Slashdot Mirror

MooseGuy529 said: ... If I take this copy [the electromagnetic wave], take it out of the air, put it on magnetic tape (or a hard drive) and then later show it again, how is this invalidating a copyright? Personally I don't think broadcasters (cable is a different story) have a leg to stand on.

Well this one is pretty clear WRT copyright law. See, the broadcaster has rights to copy the programme (via sending it out on "the air"). You don't own the rights to copy it. The exception for your viewing is the 'transitory' nature of the copy. When you put that EM wave you took out of the air and put it on tape (harddrive, etc) you are reproducing (fixing the work to a tangible medium). This is a right you don't have. That's why programmes have 'fine print' at the end of the credits that say things like "Copyright [Someone]. All rights reserved".

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

[Over the air broadcasters] are dropping flyers from the sky, and complaining if you put one in your pocket to read it later.

This point doesn't back up your argument, which is one of reproduction (red herring). Time-shifting is an established fair use. If you started copying the flyer and giving it to other people you'd be liable. Depending on the consequences of that action (fraud, large damages from, say, reproducing a flyer with a price typo), maybe worse.

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.

You should look up fair use, it is much more restrictive than you seem to think it is.

LOL. You missread the page if you think there was a single restriction on there. Better yet lets look at the text of the law they are reffering to:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > SECTION 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Which reads:
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.

Now lets break it doesn't and see what it actually says:

"purposes such as..." blah blah blah. That portion is a list of examples of fair use. It is not restrictive, and has no legally binding effect whatsoever.

Then there's "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include..." blah blah blah, four factors. Note that they are merely four factors that shall be considered. That is not restrictive either. In fact the courts routinely consider OTHER factors as well. For example the courts often also consider whether a use is "transformative". The courts are perfectly free to give the four listed factors absolutely zero weight relative for any other factors they choose to consider. So that section also has zero binding legal effect.

When you read it carefully all it REALLY says is "the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright". Period.

At this point I'd like to adress something which your link glossed over. Your link noted: Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years." Fair use first appeared in the text of copyright law in 1976. The court decisions your link refers to run all the way back to some of the first Supreme Court cases in the country. Fair use is not granted or defined by the text of copyright law. It counldn't be, considering that fair use existed for some one hundred seventy years or so before the text of the law ever mentioned it. In fact if you check the congressional record when that fair use section was passed into law in 1976 you'll see that the legislators explicitly stated that the fair use section was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter the existing fact of fair use.

Congress did not establish fair use. Congress did not grant fair use. Congress did not define fair use. The courts did, and they still do. There is a very good reason that congress did not attempt to alter restrict or define fair use. They do not have the power to do so. Fair use was establied on constitutional grounds. In the very earliest cases copyright law was found to be in conflict with other portions of the constitution, most notably the Fisrt Amendment. For example, on it's fact copyright claimed to restrict all copying, including the small quotations that are required for effect

Unless you want to keep uncompressed audio, you will lose quality using this hack.

You should look up fair use, it is much more restrictive than you seem to think it is.

Slightly off-topic, but very amusing paragraph I came across in my copyright searches:

How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?
Copyright law does not protect sightings. However, copyright law will protect your photo (or other depiction) of your sighting of Elvis. Just send it to us with a Form VA application and the $30 filing fee. No one can lawfully use your photo of your sighting, although someone else may file his own photo of his sighting. Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph.

From What does copyright protect?

If the Asimov estate sued, he'd just have to point them to the issue of Asimov's where Isaac himself stated that you can't copyright titles. Now, an argument could be made for trademarking titles in certain circumstances, but in general a title doesn't qualify for protection.

References:

• Copyright protection not available for names, titles, or short phrases
• Protection of literary titles

You are allowed to defeat protections if they are intended to block you from copying, but you are not allowed to defeat protections if they are to limit who can play the media.

For more information see http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Specifically, the bottom of page 3 which discusses Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the USC.

You are allowed to defeat protections if they are intended to block you from copying, but you are not allowed to defeat protections if they are to limit who can play the media.

For more information see http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Specifically, the bottom of page 3 which discusses Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the USC.

"Should programmers get a royalty for a photograph containing part of their source code printed out in the background that's neither runable nor readable?"

To my understanding, no -- and that's because different types of work have different protections. A sculpture is referred to in copyright law as a visual art and has its own set of restrictions. FWIW, software is considered a literary work. By their nature, literary works have different protections than visual arts. Creators of literary works should not be upset that creators of visual works have their own set of protections, and vice versa.

" It's not about some being "more equal" than others-- it's about applying common fucking sense."

It's a little of both. I think enforcement of the rightsholder's rights would be better handled ex post facto -- if a book or a postcard shows up with a photo of the sculpture, then the sculptor can sue. Chasing photographers out of the park, as one person put it, isn't the best way. However, the underlying theme of "the sculptor gets the right to say who can photograph their work, but I don't have that right associated with the way I choose to make money" is indeed driven by the recurring perception on Slashdot that coders, web designers and other Slashdot-friendly professions are getting the shaft.

"Should programmers get a royalty for a photograph containing part of their source code printed out in the background that's neither runable nor readable?"

To my understanding, no -- and that's because different types of work have different protections. A sculpture is referred to in copyright law as a visual art and has its own set of restrictions. FWIW, software is considered a literary work. By their nature, literary works have different protections than visual arts. Creators of literary works should not be upset that creators of visual works have their own set of protections, and vice versa.

" It's not about some being "more equal" than others-- it's about applying common fucking sense."

It's a little of both. I think enforcement of the rightsholder's rights would be better handled ex post facto -- if a book or a postcard shows up with a photo of the sculpture, then the sculptor can sue. Chasing photographers out of the park, as one person put it, isn't the best way. However, the underlying theme of "the sculptor gets the right to say who can photograph their work, but I don't have that right associated with the way I choose to make money" is indeed driven by the recurring perception on Slashdot that coders, web designers and other Slashdot-friendly professions are getting the shaft.

"No, it does not, because as soon as you press the "burn CD" button, you've got the exact same thing you would have had if you'd bought the CD in the store."

Actually not quite, because of course you're buying digital music that has been encoded in a lossy format, so the quality of that burned CD is lower than if you'd bought a CD in the store. Then, if you rip it again into mp3 it's even lower. So yes, you can get around it if you're willing to waste the CDs (though there may be a clever way to simply "burn" ISO images) and time and loose a bunch of quality, again all for music you payed to have. All this compared to an mp3 you can get from a true download service (Emusic or others) that you can move around to any computer and burn as many times as you please, one that plays on any portable digital music player.

"'I have known people who had difficulty moving music they bought on their work computer to a their home computer where they wanted to listen to it' That's vague, and sounds bogus to me."

It's vague because I haven't tried it myself, so I can only relate what I've been told. I haven't tried iTMS, Napster, etc. because I object to the entire idea that my computer should police what I do with the music (or movies) I buy, and it is in that sense that I see it as an invasion of privacy. Apple's scheme doesn't seem too bad, for now, but it is a small step down a road to making your devices police your actions and repealing the fair use rights of users. It's unethical and I won't have any part of it if I can help it.

"'you're saying that I can get proper use out of the product I payed for if I'm willing to illegally break into it, because I believe this would violate the DMCA.' Well, no, it wouldn't violate the law (there is no DMCA; it's Title 17), but don't sweat that."

You mean H.R.2281 -- Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the one that's referred to as the DMCA on copyright.gov? Seems fair to me to refer to it as such. Anyway, we ignoramuses out there generally believe that the following clause prevents anyone from circumventing the DRM features on a digital music file:

"`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Now I'll admit freely, IANAL, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the law. Here's some further info on DRM and the DMCA, and here is a story from a few months ago when Apple was talking about going after Real for just this sort of thing.

"I'm sorry, but a photograph of a sculpture is not a reproduction of said sculpture. If people were out making photographs of some artist's photographs you'd have a point."

The phrase you're looking for is "derivative work" and it's covered by copyright law:

A "derivative work" is 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. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

It's my understanding that a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art will be classified as either a reproduction or a derivative work depending on the particulars of the photograph.

You can learn more here.

In short, this means that you can't publish a book of photographs of somebody else's sculptures, jewelry, and so on without first getting permission

"The issue here is that the city wants to make money selling postcards and nobody has sued their asses yet."

My understanding is that the sculptor wants to make money off of postcard sales. I do not believe that the sculptor has transfered copyright to the city.

Nice try, but there is no such thing as "copyrighted worldwide" and there's a very good reason --$$$s.
Ya see, many countries actually charge money in order to register a copyright. Yep, that's right --it's not automatic or free everywhere just because it is in the US. In fact, it wasn't alwasy the case in the US either.


That, Mr. President, turns out not to be the case. Iff by "many" you mean "the countries other than Elbonia not appearing on this list" http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf , then *maybe* you're right. No, not even then.

All signatories to the 1985 Berne Convention agree that copyrights are automatic. Any work authored in any of the signatory countries is *poof* copyrighted in *all* signatory countries.

Yes, even *CHINA* is on the list. Your argument doesn't fly.

Trolling AC.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

no it's not. Format shifting would be a derivative work for no valid reason.

But, it would really be up to a judge whether something falls under the 4 "rules" to fair use. My contention would be that the hypothetical situation would not, as it wouldn't meet the teaching/research/comment/news reporting aspects of fair use.

Fair use does not mean that because you bought it, you can do whatever you want with it.

A lot of the radio stations and aggregators I worked with got into streaming and back out following exactly the dot com paradigm. The internet was the future and everyone needed to establish a presence or become obsolete. They spent far too much money going in on a clasic 1. Stream content 2. ??? 3. Profit! plan.

Still, it was the extreamely high American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) rates for internet advertising spot rights that really pulled the rug out from under the professionals in the space. We spent a bunch of time and effort on ad replacement but the gold rush mentality was fading.

As the parent post also covers, the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) also had a hand in increasing the expense of doing internet broadcast of music. The Librarian of Congress has accepted the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and rejected the rates and terms recommended by a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) which were based on the agreement between the RIAA and Yahoo. If you take a moment to look at the rates please note "For purposes of paying the royalty, each transmission to each individual recipient is counted as one performance."

Even if the broadcast rates for internet broadcasts were not absurd and excessive, the gap between internet broadcasting revenues and costs would probably still be an issue. From the section describing why a percentage of revenues fee was rejected, "CARP noted that because many webcasters are currently generating very little revenue, a percentage of revenue rate would require copyright owners to allow extensive use of their property with little or no compensation."

During the dot.com "plague years" we saw hordes of internet broadcasting companies belly up.

This had little to do with "dot com" ("dot.com" is redundant) failures. Internet broadcasting failed because Yahoo! bought out all the major net 'stations' to merge into its net.radio project - which it then killed itself through gross mismanagement once every competitor had been acquired. It still exists, and it still sucks.

After this 'coincidence', the RIAA attacked every remaining net.broadcaster viciously; the preponderance of "stolen" radio broadcasts was their major propaganda line about the net pre-p2p mainstreaming. This law, which was completely an RIAA creation, is what killed internet broadcasting, not some ambiguous economic situation.

Ignore the "p2p isn't theft" trolls, they are misinformed.

In the United Sates, copyright violation has _laws_ describing monetary damages per infringement. Those are on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands in statutory damage (which are essentially punishment and are not connected to "profit" or "lost business")

check out section 504(c) for clarification here. Notice it also has provisions based on "lost business", but they are seperate from the statutory ones.

If, for example, Microsoft used a nifty feature copied directly from the HURD (hahaha) in longhorn and was found out two years and 10 million copies later they could easily owe billions of dollars in restitution.

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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.

" If you want to "support your artists," then you shouldn't give money to the RIAA companies. Fact is that the vast majority of the money you pay for CDs doesn't go to the artists, but to the corporate coffers."

Huh? About 30% of the price you pay for a CD goes to the store that sells it to you. Likewise, most of the money that the record company gets for the CD goes to paying the various people who helped create the CD. "Corporate coffers" sounds like you think it's going into some Gringots-style bank; the reality is that when you buy a CD, a mouse, or most any other consumer good, most of the money you pay ends up paying somebody's salary. In fact, the record industry makes do with margins that are lower than the PC mouse industry, so it's likely that if you buy a CD and a mouse, a higher percentage of the cash you paid for the CD will end up going to help somebody make their living.

"Why do we like breaking DRM? Because if I pay for something, I might want do things with it. You know, throw it on a few computers, play it in my stereo downstairs and also have a copy up at my summer home (I'm dreaming). The Constitution gives us that right, and calls it Fair Use. DRM attempts to defeat our constitutional rights, something that nerds don't like, you dig?"

The constitution says nothing about "fair use rights," and neither does US copyright law. If you'd like to learn more, you can read what US code has to say about fair use. There's also the Wikipedia entry and EFF primer. Fair use doctrine gives you a set of legal outs if you're brought into court for copyright infringement (ie. you can attempt to use the guidelines in that section to show that your actions were fair use), but fair use doctrine most definitely does not disallow a rightsholder from taking steps to prevent their work from being copied in an unauthorized manner.

Either way, you're allowed, under fair use doctrine, to make a copy of music you've purchased for personal use. I do this all the time with stuff I've purchased from iTunes, without breaking their DRM -- the folks at Apple who set up the DRM policies took a sensible approach, and their DRM allows me to move tracks between multiple iPods, make backups of the tracks, burn them to CD as often as I want, and even burn multiple copies for friends (which is definitely not fair use, but iTunes doesn't stop me from doing it anyway). In short, Apple's DRM has not stopped me from doing anything I've wanted to that would fall under the realm of fair use. Apple's DRM does not allow me to put a track in a P2P share directory so dozens of people I don't know can download it and listen to it, but that's not "fair use" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you ever come across a music download service that doesn't allow you to make copies for personal use, then that service is retarded and will hopefully die the death it deserves. Apple's DRM is remarkably easy-going, and I think this is one of the reasons that the iTMS is such a wild success.

" If you want to "support your artists," then you shouldn't give money to the RIAA companies. Fact is that the vast majority of the money you pay for CDs doesn't go to the artists, but to the corporate coffers."

Huh? About 30% of the price you pay for a CD goes to the store that sells it to you. Likewise, most of the money that the record company gets for the CD goes to paying the various people who helped create the CD. "Corporate coffers" sounds like you think it's going into some Gringots-style bank; the reality is that when you buy a CD, a mouse, or most any other consumer good, most of the money you pay ends up paying somebody's salary. In fact, the record industry makes do with margins that are lower than the PC mouse industry, so it's likely that if you buy a CD and a mouse, a higher percentage of the cash you paid for the CD will end up going to help somebody make their living.

"Why do we like breaking DRM? Because if I pay for something, I might want do things with it. You know, throw it on a few computers, play it in my stereo downstairs and also have a copy up at my summer home (I'm dreaming). The Constitution gives us that right, and calls it Fair Use. DRM attempts to defeat our constitutional rights, something that nerds don't like, you dig?"

The constitution says nothing about "fair use rights," and neither does US copyright law. If you'd like to learn more, you can read what US code has to say about fair use. There's also the Wikipedia entry and EFF primer. Fair use doctrine gives you a set of legal outs if you're brought into court for copyright infringement (ie. you can attempt to use the guidelines in that section to show that your actions were fair use), but fair use doctrine most definitely does not disallow a rightsholder from taking steps to prevent their work from being copied in an unauthorized manner.

Either way, you're allowed, under fair use doctrine, to make a copy of music you've purchased for personal use. I do this all the time with stuff I've purchased from iTunes, without breaking their DRM -- the folks at Apple who set up the DRM policies took a sensible approach, and their DRM allows me to move tracks between multiple iPods, make backups of the tracks, burn them to CD as often as I want, and even burn multiple copies for friends (which is definitely not fair use, but iTunes doesn't stop me from doing it anyway). In short, Apple's DRM has not stopped me from doing anything I've wanted to that would fall under the realm of fair use. Apple's DRM does not allow me to put a track in a P2P share directory so dozens of people I don't know can download it and listen to it, but that's not "fair use" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you ever come across a music download service that doesn't allow you to make copies for personal use, then that service is retarded and will hopefully die the death it deserves. Apple's DRM is remarkably easy-going, and I think this is one of the reasons that the iTMS is such a wild success.

The DMCA exemptions explicitly allow emulation of video game systems that are no longer manufactured or widely availible.

On October 28, 2003, the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The four classes of works exempted are:

(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.

(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.


(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.


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

A 1999 page is completely accurate when it comes to copyright *duration*, as terms have not been altered since 1998.

In fact, mine has significantly more (correct, for the record) detail regarding anonymously created works. In addition, Lolly is incorrect - works published between 1951 and 1977 all receive the 28+67 extension, not 64-77 as she claims.

It's all in here. Which, if you had read it recently, you would know has not been amended since the Bono Act in 1998.

LOL! I was just about to direct you try learning the law, but I see you posted that link yourself. You've seen the law, but you have MISREAD it.

The law does not say information - the work - is owned. It says ownership of the copyright. Ownership of the right to sue infringers. A very important point of law is that the work itself or any copy of that work is an entirely different thing than the copyright to that work. That link deals extensively with that distinction.

It is physically impossible to steal a copyright. The closest you could get to "stealing" those rights would be to commit fraud in claiming ownership of those rights. The proper term for this is "slander of title".

As for saying copyright infringment is "theft", I direct you to the Supreme Court. Copyrigth infringment does not equate to theft.'

I also find it interesting how the court uses the phrase "intellectual property". It is the copyright itself which is "intellectual property", not the song or text or software.

The reason people argue over the use of the words "theft" and "property" is because people use them in the INVALID sense that information itself is "property". And when you think information is property you think property law applies. This leads to all sorts of legally invalid logic. You get silly arguments like someone "trespassing" on their own property - on their own copy - because someone else owns the copyright on the copy. Copyright law and patent law and trademark law are entirely different than property law. A big problem is the constant effort by lobbiests to turn it into property law. They are SUPPOSED to be different than property law, trying to make them the same just results in broken law.

And the really ugly part is they have spread so mouch misinformation on what copyright law is and how it works that many people - and many legislators - have been convinced that the law already says what the lobbists would like the law to say. It's very easy to get legislators to fundamentally change the law when they think that's what the law already says. And when they do realize the law didn't already say that, they have the mistaken impression that there is some error with the law. Good copyright law is SUPPOSED to be different than property law.

Copyright infringment is certainly copyright infringment. But if you try to apply a "theft" mind set to it you bring in an entire model of law that does not actually apply. You start thinking certain things are illegal that aren't. And when you discover they aren't illegal you get the impression that there is some error in the law that those things are not illegal. Then you get some misguided effort ot "fix" the law.

-

but I would assume that you also get ownership to the land when you buy something.

What is ownership of anything other than the right to exclude others from using said thing?

There is nowhere in patent or copyright law anything about ownership.

Then why is chapter 2 of U.S. copyright law entitled "Copyright Ownership and Transfer"?

The basic rule is that ideas and thoughts cannot be owned.

Thoughts aren't copyrighted until fixed in a tangible medium. Even then, ideas aren't subject to copyright; only expressions are. Patents, on the other hand, are far from ideal thanks to an underfunded USPTO.

"Intellectual property" is not a scarce resource.

Works of authorship and recent inventions are scarce resources in all WTO member states, but only because the officials elected before you were born say they are.

Yes, doctrine of first sale applies to software.

Courtesy of Adobe vs. Softman and numerous other court cases, the typical software purchase is a purchase, not a license. However, the decision does not apply to subscription services like MMORPG, as it is not a perpetual use thing.

See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Criminal Offenses, and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=18&sec=2319 ,
for figures

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

I don't think you read my post so I will shout my point at you: COPYRIGHT HAS BECOME MEANINGLESS. YOU CANNOT SNEEZE WITHOUT VIOLATING COPYRIGHT. Copyright law treats all works equally. You only seem to think it applies if the work has commercial value. Guess what? Even though you posted anonymously, your post is under the full protection of copyright for 95 years! If you can tell me why that makes sense, then I will happily let you go back to your own little world.

You're right; I'm wrong.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html very clearly states that game mechanics are not copyrightable (although exact wording of rules may be).

And... it seems foobar that you can't copyright games. I mean, why would Microsoft even bother negotiating for rights? Why not make a brand new game, which just happens to have the *exact* same game mechanics, but is known as "Pioneers"?

Does that mean that I'm free to make a "compatible" expansion to Munchkin?

Let me be the one to point out (and point out with my identity shown) that copyright is protected by federal law. I'm not going to talk about right and wrong, but I am going to point out that the monkies out there who have a copy'n'paste "copyright is a civil issue" for every piracy story on /. have no idea what they're copying and pasting about. You may now continue with the rationalizations of your illegal activity already in progress.

"Either the RIAA gets money from a tax on cd-r, or they get to enforce their copyright for damages in the court... but not both."

The tarrif collected on audio CD-Rs goes largely to musicians, composers, lyricists and the like. Record companies get a small slice of the pie. None goes directly to the RIAA.

It's a bit wordy and boring, but here's the section of US copyright law that spells out how the money is distributed.

You are correct, however, that if the audio CD-R tariff were to go largely to the RIAA, then they'd be double-dipping.

Other crusades have been

The prohibition of Alchohol during 20's. Alcohol was the the leading factor in bad health, missed work, crime, violence, etc. ie, it was the root of all evil, so banning it ofcourse would fix all these social ills.

Communism during early fifties. For its strange ability to make people homosexual. Which of course makes it the root of all evil.

The evil "switch blade" which suddenly in the late 50's became the root of all evil and in the midst of much hysteria in congress, had to be banned for our own good.

Child Porn during the late 70's. mentioned above.

Public key encryption during the early 90's, Logic dictates that Citizens with unbreakable encyption are probably criminals.

Mean looking guns, which have supplanted switch blades as the source of all crime during the 90's.

copywrite infringers in the late 90's.

Terrorists which somehow only live in oil rich nations for the 2000's.

and now video copywrite infingers.

I think his point is that its just another crusade. Something blown out of proportion to what it really should be. Check the stats:

In 2002, there was an estimated 896,000 cases of abused children. More than 60 percent of child victims experienced neglect. Almost 20 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, almost 20 percent were associated with "other" types of maltreatment based on specific State laws and policies.

Of those 10% that were sexually abused, how many were abused just so that they could be photographed? Does Child Porn really get the attention it deserves or is it getting a lion share because it is somehow more dirty and news worthy than a kid getting beaten to death by his drunk step dad.

The difference is, Google is a service provider that falls under the safe-harbor provision of the DMCA. To fall under the safe harbor provision, the site must register with the copyright office and identify how to contact their copyright agent. As you can see, Loki Torrent has not registered.

The difference is, Google is a service provider that falls under the safe-harbor provision of the DMCA. To fall under the safe harbor provision, the site must register with the copyright office and identify how to contact their copyright agent. As you can see, Loki Torrent has not registered.

"Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action."

It carries both civil and criminal penalties. Here's where one can learn about criminal copyright infringement.

"And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement."

The thing about the law is that those subtle differences can make all the difference. "A is kind of like B, so if A is legal/illegal, so must B" should not be assumed to be true. Torrents are derived from the works in question; they contain hashes of the file and other data. They're more than just an HTML link.

Either way, a quick look at their torrent page makes it pretty darn obvious they know what they're doing. Compare their operation to one of the dozens of legitimate sites like legaltorrents.com.

Copyright violation, like many other areas of law, has both civil and criminal penalties. In this instance, it's a criminal issue.

The relevant law is here if you would like to learn more about the laws of the US. To fight a law you think is unfair, you must first understand it.

It is possible that various kinds of ISPs do not have liability for copyright infringements committed by their subscribers, even if they don't follow the 17 USC 512 procedures, but that hasn't been litigated adequately and few ISPs want to try.

In my opinion, most GPL problems are caused by an inadequate definition of the term "derivative work".

For definition of "derivative work", the GNU GPL defers to the United States Congress, which has defined "derivative work" in 17 USC 101 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. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

The LGPL does allow linking, and I see it as a much fairer license because it lets your code stay open, but does not prevent other people from licensing their own code differently.

But how can one usefully implement the LGPL where the linker itself is a secret, such as on an embedded system?

Parody is the only Constitutionally-protected form of copying

I didn't realise parody was in the Constitution, but you are dodging the point, as the Constitution is not the only law in the land. From copyright.gov:

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.

So you can copy and distribute stuff, and it does depend on the circumstances. Huh. That sounds almost identical to what I said, doesn't it?

However, parody by definition is not a copy, merely an imitation so close as to be easily recognizable as the real thing

You have an overly-narrow definition of parody. Parody may include copying, for instance rearranging video footage for ironic purposes.

If copying is not involved in parody, then why does copyright law have to exempt it?

However, parody has no relevance to a bit-for-bit copy of a piece of music or a movie.

That depends on the context. Given the right context, I believe John Cage's 4'33" could be parodied with a bit-for-bit copy, although personally I don't believe that it merits copyright protection in the first place.

However, I was only using parody as an example. Fair use doesn't just cover parody.

So, not to be argumentative, but your comment of "it's not true at all" is hogwash.

You claimed that you can't copy and distribute legally. That isn't true at all, and if you read the two links I've provided, you will see that.

Even -that- article dosen't state what you claim it does. Game mechanics aren't patented, and although the artwork can be copyrighted and the name of the game trademarked, it's quite simple not to call the game anything with "catan" in it and not copy the artwork,etc. You managed to find an article that although interesting, has nothing to do with the real world - Read the U.S. Government's take on Copyright - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html . Apparently you don't have a "monopoly" on links... good thing mine is accurate :).

Right, didn't lookup crippleware, but anyways...
I based the 50 years on nothing more solid than a quick google and the Berne Copyright Treaty
I've now found this.

Giving away your fair-use copies CAN also be legal fair use as well in some circumstances; it can also be illegal copyright infringement in others. It is a legal grey area -- giving a copy to a relative is unquestionably OK. Giving a copy to 10 casual accquaintances is probably OK. Giving a copy to everyone in a class you are teaching might be OK. *SELLING* a copy is *NOT* OK.

"Fair use," in and of itself, is nowhere clearly defined in the copyright law, and its interpretation is largely left up to judges in individual cases. Whether or not a given case of suspected infringement constitutes Fair Use is determined on the basis of several factors, including the nature of the work infringed and the purpose for which it was copied.

I can assure you that several of the examples you cite are most certainly not Fair Use; checking a book out from the library does not give you the right to give a copy to a relative. ("Unquestionably"? Are you so naive you actually believe that?) And I certainly hope you don't teach any classes, because if you do, you might want to do a little bit of research before you find yourself in a mess of trouble with your boss.

Giving away your fair-use copies CAN also be legal fair use as well in some circumstances; it can also be illegal copyright infringement in others. It is a legal grey area -- giving a copy to a relative is unquestionably OK. Giving a copy to 10 casual accquaintances is probably OK. Giving a copy to everyone in a class you are teaching might be OK. *SELLING* a copy is *NOT* OK.

"Fair use," in and of itself, is nowhere clearly defined in the copyright law, and its interpretation is largely left up to judges in individual cases. Whether or not a given case of suspected infringement constitutes Fair Use is determined on the basis of several factors, including the nature of the work infringed and the purpose for which it was copied.

I can assure you that several of the examples you cite are most certainly not Fair Use; checking a book out from the library does not give you the right to give a copy to a relative. ("Unquestionably"? Are you so naive you actually believe that?) And I certainly hope you don't teach any classes, because if you do, you might want to do a little bit of research before you find yourself in a mess of trouble with your boss.

But you fail to provide any justification for your conclusion based on your facts. What element of copyright law are they missing? Maybe you should read: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf before forming your conclusion.

You're describing the law as it should be, not the law as it is, at least in the US. If what you say were correct, there would be no need for additional legislation to make your claims true.

Fair Use is nowhere near as expansive as you describe it. Read the law. Important sections are here and here.

Actually, it's probably just a bit broader than the law states, due to various decisions in case law. But not much mor expansive, and most of those decisions precede the modification of the law, meaning that using them will require the courts to re-examine the law and the decisions to determine what it means now. Oh, and there have been some decisions that to narrow it, as well.

As I understand it (IANAL, but I am a moderately well-informed layman):

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I make a backup copy.

This isn't clear and probably isn't true. There's certainly nothing in the law that specifically allows it. What you can say is if you make a copy for backup purposes, the copyright holder has no legal recourse. Your civil liabiity for the illegal act is limited to the amount of the damage, which is $0. The criminal provisions added by the DMCA (or was it the CTEA? I forget) only kick in if you make backups of more than $1000 worth of recordings in a six month period, so you're safe as long as you don't back up more than, say, 75 CDs per six month period.

Since the copyright holder's recourse against you is nil, a court would dismiss any such case as "de minimis".

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I want to copy it to a different media/format.

This is pretty much the same story as backups, AFAICT.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying to parody it.

This one is hard to be sure about. The case law with respect to parody is complex (i.e. I don't even claim to understand it except that I know the courts have okayed parody in some cases and refused it in others).

If you're going to parody something, your best bet is to either (a) get permission (which is what Wierd Al does) or (b) talk to a good lawyer.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying it for educational usage, either as a student or as a teacher, or for research purposes.

From my reading of section 107, this would seem to be true. On the other hand, I know that schools have been successfully sued for copying sheet music for choir practice.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I copy to modify it in any way I like for personal use.

I think this is the same situation as backups and format shifting. The law does grant the copyright holder exclusive rights over the preparation of derivative works, and I don't find anything that grants you a personal use loophole. Again, though, any suit would seem to be de minimis.

And on an on and on.

Unfortunately, not only are all of the actions you cited Fair Use, there aren't a lot of other actions that are.

Not to mention the fact that even in the cases where you DO have Fair Use rights, if you have to circumvent copyright protection technology, you've broken the law and "shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense."

That's why it's very important to support the Digital Consumer's Bill of Rights.

You're describing the law as it should be, not the law as it is, at least in the US. If what you say were correct, there would be no need for additional legislation to make your claims true.

Fair Use is nowhere near as expansive as you describe it. Read the law. Important sections are here and here.

Actually, it's probably just a bit broader than the law states, due to various decisions in case law. But not much mor expansive, and most of those decisions precede the modification of the law, meaning that using them will require the courts to re-examine the law and the decisions to determine what it means now. Oh, and there have been some decisions that to narrow it, as well.

As I understand it (IANAL, but I am a moderately well-informed layman):

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I make a backup copy.

This isn't clear and probably isn't true. There's certainly nothing in the law that specifically allows it. What you can say is if you make a copy for backup purposes, the copyright holder has no legal recourse. Your civil liabiity for the illegal act is limited to the amount of the damage, which is $0. The criminal provisions added by the DMCA (or was it the CTEA? I forget) only kick in if you make backups of more than $1000 worth of recordings in a six month period, so you're safe as long as you don't back up more than, say, 75 CDs per six month period.

Since the copyright holder's recourse against you is nil, a court would dismiss any such case as "de minimis".

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I want to copy it to a different media/format.

This is pretty much the same story as backups, AFAICT.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying to parody it.

This one is hard to be sure about. The case law with respect to parody is complex (i.e. I don't even claim to understand it except that I know the courts have okayed parody in some cases and refused it in others).

If you're going to parody something, your best bet is to either (a) get permission (which is what Wierd Al does) or (b) talk to a good lawyer.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying it for educational usage, either as a student or as a teacher, or for research purposes.

From my reading of section 107, this would seem to be true. On the other hand, I know that schools have been successfully sued for copying sheet music for choir practice.

The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I copy to modify it in any way I like for personal use.

I think this is the same situation as backups and format shifting. The law does grant the copyright holder exclusive rights over the preparation of derivative works, and I don't find anything that grants you a personal use loophole. Again, though, any suit would seem to be de minimis.

And on an on and on.

Unfortunately, not only are all of the actions you cited Fair Use, there aren't a lot of other actions that are.

Not to mention the fact that even in the cases where you DO have Fair Use rights, if you have to circumvent copyright protection technology, you've broken the law and "shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense."

That's why it's very important to support the Digital Consumer's Bill of Rights.

Allow me to point you in th right direction. Expressing the reasons that US and International Copyrights protect a creator of Intelectual Property from unliscened and unwarranted sales would take many hours without the all parties having extensive knowledge of the many laws and acts involved.

First look at the US Copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Then take a look at the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Acts of 2001 and 2002:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/in dex.htm

Both of these site contain alot of technical and legal information. There are many sites devoted to IP both in the US and internationaly:
http://www.wipo.int/ and http://www.aipla.org/ are just a couple.

Once you have a good understanding of Intellectual Property law read over the WoW End User License Agreement and Terms of Use both of which I have quoted else where in this thread: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.ht ml

Pay Close attention to EULA Section 3 and 13 (which states you agree to the laws of the state of California) and TOU section 2 subsection H, Section 7 and Section 10.

That should clarify the situation. If you need more information feel free to ask questions and, time permiting I will look up specific case law. I would also suggest contact a legal profesional in your area who is familiar with US Intellectual Property law.