Slashdot Mirror

Yes, but if I register copyright on "code A to perform process B", and my opponent applies for a patent on process B 6 months down the line, then code A should in theory be proof that prior art for process B exists. Particularly since the registration process involves giving the copyright office a copy of much of the code in question (according to the US Copyright Office).

In reality of course, this relies on government departments working together flawlessly. And we all know how often that happens :P

SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?

Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

Copyright WHAT Copyright

From Groklaw .

Now that copyright is back on the table in the SCO case, you might like to

read the law on copyright.

SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer :

[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET --

"Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. 'Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?' A: 'Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ...' [we can do that at any time]."

If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press releaseon its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)

It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:

" 411. Registration and infringement actions10 (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title...."

You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:

" 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11

SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?

Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

Copyright WHAT Copyright

From Groklaw .

Now that copyright is back on the table in the SCO case, you might like to

read the law on copyright.

SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer :

[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET --

"Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. 'Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?' A: 'Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ...' [we can do that at any time]."

If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press releaseon its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)

It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:

" 411. Registration and infringement actions10 (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title...."

You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:

" 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11

SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?

Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

Copyright WHAT Copyright

From Groklaw .

Now that copyright is back on the table in the SCO case, you might like to

read the law on copyright.

SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer :

[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET --

"Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. 'Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?' A: 'Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ...' [we can do that at any time]."

If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press releaseon its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)

It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:

" 411. Registration and infringement actions10 (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title...."

You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:

" 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11

Why would they need to get a new warrant? The original warrant already gives them the right to look through the _entire_ disk. If the police finds kiddy porn on som guy's computer, but aren't allowed to arrest him at once, you guys (i'm not an american) really need to take a good look at your laws. Or, on second throught, please take a look at your laws anyway.

The professor under whom I am writing my certification paper at law school wrote a seminal paper on fair use which was cited by the court in the sony opinion.

She made an economic argument in favor of fair use, basically outlining a test to determine, in general terms, where an economic perspective would favor (and disfavor) findings of 'fair use.'

As the 'law and economics' movement was just catching on amongst judges at the time, the paper gained a lot of notice and was cited by the court, and by many many other lower courts as well when issuing opinions dealing with fair use.

A problem arose from all this citation however, because judges lost sight of other, perfectly valid justifications for 'fair use.' An exclusively economic approach to these determinations is a perspective that largely works to the detriment of artists, writers and other creative types who make valid fair use of other copyrighted works because the conditions for permitting fair use in this analysis are few and far between. (A look at Professor Gordon's work will show that she is not at all happy with the current state of copyright.)

Nonetheless, the Sony Betamax case is an important one, one that was decided correctly by a court that at the time actually viewed copyright (properly I might add) as a constitutionally mandated balancing between the progress of arts and sciences and remuneration for authors for that progress.

On that note, support the EFF and VOTE!

cleetus

Sorry, no. This is a myth. There is no such thing as an effective commonlaw copyright or poor man's copyright. (I know I've seen a better reference for this somewhere, but one source would be here; Google may have more if you're more creative with search terms & less strapped for time than I -- perhaps check some of those online law sites, nolo press or one of Harvard's law sites, etc).

Think about it. You could easily mail yourself a manila envelope with a metal tab, unsealed. Then you just stick whatever you want in later and the postmark says you "wrote" a work that hadn't even been created when the letter was mailed...

But in any event, in the US, the US Copyright Office is correct about what copyright law is. They say there is no such thing as a "poor man's copyright." They say you need a registration to pursue legal action. They are right.

Another myth here is that you need to apply notice of copyright to a work for it to be protected. This is not true after 1986; a work is "protected" (though again, what that means when you can't sue is a mystery) as soon as it appears in fixed form. Doubly so if published. Copyright notice these days is an idiosyncracy for unpublished work and a formality for published work, and unnecessary (& somewhat insulting) when dealing with professionals who know the law. And besides, it doesn't really help prove that a work is yours; you could just as easily write "(C) ME" on your copy of someone's work as you could on your original one.

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

You should first look to register your copyright. This costs $30 and is otherwise relatively simple. This gives you certain legal benefits in a potential litigation and serves as a deterence. You should start pouring over Title 17 so that you know the law. Don't be afraid to read it yourself -- copyright law is actually pretty accessible.

After that you should send them a letter stating that (1) your work is copyrighted and is not public domain (2) you offer a licence (the GPL) which is seeks certain forms of compensation in return for using your work. That compensation comes in the form of reciprical licencing to their derivitive copyrights. Provide them with a copy of the GPL. (3) State that they have made no attempt to comply with those terms. State the actions taken by them that violate the terms. State that they have not purchased or seceured any licence to use your copyrighted material in the manner they are using it. Don't be wishy-washy. Say things like "you are basing your business on piracy of my intellectual property". (4) State that as of this letter they are on notice that they are violating the law and that if they do not cease and desist then any willful and knowing infringment may be subject to increased penelties under the copyight law. (5) Remind them that damages for infringement include any profits attributable to the infringement.

If you feel like it, offer them a real licence to do what they are doing for an appropriate cost, say $2million or some other number you'd be happy with.

Don't be afraid to go talk to an IP lawyer. If you want to proceed beyond telling them to stop pirating your stuff, then this will be essential. Use the phone book. Make it clear to the people you talk to that you are interested in discussing retaining them on a contingency basis only, that your have registered your copyright, and that you believe a business is willfully pirating your code.

In terms of copyright protection, in order to bring suit your copyright must be registered with the US Copyright Office.

Computer programs have their copyrights registered under the category of "literary work." For more information see The US Copyright Office website.

You may be able to do a 'cease-and-desist' type thing without it (hey, under the DMCA you can probably send a CaD to anybody you want for anything, without necessarily having cause) but I don't know what sort of proof you have to have that the work was originally yours.

This is a definite warning though -- if you're developing Open Source and want to be really sure you can enforce the freedom of your code, register that copyright!

In terms of copyright protection, in order to bring suit your copyright must be registered with the US Copyright Office.

Computer programs have their copyrights registered under the category of "literary work." For more information see The US Copyright Office website.

You may be able to do a 'cease-and-desist' type thing without it (hey, under the DMCA you can probably send a CaD to anybody you want for anything, without necessarily having cause) but I don't know what sort of proof you have to have that the work was originally yours.

This is a definite warning though -- if you're developing Open Source and want to be really sure you can enforce the freedom of your code, register that copyright!

I differ with you on one major point... in the phrase "fair use", "fair" is not synonymous with "unobstructed" as you state.

With copyrighted material, the owner's rights typically supercede yours. If the rightsholder wants to distribute a game only in copy-protected format, or with a serial dongle, that is their prerogative. Likewise, if a musician wants to release a CD with digital rights management, or an author wants to publish only in Esperanto, that's their choice.

You won't find the phrase "fair use rights" in US Copyright Law. There's a section on fair use, which I think every slashdotter should read if they haven't, but I think some people over-interpret it. Fair use doctrine states that there are several ways that you can copy a copyrighted work and not be liable (such as for educational purposes), but it's not a blanket that gives you the right to do whatever it takes to make that copy. For example, the existence of the "fair use" section in the law and the fact that making a copy of a CD for your car would not expose you to liability does not equate to a guaranteed legal right to a CD without copy protection or other DRM. The right to make the call on whether to produce a CD with DRM or not lies exclusively with the rightsholders.

Digital Rights Management systems generally exist because the honor system doesn't work on a macro scale. Luckily enough for the public at large, DRM is ultimately driven by the buying power of the audience. CD-based DRM, particularly the kind which prevents me from playing originals in my Pathfinder's CD player, is utterly retarded and I am sure that the free market economy will eventually kill it. Easy-to-live-with DRM, like that provided by Apple's iTunes Music Store, is something that we can more easily cope with and will likely thrive.

I differ with you on one major point... in the phrase "fair use", "fair" is not synonymous with "unobstructed" as you state.

With copyrighted material, the owner's rights typically supercede yours. If the rightsholder wants to distribute a game only in copy-protected format, or with a serial dongle, that is their prerogative. Likewise, if a musician wants to release a CD with digital rights management, or an author wants to publish only in Esperanto, that's their choice.

You won't find the phrase "fair use rights" in US Copyright Law. There's a section on fair use, which I think every slashdotter should read if they haven't, but I think some people over-interpret it. Fair use doctrine states that there are several ways that you can copy a copyrighted work and not be liable (such as for educational purposes), but it's not a blanket that gives you the right to do whatever it takes to make that copy. For example, the existence of the "fair use" section in the law and the fact that making a copy of a CD for your car would not expose you to liability does not equate to a guaranteed legal right to a CD without copy protection or other DRM. The right to make the call on whether to produce a CD with DRM or not lies exclusively with the rightsholders.

Digital Rights Management systems generally exist because the honor system doesn't work on a macro scale. Luckily enough for the public at large, DRM is ultimately driven by the buying power of the audience. CD-based DRM, particularly the kind which prevents me from playing originals in my Pathfinder's CD player, is utterly retarded and I am sure that the free market economy will eventually kill it. Easy-to-live-with DRM, like that provided by Apple's iTunes Music Store, is something that we can more easily cope with and will likely thrive.

>Nope; copyright is entirely civil law, not criminal

Not Criminal ?

Funny how you got moderated +5 Interesting. The moderators really are on dope.

IANAL, but as I see it the problem goes something like this: Since you're probably making zero money from your code, you won't be able to prove any actual damages. The violator probably profited from their actions, but you would have to provide documentation establishing how much money they made, and they would be given the opportunity to make the case to the court of how infinitesimal your code's contribution to their overall product was. ("But your honor, Windows is eighteen billion lines of code. The infringing eight hundred lines are essentially worthless.")

So rather than play that game, you put it in the hands of the court: "Your honor, we are requesting statutory damages." The court, being no dummy, merely has to believe that the infringement was willful, and they can hand you as much as $150,000 in statutory damages, boom, just like that. Nobody needs to see anybody's bank record; you need prove nothing more than that willful infringement took place. Good deal, huh?

But again, you must have filed with the Copyright Office to be able to make this case. There is a little "grace period" -- you can actually register your work after the infringement took place and still claim -- but only if you still register within three months of publication.

(A) the term "encryption research" means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products

(A) the term "encryption research" means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products

Christ, I need to take a break from Slash.

The BUMA can still sue people the way the RIAA does in the US for downloading copyrighted music files

I think that currently the important difference, in regards to copyright, between "physical" content media (e.g. dead tree flake binders or plastic-aluminum discs) and digitized content media (for example the medium used for the dissemination of this reply-content) is that content authors cannot as easily slow down the unauthorized dissemination on the latter.

Copyright law allows unauthorized copying of content without the consent of the author for what it deems "fair use" (i.e. copying of content for criticism, study, sharing (sharing your LOTR dead tree flake binder with a friend for instance)). Instruments like the DMCA (pdf), in this respect, threaten this provision thus making copyright law an even bigger absurdity than it currently is (pointing out flaws in an insecure DRM system becomes a felony.)

My opinion is that content producers are mere performers of acts of recombination (pdf) rather than the mythical creators consumer society (since the rise of the burgueois) make most believe. Freedom (as in cost) of access to these bits is imperative for the continued production of knowledge.

If you're interested in the technology-society-culture intersection, you might also be insterested in this content (copyleft pdf's):

• Digital Resistance
• The Electronic Disturbance
• Electronic Civil Disobedience

I think that currently the important difference, in regards to copyright, between "physical" content media (e.g. dead tree flake binders or plastic-aluminum discs) and digitized content media (for example the medium used for the dissemination of this reply-content) is that content authors cannot as easily slow down the unauthorized dissemination on the latter.

Copyright law allows unauthorized copying of content without the consent of the author for what it deems "fair use" (i.e. copying of content for criticism, study, sharing (sharing your LOTR dead tree flake binder with a friend for instance)). Instruments like the DMCA (pdf), in this respect, threaten this provision thus making copyright law an even bigger absurdity than it currently is (pointing out flaws in an insecure DRM system becomes a felony.)

My opinion is that content producers are mere performers of acts of recombination (pdf) rather than the mythical creators consumer society (since the rise of the burgueois) make most believe. Freedom (as in cost) of access to these bits is imperative for the continued production of knowledge.

If you're interested in the technology-society-culture intersection, you might also be insterested in this content (copyleft pdf's):

• Digital Resistance
• The Electronic Disturbance
• Electronic Civil Disobedience

It seems that each and every day there is another movement to make copyright violation (a long-beat-to-death civil matter) a criminal offense.

I see you're upholding the long Slashdot tradition of presuming to lecture about something you don't understand yourself.

Google first! Or just watch the first 20 seconds of any DVD...

In both the US and EU, copyright infringement is criminal!

1. to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords
2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
3. to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
   or by rental, lease, or lending
4. (and others)

1. Immunity from biased administrative moderation.
   
2. A Meta section for users to discuss Slashdot itself, on-topic, without being administratively mod-bombed.
   
3. A public pledge to halt administrative astroturfing.
   
4. Admin moderation visible in moderation messages.
   
5. Accurate timestamps for moderation messages.
   
6. Public acknowledgment that admins and users are different.
   
7. A public apology from Michael Sims to Seth Finkelstein for defaming the only member of the original censorware project to actually accomplish something.
   
8. HTML that comes close to W3C compliance.
   
9. An open submissions queue for those paid users who opt-in to read it.
   
10. A 20-th century comment viewing mode.
    

"Why does the RIAA continue going after the little guy who doesn't have any money to give them for their file trading? Especially since some ISP's are trying to fight back for him/her. They managed to get blank CD's taxed because of the potential for copyright infringement, I'm suprised they haven't tried to put a tax on bandwidth for the potential copyright infringement that internet access offers."

You're talking about the tariff on blank music CDs in the United States? That largely goes to artists and performers, not record companies. Here are the details.

We see a couple of common schools of thought when it comes to music piracy: "Artists are poor and needy due to being abused by record companies; thus I have the moral right -- neigh, imperative to download music for free," and the polar opposite "Artists are greedy bastards. They have too much money. I know this, because I watched MTV Cribs once. Thus, I have the moral right... etc.". The issue of the tariff on blank music CDs in the US is a better argument for the latter school of thought than the former.

There is, of course, lots of stuff to get on the RIAA's case about, but the blank music CD tariff ain't one of them. Pick your villians carefully: this lies largely at the feets at the { greedy | needy } artists and performers -- or, more accurately speaking, the unions that represent them.

Anyway, to answer your first question, the RIAA's doing it to scare the hell out of people. Presumably, people who pirate music as an alternative to buying it will hear about these settlements and opt to buy CDs or go to legitimate download services instead.

"That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?"

It's an extremely common perception among /. readers that copyright infringement is exclusively a civil offense. Nonetheless, in US law, there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement. Here are the details.

It can also be an eye-opener to Google on "criminal copyright infringement." You'll be rewarded with plenty of links to cases in the USA where parties were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and have been sentenced to jail time.

At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates X - N (where 0

Talking with you is like arguing that the sky is not running red with blood. There's really no point talking with someone who can't understand the evidence in front of his eyes- and precious little way for me to convince you otherwise. But I'll give it one more try. If you know any sane people (especially nice would be an English teacher or law enforcer), show them this thread and they'll agree that you're wrong.

No. Copyright law covers making copies.

100% false. Copyright law doesn't actually cover copying. But, it covers both "reproduction" and "distributing copies" of a copyrighted work. Distribution is illegal.

The copying and distribution happen at the uploader's end.

No, the copying and distribution happens at both ends. And position is irrelevant; whose "end" it took place at doesn't matter. The question is, who made the copy? The copy was made by some software, but software can't be blamed. The person who operated that software can. And who instructed the software to make a copy? The person who issued a download request.

Let's take this very slowly. Copyright law, as I've just pointed out, covers both reproduction (making a copy) and distribution of a copy. Now, what does it mean to "copy"? Let's perform an experiment:

Go to the File menu in the upper-left of this window, and go down to Save. Type "slashdot.htm" in the little box, and push OK. Do you see what you just did? You made a copy of a file. Here's another experiment for you- see if you can go to ftp.gnu.org and take a copy of welcome.msg. (Right click on it, and push Save...)

Do you see what's going on here? By interacting with remote Web/FTP servers, you are making copies. Other people have set up software which allows you to make copies, but they are not doing the copying themselves.

If you performed those experiments, I dare you to lay palm on a holy book and swear on your honor: "I never made a copy of welcome.msg. This file on my harddrive; this local copy of data from ftp.gnu.org; I didn't make it! There is a copy on my computer, but I never copied it"

If you can't understand how flat-out wrong that statement is, there's no real hope for you.

If it was actually made by the US Government, it can't be covered by copyright (see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html) The reason it is set up that way, even if it isn't nearly as apparent now, is that it is our government. If they are creating works, they are doing so on our behalf, and we should be the recipients. Copyright has the work-for-hire concept, where an employees work is owned by the employer. For government works, we are the employer.

The exception, or perhaps loophole, depending on your point of view, are works created by private corporations under contract to the government. If it was created by people under contract, then the corporations awarded the contract would likely own the copyright.

A very similar requirement benefits the Library of Congress in the USA, under the name "Mandatory Deposit" (here are the rules).

The article, as written, seems to be one pageblock after another. This has to be the most annoying slashdot article I've seen to date.

I would like Slashdot users to invent a strategy for posting articles from sites that require login/passwords... sites like the New York Times. You can't have an article that requires this, and the google link leads to a hacked-down version of the article.

I have a NYT account somewhere, but it's going to take me fifteen minutes to dig up my old username and password. This is a pain in the ass.

My solution? What if we use the new copyright law that states:

"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."

Pretty simple here to argue that the text we want is not reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, because their delivery system is all wrong. I signed up already for a NYT account, but they keep asking me for a password and username I forget. Who cares about that? Seriously.

What difference does it make if I sign up to their website, or if I don't? I'm still not paying any money! Who does?

Memorandum

If you read the entire memorandum, you will find it very enlightening, especially with respect to the DMCA. It covers many topics, not just the Lexmark case, but also discusses the DMCA as it relates to region-codes, CSS, the broadcast flag and many other issues.

And technically, Static Control's petition for an exemption was not granted. But the ruling seems to say that the reason for not granting it was because it was not actually necessary -- ie. the DMCA already allows for reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability.

Here's SCC's webpage on the case. They have a Press Release (pdf) and a link to the official ruling site (but I don't see the ruling there yet).

I've been watching this case closely, and I'm glad it's been thrown out like the Garage door opener case!

What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material?

IANAL either, but this isn't really true. Once the author sells copies of his or her work, there are hundreds of pages of restrictions that come into effect. For example, "first sale" law says that once you buy a copy of a product, you're allowed to loan it or sell it to somebody else regardless of what the copyright owner says. If the MPAA were able to set any restrictions that it wanted to, Blockbuster would be out of business in a heartbeat. "Fair use" law also gives you the right to do things like tape TV programs and watch them later, even if the copyright holders don't want you to.

SCO is trying to say that the GPL is invalid because it grants rights beyond what is allowable by copyright law. One section says that "copies...may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program." The GPL lets you sell copies without giving up the original, violating the rule in this section. SCO says that the GPL can't claim copyright protection if they're going to change the rules, even if it is a change that may be a benefit to the consumer.

I have not refused to provide anything. Of course I can give citation for what I am talking about. Can you? Seriously everything you have said ths far about this subject seems to display a profound ignorance. You also do not give any evidence to support your claims that record companies give fair contracts. The artists seem to disagree with you.

John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival was sued by his previous label for subsequent songs that sounded like his previous work according to that label. His countersuit is here.

In this case, the copyrights to the songs belonged to the label and playing the originals did indeed require permission from the prior label (and payment of royalties). In addition, as was shown, they expected that if he made any future songs it must be with permission and paying the former label. Granted this is only one example of a very bad contract that led to decades of legal battles, but there are many others.

As for artists no longer owning rights to theri own name, Prince and George Michael come to mind, but there were a lot of others who could not use their name for anything because thier name belonged to the record label. How did other artists switch labels? They did not sign away rights to their name.

As for the RIAA bots, they are there. The RIAA has spiders that search for MP3s on the net. hey then sue people for distributing them and order their ISPs to shut down that person's internet conection. They do not check to see if they actually own the rights to the MP3s before doing this and have indeed cut off people for distributing their own MP3s. They have pushed for royalties to be paid to them by webcasters even if they only play music from labels which are independant of the RIAA. IN short they are claiming work that is not their own, which should not be surprising since it is their business (although it is a bit annoying that they claim all the music in the world regardless of whether the artist signs a contract with them).

Or you could just register the copyright and use the existing institution

Excellent advice, but it doesn't work for those of us outside the US. Here in the UK (and AFAIK the rest of the EU) copyright resides with the creator, but there is no place of registration.

The registration road is one that the US followed many years ago, and it provides an excellent degree of legal protection. But the history of copyright law in the UK has tended towards an "If you wrote it then it's yours, now can you prove it?" model, and proving it is a difficult thing to do nowadays if you publish an original work on the net.

Here we have no national registry of claims of copyright as a matter of public record. Maybe the EU should move towards this model (although I deeply distrust any approach that would actually require registration).

Of course registering every cvs checkin is going to get expensive :)

Hmm... strictly speaking, every copyrighted work should be deposited with the Briitish Library, Bodleian Library (Oxford), Cambridge University Library, National Library of Scotland, Library of Trinity College Dublin and the National Library of Wales. Hope their CVS servers are up to scratch ;-)

Or you could just register the copyright and use the existing institution (or the equivalent in your jurisdiction) that has been doing that task since before computers were invented.

Of course registering every cvs checkin is going to get expensive :)

Or you could just register the copyright and use the existing institution (or the equivalent in your jurisdiction) that has been doing that task since before computers were invented.

Of course registering every cvs checkin is going to get expensive :)

"And since copyright "theft" is really just infringment, which is a civil matter, all the RIAA can possibly do is sue people."

A common misperception. Here's the portion of copyright law which deals with criminal infringement.

Additionally, Googling on "criminal copyright infringement" will deliver links to data on criminal cases where copyright infringers have done jail time.

RTFM. What you're saying is more true for trademarks than copyrights-- although I'm sure, given the (ahem) flexible nature of our legal system, there are exceptions to be found in both arenas.

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

"Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?"

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,

For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

"Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all?"

They have. The RIAA and the Secret Service have teamed up on raids. Additionally, the government's "Operation Buccanneer" program went after music pirates, and got one.

"Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?"

Not hardly. You're spreading incorrect information. Here's what the law says.

"Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal."

Who told you that the RIAA is trying to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal? Do you have a citation?

Please -- there are enough credible arguments for straightening out copyright laws; no need to resort to spreading FUD or just making shit up.

"No, it's not like saying that at all, since copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. For example, theft is a crime, while copyright infringement is a civil tort."

"No, it's not like saying that at all, since copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. For example, theft is a crime, while copyright infringement is a civil tort."

As originally enacted, the 1976 law prescribed that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, should bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, 1989. After March 1, 1989, notice of copyright on these works is optional. Adding the notice, however, is strongly encouraged and, if litigation involving the copyright occurs, certain advantages exist for publishing a work with notice.

Prior to March 1, 1989, the requirement for the notice applied equally whether the work was published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner. Compliance with the statutory notice requirements was the responsibility of the copyright owner. Unauthorized publication without the copyright notice, or with a defective notice, does not affect the validity of the copyright in the work.

Advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office is not required before placing a copyright notice on copies of the work or on phonorecords of a sound recording. Moreover, for works first published on or after January 1, 1978, through February 28, 1989, omission of the required notice, or use of a defective notice, did not result in forfeiture or outright loss of copyright protection. Certain omissions of, or defects in, the notice of copyright, however, could have led to loss of copyright protection if steps were not taken to correct or cure the omissions or defects. The Copyright Office has issued a final regulation (37 CFR 201.20) that suggests various acceptable positions for the notice of copyright. For further information, write to the Copyright Office and request Circular 3," Copyright Notice," and Circular 96, Section 201.20, "Methods of Affixation and Positions of the Copyright Notice on Various Types of Works."

www.copyright.gov

(b) Effect of Omission on Innocent Infringers. -- Any person who innocently infringes a copyright, in reliance upon an authorized copy or phonorecord from which the copyright notice has been omitted and which was publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice. In a suit for infringement in such a case the court may allow or disallow recovery of any of the infringer's profits attributable to the infringement, and may enjoin the continuation of the infringing undertaking or may require, as a condition for permitting the continuation of the infringing undertaking, that the infringer pay the copyright owner a reasonable license fee in an amount and on terms fixed by the court.

If I purchase a CD, it is my personal property. I have the absolute right to do with it as I see fit. Alex Halderman of Princeton University is only showing us how to take back our rights as property owners.

This poster is insightful? Sorry guy, read the copyright law when you have a moment. You can get it here.

The problem here is not that BMG and SunComm are trying to protect copyrights, it's that they are doing it by installing software on your computer without you knowing it. Your computer is your personal property and their software should not be mucking about on it without your knowledge or permission. Of course, the CD is your property as well. The music on the CD, however, is not. You have the right to listen to it because the artist has granted you that limited right, plus fair use. Thus, the problem with many DRM systems, though obviously not this one, is that they too often restrict your right, as granted by the artist, to listen to the CD as you see fit as long as you do not break the copyright.

Whether record companies are kicking their own asses by treating their customers so poorly is another issue.

Copyright is a temporary loan from the public domain, not property.

Does no one else think this is insane? I hate to break it to you, but you can't be the only one with property rights. You can't expect to own a CD you bought and at the same time have no right to your own creations, especially since a creative work is arguably the most valuable type of property there is, certainly more so than a mediocre CD in your collection. What's more, how can the public domain have any initial right to someone's creative work unless it is expressly granted? Would you say that an author's mind is on loan from the public domain?

"It'd ludicrous to think of paying in advance a "tax" to the RIAA for blank media because we might use it to copy their music."

Then don't. The tarrif on blank music CDs in the US goes largely to performers, composers and publishers, not the RIAA. RTFL.

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Not much in and of itself, and certainly open to interpretation...I'd like to tell SCO that a C program is a way of describing a process to a compiler :)

Section 106.3 says the copyright holder has a right to:

distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending

Note that this section doesn't say that the copyright holder is barred from giving additional rights, just that these rights are explicitly granted to the holder of the copyright.

Section 117 b says:

Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. -- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

The only part of this statement that makes any difference to Linux is that last sentence, and the GPL is that authorization (along with some restrictions to prevent outright theft).

It's fine for the GPL to assign whatever rights it wants, as long as those rights don't conflict with copyright law, which they don't. What's illegal is for users of copyrighted software to ignore those rights that the copyright holder allows them, and for them to break the restrictions imposed by copyright law where they are not specifically allowed by the copyright holder.