Slashdot Mirror

All software, classifed or not, that is written by those with a U.S. government paycheck is essentially open-source since works of the U.S. government cannot be copyrighted.

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

On the other hand, if the government hires an outside contractor to write the software, it depends on the contract.

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/23/1320238.shtm l?tid=117

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/04/21/0150231.shtm l?tid=117

The DMCA consists of five divisions (titles). The very first is to implement the WIPO treaties, which includes but isn't specific to the provisions on access and copy controls. It covers though the general WIPO agreements to harmonize copyright law with those treaties. To quote the summary:

Technical Amendments

National Eligibility

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic works.

Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section 101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.

Restoration of Copyright Protection

Both treaties require parties to protect preexisting works from other member countries that have not fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection. A similar obligation is contained in both the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. In 1995 this obligation was implemented in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, creating a new section 104A in the Copyright Act to restore protection to works from Berne or WTO member countries that are still protected in the country of origin, but fell into the public domain in the United States in the past because of a failure to comply with formalities that then existed in U.S. law, or due to a lack of treaty relations. Section 102(c) of the DMCA amends section 104A to restore copyright protection in the same circumstances to works from WCT and WPPT member countries.

Registration as a Prerequisite to Suit

The remaining technical amendment relates to the prohibition in both treaties against conditioning the exercise or enjoyment of rights on the fulfillment of formalities. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires claims to copyright to be registered with the Copyright Office before a lawsuit can be initiated by the copyright owner, but exempts many foreign works in order to comply with existing treaty obligations under the Berne Convention. Section 102(d) of the DMCA amends section 411(a) by broadening the exemption to cover all foreign works.

That makes it a general copyright act in my book.

Why don't you read the whole thing here?

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.)

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

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

Actually, it is not the reciting of DeCSS that will get you into trouble under the DMCA (although knowing the DeCSS itself might get you into trouble, just not under the DMCA).

I contend that the DMCA itself has no bearing whatsoever on your ability to recite the DeCSS: in fact, and looking at the abridged version (available here), page 4, paragraph 1, "to make or sell services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited [...]".

If you could ensure that everybody that would listen to you and use the information would only do so in the scope of their own DVD collection, then it would be alright (under the DMCA, that is), because it is OK to use circumvention devices to copy content that you own, and not OK to use them to gain access to content that you do not.

The real problem here is that the DeCSS is copyrighted, proprietary information that you cannot either be in the possession of, or divulge without being in breach of normal copyright law.

Every 20 years, congress has added 20 years onto the length of copyrights. The latest was titled something like, "The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of SomeYearOrOther". (He was dead, don't blame him.) You can also look up Eldred, so see how weak the First Amendment has become.

I figure I'll have to live another 35 years before I can see a copyright expire. Some information revolution.

Your analysis is on target, but you probably don't have the clout that Disney ("We Must Always Own the Mouse!") and the other major publishers have to push their vision of copyright.

To perform or display a work 'publicly' means:

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

To perform or display a work 'publicly' means:

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Incorrect.

Copyright infringement can be either a civil or a criminal matter, partially depending if someone was making money from the infringement.

Incorrect.

Copyright infringement can be either a civil or a criminal matter, partially depending if someone was making money from the infringement.

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) did indeed restore US copyrights to a number of foreign works that had become public domain in the USA. Copyright owners who were planning to enforce a restored copyright were supposed to notify any reliance parties. A "reliance party" was a party who had assumed that a URAA-covered work was public domain and who had begun making use of the work prior to the URAA enactment. A copyright holder could tell the Copyright Office that they planned to enforce the copyright. The Office published lists of URAA-covered works with enforced copyrights. When a reliance party found out about a work's URAA copyright enforcement, they had a 12-month period to prepare and to cease making copies of the work, etc. After the 12-month period, the reliance party was required to honor the restored copyright. If a reliance party had produced a derivative work of a URAA-covered work prior to the URAA enactment, they could keep using the derivative work in exchange for paying compensation to the copyright owner. More information on the URAA can be found here (PDF format file.)

The URAA did try to take into account that parties might have started exploiting URAA-covered works prior to the URAA enactment. However, it was still probably a lousy experience if a party was planning to exploit a URAA-covered work on an extended basis or was not counting on paying anything for a derivative work. Hopefully there were no young individuals or hobbyists who were hit by the URAA.

In this case, it appears that it is indeed possible to restore copyright (and possibly patent) protection to a public-domain work. However, exploitation of the work prior to the enactment of the restored protection would not be punishable.

If only the right of the consumer to add hardcore content to movies was recognized... Unfortunately, the act is written in such a way as to only free up censors.
The report of the the registrar of copyrights is interesting, inasmuch as she asserts the existence of moral rights, deploring a recent Supreme Court decision, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., which ruled that the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.

Copyright is all about DISTRIBUTION.

Copyright is a property law issue. Property law is about an owner's right to posess a thing, the right to dispose of that thing, and the right to prevent others from posessing and disposing of that thing. At least, that's what I'm being told in my legal studies. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.

Now, if I write something and do not distribute it. How long before what I wrote falls into the public domain?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

So, if copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created, then distribution is not a factor, since creation must occur before distribution. I can never distribute but retain copyright.

In your example, the "EMS person" would be DISTRIBUTING your work. Then copyright law would kick in.

No, on two levels. First, the EMS person is claiming copyright himself, which the quote above states is actionable in and of itself, even if distribution is not at issue. His move to publish indicates he is claiming authorship, and therefore, copyright. Notice, I said publish. It could be any publishing company who is distributing. I would bring suit against him for publishing, then when I won I would bring suit against the distributor--because then I would have established my right to own. If I initially sue the distributor, they can defend claiming the one who published was the copyright holder. I'd rather secure that by law against a pip-squeak than BFP. So distribution is not at issue, claiming ownerhsip is.

In my example, the EMS person is denying the owner's rights to dispose of my property as the owner (my heirs) see fit. It has nothing to do with distribution, per se. The EMS person is converting the property by distributing it, which allows the true owner to take legal action. The copyright law is always in effect, but in this example, the EMS person's actions are not actionable until he attempts to convert it.

What if the EMS person holds the only manuscript, which is the hypothetical I provided, but instead refuses to return that manuscript to my heirs? Since my copyrights passed to them, then they have a greater right to the manuscript than he. Since he refuses to return the manuscript, then it is also actionable. Why? Because as the owners, my heirs have a right to posess it. By the EMS person refusing to return it to them, he is denying them that right. So, even without distribution, copyright is involved.

Copyright is all about DISTRIBUTION.

Copyright is a property law issue. Property law is about an owner's right to posess a thing, the right to dispose of that thing, and the right to prevent others from posessing and disposing of that thing. At least, that's what I'm being told in my legal studies. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.

Now, if I write something and do not distribute it. How long before what I wrote falls into the public domain?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

So, if copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created, then distribution is not a factor, since creation must occur before distribution. I can never distribute but retain copyright.

In your example, the "EMS person" would be DISTRIBUTING your work. Then copyright law would kick in.

No, on two levels. First, the EMS person is claiming copyright himself, which the quote above states is actionable in and of itself, even if distribution is not at issue. His move to publish indicates he is claiming authorship, and therefore, copyright. Notice, I said publish. It could be any publishing company who is distributing. I would bring suit against him for publishing, then when I won I would bring suit against the distributor--because then I would have established my right to own. If I initially sue the distributor, they can defend claiming the one who published was the copyright holder. I'd rather secure that by law against a pip-squeak than BFP. So distribution is not at issue, claiming ownerhsip is.

In my example, the EMS person is denying the owner's rights to dispose of my property as the owner (my heirs) see fit. It has nothing to do with distribution, per se. The EMS person is converting the property by distributing it, which allows the true owner to take legal action. The copyright law is always in effect, but in this example, the EMS person's actions are not actionable until he attempts to convert it.

What if the EMS person holds the only manuscript, which is the hypothetical I provided, but instead refuses to return that manuscript to my heirs? Since my copyrights passed to them, then they have a greater right to the manuscript than he. Since he refuses to return the manuscript, then it is also actionable. Why? Because as the owners, my heirs have a right to posess it. By the EMS person refusing to return it to them, he is denying them that right. So, even without distribution, copyright is involved.

Copyright only protects work that is distributed

*BBBZZZZZZZZT*

Wrong. Copyright protects any created work whether distributed or not. If I write a book and send it to a publisher who then publishes it without my permission they are breaching my copyright. I have not "distributed" my work but it is still protected. As soon as it it is "fixed" ie written down, it is protected by copyright.
UK Patent Office

US Patent Office

The way I conduct my business is a bit different. I don't have a package that includes prints. What you are paying for initially is pretty much just having me come to your wedding with my gear and crew. You do so because you've seen examples of my work and like my style. I let you have some input into some of the types of formal photos you want but the majority of everything I do is a result of my creativity and ability to capture what's going on as it happens. After that, you get to see the online proofs and decide if you want to buy any. There is no requirement to buy any. My "product" is the prints, but to be able to make those prints you pay for me to come to your wedding and take photos. The agreement I pretty much make is that you contract me to take photos and then sell prints to you and your guests. I do this so I can be flexible with my pricing. If there's something you don't want, you don't have to pay for it. There are other photographers I've seen online that have a la carte pricing as well. I try and be fair but I also explain things to my clients so that they don't expect to pay only enough to cover my time shooting and developing their wedding photos and then get everything. You want to pay me to shoot and develop and then you want to buy all the negs, we can work something out but you're probably better off going with someone else if you're not going to get any prints from me (unless I'm shooting digitally which isn't my niche).

No idea about moral rights.

This is a convienient exception for you to make when we're explicitly talking about work for hire.

Okay, here's the definition. BAsically, if you are a software contractor, and your contract doesn't mention work for hire, you retain the copyright. I am not speaking about convention here, except as it applies to the default legal disposition of a work. Obviously, any one of these categories can include works made for hire, in which case, the copyright goes with the hiring party. Again, in all of these cases, if 'work for hire' is not mentioned, then it is not a work for hire.

This kind of thing is covered in copyright law under the rubric of "work made for hire". Unless the contract contains specific language to the contrary, you, not the photographer, will own the copyright on these photographs since you're the one who is commissioning the work. See Circular 9 from the Copyright Office.

Simply put, this guy was being misleading at best. He has no copyright to sell you that wasn't explicitly assigned to him by the contract he insists on. If there is no such language in his contract then he's an out-and-out liar. The law says that you own the copyrights, not him, and he has nothing to sell you at all.

But let's assume he's being honest. It's perfectly reasonable that you want to do whatever you want with photographs you commission of your own wedding. If this guy's being too much of a butthead to take the language assigning him the copyright out of his contract, then find someone else who will, or who doesn't have that language in his contract in the first place.

That's a common RIAA/MPAA lie that appears to be sticking. Fair Use is stated legally in 2 places that I know of.

1) Section 107 and of the US Copyright Act. This act defines US copyright law and discusses derivative works, transformed works, etc. This law determines what is and is not a copyright violation, and mentions backups, copies for educational use, etc.

2) It is clarified in several supreme court cases. These rulings were later made into laws after they were upheld several times.

Some links:
Fair Use at the US Copyright Office's web site
Fair use explained by BitLaw
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use

DMCA, not DCMA.

You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive
There is precidence to signing away your rights to intellectual property that you create.
When you work for a company in an engineering/scientist capacity, you typically sign paperwork stating that all inventions, ideas, derived from your work is the property of the company. Also, work for hire situations typically have you sign away rights to the property before you have created it.

"The trade-off is that you pay a fee to the RIAA on every audio cd and piece of digital audio recording equipment."

The majority of the tarrif on blank audio CD-Rs in the US goes to artists, composers and performers. A small slice of the pie goes to record companies, as they tend to hold or co-hold copyrights on recordings. None goes to the RIAA.

"Of course, they don't tell you this - they just let you pay the fee on audio CDs and leave digital audio recording equipment essentially unavailable, so they get their tax and can still sue you for copying music CDs."

Who's "they" ? The RIAA? They see none of this money. If you would like to learn more about the tarrif, this spells it out.

How can anyone know whether a particular word is already taken?

Well, there are institutions that maintain databases of copyrighted works. In the US, a complete copy (lead sheet or sheet music) or phonorecord (disk or tape) is required. Complete means that the deposit includes everything that is to be covered by the registration. In some European countries they only require musical notation, several bars of a tune, usually the main theme. Whether a particular word is already taken is difficult to find out. You have to rely on the low probability of two composers writing the same tune.

And he's on nonexistent legal ground: The following are examples of works not subject to copyright... Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans

you realize you just broke the law, by saying this right...

I may not want my work to be remixed by anyone, and if I decline permission, your whole effort will be wasted. Thus, with DRM or without, it will make sense to get consent before moving forward. If you are so sure I will approve for promotion of my own name or otherwise, then get permission.

A while back (Oct. 28, 2003), the Librarian of Congress granted certain classes of works a three-year exemption from the DMCA. The classes of interest are:

(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.

I know these classes apply to old, obsolete console systems, but couldn't they apply to CD-ROM anti-circumvention programs for games that are no longer being manufactured, because in that case the original CD-ROMs themselves are the necessary systems? If so, copy-circumvention programs like this would have a legal, legitimate use.

Of more general concern is the fact that such special exemptions need to be made in the first place, suggesting that the whole DMCA is bogus in the first place.

And if McD's wants to register the copyright on its tray liners, it does too have to submit a copy. At least according to the Copyright Office.

"TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > Sec. 1201.

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."

The title being 17, in other words, this applies to any technical measure on any copyright work.

Which includes CSS on dvds.

If you read further in that section you'll see the librarian of congress can exempt works, the librarian exempted these and only these (hint to save 30 seconds of your life, dvds under any circumstance are NOT on the list):

"(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."

Since you seem to be incapable of looking anything up on your own. The burden is on you to show ME where in the DMCA it says that decrypting (using something other than the licensed algorithm, thus circumventing the technical measure) a dvd for playback on your computer without authorization to do so, is an exception to this.

I'll help. You'll find Title 17 of the US Code Here at Cornell. Or you might prefer to look at it at the US Copyright Office. Or Brits might trust Oxford a bit more.

Have a good day.

P.S. I'm sure your fingers will heal and you'll be able to verify or fail to verify whether or not things you read in slashdot comments are true all by yourself next time.

(Ok, after I managed to completely delete my reply...)

You are right. I looked for the articles I had read before and can not find them. So I finally wound up at the Copyright Offices' website.

In my journey's I went to Find Law's website, IP Watch.com, and the Copyright Office itself.

So - I'm wrong! Oh well.

Mathematically speaking though, Life + 70 can equal as much as 190 years (if you listen to the MPAA's spokesperson). It still is not 270 years though. Wish I could find that article again about why, under the DMCA, a copyright could last as long as 270 years. It was very enlightening at the time.

Later!

Try again.

No, you try again. The US Copyright Office has a circular that explains the duration for copyright. Old stuff has 95 years, new stuff has life+70, except for works for hire which is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, which ever is less. That is as authorative as it gets.

Why do you think so many people are up in arms about the DMCA?

Because it makes stupid encryption schemes like DVDs illegal to break, and other things. Not because it extended the copyright terms.

Just FYI, to be fully legit, Webcasters must pay fees to copyright holders BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, as well as to the RIAA.

Okay, you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. While it's true that there are not special copyrights for digital and analog works and there is only one set of copyright laws which the DMCA modified, almost all of the modifications it made were with regards to digital work (or the design of boats, though that is hardly applicable here). See a summary or the full text.

The rulemaking from the U.S. Copyright Office is perfectly clear. If you have rights to the game (as in you own a broken one, bought ROMs from StarROMs, etc), AND you the machine isn't made anymore, you can emulate the machine, even if it has anti-copying built in.
So, the rest of us that have 2000 ROM sets for games we haven't ever seen in person, let alone own a broken original, then we are 'breakin the law'. But you know what else... NO ONE CARES!
No one cares because there is no money involved. The people that own the rights to all the classic arcade games know that it's not worth there time and effort to try and sell old stuff. They're never going to make another Defender machine. They tried to sell Defender and other classics on CD, but that was hardly worth thier time and effort. They will sit on those old rights forever. I have approached a few of the owners and tried to buy the IP from them, and secure the rights for what I felt was some biz-ops, but they have some lazy ass lawyers that are not even sure what games they have right to (becasue of all the mergers), and they weren't willing to look into it.
So if they aren't even willing to figure out what games they have the right for, how willing do you think they are to sue individuals over small time infrinement cases? Not very willing at all.
As long as MAME keeps their distance from ROM distribution, they have nothing to worry about as there are legal and legitimate ways to use MAME.
As long as you're not selling turn-key MAME cabinets fully loaded will all ROMs, you have nothing to worry about. Your not profiting from having and emualtor in your living room, and people that aren't making any money (from their illegal activity) generally don't get sued.

Hey moron, copyright infringement IS a criminal offense in most jurisdictions, and you CAN get charged as well as sued. If you live in the U.S., see Title 17, Chapter 5 (link). Believe it or not, COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS ARE CRIMINALS.

According to the Copyright Act of 1976, the United States cannot copyright works created by the U.S. government. Individuals may freely copy from almost any federal government publication, with some exceptions including materials from the Postal Service and reference data provided by the Secretary of Commerce. Items free from copyright include laws, tax forms, and vidoes promoting the amazing new medicare changes. State and local governments can copyright their materials.

A peeping tom who looks out his own windows? That's utter nonsense.

My plan is to build custom additions and have creative paint jobs on the exterior of my home and in my landscaping. Anyone photographing my house for commercial purposes is infringing on my copyright and I will sue the shirt off their back if I can. (Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on Dec. 1, 1990. The copyright law defines "architectural work" as "the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990.)

"and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms"

No they don't. I don't agree to any license when I listen to the radio. I just got a new car, and I checked the radio book. Nope, no license.

So what you've done is set up a strawman ("Broadcasters set up licensing terms") and then concoct a legal "theory" on why this is okay.

You missed my point. The broadcaster owns the copyright and *does* set the licensing terms. Specifically, they have chosen to give you NO LICENSE. By default then, you only have the rights afforded to you by the fair use provisions of copyright law. See below.

Well first of all, there is no licensing terms related to listening to the radio, either analog or things like Shoutcast, and I didn't agree to do anything. I've always been able to tape from radio for my personal enjoyment, and why you think switching from digital to analog changes is the equation is a mystery. Frankly, you seem more like a troll than being well thought out.

Others have pointed out similar issues, which I accept as a flaw in my argument. The question then becomes: does restricting your recording to analog only constitute a breach of your fair use rights under copyright law? Nowhere in section 107 does it say that you are entitled to a 100% digitally perfect recording of the work in order to enjoy your fair use rights.

You've setup your own strawman argument by implying that not having access to the pure digital stream would be a violation of fair use rights. This position is unsupported by copyright law.

You may not be in possesion of a license to the music, but you still have a right to record a copy for personal use. Look Here Section 112 part 7a, you have a right to make a recording of a broadcast. I am sure there are other references and such throughout the dissaster we call US copyright law.

The point is that the record industry is trying to take away a right we have and have had more or less since broadcasts came about, the right to make a copy of the broadcast for "personal use". THis is fair use as described in copyright law, you just don't have the right to distribute that copy.

Ah, ok. Now I see what you missread.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

So it ONLY applies to non-infringing use of particular classes of works, and only those that shall be defined through paragraph (C).

Paragraph (C) says in part: "during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress [] shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding". Further note it again says "noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works ".

So the text you quotes does not apply to non-infinging use in general. It only applies so specific non-infringing use of specific classes of works and only those specificly exempted by the Librarian of Congress.

Many people were demanding that the Librarian of Congress grant a general exemption for fair use. The Library of Congress report gives an extensive discussion that they are prohibited from doing so. They can only grant exemptions for particular classes of works. They have only granted two extremely narrow exemptions in each rule-making cycle thus far (two exemptions in 2000 and two 2003). You can find the list here.

(1) Internet filter block lists.
(2) Software protected by obsolete/malfunctioning dongles.
(3) Software tied to obsolete formats/media, where the required hardware is no longer manufactured or reasonably available in the marketplace.
(4) E-books where ALL existing editions deactivate blind/vision-impaired features (text-to-speech/braile).

The DMCA is worse than you thought. Aside from those 4 narrow exemptions, circumvention to make fair use *is* criminalized.

-

Given the things that are (successfully) sued over in the US, this may not be that outlandish. First of all, "the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods" (cyber.law.harvard.edu). Google is certainly using the name to make money. However, this may fail because, other than the book containing the word "googol," I don't get the impression that the Kasner family is trying to sell anything using this name. However, ever since I started using Google, I haven't been able to remember the correct spelling of googol -- so there is a case to be made for some confusion. Might one not reasonably assume some connection between the company and Kasner?

I don't know if the inclusion of the term in a book counts. According to cyber.law.harvard.edu again, "A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another." So it may not be trademark infringement -- but what about copyright? From the Copyright office, under "What is not protected by copyright?" we find "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans". My assumption would be that the made-up word would could fall through this crack. Probably depends on the quality of the lawyers.

Dictionary.com DOES suggest a connection, saying that "The site's name is apparently derived from 'googol', but note the difference in spelling." wordorigins.org also suggests that Google "is a deliberate variant of the mathematical term...They altered the spelling for trademark purposes" (not that I know how the authors at wordorigins know what Page and Brin were thinking at the time).

So. Money grubbing? Yes. Ridiculous given the things that the US system has granted copyright protection? Maybe not.

And, of course, the obligatory IANAL.

Heres some Goodies:
(many are PDFs)

• PUBLIC CHARITY CLASSIFICATION AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION ISSUES:
• DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS WITH FOREIGN OPERATIONS
• LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AS EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

The law should really be amended to keep up with this, IMHO. We have many other laws that were to "catch up with the times". Why not one to recognize collaborative efforts of this nature?

Heres some Goodies:
(many are PDFs)

• PUBLIC CHARITY CLASSIFICATION AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION ISSUES:
• DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS WITH FOREIGN OPERATIONS
• LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AS EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

The law should really be amended to keep up with this, IMHO. We have many other laws that were to "catch up with the times". Why not one to recognize collaborative efforts of this nature?

Does anybody know the rules governing this situation?

Sure, it's called Fair Use. It's part of copyrigyht law and very accessible to non-lawyers. It's written in reasonably simple English and is not hard to understand at all.

You can use the word Copyright in Google to find it, or you can follow this link.

If you take the time to look at the section following 107, you'll notice that in addition to those numerous rights reserved for individuals, libraries have all sorts of special additional exceptions under copyright law. One could easily make the case that P2P, resembling a library as it does, would fall within any number of these exemptions. The reasons it doesn't are various and this is not the time or the place to get into all of them and their associated arguments right now. But that should answer your Xerox question.

So right off the bat the EULA is lying. You already have the right to install and use your copy of the software; Microsoft can't grant you what you already have. Now, nothing says you can't give up this right in a binding contract, so MS would have to successfully argue before a judge that the EULA is a binding contract in order to hold you to its terms.

Fat chance, says I. I can think of a couple of defences right off the bat: coercion (if I don't want to agree to the EULA but exercise my statutory right anyway, the software gives me no means to do so), no consideration (MS doesn't give me anything in exchange for agreeing to its terms), and some take on first-sale doctrine (I bought my copy from a third party, not MS; MS shouldn't get to impose additional terms on me after a sale it wasn't even involved in).

MS has never even taken an end-user to court to attempt to enforce its terms, either, to my knowledge. They came up with product activation instead to act as their own judge.

Two notes: this scenario wouldn't apply to commercial use of the software, especially for firms that sign license agreements before any copies of software change hands; and this assumes you could afford to fight off the MS-megabuck lawyers in the first place.

(Insert usual IANAL disclaimer here.)

That's not possible. Copyright is implicit upon creation.

" ...copyrighted his artwork after he found out about the use."

No copyright notice needs to be given. No explicit copyright need to be posted.

Educate yourself.

What this artist did was to post copyright licensing terms after the use. Without such licensing terms, then one must request permission before making any reproduction of that material.

Also it was the story posted last week about how "Linspire 'stole' images for it's flash intro" for some poor starving independant KDE artist that copyrighted his artwork after he found out about the use.

Holy crap-on-a-stick, what are you talking about?

Allow me to quote directly from copyright.gov, and state: Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.

Emphasis not mine.

So he uh... copyrighted his artwork after he found out about the use, huh? Aside from the fact that doing that is impossible, how many things are wrong with that statement?

And then you call him a troll? Hello, pot? Hi, this is kettle. Listen, I'm calling to tell you, you're black.

so high in price

Nonsense -- at least in the US.

Copyrights are free, automatically granted when you create a work. If you want to register with the Library of Congress, which is not required, it costs $30.

Trademark registration costs $335.

Patents can get to be the most expensive, but start at a cost of $385 for "small entities", twice that otherwise.

If your idea isn't worth a patent fee, then it isn't worth much. And while these fees may not be vending machine change, they're tiny compared to the cost involved in any but the most trivial effort at business, on the scale of your kids' lemonade stand in the yard. In fact, one oft-suggested rememdy for reforming the system is to raise the price to discourage casual patenting of the everything slightest thing someone does.

Price is not a valid excuse.

• In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

• * (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;