Slashdot Mirror

Then perhaps you can show me where I can find the limitation of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, which include the right to prepare derivative works: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

But heck, I wonder if the US-localized build which will probably be the only build will even remember that the US already has somewhat similar private copying laws on the books.

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

Inalienable rights - life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness - are fundamental to the human condition.

Copyright, on the other hand, is completely fabricated an attempt to spur creativity, innovation, and risk taking. The copyright laws in the US extend the privelege of an allegedly finite-term monopoly on a work in exchange for that work falling into the public domain at the end of the term. The content distributors have hijacked the system for their own personal gain, at great expense to the general public.

Prior to 1978, you had to apply to the US Copyright Office to get your work protected. Now it's automatic. If copyright is a "right", why do the legislators keep dicking around with the terms so often? The Sonny Bono Retroactive-Indefinite Copyright Extension Act is the worst example of this behavior.

Your "Rights" are described in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Copyright ain't part of either.

Of course, R&D costs nothing, fabrication is free, paying employees for design and support is volunteer based, and filing the patents and copyrights by lawyers are all pro bono.

Copyrights are cheap around $30 per application and patents are roughly $650 per patent application (plust a $100-$150 filling fee) with an average $1,000 every 7 years to maintain... That might be exspensive to a small business but $5,000 or so for every patent for 17 years is a steal for a multi-million dollar company.

However, the Patent experts and full time lawyers they hire on cost an arm and a leg and have to be factored in.

Sources:

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

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/patents.h tm#PatentCost

The special exemtion appears to be in the definition of the scope of copyright(exclusive right, whatever) for architecture:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120

Fair use is also defined on that page:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

So clearly they are seperate things. My bad.

I don't really see the harm in taking about them both as fair use, just because most fair use is defined by case law and the architectural photo exemtion is defined in statute. I guess I take fair use to mean 'non-infringing use' and I don't worry about exactly why it is non-infringing.

The special exemtion appears to be in the definition of the scope of copyright(exclusive right, whatever) for architecture:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120

Fair use is also defined on that page:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

So clearly they are seperate things. My bad.

I don't really see the harm in taking about them both as fair use, just because most fair use is defined by case law and the architectural photo exemtion is defined in statute. I guess I take fair use to mean 'non-infringing use' and I don't worry about exactly why it is non-infringing.

Many Google acolytes like to point out that Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default.

This statement is far too general. Could not the same claim be made of any sytem that categorizes books and journals so a potential user locates them - like a library card catalog?

Pointing to a resource is a much different animal than illegally copying the resource for one's own gain - financial or otherwise.

Furthermore, the prohibition of copying copyrighted works specified in Section 108 of the copyright act is for libraries and archives, and even there specifies a copy can be made if the copyright notice is maintained, it's not for financial gain, and isn't available to people outside of library/archive premises. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108.

Of course, the idea of 'premises' is laughable in the Age of the Internet, but I think the point you tried to make citing Section 108 is a real stretch and in no way bears any resemblance to what the law intends.

Hellooo? Read 17 U.S.C. 106(1) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106. Reproduction on its own is covered by copyright, and you may not reproduce a copyrighted work without permission, except in certain circumstances where it has been explicitly allowed (like backup copies of computer programs and CDs, etc.).

IANAL,
but http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html #howmuch was probably written by them and it says:

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

From this I can see many places were Google is going to have a tough time are arguing that their use is fair. I suspect that they'll fall back to just doing books they get permission for. I expect that many publishers will flock to send them lists of works to add to their indexes.

While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.

-- Want a more interesting quick read? VerbSap

IANAL,
but http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html #howmuch was probably written by them and it says:

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

From this I can see many places were Google is going to have a tough time are arguing that their use is fair. I suspect that they'll fall back to just doing books they get permission for. I expect that many publishers will flock to send them lists of works to add to their indexes.

While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.

-- Want a more interesting quick read? VerbSap

IANAL,
but http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html #howmuch was probably written by them and it says:

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

From this I can see many places were Google is going to have a tough time are arguing that their use is fair. I suspect that they'll fall back to just doing books they get permission for. I expect that many publishers will flock to send them lists of works to add to their indexes.

While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.

-- Want a more interesting quick read? VerbSap

It seems like the distinction is similar to music recordings. That copying the majority of an audio recording, with a few tweaks of your own, is considered infringement. While the "underlying ideas" are not necessarily protected, eg. so you could play the exact same notes with very similar timings again on your own instrument, and that would not be considered to be a copyright violation. (eg. they could have reverse engineered the logic of the circuit and re-generated their own, different, layout)

That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.

Got it?

A library specifically may make a copy, according to copyright law

Also, there are a number of criteria that are to be used to determine fair use. Copyright is not nearly as absolute as Holywood would lead you to believe.

As for Google, they are not providing whole books in readable form except when the books are in the public domain, so I think they have a good case to make that this is a fair use under copyright law.

Got it?

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

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.

Unfortunately, There is no provision in there for PERSONAL use. Our rights for it seem to actually be a grey area, as far as the way the law is written. What are thinkof is precedence set by lawsuits etc, which can be changed as needed base on new information.

In otherwords. We're Fucked

Sections 107 - 118 of the Copyright Act. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

There have been court decisions upholding sections of sections 107 - 118 in the context of home recordings of broadcasted programs.

There is also a Supreme Court decision that specifically says that the recording of tv broadcasts is legal for home use. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984)

Sure, it's in USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

So where are the "significant damage" here?

Isn't that the big question?

Since the RIAA isn't going after downloaders here, but people sharing, a theoretical cap on damages could be the cost of the album (one lost sale) multipled by the number of people that downloaded the song.

But US copyright law gives the RIAA the option of pursuing statutory damages instead: anywhere from $200 to $150,000 per title, depending on whether the infringer knew it was infringing, etc.

Plus the infringer has their own attorneys fees to deal with (and possibly RIAA's if the court agrees). That's why settlement is more desirable than taking it to trial. Consider the number of songs the average sharer actually shares, and multiply it by the $200 minimum, and it's quickly apparent that you're at their mercy.

Is all of this right? Is it just? I won't comment on that.

I think the current 70 years for personal authorship is a little long (even if you create something at 18, you're covered till you're 88, that aught to be long enough to get your share out of your works).

Those 70 years don't start until the author is dead. See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/sl15.html

The legal term for theft/stealing/robbery is larceny, defined by Miriam-Webster as "the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently". The Wikipedia article goes into more detail. The key part of those definitions is the word "deprive." Illegitimate file sharing does not deprive the copyright holder of any property (compensation isn't mentioned anywhere here), so larceny and its related words (theft, stealing, etc) aren't suitable.

Copyright infringement really is the pertinent term. The record label (copyright holder, whoever) owns the exclusive right to reproduce the works it creates, and to license and control those rights. The United States Code itself calls the violation of copyright "copyright infringement," not theft or larceny.

I think the main reason that copyright infringement cannot be simplified to theft is that theft implies that the owner no longer has something that is his. Downloading a song or movie illicitly does not deprive the copyright holder of anything. (It does not deprive them of profit, as downloading has nothing to do with whether or not one has or may purchase the work legitimately, nor do they have the currency you owe them in the first place to be stolen)

I do not claim that file sharing is legal, proper, or the like, but it is not theft, stealing, or larceny. It is copyright infringement, no more, no less.

The legal term for theft/stealing/robbery is larceny, defined by Miriam-Webster as "the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently". The Wikipedia article goes into more detail. The key part of those definitions is the word "deprive." Illegitimate file sharing does not deprive the copyright holder of any property (compensation isn't mentioned anywhere here), so larceny and its related words (theft, stealing, etc) aren't suitable.

Copyright infringement really is the pertinent term. The record label (copyright holder, whoever) owns the exclusive right to reproduce the works it creates, and to license and control those rights. The United States Code itself calls the violation of copyright "copyright infringement," not theft or larceny.

I think the main reason that copyright infringement cannot be simplified to theft is that theft implies that the owner no longer has something that is his. Downloading a song or movie illicitly does not deprive the copyright holder of anything. (It does not deprive them of profit, as downloading has nothing to do with whether or not one has or may purchase the work legitimately, nor do they have the currency you owe them in the first place to be stolen)

I do not claim that file sharing is legal, proper, or the like, but it is not theft, stealing, or larceny. It is copyright infringement, no more, no less.

Here is the paragraph you are looking for. A "more official" version (but less easily naviable) is available here. In short, if you cut out the intervening parts that cover all the OTHER stuff you arent allowed to do, the relevant part boils down to: ... the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to ... reproduce the copyrighted work ...

Now, all nonsense aside, when you click that "download" button you ARE reproducing the work, copying it from the remote computer(s) to your own.

The civil and criminal penalties for violating that exclusive right are laid out a few pages away from those links.

On http://www.cachelogic.com/products/cachepliance.ph p/ they sell several configurations of a P2P file caching server, saying it will save the ISP money in bandwidth. But wouldn't it also remove their protection as a common provider? I mean the ISP would actually be hosting the files going around on P2P, which would mostly be copyrighted works.

No. It is the same exception to copyright law which lets them operate a newsserver, at least in the US. The relevant section would be Title 17, 512 b). However, they do have to respond to infringement claims. However, it appears they are using a transparent proxy (i.e. you won't know it's there).

Kjella

Can you take apart and modify your own electronic equipment ? in the US you can't

Can you get a fair trial in front of your peers ? in the US you can't

Can you read books in your library without fear of being persecuted ? in the US you can't

Can you report stories as a journalist without fear of revealing your sources and being jailed ? in the US you can't

freedom is a good idea but its not working out very well in USA

1. the consumers by and large don't vote
2. the ones that do vote don't seem particularly interested in informing themselves about the actions of their elected representatives, or holding them accountable for those actions-- of course at some point this might have something to do with the fact that whether they are considered to be "left" or "right", all the news sources the average consumer finds out about the actions of their government from have connections to the large media companies that "DRM" is being invented for the benefit of
3. the "consumers" have been so busy bickering about abortion for the last 15 years that there's pretty much no room left in the national debate for trivialities like running the government

From one of the articles:

Under 17 U.S.C. 301(c), as recently amended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (P.L. 105-298), the common-law copyright in these recordings, and state statutes offering copyright-like protection, will not be preempted by federal law until February 15, 2067. The potentially indefinite term of state law protection for these works will therefore end in 2067, 95 years after the recordings first became eligible for federal copyright in 1972.

This statute seems pretty easy to verify.

Well, hey, I have a free moment:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
(c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.

IANAL. Yet. This is not legal advice.

You are right in that actual damages have not been shown, and that there is a good probability that these actual damages don't even exist in many of these cases.

However, copyright law is special in that the copyright holder has the option of pursuing statutory damages. As the name implies, these are damages assigned by statute (statute = law created by legislature). The relevant section of the law is pasted below, but these numbers are significant and are per work infringed.

Statutory damages are often elected because you don't have to go through the hassle of proving them; they are assumed for you by law.

- Neil Wehneman

*******
From Section 504 of http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

(c) Statutory Damages. -

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those instructions for removing some or all of you own site from Google? What good would that do if someone stole their images and posted them on their own site? McFly?

How about you go after them, not google? (They say they lodged a DMCA request with google, but it's unclear if it was framed correctly; i.e. with the DMCA agent, with specific URLs, by certified letter, etc. Also, I doubt they filed 3000 pornographic images with the Library of Congress for copyright, so how do they prove they own the copyright? (though that's not strictly necessary with a DMCA takedown)).

>The installer does not have an EULA! (it was so
>simple, why should I have to say it?)

You have constantly argued that there is a NEED to agree to an EULA to use software. NOw you are turning arround claiming it is NOT needed?

>The copyright law does not forbid modification.
>The copyright law forbids unauthorized use...the
>EULA specifies the authorization and permissions.

No, show me were in the copyright law were it forbids "unauthorized use"? There is no such place. It forbids a few specifically mentioned type of actions ONLY. Nothing else. I have told you that multiple times, provided you with links to copyright law and asked for any support from you by pointing to were in the copyright law you find what you claim. here, another link that details what copyright law controls:

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

That is it. There is no general "authorization requirement" for anyting the copyright holder feels like.

And actually, the copyright law in part forbids modifications since that would in many times require you to also include the existing program. Alternatively there are restrictions due to derived works. All of which is covered in the copyright law.

>Aha...this is where we disagree. The reason is
>the EULA, and not the copyright law. The
>copyright law gives an author the right to
>pinpoint the specific usage of its work through
>a licence.

Not true. Show it or stop tossing out such lies!

>You see, the EULA is not an agreement between
>the vendor and the person that uses the program,
>it is an agreement between the vendor and the
>society...and that includes everyone.

Agreement with the "society"? Get real. You probably need to read up on contract law as well.

2005-08-22: W3C has written to the US Copyright Office regarding a notice of proposed rulemaking. The notice asks if persons filing electronic-only preregistration forms will experience difficulties if the Office requires them to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser. W3C comments to the Copyright Office suggest that requiring a single browser is inappropriate for government services and encourages the Office to pursue standards-based access in accordance with US Federal policy. Read W3C's letter and About W3C. (News archive)

First off, no one can copyright the word "Linux." It doesn't qualify as a protected work and is explicity excluded under the following list of non-protectable works:

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

You can find that list here:

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

Now, while I understand the desire to protect the name Linux, what they're doing is in violation of the spirit of the GPL under which Linux is licensed. Basically they're limiting the use of anything with Linux in the name (include the kernel) to people who pay up for the mark. While the GPL does not provide for the use of the mark, it does say anyone can use that software any which way they want.

That means if I want to run a porn site on Linux I can do so. That means if I want run a nuclear bomb on Linux I can. That means if I want run a ultra conservative christian business on Linux I can. That means if I want run a super flaming gay rights group on Linux I can.

Free Software means the author allows people to choose to do what they want. The GPL explicitly states that once the software is in my hands I can give it away if I so choose. Now Linus is setting up to recoup money ex post facto based on someone's use of said free software. It doesn't work that way.

Linus (nor his representatives) is NOT asking for any money from these companies. The letter mentions that they MAY be required to pay in the future, but it's not asking any money now, nor does that mean that they will be expected to pay in the future! It merely mentions something that may or may not happen in the future.

If Linus is just fucking with us, then I condemn this even more so than if he's serious, and the problem is a hell of a lot bigger.

We have received an email from you regarding the proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration. The comments you submitted cannot be considered because they were in the form of email. As the instructions in the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state, comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

We have received an email from you regarding the proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration. The comments you submitted cannot be considered because they were in the form of email. As the instructions in the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state, comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

Detailed instructions here: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l

I can't believe what I just received when I sent in a comment as this guy
suggested.....

We have received an email from you regarding the
proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because
they were in the form of email. As the instructions in
the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state,
comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the
following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401
of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows:
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James
Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered
by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any
comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope
should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General
Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail,
an original and five copies of any comment should be
addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be
delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays
in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you
first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published
July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as
well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website
at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

I can't believe what I just received when I sent in a comment as this guy
suggested.....

We have received an email from you regarding the
proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because
they were in the form of email. As the instructions in
the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state,
comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the
following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401
of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows:
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James
Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered
by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any
comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope
should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General
Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail,
an original and five copies of any comment should be
addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be
delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays
in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you
first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published
July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as
well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website
at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

I wrote to them and this is what I got back! An original and 5 copies needed!!! Why are they making this so hard, other than to completely discourage people from voicing their openion. Is there a MS hand hiding somewhere behind all this??? Issues like these should be investigated to make sure they is no corruption going on.

We have received an email from you regarding the
proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because
they were in the form of email. As the instructions in
the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state,
comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the
following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401
of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows:
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James
Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered
by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any
comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope
should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General
Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail,
an original and five copies of any comment should be
addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be
delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays
in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you
first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published
July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as
well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website
at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

I wrote to them and this is what I got back! An original and 5 copies needed!!! Why are they making this so hard, other than to completely discourage people from voicing their openion. Is there a MS hand hiding somewhere behind all this??? Issues like these should be investigated to make sure they is no corruption going on.

We have received an email from you regarding the
proposed rulemaking on electronic-only preregistration.
The comments you submitted cannot be considered because
they were in the form of email. As the instructions in
the Copyright Office's Federal Register notice state,
comments can be delivered to the Copyright Office by the
following means:

If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401
of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows:
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James
Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered
by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any
comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope
should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General
Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail,
an original and five copies of any comment should be
addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be
delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays
in processing receipt of such deliveries.

If you wish to submit comments, we strongly urge that you
first read the entire notice of proposed rulemaking published
July 22 (available on the Copyright office website at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr42286.htm l) as
well as the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
published Aug. 4 (available on the Copyright office website
at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l).

This is sensationalist reporting as usual. According to TFA linked in the post:

Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005. 17 U.S.C. 408(f)(1). To comply with this time frame and to facilitate efficient processing of preregistration claims, inter alia, the proposed rule calls for filing such claims by electronic means only. At this point in the process of developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.

Look, game/software companies do this all the time: release something for just MS Windows first because they have the largest consumer pool and later on finish development for other platforms.

Of course, the fact the website will function for an unspecified period in only IE is not cool, and I plan to write in about that. But do get your facts straight before you send in that letter to the Copyright Office.

Here's roughly the letter I'm sending, please adapt it and use it as you see fit. Note that you need to send a total of six copies.

This is on a personal home server over broadband, please be nice.

http://www.mynamehere.com/dave/Copyright%20Office% 20MSIE%20Requirement%20-%20Generic.sxw

Text follows in case the server chokes...

August 15, 2005

Full Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP

Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400

Subject: Proposed MSIE requirement for online filing of copyright preregistrations
RE: The open letter published at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l

To whom it may concern;

As a governmental body, I feel the copyright office should give accessibility to citizens a very high priority. This accessibility is best met with the use of tools that function on a broad range of browsers and operating systems by adhering to open and well-documented standards, such as those of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C).

Introducing a requirement for a proprietary browser supplied by a single party goes against this ideal, especially when that party has a history of illegal behaviors that include anti-competitive practices.

Support for open standards is clearly possible, as the open letter states that support for various open and non-Microsoft browsers is planned. It seems a waste of effort to develop a MSIE-only version followed by an open standards version when the open standards version can work with MSIE to begin with.

There is certainly an argument to be made to ensure that the browser used by the majority of Internet users is well-supported, but it is a fallacy to believe that this support must come at the expense of support for browsers unable to support proprietary features.

It will be further troubling if the reason for the lack of support for open browsers is an ActiveX requirement. ActiveX technology has been dogged by security problems for years, and its use cannot be justified given the availability of secure, open alternatives. The suitability of alternatives is demonstrated by the planned support of non-MSIE browsers.

While any complex web browser is subject to security problems, the fact that the US-CERT has repeatedly recommended using a non-Microsoft web browser (http://search.cert.org/query.html?col=vulnotes&qt =%22using+a+different+web+browser%22) is a strong argument against another government office requiring its use.

A requirement for businesses and individuals to use MSIE to make submissions to the copyright office is an onerous burden in terms of time, money, and security for those relying on non-Microsoft solutions in their affairs.

Sincerely,

Full Name

To whom it may concern,

At the URL:
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l

I read a proposed policy with title "Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims" which asks me as a member of the public to inform your office if I would have any problem if I were required to use the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser for preregistering a work.

Below you can read my personal opinion and feedback on this issue.

I have no access to Microsoft Internet Explorer because I chose to prevent access to it (for security reasons) on all my personal computers and use the Mozilla Firefox browser instead. Whilst my job provides me with access to Internet Explorer, I would be unwilling to submit personal copyright claims through my employer's systems for a variety of reasons related to privacy, intellectual property, and ethical standards.

Microsoft Internet Explorer uses proprietary technology, such as ActiveX, which other Web browsers usually do not support. It also fails to correctly implement a number of crucial Web standards which are critical to interoperability of HTML web pages across different browsers. As a result, I regularly have difficulty navigating websites that are designed exclusively for Internet Explorer, but which are often otherwise compliant with international standards.

As an IT professional with considerable experience in web development for multiple browsers, I know that it is possible to design a website accessible with any modern Web browser, by using Web standards such as XHTML and CSS, and - whenever interactivity is needed - JavaScript and Java applets (which can run on most operating systems).

Requiring users to use a particular Web browser causes disruption, especially for Apple Macintosh and GNU/Linux or BSD operating systems users, who often have no access to Microsoft Windows and may have never used Microsoft Internet Explorer before. When a user community such as yours extends across (potentially) many millions of users, excluding these groups potentially disenfranchises them altogether, and at the very least can cost them significant time and effort (and potentially money) to access a service such as yours that forms one of the underpinnings of the copyright system. This can only be a bad thing.

Please consider the difficulties of non-Microsoft operating system users, as well as those who choose not to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer on their Windows PC's, and try to provide a standards-oriented Web design, which would make their life (and ultimately your IT staff's life) much easier.

Yours

your name goes here!

The Office requests that responses to this supplemental notice of inquiry be made part of the responders' comments on the July 22nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work via their website.

The link only works with Internet Explorer!

PS - First Patent!!!

U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 5

It references Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106. Hence we see that making a copy is copyright infringement, and the copyright owner can take action against the copier. The content of an e-book is definitely copyrightable material. I'd quote statutes if you want it, but I don't think that's necessary.

U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 5

It references Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106. Hence we see that making a copy is copyright infringement, and the copyright owner can take action against the copier. The content of an e-book is definitely copyrightable material. I'd quote statutes if you want it, but I don't think that's necessary.

The reason is almost certainly that, yes, copyright law does specifically recognize that people frequently want control over their works and compensation that isn't directly monetary. In the GPL's case, it's a "I'll show you mine, you show me your's" arrangement.

I'm writing.

This is what I will send:

Hello, I am using Linux and I can not use the Internet Explorer web browser to access a system on your site, as detailed at the URL http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.htm l

I hope that this system becomes accessible from a browser that is available on my Operating system, such as Mozilla Firefox, or Opera. Thank you.

Because good, pro-capitalist governments like America has, they're just all about precise, well-understood and hard-to-abuse laws.

We've got a few more years of this carp before it gets too much for everyone.

Painstakingly choosing to avoid the obvious bad pun one could make here, and taking a slightly different route to the same ends, it's worthwhile to note that CARP really is only for copyrights, not patents.

In the US anyway, and probably in other countries with similar intellectual property laws, recipes are not covered by copyright.

Why do you think Coca-Cola keeps their recipes under strict secrecy?

So brew away -- and feel free to ignore the licensing restrictions of the CC license, at least for the recipe.

This clause primarily affects the music industry. The artists get their music "back" from the labels after 35 years. As a side note, remember the story a while back about the Congressional secretary slipping in a provision defining music as being works-for-hire? He claimed that it was simply an editorial change that clarified existing practice when in fact it drastically altered the way things currently work. He was later offered a lucrative job by one of the labels or the RIAA.

In any case, Mr. Dvorak was wrong. (What else is new?) It's life plus 70, not life plus 75.