DMCA furbeeds creckeeng ooff cupy-prutected oor eecrypted deegitel medeea, veet certeeen ixcepshuns. Vhee zee lev ves pessed, Cungress mundeted zee regeester ooff cupyreeghts refeesit zee unti-curcoomfenshun secshun ifery three-a yeers tu meke-a soore-a cunsoomers hefe-a pruper eccess tu metereeels zeey poorchesed -- ifee iff cuntent creeturs hefe-a zeem lucked doon. Iff zee cupyreeght ooffffeece-a feends instunces vhere-a cupy prutecshun prefents feur use-a ooff zee vurk, zeen thuse-a cupy prutecshuns cun be-a legelly curcoomfented." Ve-a repurted oon zee oozeer seede-a ooff zee cueen yesterdey. Bork Bork Bork!

Wait just one second. If the RIAA can collect royalties because caching is considered recording, how do radio stations get away with time shifting their broadcaast.

For one thing, copyright law specifically gives radio stations the right to do this. See 17 U.S.C. 112.

that's DEFINITELY not settled law.

I'n never heard of a challenge to the idea that I can buy something that is legal to own here and elsewhere over the internet. Specifically, U.S. copyright law seems clear that:

"In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable."

And that the section on infringing importation does not apply to cases of:

"importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time"

In short, I can buy music online from anywhere I want, so long as the seller has a legitimate license to sell the work being sold. In the case of ALLOfMP3, they do. This is the side of globalization that big business DOESN'T want us to see.

For a longer treatment of this debate you can read this earlier thread, of which I offer more a more nuanced version of my opinion on the topic.

That thread is kinda huge, so if you just wanna read the parts I wrote:

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123447&cid =10372214
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123447&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=3&tid=141&mode=thread&pid=10 373598#10374094
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123447&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=3&tid=141&mode=thread&pid=10 374584#10376270

Mostly that's just to give you an idea of the point I'm driving at. I hope that helps. (well, really I hope it convinces you I'm right, but I'm an optimist that way) ;-)

"You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says. Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference."

Actually, if you infringe enough you are subject to criminal prosecution.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html

Since 1997...

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html

Someone might construe this as meaning "authority of the copyright owners of the protection scheme".

A copy protection scheme is a process, not a work of authorship. Processes are not subject to copyright law (see 17 USC 102(b)) but instead to patent law. Therefore, let us consider a change:

Take 2: Someone might construe this as meaning "authority of the patent holders of the protection scheme".

Such a law would not have been necessary, as Macrovision managed to patent methods of defeating its gain-control copy distortion process before the DMCA was enacted. Here's another possibility:

Take 3: Someone might construe this as meaning "authority of the copyright owner of some other work published under the protection scheme".

I fear only this interpretation.

The actual, real lawyers who've chimed in on similar allofmp3 discussions in the past around here have typically pointed to S 602, importing. Importation is a huge part of copyright law. The museekster FAQ references S 602 and states that this does not qualify -- but consider the source. However, I've read the opinions of lawyers I trust, who say that it does. Of course, opinions are just opinions until there is a court ruling.

In general, if you're comfortable with paying a bunch of Russians knowing that your money is not going to anybody who took part in the production of the music -- that is, "is it legal or not?" is your only real issue, and not "is it moral or not?", then pick the opinion you trust the most, and go with that. I'd say the odds of an individual person being busted for using allofmp3 are practically nil.

The Reanimator is definitely in the public domain by now; any creative works produced in the United States with a publication date prior to 1923 is considered to be public domain, no matter what. Reanimator just squeaks in at 1922.

Anything published after that is iffy -- but could very well be free, depending on how careful Lovecraft or his estate holders were in renewing their copyrights after the initial period was up. This includes Call of Cthulhu, which was written in 1926, and thus I assume published sometime in the late 1920's.

For much of the 20th-century, initial copyright and renewal was for 28 years, by the way, not 14. Later on the renewal period was extended to a whopping 67 years; this includes anything published after 1922 -- which, as I mentioned above, includes a substantial portion (but by no means all) of Lovecraft's work. This doesn't change the fact that it would have to have been renewed in order for Arkham House to claim ownership.

As for the "death plus 50/70" situation, that was generally only applicable for unpublished works. So if you're digging through some murky basement, and you stumble across a pile of ichor-splattered, hand-scrawled notes of hitherto unknown Lovecraftian ghoulishness, you can publish that in 2007.

Here's a nice site with a handy-dandy chart that can help clear away some of the murk for you.

I do not believe that you are correct (this link should set you straight) and furthermore I think you're confusing the patent application process and copyright registration. Registering a copyright for your work is pretty painless, and according to the copyright office currently costs $30.

HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created [italics mine], and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

Oops. The link got lost. Copyright law

Actually, let's go a step further.

Make a recording, the first part of which is "I grant permission for anyone other than employees, family members of an employee, etc. [basically, anybody associated with ... it's the list of people that the fine print of contests always say are not allowed to participate in the contest] of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to distribute, listen to, etc. this recording. I expressly prohibit any employee, family member of an employee, etc. of RIAA or MPAA from distributing, listening to, etc. this recording."

Then record a commentary/critique of the song in question, with clips from the song included where appropriate, to try to fall under fair use.

Now if the RIAA or MPAA try to sue you for copyright infringement/piracy in your use of the song, you can countersue them right back for violating your copyright and bring the countersuit to the attention of the media.

(6) "Distribute" means to sell, lease, or assign a product to consumers in the United States, or to sell, lease, or assign a product in the United States for ul- timate transfer to consumers in the United States.

That sort of distributing is outside the scope of copyright law and licenses because it does not meet the legal requirements for distribution. Giving 500,000 legally produced copyies of a piece of software to 500,000 employees is legal and requires no license.

What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? Merely the fact that the recipients of the modified binaries haven't been given permission to take them elsewhere? That interpretation would render GPL-compliance wholely voluntary.

They aren't consumers because they haven't been given ownership of the copy.

If that's the case, then exactly what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? They are consumers therefore that act would qualify as distribution and be regulated by the gpl. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise Which is never the case. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's an buys a single copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional, is "he" is really allowed to install it on 3000 PCs for "personal" use?

Even if the license is only for one seat, the licensee is still the corporation, not the employee that uses that particular computer. In the case of GPLed software, the corporation is allowed to make a copy for use on any computer they own. This is similar to a site license of Windows XP.

According to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405159/news, Redding also was distributing a "screener" copy that he received as a member of the Screen Actors Guild. No doubt the terms of the license under which he received the copy forbade redistribution of the movie to others.

None of this applies to movies you purchase legally on DVD. These copies are governed by the "first-sale doctrine" found in 17 USC 109 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html:

  109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Now there are some new limitations to the first-sale doctrine as it applies to older works whose copyright was extended under the "Sonny Bono" bill. This is followed by a rather remarkable section (109(b)(i)(A) that essentially nullifies the first-sale doctrine when applied to sound recordings and computer software if the redistribution is "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage." I find this puzzling since it appears to ban the sale of used phonograph records and CDs. IANAL, so this reading is based on the text of the law itself. (Somehow the MPAA appears to have missed the boat on this one.)

However nothing that I know of prohibits you from lending a DVD you have purchased to a friend. However neither of you have the right to make a copy of that DVD except under the extrememly limited provisions termed "fair use." These include "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." Despite constant claims here on Slashdot that there is some type of fair-use exemption for "backup copies," I don't believe such an exemption actually exists in law, at least as it applies to motion pictures. Morever any such copies of most DVD's requires defeating the CSS protections and thus constitutes a violation of Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

I'm not saying I agree with all of these provisions, but that's my understanding of the state of the law regarding redistribution. And, again, IANAL.

If you are a contractor hired to do work, it is work done for hire and all belongs to the client.

If you are in the US and a true W-2 employee, it is actually unclear the best way to do this, because: (i) by operation of law, the work is probably Work Made for Hire; and (ii) because of (i), your employer is deemed to be the *author* of the copyright in the work. In this case, in an odd twist, the best way to handle it is probably to either GPL or open source it, or assign the copyright back to you. Making an agreement that tries to retroactively modify who is deemed to be the author (such as backdating it) may not work. This problem arises because you already created a work of authorship.

If you are a US 1099 independent contractor, you are already the author and owner of the copyright in the code (which explains my comment at the top).

If the code involves a potentially patentable idea, the rules are completely different. Unless you were "hired to invent" (and from the post, you were not), even if you are a US W-2 employee, you are the inventor and there is no implied duty to assign the patent; the best the company has is a shop right (limited internal license). Hence, again, my comment at the top.

If your employer truly is this generous (or potentially this dumb), when I am counsel for the employee, I usually ask the employer's counsel to draft the agreement, if they are competent - this costs less.

The posts about determining value and risk are good advice - if this is just ASP or scripting of hacked together GPL code (indeed, if it contains GPL code or derivatives) and is not really a true application - you do not need a lawyer and are probably better off without even an agreement in writing.

If, however, this is a valuable code and it will matter down the line who owns it and who has a license, and the scope of that license, *good* lawyers will save you the $'s in the end.

I practice and teach in this area. The answer is never that you should *always* hire a lawyer, or never hire a lawyer. But I can tell you that if value presents itself later and proper agreements are not in place, you will either abandon the code or spend much more fixing the problems.

To put it in terms of a computer analogy - I still write software code/scripts for may non profits and simple sites - and we do not do formal agreements; but if there is any significant commercial issue, I hire a professional programmer/developer or real techie. The trick is knowing when the issue is serious enough to call on a professional.

Don't confuse patent (covers inventions) with copyright (covers literary and artistic works, including computer code). Software can be both patented and copyrighted, but ownership is primarily a copyright issue. Run, don't walk, to the Copyright Basics Circular of the U.S. Copyright Office. You should also read the circular on works made for hire and the circular that covers copyright in software. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}

Don't confuse patent (covers inventions) with copyright (covers literary and artistic works, including computer code). Software can be both patented and copyrighted, but ownership is primarily a copyright issue. Run, don't walk, to the Copyright Basics Circular of the U.S. Copyright Office. You should also read the circular on works made for hire and the circular that covers copyright in software. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}

Don't confuse patent (covers inventions) with copyright (covers literary and artistic works, including computer code). Software can be both patented and copyrighted, but ownership is primarily a copyright issue. Run, don't walk, to the Copyright Basics Circular of the U.S. Copyright Office. You should also read the circular on works made for hire and the circular that covers copyright in software. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}

Not at all ... making a single backup copy of a work you own is a usage authorized by the copyright laws.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

        * the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
        * you are the legal owner of the copy; and
        * any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

So as long as the copy is being made for archival purposes, the downloader is in the clear.

The only thing that you *might* get sued for is attempted (i.e., not actual) copyright infringement - but then, it's not clear whether an unsuccessful attempt to infringe on someone else's copyright is something you can be sued for at all, and the matter is furthermore complicated by the fact that you could, in this case, still argue that it was entrapment (probably not legal, either, if it's not the police doing it - and even then, it's not at all clear), etc.

It's not entrapment. No one forced you to download the material. It's a sting. No, law enforcement doesn't have it initiate the sting. Everything is fine as as long as the sting is being performed within the law and to law enforcement standards.
If your IP and track it back to you, you and everyone on the swarm, could be charged with conspiracy for criminal infringement. The conspirators don't have to know each other. They just have to come together for a common criminal enterprise. Rapid illegal distribution of copyrighted material is a such an act.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

The copyright holder has the exclusive right to create derivative works. Unless you have permission to modify the code, you are forbidden by law to create the modified version. Limiting the permission to modify does not make the GPL and EULA. It is not about usage. It is about creating derivative works (modified copies, so to speak), which is covered by copyright law (see link). Your repeated but still unsubstantiated claims that it isn't don't change the law.

I assume we're talking about U.S. copyright law here. The relevant paragraph is: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

This paragraph limits what you can do with the program. The exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" belongs to the copyright holder. Note how it says "prepare", not "distribute". Copyright law prohibits modifications to someone else's copyrighted works, unless you have obtained permission, in this case by accepting a license which specifically excludes removal of the download feature from the permission to modify. Paragraph 117 allows the creation of adaptions under certain circumstances, but the circumstances don't apply here.