Slashdot Mirror

"I will not knowingly contribute to the RIAA if possible (CD-R TAX unavoidable. god the tax is bullshit when they are suing those fucks.)"

Those fucks? In the US, the music CD-R tariff largely goes to musicians, composers and performers, not the RIAA. RTFL. Musicians, composers and performers are the good guys. Not "those fucks."

What kind of damages could one ever hope to get from a pirating suit.

Up to $150,000 per work, plus attorney's fees and court costs.

"#6. Where is the public domain?

The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the "public domain" if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner." (emphasis mine)

A1. No, you can not. Derivative computer progam as defined here is a '...computer program [that] contains a substantial amount of previously published, registered, or public domain material such as subroutines, modules, textual images'

As usual, what is considered 'substantial amount' is subject to interpretation. Term 'contains', however, does not discriminate, whether pre-existing code is embedded or embeds the new code.

In the case, when the work in question is agreed to be a derivative, then by Term 3 of the GPL you have to provide access to 'complete source code.' where for '...an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.'

A2. There are really two questions.

First is, if your code is protected under two licenses in two independent Programs. The answer is that, it is only required for you to prove that you obtained 'protected' portion of the code legally under GPL. For example, IBM released Journaling File System both for OS/2 (non-GPL AFAIK) and Linux (GPL) but you can not be found liable for using the code obtained from Linux even though it is derived from the code in OS/2.

Second question whether work created using GPL tool is in turn GPLed. Term 0 of the GPL states that ...the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Term independent means that determination whether output of the Program constitutes a derived work is independent from the fact that it was created by a GPLed program and additional tests should be applied. For example, the fact that you edited your copyrighted material with Open Office does not imply that your material is now GPLed.

You're correct that your statement has been made a zillion times, but criminal copyright infringement is indeed possible under US law. Some recent examples:

• Connecticut Man Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement
• Hialeah Man Arrested for Criminal Copyright Infringement

Here's the section of US copyright law which defines criminal infringement.

A better (but greatly simplified) answer to his (rhetorical) question is because there's a lower standard of proof and a greater chance of success with these civil suits.

Uh, you might want to check again. Titles 17 and 18 (referred to in title 17), as well as ammendments in the No Electronic Theft Act provide for criminal fines and imprisonment. Granted, these seem to be aimed more at the commercial pirate, but could be easily applied (or mis-applied) to serious downloaders or even somebody who shared a single song with enough people. At present, our lawmakers are discussing new laws with sharper teeth.

Do you want to borrow my hat? :-)

That suggestion usually leads to a RIAA/MPAA tax on something, like they do with CD burners and blank CDs. I don't want to pay "royalties" to the media companies every time I pay for a computer, connection to the internet, or a doughnut. I don't violate their copyrights, so why should I be forced to pay?

Voluntary "honor" systems might work.

Well the current system is a "voluntary honor system" except without honor. It is hardly just the "consumers" causing the problems.

"The copy protection screws up your TV? Sorry, can't return that DVD. Guess you'll just have to go out and buy another TV so you can watch it. Oh, and have fun watching all the splash screens and advertisements you can't skip."

"That game doesn't work? Sucks to be you. No refunds."

"Don't like the oppressive EULA with your digital camera? Come on, you don't want to let anyone outside your family use it anyway. Well, okay, we'll pay you back minus our 25% restocking fee...wait...it has some software. Sorry! No refund for you!"

Some counter scheme for determining how much of some public (or otherwise) fund goes to which creators might work.

It's called compulsary licensing. Look it up. You'll see big media has tight control of it.

The original 1870 work, minus title, is wholly and unambiguously in the public domain. That much is certain.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html#public


Trademark is admittedly a different story. Had they called it the "Dewey Decimal Hotel, LLP" or actually sold copies for an index of their own under that name, I'd be swayed to the "open and shut case" they're harping about. Merely mentioning the name and ostensibly using a public domain version doesn't seem so "open and shut" else Ford would be slammed by Daimler-Chrysler for for repeatedly mentioning the Mercedes mark in their annual reports.

There's an interesting article about the vagueries of establishing trademark infringement damages here:

http://techlawadvisor.com/wires/ip.html/a.

If you quote the whole paragraph in Section 0, it actually says precisely the opposite of what you're implying:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

In the context, the GPL is talking about the GPL, not about placing restrictions on running a GPL'd program. It is saying quite clearly that the GPL does not place restrictions on running the program.

As for me pointing out laws "linking the execution of programs to patents and not to copyright", that's preposterous. I can't point you to a law which doesn't exist -- the "execution of programs" is not governed by copyright in any country.

In a nutshell, this is what copyright in the U.S. governs:

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

I see no reason as to why somebody can't write a GPL'd program and insist that people pay to license their patents for its usage.

Hang on there bucko..

You infringe on someone's copyright when you make a copy:

Section 106 (1) U.S. Copyright law

You download a file, that's copying the data from their hard drive to yours. Don't kid yourself, it's illegal.

The RIAA is going after sharers because it is easy for them to target the worst offenders. They just need to check your machine to find 500 shared songs, and they know you're not a one time downloader. Much harder to track people from the other side.

I don't know if the MD5 sums are a derivative work of the original source or not, but I would be inclined to think that they are.

Let's look at what the law says about fair use

Fair Use

The four factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It looks to me that under part (1), the MD5sums are a form of commentary or news reporting about the original work, not a replacement for the work. I don't know about (2). Under (3), the "amount" is definitely small, and the "substantiality" is low. And under (4), almost nobody who would buy the original work is going to substitute the MD5sum's instead, so the MD5sum's would have nil effect on the market for the original work.

So in my AC-IANAL opinion, distribution of the MD5sum's would be protected under American copyright law as a "fair use".

The law says that no lawsuit may be brought alleging copyright infringement based on the "noncommercial use by a consumer of such a (digital audio recording device) device or medium for making digital musical recordings."

Well if you've looked into that, you should check out the libraries and archives section of fair use, because it might be even better than that.

As a non-commercial publicly accessible library, it is okay to make a single copy for lending purposes. So, you don't necessarily have to delete the original each time.

This really is a complex issue though that the courts clearly haven't thought through very well. When they do, they'll probably find that P2P in general is fair use.

For instance, when I was in college I almost exclusively based my research on materials that weren't available in our campus library holdings. This was possible because I was able to get copies for free through inter-library loan. These were photocopies for me to keep. Now, the shipping and duplication fees were paid through by a grant to the university, but there were no copyright fees per se because inter-library loan, even of photocopied materials that will never be returned, is fair use.

Indeed, P2P is also fair use. That's quite clear from the fact that it is non-commercial and thus has nothing to do with copyright. Eventually the courts will come to that conclusion. Indeed, the only thing standing in the way currently is the poorly written and last minute ammended Net Act which, were it not for its horrible consequences, would be hardly more than a bad joke.

Actually, under some circumstances copyright infringement is a crime. Those conditions (and the associated remedies) are laid out in USC Title 17 Section 506.

Obviously the United States Code only applies in the United States; YMMV with respect to the criminality of copyright infringement in other jurisdictions. I assume that since you mentioned invoking the DMCA you are in the United States.

302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978: (a) In General. Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

303: Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

the relevant question is not what he considers to be copying, but what the law does.

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
...

(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;

...gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work.

What?!? What you are telling me is that if it were not for copyright law I would have no rights over my own works? (to copy or modify or anything else?)

That's not what copyright law provides. It provides protection for the works of the original author so no one else can copy, reproduce, profit and/or claim it as their own. The fair-use clause provides the public with the ability to copy and use portions of copyrighted works for specific and limited uses.

I think you need to have another look at the law.

In terms of software copyright, things get trickier, because the act of using the software implies copying. Aside from making backup copies of the media your OS came on, which any sane person will do, the act of running the software involves creating a copy of the executable code in memory. IANAL, but I believe this argument has held up in court.

I believe it did hold up in court, but that that ruling has been superseded by law. US Title 17, Chapter 1 Section 107 specifically permits copying that is "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". Of course, IANAL, but the law seems pretty clear to me.

This is a good thing, because if it were the case that you had to have permission of the copyright holder to copy a program into RAM (and to apply relocations, hence creating an "adaptation") then the copyright holder would have to license all usage of the software, and they could then use contract law to restrict usage in any way they like (like they try to do with EULAs, which are almost certainly unenforceable since they're one-sided, with no consideration to the user).

I guess the argument is that a hull shape is somehow expressive. More likely, someone convinced their congressman that they needed the special exemption.

Short answer: no. Long answer: RTFM-- especially the section entitled "What is Copyright?". It's very clear on all of these matters. :)

From the horse's mouth:

"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: ...
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

I would say that allowing people to download the work from your site would be pretty much distributing a copy.

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author,

Real world example time. I write a book and I sell First North American publishing rights to XYZ publisher. They publish a european edition of my book, which is a violation of my copyright, since I did not sell them those rights. Do I sue or invoice everyone with a copy of my book in europe or do I sue the publisher. The publisher of course since they are the infringing party.

The simple matter of this is that SCO should be suing the distributors and not the end users, since they have no right to do so!

Their legal thinking on this whole debacle has been laughable from the beginning. What is my opinion? I think they're trying to get a bunch of gullable folks to send them money. And, oh yeah, their claims are full of shit.

The one claim by SCO's legal group that really bothers me (as an unpublished author) is the whole "GPL contravene's federal law by allowing more than one copy" crap. That would be in reference to Para 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, section a. This is a limitation on me as a developer to say that I do not have the right to claim that someone making a copy in order to use or archive is infringing. This in no way can be construed to mean that I as the author of a program cannot give people additional rights. It just means that I have to give them AT LEAST the right to make those copies. Heise and Boies both should be disbarred for those statements. Ok rant over, I feel better.

I'm sure it goes without saying, but IANAL. Just someone who knows enough to read the law.

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author,

Real world example time. I write a book and I sell First North American publishing rights to XYZ publisher. They publish a european edition of my book, which is a violation of my copyright, since I did not sell them those rights. Do I sue or invoice everyone with a copy of my book in europe or do I sue the publisher. The publisher of course since they are the infringing party.

The simple matter of this is that SCO should be suing the distributors and not the end users, since they have no right to do so!

Their legal thinking on this whole debacle has been laughable from the beginning. What is my opinion? I think they're trying to get a bunch of gullable folks to send them money. And, oh yeah, their claims are full of shit.

The one claim by SCO's legal group that really bothers me (as an unpublished author) is the whole "GPL contravene's federal law by allowing more than one copy" crap. That would be in reference to Para 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, section a. This is a limitation on me as a developer to say that I do not have the right to claim that someone making a copy in order to use or archive is infringing. This in no way can be construed to mean that I as the author of a program cannot give people additional rights. It just means that I have to give them AT LEAST the right to make those copies. Heise and Boies both should be disbarred for those statements. Ok rant over, I feel better.

I'm sure it goes without saying, but IANAL. Just someone who knows enough to read the law.

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author,

Real world example time. I write a book and I sell First North American publishing rights to XYZ publisher. They publish a european edition of my book, which is a violation of my copyright, since I did not sell them those rights. Do I sue or invoice everyone with a copy of my book in europe or do I sue the publisher. The publisher of course since they are the infringing party.

The simple matter of this is that SCO should be suing the distributors and not the end users, since they have no right to do so!

Their legal thinking on this whole debacle has been laughable from the beginning. What is my opinion? I think they're trying to get a bunch of gullable folks to send them money. And, oh yeah, their claims are full of shit.

The one claim by SCO's legal group that really bothers me (as an unpublished author) is the whole "GPL contravene's federal law by allowing more than one copy" crap. That would be in reference to Para 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, section a. This is a limitation on me as a developer to say that I do not have the right to claim that someone making a copy in order to use or archive is infringing. This in no way can be construed to mean that I as the author of a program cannot give people additional rights. It just means that I have to give them AT LEAST the right to make those copies. Heise and Boies both should be disbarred for those statements. Ok rant over, I feel better.

I'm sure it goes without saying, but IANAL. Just someone who knows enough to read the law.

Suppose my copyright is registered.

Then you can sue in Federal court. You can either sue for actual damages or statutory damages. "Statutory damages" means that you don't have to prove any actual damages, you use an amount that's specified in the copyright law.

Here's some reading:

Copyright FAQ

Copyright Basics - Notice of Copyright

Jared

Since each member of this organization is like an independent lending archive, then this seems to suggest that lending copies of your materials should be fine so you can keep the originals.

Sco says that federal copyright law says you can only make _one_ copy of a piece of software and federal copyright law trumps the GPL in this case

I have never read this one backup rule in the law, but many people here believe it, so it must be true. But the copyright law does mention licensing and distribution, and they seem OK. It seems to work with publishers and retailers just fine. Your welcome to read all about it here.

The code released by SCO in their Linux packages is _probably_ GPLed. In order for it _not_ to be GPLed they have to argue that they didn't even look at what they're distributing. On the one hand they're saying that the violation is so extensive that it can't be undone. OTOH, they say that they didn't notice it was happening at first. It's not impossible, but it seems like they need to explain why this happened.

There is no reason for any of SCO's contribution to be GPLed. Look at Nvidia's and many other commercial offerings that are available to linux.

The big thing here is that they are attacking the GPL here. And, under the copyright law, they have to agree to the GPL in order to redistribute all of the GNU software that they have available at ftp://ftp.sco.com/ and most of their commercial offerings.

Interesting that they avoid the distribution issue alltogether, and are focusing on the IP. If you read their "Linux License", it does not cover distribution (SCO will not even give you a kernel for your $$), nor does it cover the source code at all. It is only a "runtime" license in binary form, its a "license to use".

In the unlikely event that SCO were to win its case regarding the GPL as being invalid, then they must either 1) write a lot of thier own code real quick or 2) fold the business because a most of thier products depend on GPL software.

I was reading the Copyright Office regulations last night and I found this section.

U.S. Copyright Office--Regulations

Here is a big block of legalese:



(2) Requests for certified or uncertified reproductions of the copies, phonorecords, or identifying material deposited in connection with a copyright registration of published or unpublished works in the custody of the Copyright Office will be granted only when one of the following three conditions has been met:
(i) The Copyright Office receives written authorization from the copyright claimant of record or his or her designated agent, or from the owner of any of the exclusive rights in the copyright as long as this ownership can be demonstrated by written documentation of the transfer
of ownership.
(ii) The Copyright Office receives a written request from an attorney on behalf of either the plaintiff or defendant in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work.

The following information must be included in such a request:
(A) The names of all the parties involved and the nature of the controversy;
(B) The name of the court in which the actual case is pending or, in the case of a prospective proceeding, a full statement of the facts of the controversy in which the copyrighted work is involved; and
(C) Satisfactory assurance that the requested reproduction will be used only in connection with the specified litigation.



So, anyone who gets such a letter, you may want to ask your attorney to ask the Copyright Office for a copy of the code that SCO actually owns before you take any action.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

So, abhorrent as it may be, SCO may have a case against linux (because, afterall, how many of us have registered our copyrights with the government?). link to relevant copyright law Actually, on recent re-reading of it, it seems that you can register anytime after creating the work. Again, IANAL.

Yes, SCO's code is in litigation.

That means that IBM's attorneys can request copies of anything they think is relevant to their case. Similar for Red Hat's attorneys.

See this regulation:

37CFR201.2

Scroll down to the bottom and start reading at "(2) Requests for certified or uncertified reproductions ...".

Interestingly, the regulation has some slack. There are three cases. Case (i) is for the copyright owner or their agent. Case (iii) is for a court -- a court can ask for anything they want, as long as they are hearing a case and have jurisdiction and the material is relevant. Those are straightforward; I expected those.

But case (ii) allows an attorney for a case, actual or prospective, to make a request. I don't know how real the case has to be before the Copyright Office will give it up. But I'll bet that "ummm, sure, I'm thinking about suing SCO, gimme" is not enough.

In my armchair opinion, it would be very interesting for someone who's actually received a "buy your license or we might sue" letter from SCO to pay an attorney to send a letter to the Copyright Office saying "SCO is contemplating suing us for copyright infringement, they have gone so far as to dun us, they refuse to identify their copyrighted material, please send us copies of SCO's registered copyrighted material so that we can defend ourselves against a prospective suit".

Basic copyright law:

Copyright exists as soon as the work is written down ("fixed in a tangible medium").

You don't have to register your copyright. But if you do, more legal protection is available to you.

To register the copyright in the USA, you have to send a copy of the work to the Library of Congress.

The copyright office will not give copies of these works to other people.

Copyright Office FAQ

Specifically:

Q: How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?

A: The Copyright Office will not honor a request for a copyo f someone else's protected work without written authorization of the copyright owner or from his or her designated agent, unless the work is involved in litigation. In the latter case, litigation statement is required. A certificate of registration for any registered work can be obtained for a fee of $30.

You are not completely correct.

You can register your copyrighted material at the Copyright Office. Go here.

You do not need to register to claim a copyright however, as you indicated.

SCO has stated that they did register a copyright for their UNIX software which means that they must have something in the Library of Congress. I tried searching through the database, but either it doesn't seem available, which is why if someone actually went down to the LoC, then it might be faster.

...one and only one copy to be made, for backup purposes...

This is the second time I've seen this on slastdot recently. Where did this one and only one copy for backup come from? It has nothing to do with copyright. Fair use, maybe.

Take a look at the copyright website.

If his theory is true, then the obvious corollary is that all publishing contracts between a software author and a software publisher are also invalid, as they also allow the publishers to make more than one copy. This, of course, is stupid and wrong.

Actually, the law doesn't state how many backups you can make, the legal staute (17 USC 117) states:

Section 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

[ ... other stuff ...]

In other, other words, SCO is blowing really, really, really weak smoke.

This is turning into a laugher...

Absolutely correct.

You have the right to make one copy, not the limitation to be allowed only one even if your license and contract agree to more than one. The law here allows ONE copy where a contract is silent, it does not command a limitation where a contract speaks of more.

This kind of arguement makes lawyers look bad. If I were IBM I would file for sanctions against this lawyer.

The purtainent chapter of the Copywrite Code reads:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

What about this:Desmond McBribe...
anyway something serious:

For the USA Copyright law: here
See paragraph 106 wich says:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and toauthorize any of the following:

(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) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Sounds clear to me....

They're trying to say that if I create something (it doesn't have to be a software program, call it a book) that I can't allow other people to copy it? What baloney!

I see no mention of how many copys are allowed from the ppl that wrote the law here.

i can't be sure of the exact figures, but the 2.4 kernel is just a little over 3 million lines of code(2.2 was 1.7 million lines). SCO claims 'approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code' we're talking about 5% of code (could be less if comments are stripped out?). i think once this gets to court, the argument is going to end up boiling down to fair usage...

IANAL, but as i understand it, legally there is no set percentage or figure for what is considered fair usage.

Of course, few ISP would want to give up their DMCA rights. Even Slashdot has paid their fee and registered to accept notifications, so as to preserve their DMCA rights.

Of course, few ISP would want to give up their DMCA rights. Even Slashdot has paid their fee and registered to accept notifications, so as to preserve their DMCA rights.

As I mentioned in the list post, yes, this is silly and amusing, but it still has to be treated seriously. I met with our company lawyer yesterday (who is pretty well-versed in the DMCA, and hence has slightly less than glowing praise about it). The basic response of course is to reply, explaining that they are in error and to consider the matter closed.

While I would like nothing better than to go after these people for gross abuse of the legal system, my company, like many other companies, cannot justify the costs associated with going to court over something like this. This is why you should donate to an organization like the EFF, and tell them you are concerned about the DMCA and its effects.

(Standard IANAL disclaimer for the following:) Also, check out this form if you are a mirror provider. It deals specifically with the DMCA, but does not necessarily provide protection against, but it may help. It is intended for transit providers/datacenters (which we are), but from reading its defintion of a "service provider", mirror sites MAY (again, IANAL) qualify in the same respect.

I don't see what you guys' problem is. Just take a lesson from the RIAA and sue for infringement! Let's see... at >$750 per infringement, which I'm taking to be per d/l, you'll be able to retire in no time! I'd be sure to file suit early, though, just in case they go belly-up.

A quick perusal of the legal fine print turns up a part about "forfeiture and destruction" which seems to say that with a large enough infringement the government can seize all equipment used to infringe. Not to mention some pretty hefty fines. IANAL, but doesn't that mean you can gut their business with one action?

I'm not holding out too much hope, but it'd be awesome if the copyright laws turn out to work for the little guy too!

Well speaking of OSes ... I think everyone should read the following report to the Library of Conrgress (it was a link on one of the above references)

Anyways ... it makes 2 claims about DVDs. Saying that the Copyright law forbids using a copyrighted medium from dictating a hardware platform. But that is exactly what the DVD-CCA does. It sites Alcatel USA vs. DGI Technolgies Which would basically justify all of the Linux DVD players out there.

So that combined with the fact that DVD region encoding restricts the free flow of global trade, basically blows a big hole in the DRM abilities of the DVD format. Although, I just found out that Region Encoding isn't so much about pricing equity, so much as allowing DVDs to be release in the US, before the movies have even hit the theaters elsewhere in the world. Although that said ... there should be no reason that a Region 1 DVD player can't play all other DVD regions (unless it had something to do with restricting the balanced flow of the DVDs as a commodity.)

"Snapster is built on the legal concept of Fair Use, which allows people who purchase records, tapes, and CDs to make copies for backup and for moving the content to other media", says Cringely.

Baloney! That is not at all what Fair Use is. I am not sure what "lawyer friends" he spoke to, but if he bothered to read any of the Fair Use links on his own page, he might have thought twice about publishing this article. Fair use is what I did in the previous paragraph, quoting Cringely for purposes of criticism. It's always about partial copying of a work, and only for very specific enumerated purposes that are listed in the US copyright law (Title 17). Please see the actual law at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 if you don't believe me. It's quite an easy read. It discusses what is an infringement, and then lists exceptions, one of which is Fair Use (which is not the process Cringely describes).

Also, I believe media shifting is an entirely different topic. I am not sure where this exception to copyright infringement comes from (IANAL, but I don't see it in title 17. Can anybody post references to the legality of media shifting?). But the one thing I do know is that all the cases I have heard of it being legal have one thing in common: the use does not increase the number of copies being accessed simultaneously. When you make a backup of your media, you're not watching/listening to it at the same time as the original, or letting a friend do so.

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(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) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Source: copyright.gov

Actually, the deposition requirements are limited to the first and last 25 pages of source code, reproduced in a visually perceptible form, together with the page containing the copyright notice. (Source.

While the case is about a copyright disclosure, the real issue is derivative works and copyright law. Think about the case Miranda v. Arizona. The case was about a bank robbery, (Miranda signed confessions that he shouldn't have done) but the legal issue was that he was not informed of his rights. The case is now almost forgotton, but the issue of 'reading your rights' is still being re-examined 30 years later.

Bunches of lawyers have commented on the SCO case, saying that it is a weak argument, because it has never been taken to court before. Even though it is weak, it doesn't mean that SCO will lose. A weak argument can still be a sucessful one, depending on the issues. The SCO legal issue is the question, "What is a derivative work in software?"

We know how to define derivative works (Copyright Office Circ 14 in PDF) for use in traditional media (motion pictures, music, drama, books, catalogs, etc.), But to understand it in software, buy and read "Copyright your software" which discusses in some depth derivative works of software. Unfortunately for us, the law doesn't say what exactly what is, or is not, a derivative piece of software.

Here is the logic, which is probably what the SCO lawyers are considering:

Logic Step One: From the Copyright Office's Circular linked to above...

A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial

revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version."

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

Of course, they would cite the actual laws involved.

Logic Step Two Any component, service, or module that uses even one data structure from System V could be said to "incorporate some previously published material" and therefore be a derivative work.

Logic Step Three Consider the court decisions saying that if you use recognisable portions of a song, even if it is just a few milliseconds, you are violoating the derivative work portion of copyright. This has been upheld in appeals courts.

Logic Step Four SCO claims that IBM published software that is a recognisable portion of their (now copyrighted) works.

Inductive leap, with possible error: The law gives copyright owners the rights to derivative works, and IBM released and asserted that they had ownership of a derivative work. The biggest possible error in the logic is simple: How much recognisable code does it take to be infringing, or to be considered a "derivative work"?

Logical conclusion? Copyright gives rights to SCO for the software that IBM released.

If the judge were to consider all software as incremental improvements, and each are derivative due to their use of data structures (even the C standard library, perhaps?), then (in theory) all modern OS's are derivative works from the earlier OS's. Even if they do not directly use code from

Registered Works Database (Claimant Search)
Search For: SCO GROUP, INC
Item 1 of 1
1. Registration Number: TX-5-705-356
Title: UNIX system V, release 4.1ES.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1991
Published: 27Jun91
Registered: 30Jun03
Author on © Application: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028, et al.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Special Codes: 1/C

(note: The above is taken verbatim from the US Copyright Office online record database)

So... either SCO only copyrighted 20 pages of code, or you don't need to deposit the whole work with the CO in order to have it copyrighted. Unless the '(20 p.)' above means something entirely different...

Interesting, all the same.